Bibliometric Analysis of Bioethics and Medical Ethics Publications Originating from Türkiye

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to provide a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the bioethics and medical ethics literature affiliated with Türkiye in order to determine the conceptual structure and intellectual framework of publications addressing bioethics and medical ethics. Material and Methods: The data utilized in this research were obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database. A search using the keywords "bioethic*" and "medical ethic*" identified 26,097 publications. Only publications categorized as "article," "review," and "early access" were included in the analysis, while other types were excluded. Publications originating from Türkiye were identified, and the analysis was conducted on 181 selected publications. Bibliometric analyses were performed using the Bibliometrix software. Results: A total of 525 authors contributed to the 181 analyzed documents, with an average of 3.56 authors per publication. The annual growth rate was calculated as 9.33%, indicating a significant increase in the number of publications. The documents contained a total of 5,479 references, with an average citation count of 8.221 per publication. Co-occurrence analysis identified thematic clusters such as "Clinical Research and Informed Consent", "Medical Education and Ethics", "Bioethics and Health Policies", "Anatomy and Research Ethics", and "Bioethics and End-of-Life Issues". Conclusion: The study not only maps the evolution of bioethics and medical ethics research in Türkiye but also fills a significant gap by systematically identifying thematic and methodological trends, thereby contributing a valuable reference for future academic endeavors in the field.

Keywords

• Bioethics
• Medical Ethics
• Bibliometric Analysis
• Türkiye

Türkiye Kaynaklı Biyoetik ve Tıp Etiği Yayınlarının Bibliyometrik Analizi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, biyoetik ve tıp etiği alanında yapılan yayınların kavramsal yapısı ve düşünsel çerçevesini belirlemek amacıyla Türkiye kökenli biyoetik ve tıp etiği literatürünün kapsamlı bir bibliyometrik analizinin yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu araştırmada kullanılan veriler Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection veri tabanından elde edildi. "biyoetik*" ve "tıp etiği*" anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak yapılan arama sonucunda 26.097 yayın belirlendi. Sadece "makale", "derleme" ve "erken erişim" olarak kategorize edilen yayınlar analize dahil edildi, diğer türler hariç tutuldu. Türkiye kökenli yayınlar belirlendi ve analiz seçilen 181 yayın üzerinden yapıldı. Bibliyometrik analizler, Bibliometrix yazılımı kullanılarak gerçekleştirildi. Bulgular: Analiz edilen 181 belgeye toplamda 525 yazarın katkıda bulunmuştu ve her yayında ortalama 3.56 yazar yer almaktaydı. Yıllık büyüme oranı %9,33 olarak hesaplandı ve bu, yayın sayısında önemli bir artış olduğunu göstermekteydi. Belgeler toplamda 5.479 referans içeriyordu ve yayın başına ortalama atıf sayısı 8.221 idi. Ortak kelime analizi sonucunda, "Klinik Araştırma ve Bilgilendirilmiş Onam", "Tıp Eğitimi ve Etik", "Biyoetik ve Sağlık Politikaları", "Anatomi ve Araştırma Etiği" ve "Biyoetik ve Hayat Sonu Sorunları" gibi tematik kümeleri belirlendi. Sonuç: Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki biyoetik ve tıp etiği araştırmalarının evrimini haritalamakla kalmayıp, tematik ve metodolojik eğilimleri sistematik olarak ortaya koyarak önemli bir boşluğu doldurmakta ve alandaki gelecekteki akademik çalışmalar için değerli bir başvuru kaynağı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyoetik
• Tıp Etiği
• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• Türkiye

References

1. Pellegrino E.D. Philosophy of medicine: Problematic and potential. J Med Philos. 1976;1(1):5-31.
2. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.
3. Hunt A, Saenz C, Littler K. The global forum on bioethics in research meeting, "ethics of alternative clinical trial designs and methods in low- and middle-income country research": emerging themes and outputs. Trials. 2019;20(Suppl 2):701.
4. Kandlbinder AE. A critical view on using "life not worth living" in the bioethics of assisted reproduction. Med Health Care Philos. 2024;27(2):189-203.
5. Rendón JPAG, González O. Bioethics in end-of-life care: statistical review. J Lat Am Geriat Med. 2023;9(2):52-5.
6. Saylor KW, Joffe S. Enhancing social value considerations in prioritising publicly funded biomedical research: the vital role of peer review. J Med Ethics. 2024;50(4):253-7.
7. Kürklü S. Bibliometric Analysis of research on bioethics; WOS example. Turk J Bioeth. 2019;6(3):87-99. Turkish.
8. Roy S, Shah MH, Ahluwalia A, Harky A. Analyzing the evolution of medical ethics education: A bibliometric analysis of the top 100 cited articles. Cureus. 2023;15(7):e41411.

9. Man F, Yılmaz C, Kurutkan MN. Bibliometric analysis of the field of training and development in human resources management. Int J Social Sci Educ Res. 2023;9(1):15-35. Turkish.
10. Bağiş M, Kryeziu L, Kurutkan MN, Krasniqi BA, Yazici O, Memili E. Topics, trends and theories in family business research: 1996–2020. Int Entrep Manag J. 2023;19(4):1855-91.
11. Öget B, Kurutkan MN, Bağış M. A bibliometric analysis of the knowledge structure of reflective learning in the health sciences. J Innov Health Pract. 2024;5(1):11-29.
12. Tengilimoğlu D, Orhan F, Şenel Tekin P, Younis M. Analysis of publications on health information management using the science mapping method: A holistic perspective. Healthcare (Basel). 2024;12(3):287.
13. Iwanaga J, Singh V, Ohtsuka A, Hwang Y, Kim HJ, Moryś J, et al. Acknowledging the use of human cadaveric tissues in research papers: Recommendations from anatomical journal editors. Clin Anat. 2021;34(1):2-4.
14. Iwanaga J, Singh V, Takeda S, Ogeng'o J, Kim HJ, Moryś J, et al. Standardized statement for the ethical use of human cadaveric tissues in anatomy research papers: Recommendations from Anatomical Journal Editors-in-Chief. Clin Anat. 2022;35(4):526-8.
15. Keskinbora KH. Medical ethics considerations on artificial intelligence. J Clin Neurosci. 2019;64:277-82.
16. Avcı K, Çelikden SG, Eren S, Aydenizöz D. Assessment of medical students’ attitudes on social media use in medicine: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:18.
17. Civaner MM, Uncu Y, Bulut F, Chalil EG, Tatli A. Artificial intelligence in medical education: a cross-sectional needs assessment. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):772.
18. Ulman YI, Cakar T, Yildiz G. Ethical issues in neuromarketing: "I consume, therefore I am!". Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21(5):1271-84.
19. Ayanoğlu FB, Elçin AE, Elçin YM. Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Turk J Biol. 2020;44(2):110-20.
20. Efferth T, Banerjee M, Paul NW, Abdelfatah S, Arend J, Elhassan G, et al. Biopiracy of natural products and good bioprospecting practice. Phytomedicine. 2016;23(2):166-73.
21. Alcalar N, Ozkan S, Kucucuk S, Aslay I, Ozkan M. Association of coping style, cognitive errors and cancer-related variables with depression in women treated for breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012;42(10):940-7.
22. Civaner M. Sale strategies of pharmaceutical companies in a "pharmerging" country: the problems will not improve if the gaps remain. Health Policy. 2012;106(3):225-32.
23. Elçioğlu Ö, Öncel Ö, Demirhan Erdemir A. A study about the books and periodicals related with medical deontology and medical ethics in Turkish republic period. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Ethics. 2003;11(4):240-5. Turkish.
24. Aydın E. The principle of respect for autonomy of the patient in medical ethics. J Clin Pract Res. 2003;25(2):92-7. Turkish.
25. McKay DR, Nitsch R, Peters DA. Corporate governance and business ethics. Plast Surg. 2015;23(4):271-2.
26. De Vries R, DeBruin DA, Goodgame A. Ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic research: Where should we go from here?. Ethics Behav. 2004;14(4):351-68.
27. Ersoy N, Gündoğmuş UN. A study of the ethical sensitivity of physicians in Turkey. Nurs Ethics. 2003;10(5):472-84.
28. Aydın E, Ersoy YN. Clinical-ethical decision-making process. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Ethics. 1995;3(1):12-6. Turkish.
29. Ersoy N. Ethics in oncology nursing. Turk J Oncol. 2009;24(4):191-7. Turkish.
30. Ghanad A. An overview of quantitative research methods. Int J Multidiscipl Res Anal. 2023;6(8):3794-803.
31. Corner EJ, Murray EJ, Brett SJ. Qualitative, grounded theory exploration of patients’ experience of early mobilisation, rehabilitation and recovery after critical illness. BMJ Open. 2019;24:9(2):e026348.
32. Oranga J, Matere A. Qualitative research: essence, types and advantages. Open Access Libr J. 2023;10:e11001.
33. Wangmo T, Provoost V. The use of empirical research in bioethics: a survey of researchers in twelve European countries. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):79.
34. Bystranowski P, Dranseika V, Żuradzki T. Half a century of bioethics and philosophy of medicine: A topic-modeling study. Bioethics. 2022;36(9):902-25.