Bibliometric Analysis of Medical Journal of Süleyman Demirel University in Last Decade

Abstract

Objective: Aim of the study was to bibliometric analyze the articles published in the Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Medical Faculty in the last 10 years and to determine the aspects that should be developed in the journal and to present suggestions for increasing the impact factor of the journal.

Materials and methods: Digital archive of Medical Journal of Süleyman Demirel University was searched from the electronic database. Original researchs, case reports and review articles which were published between 2009-2018 were evaluated. The publications were analyzed in terms of bibliometric characteristics.

Results: 338 publications were included in the study. Original researchs (54.7%, n = 185) were most published type of study. Surgical Medical Sciences subjects (34.3%, n = 116) were the most published subject. 64.2% (n = 217) of the researchers included in the studies were male. 73.4% (b = 248) of the researchers were employed in faculties. Only 0.6% (n = 2) of studies which published in the journal were sent out of Turkey. Turkish (79.9%, n=270) was preferred as the language of publication. 58.3% (n = 197) of the studies were produced in a single department. In the studies, the most frequent study designs were observational (65.1%, n = 220). The impact factor of the journal was found to be low. Multidisciplinary studies were found to have higher cite potential.

Conclusions: At current situation, national researchers employing in universities are often interested in the journal. In order to increase the effect of the jounal on the international platform; It is suggested that English as publication language should be used more frequently. The studies which were high scientific quality, high citation potential and different disciplines work together must be accepted.

Keywords

• Süleyman Demirel University,journal,bibliometric

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi’nin Son 10 Yılının Bibliyometrik Analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi’nde son 10 yıl içinde yayınlanan çalışmaları bibliyometrik yönden analiz edip dergide geliştirmesi gereken yönleri belirlemek ve derginin etki faktörünün arttırılması için öneri sunabilmektir.

Gereç ve yöntemler: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp fakültesi Dergisi’nin kamuya açık dijital arşivi, elektronik veri tabanından tarandı. 2009-2018 yılları arasında yayınlanmış özgün araştırma, olgu sunumu ve derleme türündeki çalışmalar değerlendirmeye alındı. Yayınlar, bibliyometrik özellikleri açısından analiz edildi.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya, 338 yayın dahil edildi. En çok yayınlanan çalışma türünü özgün araştırmalar (%54.7, n=185) oluşturuyordu. Cerrahi tıp bilimleri konuları, (%34.3 n=116) en çok yayınlanan konuydu. Çalışmalarda birinci isim olarak yer alan araştırmacıların %64.2 (n=217)’si erkekti. Araştırmacıların %73.4 (n=248)’ü fakültelerde görev almaktaydı. Dergide yayınlanan çalışmaların sadece %0.6 (n=2)’si Türkiye dışından gönderilmişti. Yayın dili olarak sıklıkla Türkçe (%79.9, n=270) tercih edilmişti. Araştırmaların %58.3 (n=197)’ü tek bir anabilim dalında yürütülmüştü. Çalışmalarda, en sık gözlemsel (%65.1, n=220) çalışma dizaynlarının kullanıldığı belirlendi. Derginin etki faktörünün düşük olduğu saptandı. Multidisipliner çalışmaların atıf alma potansiyellerinin daha yüksek olduğu belirlendi.

Sonuç: Dergi, mevcut hali ile sıklıkla üniversitelerde görev yapan ulusal araştırmacıların ilgisindedir. Derginin uluslararası platformdaki etkisinin arttırılabilmesi için; yayın dili olarak İngilizcenin daha sık kullanılması, atıf alma potansiyeli yüksek olan ve farklı disiplinlerin bir arada çalıştığı kaliteli çalışmaların yayına kabul edilmesi önerilmektedir.  

Keywords

• Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi,dergi,bibliyometrik

References

1. 1. Available from: https://dergipark.org.tr/sdutfd
2. 2. Baladi ZH, Umedani LV. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences: A bibliometric assessment 2001-2010. Pak J Med Sci. 2017;33(3):714-9.
3. 3. Arik E. A bibliometric analysis of a national journal: The case of the Turkish Journal of Psychology. J Sci Res. 2013; 2: 173-84.
4. 4. Belter CW, Kaske NK. Using bibliometrics to demonstrate the value of library journal collections. Coll Res Libr. 2016; 77(4): 410–22.
5. 5. Hung Jl. Trends of e-learning research from 2000 to 2008: Use of text mining and bibliometrics. Br J Educ Technol. 2012;43 (1): 5-16.
6. 6. Wakeling S, Willett P, Creaser C, Fry J, Pinfield S, Spezi V. Open-Access Mega- Journals: a bibliometric profile. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11(11): e0165359.
7. 7. Falagas ME, Zarkali A, Karageorgopoulos DE, Bardakas V, Mavros MN. The impact of article length on the number of future citations: a bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(2): e49476.
8. 8. Thanuskodi S. Journal of Social Sciences: A bibliometric study. Journal of Social Sciences. 2010; 24 (2): 77-80.

9. 9. Available from: https://dergipark.org.tr/sdutfd/archive
10. 10. Coronado RA, Riddle DL, Wurtzel WA, George SZ. Bibliometric analysis of articles published from 1980 to 2009 in Physical Therapy, Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association. Phys Ther. 2011; 91: 642–55.
11. 11. Aguillo IF. Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics. 2012; 91: 343–51.
12. 12. Ullah S, Jan SU, Jan T, Ahmad HN, Jan MY, MA Rauf. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Pakistan: Five years bibliometric analysis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2016; 26 (11): 920-3.
13. 13. Huggett S. Journal bibliometrics indicators and citation ethics: A discussion of current issues. Atherosclerosis. 2013; 230 (2): 275-7.
14. 14. Coimbra DR, Dominski FH, Correia CK, Andrade A. Scientific production in Sports Science Journals: bibliometric analysis. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2019; 25 (1): 88-93.
15. 15. Şenel E, Demir E. Bibliometric and scientometric analysis of the articles published in the Journal of Religion and Health between 1975 and 2016. J Relig Health. 2018; 57: 1473-82.
16. 16. Ibrahim M, Jan SU. Bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Pakistan Medical Association form 2009 to 2013. J Pak Med Assoc. 2015; 65 (9): 978-83.
17. 17. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013; 504 (7479): 211–3.
18. 18. Thanuskodi S. Bibliometric analysis of the Journal Library Philosophy and Practice from 2005-2009. Library Philosophy and Practice. 2010. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=libphilprac
19. 19. Velmurugan C. Research trends in Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR): A bibliometric study. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 2013. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1043.
20. 20. Marx W, Bornmann L. Change of perspective: bibliometrics from the point of view of cited references—a literature overview on approaches to the evaluation of cited references in bibliometrics. Scientometrics. 2016; 109: 1397–415.
21. 21. Pardo C, Reolid M, Delicado MV, Mallebrera E, Garcia-Meseguer MJ. Nursing research in Spain: bibliometrics of references of research papers in the decade 1985-1994. J Adv Nurs. 2001; 35(6): 933-43.
22. 22. Kay J, Memon M, de SA D, Simunovic N, Duong A, Karlsson J, et al. The h-Index of editorial board members correlates positively with the ımpact factor of sports medicine journals. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017; 5(3): 1-8. doi: 10.1177/2325967117694024.