Web of Science Penceresinden Türkiye Adresli Hukuk Yayınlarına Genel Bakış

Öz

Hukuk fakülteleri, eğitim-öğretim, araştırma-geliştirme gibi faaliyetleriyle, topluma farklı katmanlarda değer ve hizmet ürettiği gibi, hukuk bilimi alanında da gerek ulusal gerekse uluslararası değişiklikleri takip ederek, toplumun gelişmişlik düzeyine olumlu katkılar sağlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, çalışmada, Türk hukuk sistemi içinde kritik bir yere sahip olan araştırmacı ve akademisyenlerin bilimsel yayınları, Web of Science penceresinden değerlendirilmektedir. Temel amacı, sunulan literatür ve seçilen yöntem çerçevesinde, Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren üniversitelerde hukuk alanında çalışan akademisyenlerin, uluslararası literatürdeki konumlarını bibliyometrik ve bilimetrik bir araştırma ile ortaya koymaktır. Bu kapsamda, bibliyometrik veriler üzerinden özet istatistikler, kümeler ve ağ modelleri elde edilerek, yıllara göre yayın dağılımları, dergiler, atıf istatistikleri, ülkeler, kurumlar, fonlar, ortak yazarlık, ortak atıf, ortak kelime ağları gibi pekçok farklı boyutta bulgular sunulmaktadır. Genel olarak, Türkiye’nin Güney Kore’nin ardından 629 makale, tüm literatürün %0.356 bölümünü oluşturması, toplamda aldığı 893 atıf ve 1,42 atıf ortalaması ile 36. sırada yer almaktadır. Diğer boyutlardaki istatistiklere göre yapılan değerlendirmeler ve web of science hukuk alanındaki genel durum ışığında kıyaslamalar yapılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, hukuk alanındaki araştırmacılara, 20 yıllık bir karne sunarken, gelecek çalışmalar için yönlendirici bir belge niteliği taşımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilimsel Üretkenlik
• hukuk
• akademisyenler
• bilimetri
• Web of Science
• Literatür Analizi

Overview of Turkey-Addressed Publications in Law from Web of Science Window

Abstract

Schools of Law provide positive contributions to the development of the society by following both national and international changes in the field of legal science, as well as providing value and service to the society in different layers with their activities such as education, research, and development. In this context, the scientific publications of researchers and academics, who have a critical position in the Turkish legal system, are evaluated from the Web of Science window. The main purpose of the study, based on the selected literature and in the framework of the methodology, is to put forward the place of the academics in the international literature who work in the field of law at the the universities in Turkey through scientometrics and bibliometrics. In this context, findings are presented by obtaining summary statistics, clusters and network models in many different dimensions from bibliometric data regarding publication distribution by years, journals, citation statistics, countries, institutions, funds, co-authorship, co-citation, co-occurence networks. Overall, it has been observed that Turkey, just after South Korea, with 629 articles, all forming part of the 0.356% of the literature, received a total of 893 citations and ranked at 36 with an average of 1.42 citations. Comparisons are made in the light of evaluations that were carried out according to statistics in other dimensions and the general situation in Law research area in web of science. While providing a 20-year report card to researchers in the field of law, it is also a guiding document for future studies.

Keywords

• Law
• Academics
• Scientometrics
• Scientific Productivity
• Web of Science
• Literature Analysis

References

1. Aksoy, H.C., & Schäfer, H.B. (2012). Economic impossibility in Turkish contract law from the perspective of law and economics. European Journal of Law and Economics, 34(1), 105-126.
2. Alspaugh, T.A., Scacchi, W., & Asuncion, H.U. (2010). Software licenses in context: The challenge of heterogeneously-licensed systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(11), 731-755.
3. Ankara Hukuk, (2021). Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi. 22 Ocak 2021 tarihinde, https://www.wikiwand.com/tr/Ankara_%C3%9Cniversitesi_Hukuk_Fak%C3%BCltesi#/citenotetarihe1 adresinden erişildi.
4. Aslan, S.C.(2018). Türk Tarihinde hukukun gelişimi. 23 Ocak 2021 tarihinde, https://hukukiblog.com/diger/turk-hukuk-tarihi/ adresinden erişildi.
5. Avcı, M. (2017). Türk Hukuk Tarihi. (6.Baskı). Konya: Atlas Akademi.
6. Azmak, A.D. (2007). Sudden natural deaths in Edirne, Turkey, from 1984 to 2005. Medicine, Science and the Law, 47(2), 147-155.
7. Breaux, T., & Antón, A. (2008). Analyzing regulatory rules for privacy and security requirements. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 34(1), 5-20.
8. Brown, H.E. (2011). Refugees, rights, and race: How legal status shapes Liberian immigrants’ relationship with the state. Social Problems, 58(1), 144-163.

9. Bulut, A., Yildiz, A., Halidi, G., Kurtoglu, A., Bice, H., & Arda, B. (2018). Basic Issues of Oncology From The Point of Ethics: A Limited Impression Share. Medicine and Law, 37(3), 433-448.
10. Büyüksagis, E. (2016). Turkish Contract Law Reform: Standard Terms, Unforeseen Circumstances, and Judicial Intervention. European Business Organization Law Review, 17(3), 423-449.
11. Canturk, G., Canturk, N., Odabasi, A.B., Erkol, Z., & Bosgelmez, M. (2009). Autopsy findings of suicidal deaths committed by firearms in Ankara, Turkey. Medicine, Science and The Law, 49(3), 207-212.
12. Cin, H., & Akgündüz, A. (2011). Türk Hukuk Tarihi. İstanbul: Pasifik Ofset.
13. Classen, H.W. (1996). Fundamentals of Software Licensing. IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, 37(1), 1-86.
14. Cockfield, A.J. (2003). Towards a law and technology theory. Manitoba Law Journal, 30, 384-415.
15. Coutin, S.B. (1998). From refugees to immigrants: the legalization strategies of Salvadoran immigrants and activists. International Migration Review, 32(4), 901-925.
16. Çetin, T., Sobacı, M.Z., & Nargeleçekenler, M. (2016). Independence and accountability of independent regulatory agencies: the case of Turkey. European Journal of Law and Economics, 41(3), 601-620.
17. Damar, H.T., Bilik, O., Ozdagoglu, G., Ozdagoglu, A., & Damar, M. (2018). Evaluating the nursing academicians in Turkey in the scope of Web of Science: scientometrics of original articles. Scientometrics, 115(1), 539-562.
18. Dura, C., Atik, H., & Dumrul, C. (2007). Avrupa Birliği Gümrük Birliği ve Türkiye. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
19. Dursun, H. (2006). Hukuku bilim kılabilmek. TBB Dergisi, 64(2006), 251-297.
20. Edis, S. (1983). Medeni hukuka giriş ve baslangıç hükümleri. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları.
21. Ekmekci, P. E. (2016). Main ethical breaches in multicenter clinical trials regulations of Turkey. Medicine and law, 35, 491.
22. Erbay, H. (2018). Eski hukuk sisteminden yeni hukuk sistemine geçiş süreci, nedenleri ve Türk Hukuk Devrimi. Sinop Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 211-238.
23. Eroğlu, M. (2008). Limited liability in Turkish law. European Business Organization Law Review, 9(2), 237-265.
24. Ertan, T.F. (1999). Atatürk, Cumhuriyet ve Hukuk Sistemi. Erdem, 11(33), 743-757.
25. Farrell, H., & Héritier, A. (2007). Introduction: contested competences in the European Union. West European Politics, 30(2), 227-243.
26. Finnis, J. (2020). Natural Law Theories. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Editor). 20 Ocak 2021 tarihinde, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/natural-law-theories/ adresinden erişildi.
27. Garfield, E. (2009). From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite Software. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 173-179. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.009.
28. Goddard, M. (2017). The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): European regulation that has a global impact. International Journal of Market Research, 59(6), 703-705.
29. Gokcay, B., & Arda, B.(2017). A review of research misconduct policies in Turkey. Medicine and Law, 36(4), 87-104. Gözler, K. (2008). Meslek Yüksekokulları İçin Genel Hukuk Bilgisi. (Yedinci Baskı). Bursa: Ekin Yayınları.
30. Gürdeniz, C. (2019). 21. yüzyıl Türk jeopolitiğinin ağırlık merkezi: Doğu Akdeniz. Independent Türkçe. 22 Ocak 2021 tarihinde, https://www.indyturk.com/node/48556/t%C3%BCrkiyeden-sesler/21-y%C3%BCzy%C4%B1l-t%C3%BCrk-jeopoliti%C4%9Finin-a%C4%9F%C4%B1rl%C4%B1k-merkezi-do%C4%9Fu-akdeniz adresinden erişildi.
31. Gürkaynak, G., & Yilmaz, I. (2015). Regulating payment services and electronic money: A comparative regulatory approach with a specific focus on Turkish legislation. Computer Law & Security Review, 31(3), 401-411.
32. Gürkaynak, G., Güner, A., Diniz, S., & Filson, J. (2016). Most-favored-nation clauses in commercial contracts: legal and economic analysis and proposal for a guideline. European Journal of Law and Economics, 42(1), 129-155.
33. Gürkaynak, G., Yılmaz, İ., & Durlu, D. (2013). Understanding search engines: A legal perspective on liability in the Internet law vista. Computer Law & Security Review, 29(1), 40-47.
34. Gürkaynak, G., Yılmaz, İ., Yeşilaltay, B., & Bengi, B. (2018). Intellectual property law and practice in the blockchain realm. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(4), 847-862.
35. Gürkaynak, G., Yilmaz, I., & Taskiran, N. P. (2014). Protecting the communication: Data protection and security measures under telecommunications regulations in the digital age. Computer Law & Security Review, 30(2), 179-189.
36. Helmbrecht, U. (2010). Data protection and legal compliance in cloud computing. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit-DuD, 34(8), 554-556.
37. Helvacioglu, A. D., & Stakheyeva, H. (2017). The tale of two data protection regimes: The analysis of the recent law reform in Turkey in the light of EU novelties. Computer Law & Security Review, 33(6), 811-824.
38. Hirş, E. (1944). Hukuk Bir Bilim Kolu mudur?. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1944), 19-61.
39. Hosseini, M.R., Martek, I., Zavadskas, E.K., Aibinu, A.A., Arashpour, M., ve Chileshe, N. (2018). Critical evaluation of off-site construction research: A Scientometric analysis. Automation in Construction, 87, 235-247. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.002.0
40. Ineli-Ciger, M. (2016). Time to activate the Temporary Protection Directive: Why the Directive can play a key role in solving the migration crisis in Europe. European Journal of Migration and Law, 18(1), 1-33.
41. İçduygu, A., & Aksel, D.B. (2014). Two-to-tango in migration diplomacy: Negotiating readmission agreement between the EU and Turkey. European Journal of Migration and Law, 16(3), 337-363.
42. Karabacak, B., Yildirim, S. O., & Baykal, N. (2016). Regulatory approaches for cyber security of critical infrastructures: The case of Turkey. Computer Law & Security Review, 32(3), 526-539.
43. Karadayi, S., Moshfeghi, E., Arasoglu, T., & Karadayi, B. (2020). Evaluating the persistence of laundered semen stains on fabric using a forensic light source system, prostate-specific antigen Semiquant test and DNA recovery-profiling. Medicine, Science and the Law, 60(2), 122-130.
44. Karakoç, Y. (2008). Hukukun Anlamı. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2), 1-12.
45. Karaman, T.A. (2011). Comparative Study on the Liability of Classification Societies to Third Party Purchasers with References to Turkish, Swiss, German and US Law. Journalof Maritime Law and Commerce, 42(1), 125-158.
46. Karan, H. (2003). Revising liability limits in international maritime conventions:turkish perspective. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 34(4), 615-628.
47. Karan, H. (2011). Any need for new international instrument on the carriage of goodsby sea: The rotterdam rules. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 42(3), 441-452.
48. Kaya, M.B. (2016). The regulation of Internet intermediaries under Turkish law: Is there a delicate balance between rights and obligations?. Computer Law & Security Review, 32(5), 759-774.
49. Kekik, D. (2019). Türkiye’de! Hukukunun Tarihsel Gelişimi. 23 Ocak 2021 tarihinde, https://www.avukatdeniz.com/genel/turkiyede-hukukunun-tarihsel-gelisimi/ adresinden erişildi.
50. Kellevezir, I., Özdağoğlu, G., & Özdağoğlu, A. (2019). Hukuk Alanında İş Gücü Dinamikleri: Uzun Erimli Arz-Talep Analizi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 9(2), 125-138.
51. Keyman, S. (1997). Hukukun Bilimselliği Üzerine. 01 Ocak 2021 tarihinde, https://hukuk.deu.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/S.Keyman-7.pdf adresinden erişildi.
52. Kirişçi, K. (2006). A friendlier Schengen visa system as a tool of “soft power”: the experience of Turkey. European Journal of Migration and Law, 7(4), 343-367.
53. Kirval, L. (2010). International security through further modernity: a theoretical approach to inland and maritime security. Journal of Maritime Research, 7(2), 37-48.
54. Kshetri, N. (2013). Privacy and security issues in cloud computing: The role of institutions and institutional evolution. Telecommunications Policy, 37(4-5), 372-386.
55. Kurtulan, G. (2017). Minority shareholder protection in cross-border mergers: a must for or an impediment to the European single market?. European Business Organization Law Review, 18(1), 101-121.
56. Kurtulus, A., Nilufer Yonguc, G., Boz, B., & Acar, K. (2013). Anatomopathological findings in hangings: a retrospective autopsy study. Medicine, Science and the Law, 53(2), 80-84.
57. Lasok, D. (1998). The trade and customs law of the European Union. İngiltere: Kluwer Law International.
58. Menjivar, C., & Lakhani, S. M. (2016). Transformative effects of immigration law: Immigrants’ personal and social metamorphoses through regularization. American Journal of Sociology, 121(6), 1818-1855.
59. Moses, L. (2007). Recurring dilemmas: The law’s race to keep up with technologicalchange. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 2007(2),239-286
60. Mumcu, A. (1995). Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Neden ve Nasıl Kuruldu? Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(1-4), 540-552.
61. Murphy, M.C. (2015). Two Unhappy Dilemmas for Natural Law Jurisprudence. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 60(2), 121-141.
62. Nadan, C.H. (2004). Software Licensing in the 21st Century: Are Software Licenses Really Sales, and How Will the Software Industry Respond. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 32, 555.
63. Nilsson, G.O. (2018). Incentive Structure of Special Purpose Acquisition Companies. European Business Organization Law Review, 19(2), 253-274.
64. Özdağoğlu, G., Damar, M., Özdağoğlu, A., Damar, H.T., & Bilik, Ö. (2020). 80’lerden Günümüze Yükseköğretimde Kalite Çalışmaları: Küresel Ölçekte Bilimetrik Bakış. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 28(1), 482-493.
65. Peers, S. (1996). Living in sin: Legal integration under the EC-Turkey Customs union. European Journal of International Law, 7, 411-430.
66. Rehbinder, M., & Gürkan, Ü. (1971). Hukukun Toplumsal Fonksiyonları. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(1), 455-475. doi: 10.1501/Hukfak_0000001064
67. Sargın, İ. (2009). Toplumsal düzen acısından hukuk ve devlet. Çukurova Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi (ÇÜİFD), 9(2), 157-178.
68. Sayar, T. (2017). A Debate on Human Dignity, Embryo and Embryonic Stem Cell Researches. Medicine and Law, 36, 29-44.
69. Schäfer, H. B., & Aksoy, H. C. (2016). Alive and well: the good faith principle in Turkish contract law. European Journal of Law and Economics, 42(1), 73-101.
70. Sevimli, S., Dursun, R., & Karadas, S. (2015). Health Professionals of Emergency Service: An Evaluation of Disaster Medicine and Ethical Values. Medicine and Law, 34, 39-54.
71. Stylianou, P. (2008). Online dispute resolution: the case for a treaty between the United States and the European Union in resolving cross-border e-commerce disputes. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 36, 117-143.
72. Subashini, S., & Kavitha, V. (2011). A survey on security issues in service delivery models of cloud computing. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 34(1), 1-11.
73. Tita, C.C., & Tita, V.D. (2020). Natural law and its ınfluence on the legal rules of positive law. Journal of Law and Public Administration. 6, 97-103.
74. Ural, Ş. (1994). Bilim Felsefesi’nin Amacı veya Bilim Felsefesi’nin Felsefesi. Felsefe Arkivi, (29),1-12.
75. Usluel, A.E.G. (2016). Considerations on the economic effect of the new Turkish commercial code provisions regarding single member companies. European journal of law and economics, 42(1), 25-43. Üçok, C., & Mumcu, A. (1991). Türk Hukuk Tarihi. (7. Baskı). Ankara: Savaş Yayınevi.
76. Veziroğlu, C. (2018). Buy-Out of the oppressed minority’s shares in joint stock companies: A Comparative Analysis of Turkish, Swiss and English Law. European Business Organization Law Review, 19(3), 527-540.
77. Yang, S., ve Yuan, Q. (2017). Are scientometrics, informetrics, and bibliometrics different? October 16-20, 2017 16th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Wuhan, China.
78. Yavuz, Ç.A. (2019). Analysis of the EU-Turkey readmission agreement: a Unique Case. European Journal of Migration and Law, 21(4), 486-508.
79. Yayci, C. (2011). Doğu Akdeniz’de deniz yetki alanlarının sınırlandırılmasında Libya’nın rolü ve etkisi. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, 7(14), 17-41.
80. Yayci, C. (2012). Doğu Akdeniz’de yetki alanlarının paylaşılması sorunu ve Türkiye. Bilge Strateji, 4(6), 1-70.
81. Yildiz, G.B. (2007). Foreign workers in Turkey, their rights and obligations regulated in Turkish labour law. European Journal of Migration and Law, 9(2), 207-227.
82. YÖKAKADEMİK, (2021). Arama sonuçları (Üniversite Bazında Hukuk Temel Alanında Çalışan Akademisyen Sayıları). 10 Ocak 2021 tarihinde, https://akademik.yok.gov.tr/ adresinden erişildi.
83. Van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
84. Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N.J. (2013). A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection. The European Physical Journal B, 86(11), 1-14.
85. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of informetrics, 4(4), 629-635.