Sosyal Bilim Araştırmalarında VOSviewer ile Bibliyometrik Haritalama ve Örnek bir Uygulama

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sosyal bilim alanındaki araştırmalara dayalı bir uygulama gerçekleştirerek VOSviewer bibliyometrik haritalama programının kullanımını incelemektir. Bu doğrultuda, VOSviewer bibliyometrik haritalama programı ele alınmış; bibliyografik eşleşme, ortak atıf, ortak yazarlık, kavram birlikteliği, atıf ağı gibi temel analiz teknikleri uygulanmış ve bunların analiz birimi olan belge, kaynak(lar), yazar(lar), kuruluş(lar), ülke, referanslar, anahtar kelimeler ve özet kısaca sunulmuştur. Yöntem ve uygulama aşamasında ise, mevcut araştırmanın sistematiğine uygun olarak bilimsel haritalama yaklaşımı kullanılmış ve Scopus veri tabanından ilgili 907 çalışma üzerinde analizler gerçekleştirilerek örnek uygulama yapılmıştır. Araştırma bulguları, VOSviewer bibliyometrik haritalama programının sosyal bilim araştırmalarındaki kullanımının geçen on yılda her geçen yıl artma eğiliminde olduğunu göstermiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçları, atıf ağı en yüksek araştırmanın Van Eck tarafından 2010 yılında gerçekleştirildiğini, alanda ülke iş birliğinin en fazla Birleşik Krallık ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde; alanın öncü araştırmacılarının Waltman ve Van Eck; alana en fazla katkı sağlayan kaynakların Scientometrics ve Sustainability; alanda yapılan çalışmaları temsil eden temel kavramların ise Vosviewer, haritalama, atıf analizi, yazılım, araştırma trendi, bilim haritalama, Scopus ve Web of Science olduğunu göstermiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarından hareketle gelecek araştırmalar için dikkat çekici bir dizi öneri sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bibliyometrik Haritalama
• Sosyal Bilimler
• VOSviewer

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, K. H. (2021). Mapping of marine safety publications using VOSviewer. ASM Science Journal, 16, 1–9. doi: 10.32802/asmscj.2021.774
2. Allam, Z., Sharifi, A., Giurco, D. ve Sharpe, S. A. (2021). On the theoretical conceptualisations, knowledge structures and trends of green new deals. Sustainability, 13(22), 12529. doi: 10.3390/su132212529
3. Artsın, M. (2020). Bir metin madenciliği uygulaması: vosvıewer. Eskişehir Teknik Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi B-Teorik Bilimler, 8(2), 344–354. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1267353
4. Biggi, G. ve Giuliani, E. (2021). The noxious consequences of innovation: what do we know? Industry and Innovation, 28(1), 19–41. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2020.1726729
5. Börner, K., Chen, C. ve Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 179–255. doi: 10.1002/aris. 1440370106/full
6. Bornmann, L. ve Haunschild, R. (2016). Overlay maps based on Mendeley data: The use of altmetrics for readership networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(12), 3064–3072. doi: 10.1002/asi.23569
7. Brahim, A. S., Le Grand, B. ve Latapy, M. (2012). Diffusion cascades: Spreading phenomena in blog network communities. Parallel Processing Letters, 22(01). 1-16. doi: 10.1142/S0129626412400026
8. Cheng, P., Tang, H., Dong, Y., Liu, K., Jiang, P. ve Liu, Y. (2021). Knowledge mapping of research on land use change and food security: A visual analysis using citespace and VOSviewer. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(24),1-22. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182413065

9. Corley, E. A. ve Sabharwal, M. (2010). Scholarly collaboration and productivity patterns in public administration: Analysing recent trends. Public Administration, 88(3), 627–648. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01830.x
10. Di Guardo, M. C. ve Harrigan, K. R. (2012). Mapping research on strategic alliances and innovation: a co-citation analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 789–811. doi 10.1007/s10961-011-9239-2
11. Ding, X., ve Yang, Z. (2020). Knowledge mapping of platform research: a visual analysis using VOSviewer and CiteSpace. Electronic Commerce Research, 0(0), 1-23. doi: 10.1007/s10660-020-09410-7
12. Egghe, L. ve Rousseau, R. (2002). Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks. Scientometrics, 55(3), 349–361. doi.org/10.1023/A:1020458612014
13. Fujita, K., Kajikawa, Y., Mori, J. ve Sakata, I. (2014). Detecting research fronts using different types of weighted citation networks. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 32, 129–146. doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2013.07.002
14. Garfield, E., Sher, I. H. ve Torpie, R. J. (1964). The use of citation data in writing the history of science (Report Number: AD0466578). Defense Technical Information Center web sitesinden erişilen adres: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0466578
15. Glänzel, W. ve Czerwon, H. (1996). A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level. Scientometrics, 37(2), 195–221. doi: 10.1007/bf02093621
16. Glänzel, W. ve Schubert, A. (2005). Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-Authorship. H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel ve U. Schmoch (Yay. haz.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems içinde (s. 257–276). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12
17. Gupta, N. (2021). Trends in IoT research: A bibliometric and science mapping analysis of internet of things. Library Philosophy and Practice, 0(0), 1-20. Erişim adresi: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5269
18. Gurpur, S., Kamthan, M. ve Tiwari, V. (2021). A bibliometric analysis of research trends of ınter linkages between disaster management and law. Library Philosophy and Practice, 0(0), 1–18. Erişim adresi: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5707
19. Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455–476. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x
20. Ho, H.-C. ve Ho, Y.-S. (2015). Publications in dance field in arts & humanities citation ındex: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1031–1040. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1716-1
21. Hu, J. ve Zhang, Y. (2015). Research patterns and trends of recommendation system in China using co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management, 51(4), 329–339. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2015.02.002
22. Imani, B., Mirezati, S. Z. ve Saberi, M. K. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of international journal of nursing studies (1963–2018). Library Philosophy and Practice, 0(0), 1-14. Erişim adresi: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac
23. Jarneving, B. (2005). A comparison of two bibliometric methods for mapping of the research front. Scientometrics, 65(2), 245–263. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0270-7
24. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American documentation, 14(1), 10-25. doi:10.1002/asi.5090140103
25. Kevork, E. K. ve Vrechopoulos, A. P. (2009). CRM literature: conceptual and functional insights by keyword analysis. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(1), 48-85. doi: 10.1108/02634500910928362
26. Khandelwal, C., Kumar, S. ve Sureka, R. (2022). Mapping the intellectual structure of corporate risk reporting research: a bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 19(2), 129–143. doi: 10.1057/s41310-022-00141-9
27. Kumar, S., Spais, G. S., Kumar, D. ve Sureka, R. (2020). A bibliometric history of the journal of promotion management (1992–2019). Journal of Promotion Management, 26(1), 97–120. doi: 10.1080/10496491.2019.1685622
28. Leifeld, P. ve Ingold, K. (2016). Co-authorship networks in Swiss political research. Swiss Political Science Review, 22(2), 264–287. doi:10.1111/spsr.12193
29. Lis, A. (2018). Keywords co-occurrence analysis of research on sustainable enterprise and sustainable organisation. Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership, 5(2), 47–66. doi: 10.12775/JCRL.2018.011
30. Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L. ve Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1462–1480. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.012
31. Marx, W. ve Bornmann, L. (2016). 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, 109(2), 1397–1415. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2111-2
32. McAllister, J. T., Lennertz, L., ve Atencio Mojica, Z. (2022). Mapping a discipline: A guide to using VOSviewer for bibliometric and visual analysis. Science and Technology Libraries, 41(3), 319–348. doi: 10.1080/0194262X.2021.1991547
33. Onyancha, O. B. (2018). Mapping collaboration and impact of library and information science research in sub-Saharan Africa, from 1995 to 2016. Library Management, 39(6/7), 349-363. doi: 10.1108/LM-06-2017-0059
34. Orduña-Malea, E., ve Costas, R. (2021). Link-based approach to study scientific software usage: the case of VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 126(9), 8153–8186. doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-04082-y
35. Oyewola, D. O., ve Dada, E. G. (2022). Exploring machine learning: a scientometrics approach using bibliometrix and VOSviewer. Applied Sciences, 4(5), 1-18. doi:10.1007/s42452-022-05027-7
36. Pandey, P. K. ve Bajpai, N. (2022). Mapping the research pattern of cause-related marketing: A bibliometric analysis of publications during 2000-2020. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 0(0), 1–28. doi: 10.1080/10495142.2022.2133066
37. Phan Tan, L. (2022). Bibliometrics of social entrepreneurship research: Cocitation and bibliographic coupling analyses. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2022.2124594
38. Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Simske, S., Treiblmaier, H. ve Zailani, S. (2022). The big picture on the internet of things and the smart city: a review of what we know and what we need to know. Internet of Things, 19, 1-21. doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2022.100565
39. Rusydiana, A. S., Rahardjo, S. ve Soeparno, W. S. (2021). Mapping research on halal logistics using VOSviewer. Library Philosophy and Practice, 0(0), 1-14. Erişim adresi: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac
40. Santos, G., Marques, C. S. ve Ferreira, J. J. (2018). A look back over the past 40 years of female entrepreneurship: Mapping knowledge networks. Scientometrics, 115(2), 953–987. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2705-y
41. Scopus (2022). Elsevier. Erişim adresi https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus
42. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269. doi: 10.1002/asi.4630240406
43. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799–813. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:9<799
44. Toker, A. (2021). Yayımla veya yok ol! Rekreasyon yönetimi araştırmaları nereye gidiyor? Bibliyometrik bir değerlendirme. Türk Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 2107–2126. doi: 10.26677/TR1010.2021.837
45. Tomaszewski, R. (2020). Application of bibliometric analysis to letters journals in organic chemistry. The Serials Librarian, 79(1–2), 91–106. doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2020.1760185
46. Totti, L. C., Mitra, P., Ouzzani, M. ve Zaki, M. J. (2016). A query-oriented approach for relevance in citation networks. J. Bourdeau ve J. A. Handler (Yay. haz.) Proceedings of the 25th international conference companion on world wide web. 11-15 Nisan 2016, Montreal: Kanada, Bildiriler içinde (s. 401–406). doi: 10.1145/2872518.2890518
47. Trivedi, G. (2019). Visualization and scientometric mapping of global agriculture big data research. Library Philosophy and Practice, 0(0), 1–14. Erişim adresi: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac
48. van Eck, N. J. ve Waltman, L. (2022). VOSviewer Manual version 1.6.18. CWTS Meaningful Metrics. CWTS Meaningful Metrics. Erişim adresi: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.8.pdf
49. van Eck, N. ve Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
50. Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M. ve Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology–I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 179–211. doi: 10.1111/1468-2370.00083
51. Wang, X., Liu, M., Li, Q. ve Gao, Y. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of 15 years of research on open educational resources. Y. Hayashi, ve diğerleri (Yay. haz.) Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computers in Education. South Island: New Zealand: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. Erişim adresi: http://icce2017. canterbury.ac.nz/proceedings_main
52. Yamanaka, G. K., Campos, M. V., Roble, O. J. ve Mazzei, L. C. (2021). eSport: A state-of-the-art review based on bibliometric analysis. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 21(6), 3547–3555. doi: 10.7752/jpes.2021.06480
53. Zhao, L., Tang, Z. ve Zou, X. (2019). Mapping the knowledge domain of smart-city research: A bibliometric and scientometric analysis. Sustainability, 11(23), 6648. doi: 10.3390/su11236648
54. Zitt, M. ve Bassecoulard, E. (1994). Development of a method for detection and trend analysis of research fronts built by lexical or cocitation analysis. Scientometrics, 30(1), 333–351. Erişim adresi: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02017232