BIBLIOMETRICS AS A RESEARCH METHOD IN SOCIAL SCIENCES: THE EXAMPLE OF ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Öz

This study aims to introduce bibliometric methods which are commonly used to analyze academic publications and their production processes. In this context, the study provides concise theoretical information on bibliometric methods by emphasizing the increasing demand for these methods. Afterwards, the concepts of publication count, citation count, h-index, bibliographic matching, co-citation analysis, co-word association networks, co-authorship networks, thematic map and three-field graph are introduced. These concepts are adapted to the subject of “academic entrepreneurship” and examples of bibliometric analysis and relevant visualizations are shared.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bibliometrics
• social network analysis
• research methods
• academic entrepreneurship

BİR SOSYAL BİLİMLER ARAŞTIRMA YÖNTEMİ OLARAK BİBLİYOMETRİ: AKADEMİK GİRİŞİMCİLİK ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Bu çalışma akademik bilgi ürünlerini ve üretim süreçlerini incelemek amacıyla sıkça kullanılan bibliyometrik yöntemlere ilişkin giriş seviyesinde bilgi vermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda öncelikle bibliyometrik yöntemlere ve bu yöntemlere olan ihtiyaca dair öz teorik bilgi verilerek akademik yayınlarda yer alan bibliyometrik veriler ve bu verilerin nasıl toplandığı ve kürate edildiğinden bahsedilmektedir. Ardından, yayın sayısı, atıf sayısı, h-dizini, sosyal ağ analizi kullanılarak geliştirilen bibliyografik eşleme ve ortak atıf ağları analizleri, ortak sözcük birlikteliği ağları, ortak yazarlık ağları, tematik harita ve üç-kavram grafiği kavramları tanıtılmıştır. Bu kavramlar, “akademik girişimcilik” konusuna uyarlanarak bibliyometrik analiz ve görselleştirme örnekleri paylaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bibliyometri
• sosyal ağ analizi
• araştırma yöntemleri
• akademik girişimcilik

Kaynakça

1. Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos Of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Abramo, G., Cicero, T., ve D’Angelo, C.A. (2011). “Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length”, Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 659-667.
3. Aria, M. ve Cuccurullo, C. (2017). “bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis”, Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975.
4. Aydınoğlu, A.U. (2021). “Girişimcilik Üzerine Akademik Çalışmalar: 2000-2019 Yıllarının Bibliyometrik Analizi”, Türkiye’de Yenilik Tabanlı Girişimcilik. (Ed: İ.S. Akçomak, B. Beyhan, D. Çetindamar ve V.S. Tandoğan). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
5. Belter C. W. (2015). “Bibliometric indicators: opportunities and limits”, Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(4), 219–221.
6. Bordons, M., Aparicio, J., González-Albo B. ve Díaz-Faes, A. A. (2015). “The Relationship between the Research Performance of Scientists and Their Position in Co-Authorship Networks in Three Fields”, Journal of Informetrics, 9 (1),135–144.
7. Bornmann, L., ve Daniel, H. (2008). “What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior”, Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.
8. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

9. Börner, K. (2010). Atlas of Science: Visualizing What we know. Cambridge: MIT Press.
10. Börner, K., Chen, C., ve Boyack, K.W. (2003). "Visualizing Knowledge Domains", Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 179–255.
11. Bruno, S. ve Rost, F. K. (2019). “Do Rankings Reflect Research Quality?", Journal of Applied Economics, 13(1), 1-38.
12. Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W.A., ve Bauin, S. (1983). “From Translations to Problematic Networks: An Introduction to Co-Word Analysis”, Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235.
13. Callon, M., Law, J., ve Rip, A. (Ed.). (1986). Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. MacMillan Press.
14. Cobo, M.J., López-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E. ve Herrera, F. (2011). “An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field”, Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146-166,
15. Cronin, B., Shaw D. ve La Barre, K. (2003). “A Cast of Thousands: Coauthorship and Subauthorship Collaboration in the 20th Century as Manifested in the Scholarly Journal Literature of Psychology and Philosophy”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,54 (9), 855–71.
16. De Bellis, N. (2014). “History and evolution of (biblio)metrics”, Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. (Ed: B. Cronin ve C.R. Sugimoto). MIT Press.
17. De Stefano, D., Giordano, G. ve Vitale, M. P. (2011). “Issues in the Analysis of Co-Authorship Networks”, Quality & Quantity, 45 (5), 1091–1107.
18. Doğan, G. ve Taşkın, Z. (2019). Başlangıcından Bugüne Entelektüel Birikimi ve Bilime Katkılarıyla Hacettepe Üniversitesi. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
19. Ferreira, F. A. (2018). “Mapping the field of arts-based management: Bibliographic coupling and co-citation analyses”, Journal of Business Research, 85, 348-357.
20. Ferreira, J., Ferreira, F., Fernandes, C., Jalali, M., Raposo, M., ve Marques, C. (2016). "What Do We (Not) Know About Technology Entrepreneurship Research?", International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(3), 713–733.
21. Freeman, L. C. (1978). “Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification”, Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239.
22. Frickel, S., ve Gross, N. (2005). "A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual Movements", American Sociological Review, 70(2), 204-232.
23. Frickel, S. ve İlhan, A. O. (2016). “Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Change in Six Social Sciences: A Longitudinal Comparison”, Investigating Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Theory and Practice across Disciplines, (Ed. S.
24. Frickel, M. Albert ve B. Prainsack). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 148–69.
25. Godin, B. (2006). On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 68(1), 109–133.
26. Guerrero-Bote VP, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Mendoza A. ve de Moya-Anegón F. (2021). Comparative Analysis of the Bibliographic Data Sources Dimensions and Scopus: An Approach at the Country and Institutional Levels. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 5:593494.
27. Haustein, S. ve Larivière, V. (2015). “The Use of Bibliometrics for Assessing Research: Possibilities, Limitations and Adverse Effects”, Incentives and Performance. (Ed: I. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan ve M. Osterloh). Springer, Cham.
28. Henneken, E.A. ve Kurtz, M. J. (2019). “Usage Bibliometrics as a Tool to Measure Research Activity”, Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, (Ed. W. Glänzel, H.F. Moed, U. Schmoch ve M. Thelwall), Dordrecht: Springer 819-834.
29. Hepworth, K. (2016). “Big data visualization: Promises and pitfalls”, Communication Design Quarterly, 4(4).
30. Hey, T., Tansley, S. ve Tole, K. (2009). The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery.. http://research.microsoft.com/enus/collaboration/fourthparadigm/4th_paradigm_book_complete_lr.pdf
31. İlhan, A. O. ve Oguz, M. C. (2019). "Collaboration in Design Research: An Analysis of Co-Authorship in 13 Design Research Journals, 2000–2015", The Design Journal, 22(1), 5-27.
32. Ivancheva, L. (2008). “Scientometrics Today: A Methodological Overview”, COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2(2), 47-56.
33. Kumar, R., Singh, S., Sidhu, A. S. ve Pruncu, C. I. (2021). “Bibliometric Analysis of Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) in Machining Operations: A Sustainable Response”, Sustainability, 13(10), 5617.
34. Lacetera, N. (2009). “Academic entrepreneurship”, Managerial and Decision Economics, 30(7), 443-464.
35. Leydesdorff, L. (2007). “Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303-1319.
36. Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., ve Opthof, T. (2019). “hα: The scientist as chimpanzee or bonobo”, Scientometrics, 118(3), 1163–1166. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03004-3
37. Lotka, A. J. (1926). “The frequency distribution of scientific productivity”, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-323.
38. Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 871-906.
39. Merhacı, S. Ö. (2015). “Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Bayh-Dole yasası ve Türk hukukunda öğretim elemanlarının buluşlarına ilişkin bir değerlendirme”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 64(2), 405-434.
40. Marušić A. (2016). “What's in a name? The problem of authors' names in research articles”, Biochemia medica, 26(2), 174–175.
41. Moody, J. (2004). “The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999”, American Sociological Review, 69 (2), 213–38.
42. Osareh, F. (1996). “Bibliometrics, Citation Analysis and Co-Citation Analysis: A Review of Literature I”, Libri, 46(3).
43. Peters, H.P.F. ve Van Raan, A.F.J. 1993. "Co-word-based Science Maps of Chemical Engineering. Part I: Representations by Direct Multidimensional Scaling”, Research Policy, 22(1), 23–45.
44. Racherla, P., ve Hu, C. (2010). “A social network perspective of tourism research collaborations”, Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 1012–1034.
45. Rehs, A. (2021). “A supervised machine learning approach to author disambiguation in the Web of Science”, Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101166.
46. Reingold, N. ve Babbage, C. (1968). “Babbage and Moll on the state of science in Great Britain: A note on a document”, The British Journal for the History of Science, 4(1), 58-64.
47. Riehmann, P., Hanfler, M. ve Froehlich, B. (2005). “Interactive Sankey diagrams” Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, INFOVIS 2005, 233–240.
48. Siegel, D. S. ve Wright, M. (2015). “Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink?”, British journal of management, 26(4), 582-595.
49. Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J. ve Mayr, P. (2021). “The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis”, Scientometrics 126, 5113–5142.
50. Snyder, L. (2011). The Philosophical Breakfast Club. Four remarkable friends who transformed science and changed the world, Broadway.
51. Stahlschmidt, S. ve Stephen, D. (2020). Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions Databases. DZHW: Almanya.
52. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). “Scientific Collaboration”, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.
53. Sugimoto, C.R., ve Larivière, V. (2018). Measuring research: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.
54. Taşkın, Ç. Z. ve Doğan, G. (2019). “Araştırma Değerlendirmesi Üzerine San Francisco Deklarasyonu”, Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 33 (1), 67-70.
55. Taşkın, Z. ve Al, U. (2013). “Institutional name confusion on citation indexes: the example of the names of Turkish hospitals”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 73, 544-550.
56. Tekles, A., ve Bornmann, L. (2020). “Author name disambiguation of bibliometric data: A comparison of several unsupervised approaches”, Quantitative Science Studies, 1 (4): 1510–1528.
57. Thelwall, M. (2008). “Bibliometrics to webometrics”, Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 605–621.
58. Tonta, Y., ve Al, U. (2008). “Türkçe makalelerin dergilere dağılımı ve Bradford Yasası”, Bilgi Dünyası, 9(1), 41-66. UNESCO, (2022). Higher education global data report (Summary). A contribution to the World Higher Education Conference 18-20 May 2022.
59. van Eck, N.J. ve Waltman, L. (2010). VOSViewer: Visualizing Scientific Landscapes [Software]. https://www.vosviewer.com
60. van Eck, N.J. ve Waltman, L. (2014). "Visualizing Bibliometric Networks", Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice, (Ed. Y. Ding, R. Rousseau ve D. Wolframp), Springer, 285–320
61. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., ... ve Börner, K. (2011). “Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature”, Journal of informetrics, 5(1), 14-26.
62. Waltman, L., ve van Eck, N. J. (2012). “The inconsistency of the h-index”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406–415.
63. Wasserman, S. ve Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Vol. 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. Youtie, J., Carley, S., Porter, A.L. ve Shapira, P. (2017). “Tracking researchers and their outputs: new insights from ORCIDs”, Scientometrics 113, 437–453.
65. Zinonyev, A. (2010). Data visualization in political and social sciences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1008.1188.