Fizik–Matematik Bağlantısının Haritalanması: R-Studio Kullanılarak Çapraz Veri Tabanlı Bir Bibliyometrik Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışma, fizik ve matematik arasındaki etkileşimi ifade eden “Fizik–Matematik Bağlantısı”na ilişkin olarak 2000–2025 yılları arasında yayımlanan bilimsel literatürü, ‘Web of Science’ ve ‘Scopus’ veri tabanlarından elde edilen veriler üzerinden bibliyometrik yöntemler kullanarak analiz etmektedir. Araştırmanın amacı, alanın yayın örüntülerini, kavramsal gelişimini, temel araştırma temalarını ve küresel iş birliği ağlarını haritalamaktır. Bulgular, bu alandaki yayın sayısının 2009 yılından itibaren belirgin bir artış gösterdiğini ve çalışmaların büyük ölçüde eğitim odaklı dergilerde yoğunlaştığını ortaya koymaktadır. Tematik analizler, başlangıçta genel kavramlara odaklanan araştırmaların zamanla STEM eğitimi, matematiksel temsiller ve öz-yeterlik gibi daha özgül, uygulamaya ve pedagojik boyuta yönelik temalara evrildiğini göstermektedir. Akademik üretkenlik açısından Amerika Birleşik Devletleri öncü konumundayken, uluslararası iş birliği oranlarının düşük olması, alanın küresel iş birliği potansiyelinin henüz yeterince değerlendirilmediğine işaret etmektedir. Bu çalışma, alanın mevcut durumuna ilişkin stratejik içgörüler sunmakta ve gelecekteki araştırmalar ile uygulamalara yönelik yönelimleri ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• Fizik-Matematik Bağlantısı
• R-Studio
• Scopus
• WoS

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, yalnızca Web of Science ve Scopus veri tabanlarından elde edilen ve kamuya açık olan ikincil verilere dayandığı; insan katılımcılar, kişisel veriler veya herhangi bir deneysel müdahale içermediği için araştırma ve yayın etiğine uygun olarak yürütülmüştür.

Mapping the Physics-Mathematics Nexus: A Cross-Database Bibliometric Analysis Using R-Studio

Öz

This study analyzes the scientific literature from 2000 to 2025 concerning the intersection of physics and mathematics, termed the "Physics-Mathematics Nexus," using bibliometric methods applied to data from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The aim was to map the field's publication patterns, conceptual evolution, key research themes, and global collaboration networks. Findings reveal a significant increase in publications in this area starting from 2009, with a concentration in education-focused journals. Thematic analyses indicate an initial evolution from general concepts to more specific, applied, and pedagogical themes, such as STEM education, mathematical representations, and self-efficacy. Although the United States leads in academic productivity, the low international collaboration rate suggests that the global collaboration potential has not yet been fully utilized. This analysis offers strategic insights into the current state of the field and directions for future research and practice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bibliometric Analysis
• Physics-Mathematics Nexus
• R-Studio
• Scopus
• WoS

Etik Beyan

This study was conducted in accordance with research and publication ethics, as it relied solely on openly accessible secondary data obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus databases and did not involve human participants, personal data, or any experimental intervention.

Kaynakça

1. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
2. Basson, I. (2002). Physics and mathematics as interrelated fields of thought development using acceleration as an example. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 33(5), 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390210146023
3. Branchetti, L., Cattabriga, A., & Levrini, O. (2019). Interplay between mathematics and physics to catch the nature of a scientific breakthrough: The case of the blackbody. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 020130. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020130
4. Caballero, M. D., Wilcox, B. R., Doughty, L., & Pollock, S. J. (2015). Unpacking students' use of mathematics in upper-division physics: Where do we go from here? European Journal of Physics, 36(6), 065004. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/36/6/065004
5. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
6. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: A systematic review. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
7. Hitchin, N. (2007). Interaction between mathematics and physics. Arbor, 183(725), 427–432. https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2007.i725.115
8. Jia, J., Sun, D., & Looi, C. K. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of augmented reality in science education: Trends, themes, and prospects. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 123–149.

9. Karam, R. (2014). Framing the structural role of mathematics in physics lectures: A case study on electromagnetism. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(1), 010119. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.010119
10. Meltzer, D. E. (2002). The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible hidden variable in diagnostic pretest scores. American Journal of Physics, 70(12), 1259–1268. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1514215
11. Michelsen, C. (2015). Mathematical modeling is also physics - Interdisciplinary teaching between mathematics and physics in Danish upper secondary education. Physics Education, 50(4), 489–494. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/50/4/489
12. Miron, C., & Staicu, I. (2010). The impact of interdisciplinarity on the physics-mathematics scientific education in high schools. Romanian Reports in Physics, 62(4), 906–917.
13. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, E. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
14. Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Arroyo-Machado, W., Herrera, F., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). A review of the bibliometric analysis software: From science mapping to scientific performance. Journal of Informetrics, 14(1), 101099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.101099
15. Penrose, R. (2004). The road to reality: A complete guide to the laws of the universe. Vintage Books.
16. Reiss, M. J., Hoyles, C., Mujtaba, T., Simon, S., & Stylianidou, F. (2011). Understanding participation rates in post-16 mathematics and physics: Conceptualising and operationalising the UPMAP project. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 273–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9226-4
17. Uhden, O., Karam, R., Pietrocola, M., ve Pospiech, G. (2012). Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education. Science & Education, 21(4), 485–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9396-6
18. Veloo, A., Nor, R., & Khalid, R. (2015). Attitude towards physics and additional mathematics achievement towards physics. International Education Studies, 8(3), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n3p35 Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
19. Yik, B. J., Raker, J. R., Apkarian, N., Stains, M., Henderson, C., Dancy, M. H., & Johnson, E. (2022). Evaluating the impact of malleable factors on percent time lecturing in gateway chemistry, mathematics, and physics courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00333-3
20. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629