Islamic Religious School as An Alternative Education Institution in the Global Era: A Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study conducted a bibliometric and thematic analysis on research related to Islamic religious schools from 1995 to 2022. The research objectives were to: (1) assess the current growth and publication trends in Islamic religious school studies; (2) identify the most prolific contributors in this field; (3) determine the highly cited documents in Islamic religious school research; and (4) explore emerging research themes and areas in Islamic religious school studies. Data were collected from the Scopus database using keywords such as "Islamic religious school," "Islamic school," "pesantren," "madrasa," "pondok," and "Islamic schooling." A total of 690 documents were initially obtained, and after screening, 297 documents were included for analysis. The data were analyzed using tools like Biblioshiny and Microsoft Excel. The results showed that most publications were in 2022 (63 publications). The most significant publishers with the most research documents were Merry MS by the author (5 publications), University of Malaya by institution (26 publications), and Jurnal Pendidikan Islam by the source (24 publications). This study found the article entitled; ‘‘Unveiled Sentiments: Gendered Islamophobia and Experiences of Veiling among Muslim Girls in a Canadian Islamic School’’ written by Zine, as the most global cited document with 152 citations. Moreover, based on the results of thematic map and evolution, Islamic religious school research was divided into four main themes: Islamic Education and Pedagogy, Social and Cultural Perspectives, Comparative Studies and Global Perspectives, and Leadership and Governance. This study highlighted the need for further comparative studies across diverse contexts, inclusion of underrepresented regions and countries, examination of pedagogical approaches and educational outcomes, exploration of contemporary challenges, and policy implications and educational reform. By addressing these gaps, researchers can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of Islamic religious schools and their role in providing alternative education in the global era.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.119 | 0.165 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".