The evaluation of the research on the social sciences in Turkey: A scientometric approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study explores the characteristics of the research on the Social Sciences carried out by the researchers in Turkey and published during the last three decades based on the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) together with the underlying incentive structures and its implications using the scientometric techniques. The results of this study reveal that the research output on the Social Sciences and the citations received have grown exponentially during this period especially during the 2000s with paralleling enormous changes in the research landscape. However, the research performance of the researches in Turkey in the fields of Social Sciences (11,835 papers and 54,447 citations) has lagged significantly behind the comparative performance of Turkey in the Sciences indexed by the Science Citation Index-Expended (SCI-E). The US, England, and Canada have been the three most prolific collaborating countries. The "Middle East Tech Univ" has been the most prolific institution and "Tan U" of "Cukurova Univ" has been the most prolific author. "Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri" (Theoretical and Applied Educational Sciences) has been the most prolific journal, whilst "Education & Educational Research" has been the most prolific subject area. "H-index" was 65 and "Rosser et al." [1] had the highest impact on the literature. The scientometric analysis has a great potential to given valuable insights into the evolution of the research on the Social Sciences in Turkey, complementing the scientometric studies in the other fields such as renewable energies as well as higher education providing a unique insight on the incentive structures for all the key stakeholders in the field. It was concluded in this context that the incentive structures have not been well designed to produce superior research performance in Social sciences in Turkey as in Sciences indexed by the SCi-E such as Engineering and Health Sciences especially in the design of the rules for the academic appointments and promotions in universities as the number of papers and number of citations received per member of staff in 2010 for 11,518 researchers were 0.17 and 0.07, respectively.
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 | 0.025 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.099 | 0.105 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".