IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v97y2013i2d10.1007_s11192-012-0922-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research performance of Turkish astronomers in the period of 1980–2010

Author

Listed:
  • Selçuk Bilir

    (Istanbul University)

  • Ersin Göğüş

    (Sabancι University)

  • Özgecan Önal

    (Istanbul University)

  • Nazlı Derya Öztürkmen

    (Istanbul University)

  • Talar Yontan

    (Istanbul University)

Abstract

We investigated the development of astronomy and astrophysics research productivity in Turkey in terms of publication output and their impacts as reflected in the science citation index for the period 1980–2010. Our study involves 838 refereed publications, including 801 articles, 16 letters, 15 reviews, and six research notes. The number of papers were prominently increased after 2000 and the average number of papers per researcher is calculated as 0.89. Total number of received citations for 838 papers is 6938, while number of citations per papers is approximately 8.3 in 30 years. Publication performance of Turkish astronomers and astrophysicists was compared with those of seven countries that have similar gross domestic expenditures on research and development, and members of organization for economic co-operation and development. Our study reveals that the output of astronomy and astrophysics research in Turkey has gradually increased over the years.

Suggested Citation

  • Selçuk Bilir & Ersin Göğüş & Özgecan Önal & Nazlı Derya Öztürkmen & Talar Yontan, 2013. "Research performance of Turkish astronomers in the period of 1980–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 477-489, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:97:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0922-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0922-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0922-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-012-0922-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thed N van Leeuwen, 2007. "Modelling of bibliometric approaches and importance of output verification in research performance assessment," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 93-105, June.
    2. Martin, Ben R. & Irvine, John, 1993. "Assessing basic research : Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 106-106, April.
    3. Helmut A. Abt, 2007. "The publication rate of scientific papers depends only on the number of scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 73(3), pages 281-288, December.
    4. Soo-Ryun Cho, 2008. "New evaluation indexes for articles and authors’ academic achievements based on Open Access Resources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(1), pages 91-112, October.
    5. Wang-Huu Hsieh & Wen-Ta Chiu & Yee-Shuan Lee & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2004. "Bibliometric analysis of Patent Ductus Arteriosus treatments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(2), pages 105-215, June.
    6. Werner Marx & Hermann Schier & Michael Wanitschek, 2001. "Citation analysis using online databases: Feasibilities and shortcomings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(1), pages 59-82, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christoph Neuhaus & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2009. "A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(2), pages 219-229, February.
    2. Mallig, Nicolai, 2010. "A relational database for bibliometric analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 564-580.
    3. Thed N. Leeuwen & Erik Wijk & Paul F. Wouters, 2016. "Bibliometric analysis of output and impact based on CRIS data: a case study on the registered output of a Dutch university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Hui-Zhen Fu & Kun-Yang Chuang & Ming-Huang Wang & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2011. "Characteristics of research in China assessed with Essential Science Indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 841-862, September.
    5. Maribel Vega-Arce & Gonzalo Salas & Gastón Núñez-Ulloa & Cristián Pinto-Cortez & Ivelisse Torres Fernandez & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2019. "Research performance and trends in child sexual abuse research: a Science Citation Index Expanded-based analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1505-1525, December.
    6. Henk F. Moed, 2000. "Bibliometric Indicators Reflect Publication and Management Strategies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 323-346, February.
    7. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2021. "The scholarly impact of private sector research: A multivariate analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    8. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    9. T. J. Phelan, 1999. "A compendium of issues for citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(1), pages 117-136, May.
    10. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2020. "The relative impact of private research on scientific advancement," Papers 2012.04908, arXiv.org.
    11. Wolfgang Polt & Manfred Paier & Andreas Schibany & Helmut Gassler & Gernot Hutschenreiter & Norbert Knoll & Hannes Leo & Michael Peneder, 1999. "Österreichischer Technologiebericht 1999," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 8332, April.
    12. Hui-Zhen Fu & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2013. "Comparison of independent research of China’s top universities using bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 259-276, July.
    13. Aksnes, Dag W. & Rip, Arie, 2009. "Researchers' perceptions of citations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 895-905, July.
    14. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2013. "The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 286-291.
    15. van Raan, A. F. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N., 2002. "Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 611-632, May.
    16. Thed Leeuwen & Rodrigo Costas & Clara Calero-Medina & Martijn Visser, 2013. "The role of editorial material in bibliometric research performance assessments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 817-828, May.
    17. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 487-509, January.
    18. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    19. Sabrina Petersohn & Thomas Heinze, 2018. "Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment. Insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 565-578.
    20. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:97:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0922-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.