Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Journal information about Arts and Humanities field could not be collected for this
study because of the non-existence of a
JCR
collection for
A&HCI
. We suggest that
the journal selection criteria of scholars in this field should be evaluated closely in
accordance with our results for other disciplines presented in Table 1, 2 and 3.
Although journal choices will depend the characteristics of the specific discipline, it is
important to reveal other reasons for all disciplines. In this way, it may be possible to
update the national incentive system in the context of journal selection criteria.
4
Results and Evaluation
This study aimed to reveal the information use of Turkish scholars based on Turkey-
addressed
Web of Science
publications for four main fields: pure sciences,
engineering, social sciences, arts and humanities. Findings show that the article is the
most preferred document type for these four fields, although, due to the structure of
Web of Science
, this finding should not be generalized. Co-authorship is most
common for engineering and science, especially among biologists. Mathematicians
have the lowest rate of co-authorship among scientists. Arts and humanities have the
highest rate of single authorship. Half-life is the highest for arts and humanities in
general. Information science is closer to engineering in terms of half-life. Turkish
scholars prefer Turkey-addressed journals for publishing their papers; impact factor is
not the determining factor for their choices. Findings of this study reinforce the
findings of similar studies in the literature and can be used for scientific and financial
decisions of universities and research institutions.
References
1.
Price, D.D.S.: Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, New York (1963)
2.
Wilson, T.D.: The Cognitive Approach to Information-Seeking Behavior and Information
Use. Social Science Information Studies 4, 197-204 (1984)
3.
Line, M.: The Information Uses and Needs of Social Scientists: An Overview of
INFROSS. Aslib Proceedings 23, 412-434 (1971)
4.
Al, U., Sezen, U., Soydal, İ.: Türkiye'nin Bilimsel Yayınlarının Sosyal Ağ Analizi
Yöntemiyle Değerlendirilmesi [The Evaluation of Scientific Publications of Turkey Using
Social Network Analysis Method]. TÜBİTAK Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Group - Project No: SOBAG 110K044, Ankara (2012)
5.
The Council of Higher Education: Tarihçe [History]. (n.d.),
http://www.yok.gov.
tr/web/guest/tarihce
6.
Testa, J.: Regional Content Expansion Update: Web of Science 5.0 (2008),
http://
wokinfo.com/media/pdf/RExEssay.pdf
7.
Uçak, N., Al, U.: The Differences Among Disciplines in Scholarly Communication: A
Bibliometric Analysis of Theses. Libri 59, 166-179 (2009)
8.
Tonta, Y.: Türk Kütüphaneciliği Dergisi, 1987-2001 [Journal of Turkish Librarianship,
1987-2001]. Türk Kütüphaneciliği 16, 282-320 (2002)
9.
Earle, P., Vickery, B.: Social Science Literature Use in the UK as Indicated by Citations.
Journal of Documentation 25, 123-141 (1969)
10.
Reuters, T.: Cited Half Life (2012),
http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.
com/JCR/help/h_ctghl.htm#jcrnlc