IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v12y2022i4p21582440221141628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Educational Research Review From Diverse Perspectives: A Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science (2011–2020)

Author

Listed:
  • Aslıhan Sezgin
  • Keziban Orbay
  • Metin Orbay

Abstract

This study aims to reveal the bibliometric characteristics of publications on educational research from diverse perspectives, including the level of national-international collaborations, the percentage change in open-access papers, and interactions with other disciplines. Through bibliometric analysis, the data were collected from Web of Science (WoS), “Education and Educational Research (E&ER),†“Psychology, Educational (PE),†“Education, Special (ES)†and “Education Scientific Disciplines (ESD)†categories, during 2011 to 2020. The findings suggest that the number of publications in each category and the percentage of open-access publications have increased regularly. However, it was observed that categories, especially the ES category, were partially falling behind, as compared to the growth in WoS; while the ES and the PE categories were the highest regarding national-international collaborations over time. Both collaboration levels were the highest in the E&ER category. It was concluded that the multi-authorship trend has rapidly increased, the number of references has regularly increased, and specifically, the PE category has been distinguished from others in terms of the references used. Meanwhile, the change over time in the aggregate impact factor, calculated for each category as a measure of the widespread impact of the studies, pointed to inflation. The results show that educational research is becoming more organized and international, while less fragmented. Moreover, the findings support that educational research is interdisciplinary in essence and diverse in content.

Suggested Citation

  • Aslıhan Sezgin & Keziban Orbay & Metin Orbay, 2022. "Educational Research Review From Diverse Perspectives: A Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science (2011–2020)," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:4:p:21582440221141628
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440221141628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221141628
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440221141628?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donthu, Naveen & Kumar, Satish & Mukherjee, Debmalya & Pandey, Nitesh & Lim, Weng Marc, 2021. "How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 285-296.
    2. Rowlinson, Michael & Harvey, Charles & Kelly, Aidan & Morris, Huw & Todeva, Emanuela, 2015. "Accounting for research quality: Research audits and the journal rankings debate," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 2-22.
    3. Hendrik P. Dalen, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1675-1694, February.
    4. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    5. Vincent Larivière & Éric Archambault & Yves Gingras & Étienne Vignola‐Gagné, 2006. "The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(8), pages 997-1004, June.
    6. Benjamin M. Althouse & Jevin D. West & Carl T. Bergstrom & Theodore Bergstrom, 2009. "Differences in impact factor across fields and over time," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(1), pages 27-34, January.
    7. M.J. Cobo & A.G. López-Herrera & E. Herrera-Viedma & F. Herrera, 2011. "Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1382-1402, July.
    8. Kai Li & Jason Rollins & Erjia Yan, 2018. "Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: a selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 1-20, April.
    9. Anton J. Nederhof, 2006. "Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 81-100, January.
    10. Dorte Henriksen, 2016. "The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 455-476, May.
    11. Emanuela Riviera, 2013. "Scientific communities as autopoietic systems: The reproductive function of citations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1442-1453, July.
    12. Civera, Alice & Lehmann, Erik E. & Paleari, Stefano & Stockinger, Sarah A.E., 2020. "Higher education policy: Why hope for quality when rewarding quantity?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    13. Emanuela Riviera, 2013. "Scientific communities as autopoietic systems: The reproductive function of citations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1442-1453, July.
    14. M.J. Cobo & A.G. López‐Herrera & E. Herrera‐Viedma & F. Herrera, 2011. "Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1382-1402, July.
    15. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists," Other publications TiSEM a6a5a855-bb5a-4d52-a841-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2002. "Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 249-273, June.
    17. Richard Van Noorden, 2015. "Interdisciplinary research by the numbers," Nature, Nature, vol. 525(7569), pages 306-307, September.
    18. Thed van Leeuwen, 2006. "The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 133-154, January.
    19. Holly Else, 2018. "Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions," Nature, Nature, vol. 561(7721), pages 17-18, September.
    20. Pajić, Dejan, 2015. "On the stability of citation-based journal rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 990-1006.
    21. Diana Hicks, 1999. "The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(2), pages 193-215, February.
    22. Andrea Diem & Stefan C. Wolter, 2011. "The Use of Bibliometrics to Measure Research Performance in Education Sciences," Economics of Education Working Paper Series 0066, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW), revised May 2013.
    23. Juan-Carlos Valderrama-Zurián & Remedios Aguilar-Moya & Juan Gorraiz, 2019. "On the bibliometric nature of a foreseeable relationship: open access and education," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1031-1057, September.
    24. Abramo, Giovanni, 2018. "Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 590-597.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Khuram, Shahzad & Rehman, Ch. Abdul & Nasir, Nadia & Elahi, Natasha Saman, 2023. "A bibliometric analysis of quality assurance in higher education institutions: Implications for assessing university's societal impact," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).

    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. Valentina Della Corte & Giovanna Del Gaudio & Fabiana Sepe & Simone Luongo, 2021. "Destination Resilience and Innovation for Advanced Sustainable Tourism Management: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Zamani, Mehdi & Yalcin, Haydar & Naeini, Ali Bonyadi & Zeba, Gordana & Daim, Tugrul U, 2022. "Developing metrics for emerging technologies: identification and assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. Yang, Siluo & Zheng, Mengxue & Yu, Yonghao & Wolfram, Dietmar, 2021. "Are Altmetric.com scores effective for research impact evaluation in the social sciences and humanities?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    4. Andrea Mervar & Maja Jokić, 2022. "Core-periphery nexus in the EU social sciences: bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5793-5817, October.
    5. Giovanni Colavizza, 2018. "A diachronic study of historiography," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 2117-2131, December.
    6. Pajić, Dejan, 2015. "On the stability of citation-based journal rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 990-1006.
    7. Lanzalonga Federico & Chmet Federico & Petrolo Basilio & Brescia Valerio, 2023. "Exploring Diversity Management to Avoid Social Washing and Pinkwashing: Using Bibliometric Analysis to Shape Future Research Directions," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 15(1), pages 41-65, March.
    8. Sándor Soós & Zsófia Vida & András Schubert, 2018. "Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 795-822, March.
    9. Margarida Rodrigues & Cidália Oliveira & MárioFranco & Ana Daniel, 2024. "A Bibliometric Study About the Rural Creative Class: Proposal of a Conceptual Framework and Future Agenda," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 15278-15303, September.
    10. Chen, Xiaoyan & Liu, Yisheng, 2020. "Visualization analysis of high-speed railway research based on CiteSpace," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-17.
    11. Jiang, Yiqi & Jiang, Zhou & Chen, Zhijun, 2024. "Women entrepreneurship in China: A bibliometric literature review and future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Anita Mendiratta & Shveta Singh & Surendra Singh Yadav & Arvind Mahajan, 2023. "Bibliometric and Topic Modeling Analysis of Corporate Social Irresponsibility," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 24(3), pages 319-339, September.
    13. Carlos Sánchez‐Camacho & Rocío Carranza & David Martín‐Consuegra & Estrella Díaz, 2022. "Evolution, trends and future research lines in corporate social responsibility and tourism: A bibliometric analysis and science mapping," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 462-476, June.
    14. Merigó, José M. & Gil-Lafuente, Anna M. & Kydland, Finn & Amiguet, Lluis & Vivoda, Vlado & Campbell, Gary & Lei, Yalin & Fleming-Muñoz, David, 2024. "50 years of Resources Policy: A bibliometric analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    15. Jeffrey Muldoon & Younggeun Lee & Eric W. Liguori & Saumyaranjan Sahoo & Satish Kumar, 2024. "Mapping the entrepreneurship ecosystem scholarship: current state and future directions," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 3035-3080, December.
    16. Pinho, Celso R.A. & Pinho, Maria Luiza C.A. & Deligonul, Seyda Z. & Tamer Cavusgil, S., 2022. "The agility construct in the literature: Conceptualization and bibliometric assessment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 517-532.
    17. Adela Laura Popa & Naiana Nicoleta Ţarcă & Dinu Vlad Sasu & Simona Aurelia Bodog & Remus Dorel Roşca & Teodora Mihaela Tarcza, 2022. "Exploring Marketing Insights for Healthcare: Trends and Perspectives Based on Literature Investigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-21, August.
    18. Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Including cited non-source items in a large-scale map of science: What difference does it make?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 569-580.
    19. Sakshi Goyal & Praveen Goyal, 2024. "The evolution of pro‐environmental behavior research in three decades using bibliometric analysis," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 4133-4153, September.
    20. Enrico Ciavolino & Massimo Aria & Jun-Hwa Cheah & José Luis Roldán, 2022. "A tale of PLS Structural Equation Modelling: Episode I— A Bibliometrix Citation Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1323-1348, 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:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:4:p:21582440221141628. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.