Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 105, Issue 1, pp 23–49 | Cite as

A bibliometric analysis of the Turkish software engineering research community

  • Vahid Garousi
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of the Turkish software engineering (SE) community (researchers and institutions). The bibliometric analysis has been conducted based on the number of papers published in the software-engineering-related venues and indexed in the Scopus academic search engine until year 2014. According to the bibliometric analysis, the top-ranked institution is Middle East Technical University, and the top-ranked scholar is Ayşe Başar Bener (formerly with Boğaziçi University and now with Ryerson University in Canada). The analysis reveals other important findings and presents a set of implications for the Turkish SE community and stakeholders (e.g., funding agencies and decision makers) such as the followings: (1) Turkey produces only about 0.49 % of the world-wide SE knowledge, as measured by the number of papers in Scopus, which is very negligible unfortunately. To take a more active role in the global SE community, the Turkish SE community has to increase their outputs. (2) We notice a lack of diversity in the general SE spectrum, e.g., we noticed very little focus on requirements engineering, software maintenance and evolution, and architecture. This denotes the need to further diversification in SE research topics in Turkey. (3) In total, 89 papers in the pool (30.8 % of the total) are internationally-authored SE papers. Having a good level of international collaborations is a good sign for the Turkish SE community. The highest international collaborations have been with researchers from United States, Canada and Netherlands. (4) In general, the involvement of industry in SE search is low. All stakeholders (e.g., government, industry and academia) should aim at increasing the level of industry-academia collaboration in the Turkish SE community, (5) Citation to Turkish SE papers, in general, are significantly lower than a set of three representative pools of SE papers. This is an area of concern which needs further investigation, and (6) In general, there is a need to increase both the quantity and quality of the Turkish SE papers, in the global stage. The approach we use in this study could be replicated in other countries to provide insights and trends about the SE research performance in other countries.

Keywords

Bibliometric analysis Software engineering Turkey Researchers Scholars Research community Turkish universities and institutions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Vahid Garousi was partially supported by several internal grants provided by Hacettepe University and the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK).

References

  1. Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the web of science and scopus. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 60, 1320–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee, I., Nguyen, B., Garousi, V., & Memon, A. (2013). Graphical User Interface (GUI) testing: Systematic mapping and repository. Information and Software Technology, 55, 1679–1694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bas, K., Dayangac, M., Yaprak, O., Yuzer, Y., & Tokat, Y. (2011). International collaboration of Turkey in liver transplantation research: A bibliometric analysis. Transplantation Proceedings, 43, 3796–3801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basili, V. R. (1992). Software modeling and measurement: The Goal/Question/Metric paradigm. In Technical Report, University of Maryland at College Park.Google Scholar
  5. Burnham, J. (2006). Scopus database: A review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caia, K.-Y., & Card, D. (2008). An analysis of research topics in software engineering—2006. Journal of Systems and Software, 81, 1051–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ergul, S., Ardahan, M., Temel, A. B., & Yıldırım, B. Ö. (2010). Bibliometric review of references of nursing research papers during the decade 1994–2003 in Turkey. International Nursing Review, 57, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evren, S., & Kozak, N. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of tourism and hospitality related articles published in Turkey. Anatolia, 25, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22, 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farhoodi, R., Garousi, V., Pfahl, D., & Sillito, J. P. (2013). Development of scientific software: A systematic mapping, bibliometrics study and a paper repository. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 23, 463–506. (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galler, B. A. (1969). ACM president’s letter: NATO and software engineering? Communications of the ACM, 12, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garfield, E. (2005). The Agony and the ecstasy—The history and the meaning of the journal impact factor. In International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.Google Scholar
  13. Garousi, V., Mesbah, A., Betin-Can, A., & Mirshokraie, S. (2013a). A systematic mapping study of web application testing. Elsevier Journal of Information and Software Technology, 55, 1374–1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garousi, V., Shahnewaz, S., & Krishnamurthy, D. (2013b). UML-driven software performance engineering: A systematic mapping and trend analysis. In V. G. Díaz, J. M. C. Lovelle, B. C. P. García-Bustelo, & O. S. Martínez (Eds.), Progressions and innovations in model-driven software engineering. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  15. Garousi, V., & Varma, T. (2012). A bibliometrics analysis of Canadian Electrical and Computer Engineering Institutions (1996–2006) based on IEEE Journal Publications. Canadian Journal on Computer and Information Science, 5, 1–24.Google Scholar
  16. Garousi, V. (2014). Data for the study: A bibliometric analysis of the Turkish Software Engineering Community. http://goo.gl/KB0tDt. Accessed July 2015.
  17. Garousi, V., & Ruhe, G. (2013). A bibliometric/geographic assessment of 40 years of software engineering research (1969–2009). International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 23, 1343–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garousi, V., & Varma, T. (2010). Bibliometric assessment of canadian software engineering scholars and institutions (1996–2006). Canadian Journal on Computer and Information Science, 3, 19–29.Google Scholar
  19. Geist, R. M., Chetuparambil, M., Hedetniemi, S., & Turner, A. J. (1996). Computing research programs in the US. Communications of the ACM, 39, 96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glass, R. L., & Chen, T. Y. (2001). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (1996–2000). Journal of Systems and Software, 59, 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glass, R. L., & Chen, T. Y. (2002). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (1997–2001). Journal of Systems and Software, 64, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glass, R. L., & Chen, T. Y. (2003). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (1998–2002). Journal of Systems and Software, 68, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glass, R. L., & Chen, T. Y. (2005). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (1999–2003). Journal of Systems and Software, 76, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glass, R. L., Vessey, I., & Ramesh, V. (2002). Research in software engineering: An analysis of the literature. Information and Software Technology, 44, 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harman, M., Mansouri, S., & Zhang, Y. (2009). Search-based software engineering: A comprehensive analysis and review of trends techniques and applications. In King’s College London, Technical Report TR-09-03. http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/technical-reports/papers/TR-09-03.pdf
  26. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jia, Y., & Harman, M. (2010). An analysis and survey of the development of mutation testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37, 649–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kathy, B. (1997). Collaborations: Closing the industry-academia gap. IEEE Software, 14, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCain, K. W., Verner, J. M., Hislop, G. W., Evanco, W., & Cole, V. (2005). The use of bibliometric and knowledge elicitation techniques to map a knowledge domain: Software engineering in the 1990s. Springer Scientometrics, 65, 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyer, B., Choppy, C., Staunstrup, J., & Leeuwen, J. V. (2009). Viewpoint: Research evaluation for computer science. Communications of the ACM, 52, 31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. UYMS Symposium Organizers. (2014). Turkish National Software Engineering Symposium, acronym in Turkish: UYMS. http://www.uyms.org.tr. Accessed July 2015.
  32. Parnas, D. L. (2007). Stop the numbers game. Communications of the ACM, 50, 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rashidi, A., Rahimi, B., & Delirrad, M. (2013). Bibliometric Analysis of parasitological research in Iran and Turkey: A comparative study. Iranian Journal of Parasitology, 8, 313–322.Google Scholar
  34. Ren, J., & Taylor, R. N. (2007). Automatic and versatile publications ranking for research institutions and scholars. Communications of the ACM, 50, 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ren, J., & Taylor, R. N. (2009). A Java tool for ranking institutions and authors by publications. www.isr.uci.edu/projects/ranking. Accessed July 2015.
  36. Runeson, P., & Minör, S. (2014) The 4 + 1 view model of industri–academia collaboration. In International Workshop on Long-term Industrial Collaboration on Software Engineering.Google Scholar
  37. Scopus search engine. (2014). http://www.scopus.com. Accessed July 2015.
  38. Tse, T. H., Chen, T. Y., & Glass, R. L. (2006). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (2000–2004). Journal of Systems and Software, 79, 816–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turhan, B., Menzies, T., Bener, A. B., & Stefano, J. D. (2009). On the relative value of cross-company and within-company data for defect prediction. Empirical Software Engineering, 14, 540–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turkish academic network and information center (ULAKBİM) part of the scientific and technological research council of Turkey (TÜBITAK). (2014). Top-80 active institutions in Turkey, in all scientific disciplines, in five year periods (Turkish: Türkiye’ ye ait en çok yayın yapan 80 kuruma ait, tüm bilim alanlarında 5 yıllık dönemler halinde). https://www.ulakbim.gov.tr/cabim/yayin/tbyg_1981-2006/4_5.php?u=NULL&y=0&command=G%F6ster. Accessed July 2015.
  41. URAP team. (2014). University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP) project and laboratory. http://www.urapcenter.org. Accessed July 2015.
  42. Witten, I. H., Frank, E., & Hall, M. A. (2011). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Wohlin, C. (2007). An analysis of the most cited articles in software engineering journals—2000. Information and Software Technology, 49, 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wohlin, C. (2008). An analysis of the most cited articles in software engineering journals—2001. Information and Software Technology, 50, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wohlin, C. (2013) Empirical software engineering research with industry: Top 10 challenges. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Conducting Empirical Studies in Industry.Google Scholar
  46. Wong, W. E., Tse, T. H., Glass, R. L., Basili, V. R., & Chen, T. Y. (2008). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (2001–2005). Journal of Systems and Software, 81, 1059–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wong, W. E., Tse, T. H., Glass, R. L., Basili, V. R., & Chen, T. Y. (2009). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (2002–2006). Journal of Systems and Software, 82, 1370–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wong, W. E., Tse, T. H., Glass, R. L., Basili, V. R., & Chen, T. Y. (2011). An assessment of systems and software engineering scholars and institutions (2003–2007 and 2004–2008). Journal of Systems and Software, 84, 162–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xie, T. (2011). Software Engineering Conferences. http://people.engr.ncsu.edu/txie/seconferences.htm. Accessed July 2015.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Software Engineering Research Group, Department of Computer EngineeringHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations