1,720,970 research outputs found
REVIEW: Posthumanism and Massive Open Online Course Contaminating the Subject of Global Education
No full textDetermination of Preschool Teacher Candidates' Views on the Learning Management System Used in the COVID-19 Pandemic Process
No full textA Systematic Review of Mobile Health in Education From 2000 to 2016
No full textThis article aims to examine the mobile health (mHealth) in education articles in journals covered by the SSCI and SCI-EXPANDED indices between 2000-2016. Five hundred and ninety-four (594) articles have been analyzed with a systematic review method. The change of the articles by year, the distribution according to the countries, universities, authors, citation analysis, and research fields were examined. As a result of this research, it was determined that the articles and citations have tended to increase rapidly after 2012. The US plays a pioneering role in this field, the universities in the USA publish most of the articles on the subject, and the USA-based authors dominate the field. In addition, it has been determined that mHealth-related articles tend to increase in undeveloped and developing countries, where mHealth projects are concentrated. Finally, based on research findings, some suggestions were made for researchers, developers and practitioners.</jats:p
TÜRKİYE’DE ARTIRILMIŞ GERÇEKLİKLE İLGİLİ HAZIRLANAN TEZLERİN BİBLİYOMETRİK ANALİZ YÖNTEMİYLE İNCELENMESİ
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
