Mapping and performance evaluation of mathematics education research in Turkey: A bibliometric analysis from 2005 to 2021
Ercan Dede 1 * , Ercan Ozdemir 1
More Detail
1 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Faculty of Education, Turkey
* Corresponding Author


Different types of in-depth literature reviews were conducted to identify, evaluate or summarize the findings, common themes, trends, gaps, and used methods in mathematics education research. In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to evaluate mathematics education literature in a more reliable, powerful, and objective manner. This study aims to present a complete description of Turkey-addressed mathematics education research using bibliometric methods. In other words, the current study aims to identify the most influential and/or productive authors, institutions, and publications in the field of mathematics education in Turkey. This study also aims to visualize and uncover the dynamic of the conceptual and intellectual structure of the field.  For this purpose, citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis, co-citation analysis, and science mapping were performed using 416 highly-qualified and SSCI-indexed articles obtained from the WoS database. The results of citation analysis indicate the most influential authors are A. Baki, B. Guven, and D. Akyuz, respectively while the most productive ones are M. Isıksal-Bostan, A. Kursat Erbas, and O. Birgin. The most effective and leading institutions in the field are METU, Karadeniz Technical, and Hacettepe Universities. Additionally, co-occurrence analysis indicates mathematical achievement, mathematical modelling, and attitude are the most commonly used author keywords. Co-citation mapping visualizes the knowledge base of the mathematics education research and uncover which subjects the scholars in the field benefited from the research studies of seminal authors. Based on the findings, the current study makes suggestions for the research topics that could be influential and needed further research in the field. 



  • Al, U. (2008). Evaluation of Scientific Publications: h-index and Performance of Turkey. Information World, (2), 263-285.
  • Aydın, Y. (1990). Matematik eğitimi [Mathematics education]. Education and Science, 14(75), 78-82.
  • Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 363-376.
  • Bordons, M., Gonzalez-Albo, B., Aparicio, J., & Moreno, L. (2015). The influence of R&D intensity of countries on the impact of international collaborative research: Evidence from Spain. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1385-1400.
  • Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389-2404.
  • Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of İnformation Science and Technology, 37(1), 179-255.
  • Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011a). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382-1402.
  • Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011b). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146-166.
  • Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G. G., & Foo, S. (2001). Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management, 37(6), 817-842.
  • Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296.
  • Dörfler, W. (2003). Mathematics and mathematics education: Content and people, relation and difference. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(2), 147-170.
  • Drijvers, P., Grauwin, S. & Trouche, L. (2020). When bibliometrics met mathematics education research: the case of instrumental orchestration. ZDM- International Journal on Mathematics Education, 52, 1455–1469.
  • Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809-1831.
  • Ferreira, F. A. (2018). Mapping the field of arts-based management: Bibliographic coupling and co-citation analyses. Journal of Business Research, 85, 348-357.
  • Glänzel, W., & Czerwon, H. (1996). A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level. Scientometrics, 37(2), 195-221.
  • Gundolf, K., & Filser, M. (2013). Management research and religion: A citation analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 177-185.
  • Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Martínez, M. Á., Moral-Munoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Cobo, M. J. (2018). Some bibliometric procedures for analyzing and evaluating research fields. Applied Intelligence, 48(5), 1275-1287.
  • Gökçe, S., & Güner, P. (2021). Forty years of mathematics education: 1980-2019. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 9(3), 514-539.
  • Gülmez, D., Özteke, İ., & Gümüş, S. (2020). Overview of Educational Research from Turkey Published in International Journals: A Bibliometric Analysis. Education and Science, 46(206), 213-239.
  • Gürlen, E., Özdiyar, Ö., & Şen, Z. (2018). Social Network Analysis of Academic Studies on Gifted People. Education and Science, 44(197), 185-208.
  • Hallinger, P., & Kovačević, J. (2021). Science mapping the knowledge base in educational leadership and management: A longitudinal bibliometric analysis, 1960 to 2018. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(1), 5-30.
  • He, Y., & Hui, S. C. (2002). Mining a web citation database for author co-citation analysis. Information Processing & Management, 38(4), 491-508.
  • Hou, J., Yang, X., & Chen, C. (2018). Emerging trends and new developments in information science: A document co-citation analysis (2009–2016). Scientometrics, 115(2), 869-892.
  • Huang, C., Yang, C., Wang, S., Wu, W., Su, J., & Liang, C. (2020). Evolution of topics in education research: A systematic review using bibliometric analysis. Educational Review, 72(3), 281-297.
  • Jankvist, U. T., Aguilar, M. S., Misfeldt, M., Koichu, B., Artigue, M., Star, J. R., ... & van der Veer, E. (2021). Launching Implementation and Replication Studies in Mathematics Education (IRME) 1–19. Mathematics Education, 1, 285-286.
  • Jarneving, B. (2005). A comparison of two bibliometric methods for mapping of the research front. Scientometrics, 65(2), 245-263.
  • Jeong, Y. K., Song, M., & Ding, Y. (2014). Content-based author co-citation analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 197-211.
  • Karadağ, E., Yalçın, M., Çiftçi, K., Danişman, Ş., Sölpük, N., Tosuntaş, Ş., & Ay, Y. (2017). The citation analyses of scientific publications in the field of educational sciences and teacher education in turkey. Information World, 18(1), 9-28.
  • Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American documentation, 14(1), 10-25.
  • Lee, I. S., Lee, H., Chen, Y. H., & Chae, Y. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of research assessing the use of acupuncture for pain treatment over the past 20 years. Journal of Pain Research, 13, 367-376.
  • Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907-933.
  • Lu, K., & Wolfram, D. (2012). Measuring author research relatedness: A comparison of Word-based, topic‐based, and author cocitation approaches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(10), 1973-1986.
  • Noyons, E., Moed, H., & Van Raan, A. (1999). Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics, 46(3), 591-604.
  • Özkaya, A. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of the studies in the field of mathematics education. Educational Research and Reviews, 13(22), 723-734.
  • Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2016). Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1178-1195.
  • Rousseau, R., Egghe, L., & Guns, R. (2018). Becoming metric-wise: A bibliometric guide for researchers. Chandos Publishing.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2000). Purposes and methods of research in mathematics education. Notices of the AMS, 47(6), 641-649.
  • Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269.
  • Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American society for Information Science, 50(9), 799-813.<799::AID-ASI9>3.0.CO;2-G
  • Ulutaş, F., & Ubuz, B. (2008). Research and trends in mathematics education: 2000 to 2006. Elementary Education Online, 7(3), 614-626.
  • Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538.
  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. ISSI Newsletter, 7(3), 50–54.
  • Van Eck N. J., & Waltman L. (2014). Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring Scholarly Impact (pp. 285-320). Springer.
  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2021). VOSviewer Manual (version 1.6.17). Univeristeit Leiden.
  • Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 97(5), 261-275.
  • Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365-391.
  • Wang, M., & Chai, L. (2018). Three new bibliometric indicators/approaches derived from keyword analysis. Scientometrics, 116(2), 721-750.
  • White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 32(3), 163-171.
  • Zan, B. U. (2012). A comparative bibliometric analysis study in scinentific disciplines at Turkey [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University, Ankara.
  • Zhang, J., Yu, Q., Zheng, F., Long, C., Lu, Z., & Duan, Z. (2016). Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 967-972.
  • Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational research methods, 18(3), 429-472.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.