Palaz, T. (2022). Science mapping of international researches on Turkey-based social studies education: a bibliometric analysis. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 9(1). 46-68. Received : 02.09.2021 Revised version received : 06.11.2021 Accepted : 14.11.2021 SCIENCE MAPPING RESEARCH ON SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATION: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS (Research article) Tevfik Palaz 0000-0002-1631-531X tevfikpalaz@gazi.edu.tr Gazi University, Turkey Biodata: Tevfik Palaz is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Studies Education, Gazi Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. His research interests are teacher training and social studies education. Copyright © 2014 by International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET). ISSN: 2148-225X. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without written permission of IOJET. mailto:tevfikpalaz@gazi.edu.tr http://orcid.org/xxxx International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 46-68. 47 SCIENCE MAPPING RESEARCH ON SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATION: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS Tevfik Palaz tevfikpalaz@gazi.edu.tr Abstract In this study, international research papers by Turkish scholars on social studies education were investigated. The sample was selected among published journals of education indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database, such as Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded). The obtained data were analyzed via the bibliometric analysis method using version 1.6.17 of VOSviewer software. The results revealed that the first publication in the relevant indexes was released in 2005, and after 2007 the number of publications showed an increasing trend. In addition, it was found that “Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice” and “Education and Science” were among the international journals that most frequently published papers on social studies education, while Kaya Yılmaz, Arife Figen Ersoy, and Handan Deveci were the most cited authors. Results also revealed that Anadolu University, Marmara University, and Gazi University were identified as the institutions that published most papers while they were also cited most. Finally, the most frequently used common keywords were determined as "social studies", "social studies education", "pre-service social studies teachers"; "academic achievement", "citizenship education" and "values education". Keywords: Social studies, international researches, bibliometric, VOSviewer 1. Introduction Social studies, as a course, first appeared in the United States of America in 1916 (Aslan, 2016). In the Turkish education system, this course found its place in the curriculum of Teacher Schools and Village Institutes for the first time in 1953 (Çiydem & Kaymakcı, 2021). Later, the social studies course started to be taught as a course in primary schools via 1968 program in secondary schools in 1973. In earlier period, other courses (history, geography, civics, society and country studies, etc.) fulfilled the aims and duties of the social studies course in Turkey (Öztürk & Dilek, 2005; Öztürk & Otluoğlu, 2005; Sönmez, 2005; Güngördü, 2002; Baysal, 2005). The social studies course teaches how to prepare the individual for life in order to find the most appropriate answers and solutions to various problems that the individual may encounter in his life, and also how he should learn from these life events (Sözer, 2009). It is quite important to examine research papers in a certain field at regular intervals as it enables researchers to grasp the general view of the field. Thanks to such research, the diversity and characteristics of the research in this field, the subjects studied, the methods and techniques used and their changes and transformations over time could be tracked. In addition, a holistic evaluation of the relevant study area is made more possible through such review pieces (Cücük, 2017). The field of social studies education has witnessed several attempts to review the accumulated knowledge base. For instance, Oruç and Ulusoy (2008) examined the master's theses on teaching social studies in Turkey conducted between the years 2000 and 2007. They found that the research methods of reviewed studies were not fully and accurately determined, mailto:tevfikpalaz@gazi.edu.tr Palaz 48 the research topics were not explained at the desired level, subjective narrative language was used, and there were deficiencies in the literature review. Geçit and Kartal (2010) analyzed 23 peer-reviewed journals on social studies education, papers prepared after 11 national and international congresses, master and doctoral theses between 2000-2010. Their findings showed that many studies are similar in terms of content, method, and purpose and that they are not complementary to each other. Tarman, Acun, and Yüksel (2010) examined the theses in the field of social studies education. They grouped the dissertations according to the subject, year of publication, universities, and research techniques used. They concluded that the topics remained within a certain pattern and that it was necessary to focus on different research topics and ways of thinking in social studies. Şahin, Göğabakan-Yıldız, and Duman (2011) analyzed the theses between 1990 and 2010 according to years, institutions and subjects studied. Their research proved that the number of dissertations increased after 2006 and the highest number was achieved in 2007 during the aforementioned years. Besides, Gazi University was stated as the institution where the most dissertations were conducted. Yaşar, Çengelci-Köse, and Göz (2015) analyzed master and doctoral theses with meta-analysis method within the scope of examining the effect of student-centered teaching-learning processes on academic success in social studies course after 2005. They concluded that the student-centered approach, methods, techniques, and materials used in the teaching process in the social studies course increase student success. Özkaral and Mentiş-Taş (2017) analyzed the master’s thesis studies in the field of social studies and comparative education conducted in Turkey between 2002-2017 using the meta-synthesis method. They found that most studies were conducted in educational sciences institutes in 2007 and most thesis works were done in Marmara University. Dilek, Baysan, and Öztürk (2018) analyzed the master's theses on social studies education in Turkey between 2010-2017 using the content analysis method. They investigated the theses in terms of publication year, research type, research method, subject areas, sample, sample size, data collection tools, distribution by universities, and data analysis method. They found that the most used research method was qualitative while the most commonly used research design was the survey model. They also revealed that most research employed the secondary school and branch teachers as the sample group, while the questionnaire was the most used data collection tool. Oğuz-Haçat and Demir (2018) evaluated the doctoral dissertations made in the field of social studies education between 2002-2018 in terms of the date of publication, university, researcher gender, researched area, keywords, sample, research method, data collection tools. Duman and İnel (2019) examined the general tendencies of the master's theses made in the field of social studies education in 2008-2014 in terms of subject and methodology. As a result of this review; It was determined that the most studied subject was teaching practices and that the questionnaire was mostly used as a data collection tool. Çakmak and Taşkıran (2020) examined the theses and articles related to social studies education in the 6th and 7th grades of secondary school in Turkey between 2008-2018 by the meta-synthesis method. As a result of the research; They found that social studies course and workbook, teacher's guide book, social studies curriculum, teacher and student perceptions on social studies education were given weight. Altay (2020) analyzed the articles published in the field of social studies education in Turkey between 2010-2019 in eight themes. As a result of the study, qualitative research methods, case studies, and survey models were used in a significant part of the articles. In addition, secondary school students were chosen as the most study group. The most studied topics in these articles are teaching methods and techniques. Apart from these studies mentioned above, under the framework of social studies education in Turkey, there exist a line of reviews on history (Çırak, 2020; Zaimoğlu-Öztürk & Sığnatekin), geography (Öner & Öner 2017), and other issues (Aksoy, Sönmez & Merey, 2009; Canbulat, Avcı, & Sipahi, 2016; Güleç & Hüdavendigar, 2020; Gürdoğan-Bayır, Kılıç̧ & Balbağ, 2018; İbret & Yılmaz, 2019; Karakuş, 2020; Kayaalp & Karameşe, 2020; Sel, 2021; International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 46-68. 49 Sezer, Yusuf & Gökalp, 2020; Sönmez, Merey & Kaymakcı, 2009; Uzunkavak, 2019; Yaylacı & Büyükalan, 2019; Yıldız & Kılıç, 2018). A closer look at the past reviews, however, suggests that most of them focused on examining local research on social studies education. These studies usually appear in the form of studies that examine articles published in national journals or master and doctoral theses in postgraduate education. So far, only one study has been found that employs both new bibliometric tools and examines research in the field of social studies education on a global scale. In this study, Sönmez (2020) conducts bibliometric tools to analyze international research papers on social studies education indexed in the WoS (Web of Science) database between 1975 and January 2020. This study concluded that most of the articles were published in the last five years, the most influential journal was “Theory and Research in Social Education”, and the most active countries in the production of research were the United States, Turkey, and Canada, respectively. Upon examining the past research and knowledge accumulated from this research, it is reasonable to suggest that the field needs further research that provides science mapping of the field of social studies education. Using new bibliometric tools, therefore, the current study centers attention on revealing the contributions of Turkish scholars to the field of international social studies education. For this purpose, Turkey- addressed articles on social studies education indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI- Expanded) indexes in the WoS database were examined. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following research questions: 1. How has the local research on social studies education evolved over time with regard to publication volume and journal outlets? 2. What have been the patterns of authorship and author citation? 3. What have been the most productive and cited institutions? 4. What have been the most cited articles? 5. What have been the patterns of co-authorship between institutions? 6. What has been the pattern of author co-citation? 7. What have been the most frequently used keywords? 2. Method In the study, articles on Turkey-addressed social studies education published in educational journals indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database, such as the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) indexes were analyzed via bibliometric analysis method. The bibliometric analysis method is used to analyze the trends in research, the scientific dimension, impact, and growth rate of researchers, publications, and journals, and to reveal the intellectual knowledge in the field of study (van Eck & Waltman, 2014). Zupic & Čater (2015) state that bibliometric analysis has an important function in combining and reviewing research and findings in a particular field in the past. With bibliometric analysis, the quantitative development of the knowledge formed in a certain field can be examined with a holistic approach (Ball & Tunger, 2006). 2.1. Data collection process The initial stage of the study was to determine the criteria for searching the WoS database in accordance with the aim of the study. At this stage, three criteria were determined as the article category as the research type, Turkey as the country category, and the Palaz 50 education/educational research category as the research area. In the scanning period, no time or language restrictions were applied. Articles released up to 25 August 2021, were included in the study. In the process of the data collection, first, the keywords "social studies or social studies education" were written in the WoS database and the "topic" (title, abstract, author keywords, keywords plus), research area was selected and a total of 4414 publications were accessed. After this process, the criteria determined for the publications to be included in the study were applied. Articles were chosen as the first criterion and the number of publications decreased to 3436. Then Turkey-addressed papers were chosen as the second criterion and the number of articles decreased to 285. Education/educational research was chosen as the last criterion, and a total of 213 articles from 49 journals to be included in the study were reached. After the scanning process was completed, the data obtained was saved as a “plain text file” and the data set was created. Figure 1. Data collection process 2.2. Analysis of the data The data obtained from the WoS database were analyzed using version 1.6.17 of the VOSviewer software. VOSviewer is a software developed by Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman to create bibliometric networks based on bibliometric data of academic publications, produce maps from these networks, visualize and explore these maps. A bibliometric network created through VOSviewer consists of nodes and the connecting lines between these nodes. While nodes represent researchers, publications, institutions, journals, or keywords, connecting lines illustrate the relationships between these pairs of nodes. Connecting lines reveal not only the relationship between two nodes but also the strength of the relationship (van Eck & International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 46-68. 51 Waltman, 2014). The bibliometric network maps that emerge thanks to these nodes and connecting lines created by VOSviewer allow the information to be examined in detail as they visualize the data. Items in these networks are citation, co-citation, co-authorship, bibliometric matching, or co-occurrence links (van Eck & Waltman, 2019). In bibliometric analysis, VOSviewer clarifies questions such as which keywords are related to the researcher's field of study and what the important concepts are, in which sources the studies in the related field are published the most, who the most influential researchers are, and what the position of the researcher's work is in the relevant field. VOSviewer was used in various fields such as history (Kozak, Bornmann & Leydesdorff, 2015), environmental science (Sarkodie & Strezov, 2019), medicine (Sweileh, 2017), engineering (Li & Hale, 2016), and pharmacy (Zhao, Zhang, Wang, Wang & Ouyang, 2017). In this study, first, the distribution of Turkey-addressed studies on social studies education indexed in the WoS database was examined in terms of publication volume and journal outlets. Then, within the scope of bibliometric analysis, bibliometric analysis techniques explained in detail below were applied. 2.2.1. Citation analysis Citation analysis is one of the most used bibliometric analysis methods. The relationships between the citing and cited sources are examined (Smith, 1981). Researchers often cite sources they deem important in their studies. In addition, it is assumed that a source or researcher who receives many citations makes significant contributions to the relevant literature. For this purpose, the most influential documents, authors, institutions, and countries in a given field can be determined by examining the citation numbers (Al & Coştur, 2007; Al & Tonta, 2004; Gilbert, 1977; Small, 1973; Zupic & Čater, 2015). Within the scope of the citation analysis, this study examines the journals indexed in the WoS database, which published most Turkey-addressed articles on social studies education, the authors who wrote the most articles and received the most citations, the institutions that publish most frequently and receive the most citations, and the most cited articles. 2.2.2. Co-author analysis Conducting scientific research together is accepted as a criterion of cooperation. The co- authorship analysis reveals the cooperation and social network between researchers, institutions, and countries in scientific research (Zupic & Čater, 2015). In the co-author analysis conducted in this study, the cooperation between institutions regarding the WoS-indexed and Turkey-addressed social studies education articles was examined. 2.2.3. Co-citation analysis Co-citation analysis is the analysis of two separate sources cited together. In other words, it refers to the link established between the documents cited by the same source. The important thing here is the documents cited from the same source (Ukşul, 2016). The focus in co-citation analysis is the co-cited author, source, or documents (Small, 1973; Zupic & Čater, 2015). There are different techniques for co-citation analysis such as author co-citation analysis, journal co- citation analysis, document co-citation analysis, and co-word analysis. (Chen, 1999; Chen, 2017; Hallinger & Kovačević, 2019; Zupic & Čater, 2015). In this study, the co-author analysis of the reviewed studies was provided. Palaz 52 2.2.4. Co-word analysis Co-word analysis is a bibliometric analysis technique that enables to create a conceptual structure and to establish links through the words in the documents. The frequency of co- occurrence of words in documents is based on the assumption that the relationship between them is strong. The full text, title, summary, or keywords in the document can be used in common word analysis (Zupic & Čater, 2015). In this study, the common word analysis of the keywords in the reviewed studies was presented. 3. Results The results of the study are stated under separate subtitles below. 3.1. Distribution of publications by years Graph 1 below shows the development of the publications that are the subject of the research, over the years. In the graph, it is seen that the first publication in the relevant indexes was published in 2005. After 2007, a significant increase in the number of papers is observed and this increase continues until 2012 with an accelerated pace. There is a dramatic decrease in the number of publications between 2012 and 2014. After 2014, there has been an increase in the number of publications over the years. Graph 1. Distribution of related publications by years 3. 2. Journals with the most articles The information about the first 15 journals with the most publications is given in Table 1 below. It is seen that the journal that publishes the most with 44 articles is "Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice". This journal is followed by the "Education and Science" journal with 32 articles. These journals are followed by "Eurasian Journal of Educational Research", "Hacettepe University Journal of Education", "Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction", in which more than 10 studies are published. These journals are followed by "Journal of Education and Future", in which 10 articles are published, and "Pamukkale University Journal of Education". International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 46-68. 53 Table 1. Journal Distribution and Citation Numbers of Studies Journals Number of articles Number of citations Citation(s) per article Educational Sciences Theory & Practice 43 138 3,28 Education and Science 32 78 2,43 Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 21 36 1,7 Hacettepe University Journal of Education 18 18 1 Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction 12 4 0,33 Journal of Education And Future 10 12 1,2 Pamukkale University Journal of Education 10 0 0 Australian Journal of Teacher Education 6 11 1,83 Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal 4 1 0,25 Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 4 19 4,75 Turkish Journal of Education 4 1 0,25 Energy Education Science and Technology Part B-Social and Educational Studies 3 24 8 Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 3 5 1,66 Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 3 4 1,33 European Journal of Teacher Education 2 25 12,5 3.3. Citation analysis (Journal, Author, Institution, and Article) Bibliometric analyzes started with citation analyses. First, the top 15 journals with the highest number of articles in Table 1 were analyzed. When the related journals are examined, "Educational Sciences Theory & Practice", which publishes the most articles, is also the journal with the highest number of citations with 138 citations. “Education and Science” ranks high in terms of the number of articles with 78 citations, and “Eurasian Journal of Educational Research” ranks high with 36 citations. “European Journal of Teacher Education”, which is at the end of the list, draws a journal profile with a high impact in terms of the number of citations per article (12.5), with 25 citations for 2 articles published. One of the important findings of the research is related to the "Pamukkale University Journal of Education". Although this journal is in the middle of the list in terms of the number of articles, the articles published in this journal have never been cited. Based on WoS data, the most productive and influential Turkish authors in the field of social studies education are shown in Table 2. The top 20 authors with at least three articles in the relevant indexes are listed according to the number of citations. Palaz 54 Table 2. Most Influential Authors* Sequence Author Number of articles Number of citations 1 Yılmaz, Kaya 6 57 2 Ersoy, Arife Figen 6 35 3 Tarman, Bülent 3 14 4 Deveci, Handan 6 12 5 Meral, Elif 3 12 6 İlter, İlhan 3 10 7 Öztürk, Cemil 4 9 8 Kartal, Ayça 3 9 9 Açıkalın, Mehmet 3 8 10 Tay, Bayram 3 8 11 Dinç, Erkan 4 5 12 Şen, Aldülkerim 3 5 13 Aladağ, Elif 3 4 14 Tunkler, Vural 5 3 15 Kesten, Alper 3 2 16 Kaymakçı, Selahattin 3 2 17 Şekerci, Hanifi 3 1 18 Gezer, Melehat 3 0 19 Gürkan, Burcu 3 0 20 Şahin, Ali Ekber 3 0 As can be seen in Table 2, Kaya Yılmaz, Arife Figen Ersoy, and Handan Deveci stand out as the most productive researchers with 6 articles each in the field of social studies education in Turkey. Again, according to the number of citations, Kaya Yılmaz with 57 citations, Arife Figen Ersoy with 35 citations, Bülent Tarman with 14 citations, Handan Deveci and Elif Meral with 12 citations are at the top of the list. Kaya Yılmaz seems to be the most productive and influential researcher because he is the author with the highest number of articles and citations. Based on the WoS data, the number of articles and citations of the institutions where the authors work in the field of social studies education is shown in Table 3. The top 20 institutions with at least 3 articles in the relevant indexes are listed according to the number of citations. * The researchers in this table or other researchers working in this field have more studies and citations in the relevant indexes than the researches and citations given in this list. Here, only the studies and citations that emerged as a result of the search with the keywords "social studies and social studies education" are included. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 46-68. 55 Table 3. Citation Rankings of Institutions Institution Number of Articles Number of citations Total link strength 1 Marmara University 16 75 9 2 Anadolu University 24 74 4 3 Ankara University 5 52 1 4 Gazi University 14 47 5 5 Atatürk University 6 26 3 6 Ahi Evran University 10 18 3 7 Fırat University 4 18 0 8 Akdeniz University 3 17 0 9 İstanbul University 5 16 1 10 Hacettepe University 10 14 1 11 Necmettin Erbakan University 6 14 1 12 Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University 4 14 1 13 Sakarya University 6 13 4 14 Ondokuz Mayıs University 6 10 5 15 İnonü University 3 7 5 16 Trabzon University 4 5 3 17 Süleyman Demirel University 3 5 2 18 Uşak University 4 5 1 19 Adnan Menderes University 3 4 1 20 Afyon Kocatepe University 3 4 0 When Table 3 is examined, Anadolu University with 24 articles, Marmara University with 16 articles, Gazi University with 14 articles, Ahi Evran University with 10 articles, and Hacettepe University with 10 articles are the most productive institutions. Indeed, Marmara University is at the top of the list with 75 citations and followed by Anadolu University with 74 citations. Ankara University with 52 citations, Gazi University with 47 citations, and Atatürk University with 26 citations are among the most cited institutions. Although there are 5 articles belonging to Ankara University, it is remarkable that this institution has 52 citations. According to our data, information on the 10 most cited articles among the articles included in the research is given in Table 4 below. Palaz 56 Table 4. Most Cited Articles Article Number of citations 1 Gülbahar, Y., & Güven, I. (2008). A survey on ICT usage and the perceptions of social studies teachers in Turkey. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), pp.37-51 45 2 Sarıtepeci, M., & Çakır, H. (2015). The effect of blended learning environments on student's academic achievement and student engagement: A study on social studies course. Education and Science, 40(177), pp.203-216 24 3 Öcal, A. (2011). Where am I? Elementary school students' representation and location of space. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B-Social and Educational Studies, 3(3), pp.201-210 22 4 Yılmaz, K. (2008a). Social studies teachers' conceptions of history: Calling on historiography. Journal of Educational Research, 101(3), pp.158-175 20 5 Yılmaz, K. (2008b). Social studies teachers' views of learner-centered instruction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), pp.35-53 19 6 Ersoy, A. F. (2010). Social studies teacher candidates' views on the controversial issues incorporated into their courses in Turkey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), pp.323-334 18 7 Ozan, C., & Kıncal, R. Y. (2018). The effects of formative assessment on academic achievement, attitudes toward the lesson, and self-regulation skills. Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice, 18(1), pp.85-118 11 8 Turan, Z., & Meral, E. (2018). Game-based versus to non-game-based: The impact of student response systems on students' achievements, engagements and test anxieties. Informatics in Education, 17(1), pp.105-116 12 9 Ersoy, A. F., & Türkkan, B. (2010). Analyzing social and environmental ıssues elementary school students reflect in their cartoons. Education and Science, 35(156), pp.96-109 10 10 Yazıcı, K. (2011). An analysis of social studies prospective teachers' democratic values in relation to various variables. Education and Science, 36(159), pp.165- 178 10 Table 4 shows that the most cited article in Turkey in the field of social studies education in international indexes is “A survey on ICT usage and the perceptions of social studies teachers in Turkey”, which is published by Gülbahar and Güven (2008) in “Educational Technology & Society” and which receives 45 citations. This study focuses on the variables that influence the success of social studies teachers in using information and communication technologies. Most of the journals in which these most cited articles are published belong to publishers outside Turkey. 3.4. Co-Author Analysis (Institution) In Figure 2, creating at least 2 publication cut-off values among 110 institutions, the cooperation network between 33 institutions is presented. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 46-68. 57 Figure 2. Inter-Institutional Cooperation Network (33 institutions with at least 2 documents) When Figure 2 is examined, relatively established and larger-scale universities such as Anadolu University, Marmara University, and Gazi University, and the cooperation between them comes to the fore. There are clusters of different colors in Figure 2, which means that there is more intense cooperation between institutions in the same cluster. The cluster with the most intense cooperation is the red-colored cluster. It is seen that there is strong cooperation between Marmara and Anadolu University, which are in the red cluster. Gazi University and Hacettepe University are represented in the green cluster, with the second most intense cooperation. One of the interesting findings about the green cluster is that although Hacettepe University does not have a department related to social studies education, the cooperation between Gazi University and Hacettepe University seems strong. It is seen that Ahi Evran University and Kastamonu University, which are also in the green cluster, have strong cooperation with Gazi University. Findings for the yellow cluster indicate that some universities in the same region or geographically close to each other have a strong co- authorship collaboration network. In addition, the absence of any foreign institution in the figure suggests that international cooperation is weak. 3.5. Co-Citation Analysis (Author) When the co-citation analysis is examined, 7366 authors cited in these publications were reached. When more than 10 citation criteria were determined as the cut-off point, this number emerged as 61. Palaz 58 Figure 3. Author Co-Citation Network When Figure 3 for the co-cited authors is examined, it is seen that there are clusters of different colors. There are five clusters in the common citation map: red, green, yellow, blue, and magenta. Frequently cited authors are located in the same cluster and closer together on the map. When the common citation network is examined in general, it is understood that MoNE* receives the most citations and is associated with many clusters. Apart from this, such authors as “Yıldırım, A.”, “Creswell, J. W.”, “Büyüköztürk, Ş.” who are the authors of scientific research methods and as “Öztürk, C.” and “Doğanay, A.” who have conducted various studies in the field of social studies education rank among the most-cited authors. Such authors as “Creswell J. W.”, “Glesne, C.”, “Yin, R. K.” who have worked in the field of qualitative research methods and those authors as “Büyüköztürk, Ş.”, “Karasar, N.”, “Cohen, j.”, “Tabachnick, B. G.” who have specialized in statistics, measurement, and evaluation in education were included in the red cluster, which is the densest one. Additionally, the red cluster involves such authors as “Pintrich, P. R.”, Bandura, A.”, “Shunk, D. H.”, “Wigfield, A.”, “Johnson, D. W.” and “Sönmez, V.” who have centered attention on learning, success, and motivation. One of the densest clusters in Figure 3 is the green cluster. In this cluster, there are authors such as “Yıldırım, A.” and “Merriam, S. B.” who have worked on qualitative research methods. “Öztürk, C.” and “Doğanay, A.” who have conducted varying studies on social studies education have been among the authors that were frequently co-cited. In the rest of the green cluster, the authors such as "Lickona, T.", "Aktepe, V.", "Tay, B.", "Keskin, Y.", "Deveci, H.", "Akbaş, O.", "Ekşi, H.” who often work on values education in general and, more specifically, values education in social studies have been located. The reason why the blue cluster locates in the middle of the citation network map is that it has a close connection with other clusters and that it receives frequent citations from other clusters. As discussed earlier, MoNE appears to be the most cited source because it received a substantial amount of citations from researchers who operate in varying fields of social studies education. "Safran, M.", "Ata, B.", and “Kabapinar, Y.” who work on social studies teaching * Coursebooks, curriculums, and reports issued by MoNE. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 46-68. 59 and, particularly history teaching are among the most cited authors in the blue cluster. When the blue cluster is examined in general, it consists of researchers working on different subjects in the field of education. The yellow cluster includes bulletins and reports produced by NCSS and UNESCO, along with such authors as “Ersoy, A.F.”, “Banks, J. A.”, “Osler, A.”, “Parker, W. C.”, “Kuş, Z.”, and “Çayır, K.” who work on social studies education, multicultural education, global citizenship, and the education of human rights, democracy, and citizenship. Finally, “Schommer-Aikins, M.”, “Hofer, B. K.”, “Deryakulu, D.”, and “Senemoğlu, N.”, who work on learning and epistemological beliefs and “Yılmaz, K.” and “Dinç, E.” who focuses on social studies and history teaching constitute the magenta cluster. It is logical to state that although “Senemoğlu, N.” was located in the magenta cluster, she also receives citations together with the authors from the green cluster. 3.6. Co-Keyword Analysis Based on the WoS data, a total of 535 different keywords were reached within the scope of the most frequently used keywords among the publications included in the study. Some of these words are synonymous (e.g. pre-service school teacher, prospective teacher, teacher candidate, etc.) or can be used interchangeably (e.g. pre-service school teacher, pre-service school teacher, etc.). For this reason, a synonyms file was created and, as a result of this process, 495 keywords were reached. The criterion of using at least 3 times was determined as the cut-off point, and the most frequently used 47 keywords were identified and presented in the form of a word network map in Figure 4. Figure 4. Co-words Accordingly, four clusters stand out, namely red, green, blue, and yellow. The most frequently used keywords emerged as “social studies”, “social studies education”, “pre-service social studies teachers”, “academic achievement”, “citizenship education”, and “values education”. The red cluster with the most words contains the keywords used in values education studies. The green cluster contains keywords related to controversial issues, citizenship, and human rights education. In the blue cluster, which is intertwined with the green Palaz 60 cluster, the research focus is the teacher candidates. In the yellow cluster, there are words used in studies that focus on student achievement and attitudes of students. 4. Discussion and Conclusions In this study, Turkey-addressed studies on social studies education published in journals indexed in the WoS database such as the SSCI, ESCI, and SCI-Expanded were examined using the bibliometric analysis method. Results revealed that the first publication was dated 2005. After 2007, a significant increase was recorded in the number of publications, especially until 2012. This result concurs with past research that reviews the publications of educational research from Turkey in international educational journals (Gülmez, Özteke & Gümüş, 2021; Şeref & Karagöz, 2019). Accordingly, the increase in the number of publications after 2007 may be related to the increase in the number of scholars who received Ph.D. in the field of social studies education and that some Turkey-addressed journals began to be indexed in the relevant international indexes. Although there was a decrease in the number of publications after 2012, the number of publications started to increase after 2014. This decrease in 2012 may be due to the exclusion of some journals from international indexes. As a result, the number of studies in the field of social studies education generally tends to increase. Şeref and Karagöz (2019) found that the number of publications in the field of Turkish education increased after 2014. Our results show that the journals with the highest number of publications for social studies education are “Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice”, “Education and Science”, “Eurasian Journal of Educational Research”, “Hacettepe University Journal of Education”, “Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction”, "Journal of Education and Future" and "Pamukkale University Journal of Education". However, 11 of the 15 journals with the highest number of publications are addressed in Turkey, while the remaining 4 belong to publishers outside Turkey. Consistently, Gülmez, Özteke, and Gümüş (2021) found that the journals in which the most publications from Turkey in the field of education are published are "Education and Science", "Educational Sciences in Theory & Practice", and "Eurasian Journal of Educational Research" and "Hacettepe University Educational Sciences". Similar results have also been produced in other studies (Tür, 2019). The fact that these journals are located in relatively stronger indexes may have made them a target for researchers. In addition, the tendency to publish in related journals can also be explained by the authors' desire to publish in these journals for academic promotion. In particular, the fact that "Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice" and "Education and Science" journals are covered by SSCI may explain the high number of publications in these journals. The results show that "Educational Sciences Theory & Practice", "Education and Science", and "Eurasian Journal of Educational Research" are the first three journals with the highest number of citations among the journals that have published the most articles. The high number of citations of these journals indicates that their impact values are relatively strong. Although “Pamukkale University Journal of Education” is in the middle of the list in terms of the number of articles published, it has no citations. In this sense, it is seen that the impact value of this journal is extremely low. Considering that the majority of these journals are released in Turkey, it seems that researchers working in the field of social studies education in Turkey generally prefer journals originated in Turkey. In support of this result, Gümüş, Bellibaş, Gümüş, and Hallinger (2019) examined the Turkey-addressed covered by WoS in the field of educational administration using bibliometric analysis technique and found that the most popular journals in this field were Turkey-addressed ones. When the findings of the current study are considered together with the research results of Gümüş et al. (2019), it is understood that researchers tend International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 46-68. 61 to publish mostly in journals that originated in Turkey. The fact that researchers publish relatively less in foreign-sourced journals with higher impact value may be due to their inadequacy in the use of foreign language or statistical skills necessary to publish in these journals. However, it is among the possibilities that the authors, acting with the anxiety of academic promotion, thought that they could publish in journals that originated in Turkey more easily and quickly. Because, as stated by Gülmez, Özteke, and Gümüş (2021), the fact that the quantity of publications is given more importance than the quality in academic promotions may have directed the authors to journals originated in Turkey. When the number of publications and the number of citations in the relevant journals is compared, it is noticeable that the number of citations is generally low. The impact factor is also quite weak. In addition, some of these journals (e.g. Educational Sciences Theory & Practice, Hacettepe University Journal of Education, Energy Education Science and Technology Part B-Social and Educational Studies) has been removed from the WoS database in recent years. We believe this may be one of the reasons why the impact values are weak. This finding constitutes a negative situation in terms of the international visibility and accessibility of publications originated in Turkey in the field of social studies education. In other words, this finding of the study suggests the importance of producing publications in journals with a high international reputation by being covered in strong indexes in terms of improving the theoretical and empirical foundations of the field. The results show that the most productive researchers in the field of social studies education are Kaya Yilmaz, Arife Figen Ersoy, and Handan Deveci, respectively. The most cited researchers are Kaya Yılmaz, Arife Figen Ersoy, Bülent Tarman, Handan Deveci, and Elif Meral. Kaya Yılmaz, the researcher with the highest number of articles and citations, stands out as the most productive and most influential author. Based on the WoS data, it is evident that these authors published articles in journals with high impact. Besides, Anadolu University, Marmara University, Gazi University, Ahi Evran University, and Hacettepe University are seen as prominent institutions in terms of productivity in the field. According to the results of the citation analysis of the institutions, Marmara University, Anadolu University, Ankara University, Gazi University, and Atatürk University stand out as the most influential institutions with the most citations. This finding of the study is similar to some other related studies (Gülmez, Özteke & Gümüş, 2021; Selçuk, Palancı, Kandemir & Dündar, 2014; Şeref & Karagöz, 2019). In the study of Sönmez (2020), in which he examines international social studies education, Anadolu University stands out as the institution that produces the most publications in Turkey. This result is in line with the findings of the study. In addition, these results show us that large and well-established universities are more prominent in terms of productivity. One reason for this may be that the appointment and promotion criteria are higher/challenging in these universities. However, the production of more publications in related universities suggests that these universities have a more deep- rooted research culture than that of newly established universities. One of the reasons why these institutions are at the top of the list may be that the authors who publish and receive the most citations work in these institutions. In addition, articles authored by researchers working in these institutions may have received more citations due to the fact that they were published in journals with high impact value. The results illustrate that the majority of the most cited articles are published in journals whose impact values are relatively high and which belong to publishers from outside Turkey. This result is similar to the trend in educational administration research in Turkey (Gümüş, Bellibaş, Gümüş & Hallinger, 2019). This result can be considered important in terms of showing the importance of publishing in journals with high impact values. However, the fact Palaz 62 that journals with high impact belong to publishers abroad shows that researchers in the field of social studies education should aim to publish in these journals. The results show that Anadolu University, Marmara University, and Gazi University are the leading institutions in terms of citation analysis for inter-institutional cooperation. Gazi University and Marmara University are among the first institutions to provide postgraduate social studies education. The fact that these institutions have a deep-rooted history and that the doctoral students who graduated from these universities continue their relations with these institutions in the future may have enabled these universities to have a strong cooperation network. In addition, the research results indicate that there is a strong cooperation network between Gazi University and Hacettepe University, Çukurova University and Mustafa Kemal University, Kilis 7 Aralık University, and Hasan Kalyoncu University. This may be related to the fact that the institutions are in the same city or geographically close to each other. However, it is thought that organic ties between universities are also effective at the point of institutional cooperation. For example, Ahi Evran University and Kastamonu University were faculties affiliated to Gazi University in the past, but they were later transformed into independent universities. As a matter of fact, the strong cooperation network of these universities with Gazi University may be related to the fact that the organic link from the past has been carried to the present. In addition, the research results show that international cooperation is weak at the point of publication production. This result was also found in other similar studies. For example, the research results of Gülmez, Özteke, and Gümüş (2021) show that institutional cooperation in the field of education is mostly seen among state universities with a deep-rooted transition, whereas international cooperation is weak. This result also coincides with the former result of the current study that showed that “the studies in the field of social studies education are mostly published in journals originated in Turkey”. Based on this result, it is thought that the increase in international cooperation studies and the support of national and institutional-based incentive policies may be an important political step in terms of increasing the knowledge in the field and strengthening the quality of the publications. When the results of the common citation analysis are examined, it is seen that the publications published by the MoNE have the most citations and these publications are related to many different publications. In this context, it is arguable that the publications produced by the Ministry of National Education are important in the development of the field. In addition, in line with the results of Karadağ et al. (2017), the current study shows that authors in the field of social studies education often refer to statistical and scientific research books. Among these citations, the references made to works on qualitative research methods are also interesting. Results indicate that the works produced in the field of values education in social studies education are frequently cited. In this respect, in future studies, a more in-depth examination of the studies in the field of values education in social studies is required for the development of the field. Finally, the results of the research produced as a result of the common keyword analysis show that the concepts that are prominent in the clusters are social studies, social studies education, pre-service social studies teachers, academic achievement, citizenship education, and values education. It is similar to the results of the study by Sönmez (2020), which found that “social studies education”, “social studies”, “citizenship education”, and “teacher education” were the most used keywords. Keyword analysis is generally carried out to establish a connection between studies in a certain field (Zupic & Cater, 2015). From this point of view, the common words that emerged in the current research can provide the opportunity to follow the focus of the studies in the field of social studies education in Turkey from a general perspective. In this respect, our results suggest that researchers in the field of social studies education generally focus on issues related to the field. It is also understood that the important International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 46-68. 63 issues of social studies education such as citizenship education and values education are paid attention by the authors. This study includes articles on social studies education in journals covered by the WoS database. The fact that it does not include articles in other databases can be considered a limitation. Future research, therefore, should consider the inclusion of journals in other databases such as SCOPUS, ERIC, ProQuest. Among the results of the current study, no finding on international cooperation was accessed. Thus, strong incentive policies by the state and institutional support from the universities are needed for encouraging researchers to produce higher-quality publications that move the field one step further. Palaz 64 References Aksoy, B., Sönmez, Ö. F., & Merey, Z. (2009). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde yapılan lisansüstü tez konularının 2005 yeni sosyal bilgiler öğretim programına göre değişiminin değerlendirilmesi. IV. Sosyal Bilimler Eğitimi Kongresi, (9 Ekim), İstanbul. Al, U., & Coştur, R. (2007). Türk Psikoloji Dergisi’nin bibliyometrik profili. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 21(2), 142–163. Al, U., & Tonta, Y. (2004). Atıf analizi: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Kütüphanecilik Bölümü tezlerinde atıf yapılan kaynaklar. Bilgi Dünyası, 5(1), 19–47. Altay, N. (2020). Türkiye’de sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanında yazılan makalelerin değerlendirilmesi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1), 22–35. Aslan, E. (2016). Geçmişten günümüze sosyal bilgiler. Dilek, D. (Ed.), Sosyal bilgiler eğitimi içinde (s. 3–52). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Ball, R., & Tunger, D. (2006). Bibliometric analysis– A new business area for information professionals in libraries? Scientometrics, 66(3), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0041-0. Baysal, N. Z. (2005). Hayat bilgisi ve sosyal bilgiler programlarının felsefi temelleri. Tanrıöğen, A. (Ed.), Hayat bilgisi ve sosyal bilgiler öğretimi ı̇çinde (s. 57–76). İstanbul: Lisans. Canbulat, T., Avcı, G., & Sipahi S. (2016). ABD ve Kanada’da sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanındaki tezlerin değerlendirilmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 17(2), 351–370. Chen, C. (1999). Visualising semantic spaces and author co-citation networks in digital libraries. Information Processing & Management, 35(2), 401–420. Chen, C. (2017). Science mapping: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2(2), 1–40. Cücük, E. (2017). Türkiye’de “eğitim tarihi” alanında yapılmış doktora tezlerinin incelenmesi. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Gaziantep, Türkiye. Çakmak, Z., & Taşkıran, C. (2020). Türkiye’de sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanındaki çalışmaların analizi: bir meta sentez çalışması. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 9(3), 1243–1261. Çiydem, E., & Kaymakcı, S. (2021). Türkiye’de sosyal bilgiler dersinin yönelimi üzerine bir değerlendirme. İnsan & İnsan, 8(27), 179–207 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.818742 Çırak, A. (2020). Sosyal bilgilerde tarih ile ı̇lgili konuların öğretimi üzerine 1999-2019 yılları arası yapılan tezlerin analizi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(3), 1219–1242. Dilek, A., Baysan, S., & Öztürk, A. (2018). Türkiye’de sosyal bilgiler eğitimi üzerine yapılan yüksek lisans tezleri: bir içerik analizi çalışması. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 22(2), 581–602. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.818742 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 46-68. 65 Duman, A., & İnel, Y. (2019). Review of master's theses in the field of social studies education between 2008 and 2014. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 66–73. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1201449.pdf Ersoy, A. F. (2010). Social studies teacher candidates' views on the controversial issues incorporated into their courses in Turkey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), pp.323–334. Ersoy, A. F., & Türkkan, B. (2010). Analyzing social and environmental ıssues elementary school students reflect in their cartoons. Education and Science, 35(156), pp.96–109. Geçit, Y., & Kartal, A. (2010). Türkiye’deki sosyal bilgiler eğitimi araştırma konuları üzerine bir inceleme. International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, Antalya. Gilbert, G. N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 113–122. https://www.jstor.org/stable/284636?refreqid=excelsior%3A4922e306cc71f70ed04a53 1f2e1fb397&seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents Gülbahar, Y., & Güven, İ. (2008). A survey on ICT usage and the perceptions of social studies teachers in Turkey. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), pp.37–51. Güleç̧, S., & Hüdavendigar, M. N. (2020). Sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanında okuryazarlık becerisi başlığında yapılan lisansüstü̈ tezlerin incelenmesi. Uluslararası İnsan ve Sanat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(3), 24–36. Gülmez, D., Özteke, İ., & Gümüş, S. (2021). Uluslararası dergilerde yayımlanan Türkiye kaynaklı eğitim araştırmalarının genel görünümü: Bibliyometrik analiz. Eğitim ve Bilim, 46(206), 213-239 Gümüş, S., Bellibaş, M. Ş., Gümüş, E. & Hallinger, P. (2019). Science mapping research on educational leadership and management in Turkey: A bibliometric review of international publications. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/13632434.2019.1578737 Güngördü, E. (2002). İlköğretimde hayat bilgisi ve sosyal bilgiler öğretimi. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. Gürdoğan-Bayır, Ö., Kılıç, Z., & Balbağ, N. L. (2018). Vatandaşlık eğitimine yönelik yapılan lisansüstü çalışmaların incelenmesi. Tay, B. (Ed.), 7. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı içinde (s. 69–81). Kırşehir: Ahi Evran Üniversitesi. Hallinger, P., & Kovačević, J. (2019). A bibliometric review of research on educational administration: Science mapping the literature, 1960 to 2018. Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 335–369. İbret, B. Ü., & Yılmaz, O. (2019). Sosyal bilgilerde çevre eğitimi: lisansüstü̈ çalışmalara ait bir inceleme. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 9(2), 431–449. Karadağ, E., Yalçın, M., Çiftçi, K., Danışman, Ş., Sölpük, N., Tosuntaş, Ş. … & Ay, Y. (2017). Türkiye’de eğitim bilimleri ve öğretmen yetiştirme alanındaki bilimsel yayınların atıf analizleri. Bilgi Dünyası, 18(1), 9–28. Karakuş, S. (2020). Türkiye’de sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde kavramlar konusunda yapılan yüksek lisans ve doktora tezlerinin incelenmesi. Academia Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 61–76. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1201449.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/284636?refreqid=excelsior%3A4922e306cc71f70ed04a531f2e1fb397&seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/284636?refreqid=excelsior%3A4922e306cc71f70ed04a531f2e1fb397&seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents Palaz 66 Kayaalp, F., & Karameşe, E. N. (2020). Türkiye’de sosyal bilgiler eğitimi kapsamında hazırlanan “vatandaşlık” konulu lisansüstü tezlerdeki eğilimler. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 21(1), 744–785. Kozak, M., Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). How have the Eastern European countries of the former Warsaw Pact developed since 1990? A bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1101–1117. Li, J., & Hale, A. (2016). Output distributions and topic maps of safety related journals. Safety science, vol. 82, pp. 236–244. Oğuz-Haçat, S., & Demir, F. B. (2018). Sosyal bilgiler eğitimi üzerine yapılan doktora tezlerin değerlendirilmesi (2002-2018). Avrasya Uluslararası Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(15), 948– 973. Oruç̧, Ş., & Ulusoy, K. (2008). Sosyal bilgiler öğretimi alanında yapılan tez çalışmaları. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 121–132. Ozan, C., & Kıncal, R. Y. (2018). The effects of formative assessment on academic achievement, attitudes toward the lesson, and self-regulation skills. Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice, 18(1), pp.85–118. Öcal, A. (2011). Where am I? Elementary school students' representation and location of space. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B-Social and Educational Studies, 3(3), pp.201–210. Öner, G., & Öner, D. (2017). Sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde coğrafya konuları üzerine yapılmış lisansüstü tezlere yönelik bir analiz ve bibliyografya çalışması. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 34(2), 13–34. Özkaral, T. C., & Mentiş-Taş, A. (2017). Sosyal bilgiler ve karşılaştırmalı eğitim alanında yapılan lisansüstü tez çalışmalarının incelenmesi: bir meta-sentez çalışma örneği. Electronic Turkish Studies, 12(25), 651–670. Öztürk, C., & Dilek, D. (2005). Hayat bilgisi ve sosyal bilgiler öğretim programları. Öztürk, C. & Dilek, D. (Ed.), Hayat bilgisi ve sosyal bilgiler öğretimi ı̇çinde (s. 53–96). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Öztürk, C., & Otluoğlu, R. (2005). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde edebi ürünler ve yazılı materyaller. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Sarıtepeci, M., & Çakır, H. (2015). The effect of blended learning environments on student's academic achievement and student engagement: A study on social studies course. Education and Science, 40(177), pp.203–216. Sarkodie, S. A., & Strezov, V. (2019). A review on Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis using bibliometric and meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, vol. 649, pp. 128–145. Sel, B. (2021). A Meta-synthesis study for researches on citizenship education within the scope of social studies course in Turkey. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 14(3), 323–351. Selçuk, Z., Palancı, M., Kandemir, M., & Dündar, H. (2014). Eğitim ve bilim dergisinde yayınlanan araştırmaların eğilimleri: İçerik analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(173), 428–449. Sezer A., Yusuf, İ., & Gökalp, A. (2020). Çalışma grubu sosyal bilgiler öğretmenleri olan Türkiye’deki lisansüstü̈ tezlerin incelenmesi. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(2), 1–17. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 46-68. 67 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406 Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83–106. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/7190/librarytrendsv30i1i_opt.pdf ?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Sönmez, Ö. F. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of educational research articles published in the field of social study education based on web of science database. Participatory Educational Research, 7(2), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.17275/PER.20.30.7.2 Sönmez, Ö. F., Merey, Z., & Kaymakcı, S. (2009). Vatandaşlık ve insan hakları eğitimi alanında yapılan yüksek lisans ve doktora tezlerinin değerlendirilmesi. I. Uluslararası Avrupa Birliği, Demokrasi, Vatandaşlık ve Vatandaşlık Eğitimi Sempozyumu, 28-30 Mayıs, Uşak. Sönmez, V. (2005). Hayat ve sosyal bilgiler öğretimi ve öğretmen kılavuzu. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. Sözer, E. (2009). sosyal bilgiler programının amaçları, ilkeleri ve temel özellikleri. Anadolu Üniversitesi Açık Öğretim Yayınları. http://www.aof.anadolu.edu.tr/kitap/IOLTP/2295/unite02.pdf Sweileh, W. M. (2017). Global research trends of World Health Organization's top eight emerging pathogens. Globalization and Health, 13(1), pp.9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0233-9 Şahin, M., Göğebakan-Yıldız, D., & Duman, R. (2011). Türkiye’deki sosyal bilgiler eğitimi tezleri üzerine bir değerlendirme. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 2(2), 96–121. Şeref, İ., & Karagoz, B. (2019). An evaluation of turkish education academic field: Bibliometric analysis based on web of science database. Journal of Language Education and Research, 5(2), 213–231. DOI:10.31464/jlere.578224 Tarman, B., Acun, İ., & Yüksel, Z. (2010). Sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanındaki tezlerin değerlendirilmesi. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(3), 725–796. Tarman, B., Güven, C., & Aktaşlı, İ. (2011). Türkiye'de sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanında yapılan doktora tezlerinin değerlendirilmesi ve alana katkıları. S.Ü. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 391–410. Turan, Z., & Meral, E. (2018). Game-based versus to non-game-based: The impact of student response systems on students' achievements, engagements and test anxieties. Informatics in Education, 17(1), pp.105–116 Tür, N. (2019). Publication trends of researchers in Turkey in Web of Science education and educational research subject field: A descriptive trend analysis (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi (METU), Ankara. Ukşul, Ş. (2016). Türkiye’de eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme alanında yapılmış bilimsel yayınların sosyal ağ analizi ile değerlendirilmesi: Bir bibliyometrik çalışma (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Akdeniz Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Antalya. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406 https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/7190/librarytrendsv30i1i_opt.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/7190/librarytrendsv30i1i_opt.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://doi.org/10.17275/PER.20.30.7.2 http://www.aof.anadolu.edu.tr/kitap/IOLTP/2295/unite02.pdf https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0233-9 Palaz 68 Uzunkavak, Y. (2019). Türkiye’de 2004-2017 yılları arası sosyal bilgiler eğitimi ve öğretimi alanında yapılmış ̧doktor tez çalışmalarının konu alanı ve metodolojik olarak incelenmesi (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek lisans tezi). Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, Manisa. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. (Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, and D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice (285–320). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13 Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2019). Manual for VOSviewer version 1.6.13. VOSviewer Manual. https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.13.pdf Yaşar, Ş., Çengelci-Köse, T., & Göz, N. L. (2015). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde öğrenci merkezli öğretme-öğrenme süreçlerinin etkililiği: Bir meta analiz çalışması. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 5(1), 38–56. Yaylacı, Z., & Büyükalan, F. (2019). Sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde öğretmen görüşüne başvurulan tezlerin tematik açıdan incelenmesi (2005-2017). Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(1), 1–19. Yazıcı, K. (2011). An analysis of social studies prospective teachers' democratic values in relation to various variables. Education and Science, 36(159), pp.165–178. Yıldız, V. A., & Kılıç, D. (2018). Sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programlarına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri: Bir meta-sentez çalışması. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22, 2115–2127. Yılmaz, K. (2008a). Social studies teachers' conceptions of history: Calling on historiography. Journal of Educational Research, 101(3), pp.158–175. Yılmaz, K. (2008b). Social studies teachers' views of learner-centered instruction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), pp.35–53. Zayimoğlu-Öztürk, F., & Sığnaktekin, C. (2021). Türkiye’de sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanında hazırlanan tarih konulu lisansüstü̈ tezlerdeki eğilimler: Bir meta-sentez çalışması. International Journal of New Approaches in Social Studies, 5(1), 152–176. https://doi.org/10.38015/sbyy.875796 Zhao, Q., Zhang, W., Wang, R., Wang, Y., & Ouyang, D. (2017). Research advances in molecular modeling in cyclodextrins. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 23(3), pp. 522– 531. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13 https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.13.pdf https://doi.org/10.38015/sbyy.875796 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629