Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:39 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
22 SES 12 D: Research and Academic Literacy
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Post-Disaster Challenges to Continuing Academic Work: The Supportive Role of Academic Literacy 1: Fırat University, Türkiye; 2: İnönü University, Türkiye; 3: Yozgat Bozok University, Türkiye Presenting Author:Graduate education represents a strategically vital educational level directly linked to national scientific productivity and human capital development (Alhas, 2006; Bozan, 2012). The fundamental functions of graduate education include training individuals who can address more complex problems than at the undergraduate level, possess higher-order cognitive skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, and conduct scientific research (Bayar & Duran, 2019; Sevinç, 2001). In this respect, graduate education contributes not only to developing academics and scientists but also to sustaining scientific activities, implementing technology-oriented policies, and advancing professional development and employment opportunities (Çelik, 2019; Koç & Özkoçak, 2019). While quantitative growth in Turkish higher education has become evident through increasing graduate student enrollments and thesis production, debates continue regarding whether this growth translates into improved quality of scientific output (Akçiğit & Özcan-Tok, 2020; Çelik, 2019). Central to these quality debates are the difficulties graduate students experience in research methods, academic writing, data analysis, and managing scientific processes (Çiftçi & Bulut, 2018; Dikmen & Tuncer, 2016; İbiş, 2014; Katılmış et al., 2013). A significant dimension of these difficulties involves academic literacy, a fundamental component of academic production. Academic literacy is a multidimensional competency encompassing access to reliable information, comprehension, synthesis and critical evaluation of information, effective communication within academic discourse, and knowledge production (Lea & Street, 1998; Wingate, 2015). In the 21st century, the rapid production and dissemination of knowledge has expanded academic literacy beyond basic reading and writing skills to include information management, critical thinking, academic ethics, and technology use (Demir & Deniz, 2020; Dumford & Miller, 2018). However, the literature demonstrates that the assumption of well-developed academic literacy at the graduate level is not always valid; graduate students' academic literacy skills may fall short of expectations, thereby complicating academic production (Butler, 2013; Demir & Deniz, 2020; du Plessis, 2016). Consequently, equipping graduate students with academic literacy strategies represents a critical need for enhancing quality in higher education (Retnaningdyah & Laksono, 2018). Indeed, research emphasizes that during extraordinary circumstances and crisis periods, graduate students' academic production processes become increasingly vulnerable, with psychosocial challenges playing a decisive role in academic motivation and adjustment (Elçi Öksüzoğlu, 2024). Beyond this general framework, recent large-scale crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes have disrupted educational processes, particularly affecting graduate students' academic specialization and productivity. In post-disaster contexts, challenges related to housing, security, access to basic necessities, internet and technological infrastructure, and psychological trauma can severely undermine students' academic motivation and capacity to focus on scholarly work. Under these conditions, academic literacy functions both as a set of essential skills for sustaining academic production and as a potential resource for recovery through access to reliable information and systematic progress during crises. However, the nature of psychosocial challenges experienced by graduate students in post-disaster contexts and the role of academic literacy in overcoming these challenges remains an area requiring in-depth contextual investigation. This study aims to identify the psychosocial challenges graduate students face while continuing their academic work in post-disaster contexts and to examine the role of academic literacy in overcoming these challenges based on participant experiences. Accordingly, the research question is: "What psychosocial challenges do graduate students experience while continuing their academic work in post-disaster contexts, and what role does academic literacy play in overcoming these challenges?" Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Research Design This qualitative study employs a case study design to examine graduate students' academic experiences in post-disaster contexts in depth. Case study enables investigation of contemporary phenomena within real-life contexts and addresses "how" and "why" questions (Yin, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants The participants consisted of 17 graduate students continuing their academic work in the post-disaster period. Participants were selected using maximum variation sampling, a purposive sampling method whereby researchers deliberately select participants who can provide rich information about the phenomenon under investigation (Patton, 2002; Creswell, 2013). Maximum variation prioritizes diversity among participants to reveal how the phenomenon is experienced across different contexts (Patton, 2002; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Accordingly, variation was achieved by considering criteria such as educational level (master's/doctoral), academic fields (social sciences, natural sciences and engineering), post-disaster housing conditions (staying with family, temporary shelter), internet and technological infrastructure access (stable/intermittent), and capacity to sustain academic production. This sampling strategy enabled holistic examination of the post-disaster period's effects on graduate students' psychosocial well-being, academic motivation, and academic literacy practices across different experience patterns. Participants were anonymized as S1–S17 following ethical principles. Data Collection Tool A semi-structured interview protocol was used for data collection. The protocol was developed based on the following research questions: 1. What are the primary psychosocial factors affecting graduate students' academic motivation in the post-disaster period? 2. How do graduate students experience academic literacy in the process of academic adjustment and recovery following disaster? The interview questions consisted of open-ended items designed to elicit participants' psychosocial challenges, motivational processes, and perceptions regarding academic literacy's supportive role in the post-disaster period. The semi-structured format allowed participants to articulate their experiences in detail, while the researcher posed probing and clarifying questions when necessary to enhance data depth and scope. Data Analysis Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. Interview recordings were transcribed, data were coded according to research questions, and similar codes were grouped to form categories and themes. Findings were supported by direct quotations from participants (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2008). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Content analysis of interview data from graduate students in the post-disaster period revealed that they primarily experienced psychosocial challenges and loss of motivation while continuing their academic work. Participant statements indicated that unmet basic physiological needs, housing and security issues, disruption of work routines, internet access interruptions, and psychological trauma negatively affected academic focus and motivation. However, the findings demonstrate that academic literacy emerged as an important supportive element in post-disaster academic adjustment and recovery. Participants reported that academic literacy skills played a facilitating role in accessing reliable information, using time effectively, making planned progress, and distinguishing credible sources. This suggests that academic literacy can be considered a functional coping mechanism for overcoming academic challenges in the post-disaster period. Consequently, strengthening psychosocial support mechanisms and systematically developing academic literacy skills represent critical requirements for graduate students to sustain academic production following disasters. In this context, higher education institutions' provision of both psychosocial and academic literacy-based support programs during disaster periods becomes fundamental for maintaining academic quality and sustainable scientific production. Acknowledgment This study was conducted within the scope of the research project titled “Striving for Quality Education and a Resilient Society: Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of an Academic Literacy Teaching Program for Postgraduate Education in the Aftermath of Disasters". The project is supported by TÜBİTAK under the 1001 - Scientific and Technological Research Projects Support Program - Special Calls with the project number 323K170. We would like to express our gratitude to TÜBİTAK for their support and to all participants who contributed to this research. References Akçiğit, U., & Özcan-Tok, E. (2020). Türkiye bilim raporu. TÜBA Raporları, 43(21.10), 2022. Alhas, A. (2006). Lisansüstü eğitim yapmakta olan milli eğitim bakanlığı öğretmenlerinin lisansüstü eğitime bakış açıları (Ankara ili örneği) (Tez No. 187662) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi. Bayar, A., & Duran, E. (2019). Lisansüstü eğitimde nitelik sorunları. Avrasya Uluslararası Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(20), 219–240. Bozan, M. (2012). Lisansüstü eğitimde nitelik arayışları. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 177–187. Butler, G. (2013). Discipline-specific versus generic academic literacy intervention for university education: An issue of impact? Journal for Language Teaching = Ijenali Yekufundzisa Lulwimi = Tydskrif vir Taalonderrig, 47(2), 71–87. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Çiftçi, Ö., & Bulut, K. (2018). Lisansüstü eğitim programlarındaki sorunlar: Nitelik açısından bir değerlendirme. Lisansüstü Eğitim Forumu (s. 25). Van, Türkiye. Demir, S., & Deniz, H. (2020). Akademik Okuryazarlık Ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(3), 1366–1379. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.4008 du Plessis, C. (2016). Inferences from the Test of Academic Literacy for Postgraduate Students (TALPS). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34(1), 1–16. Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30, 452–465. Elçi Öksüzoğlu, İ. (2024). An examination of social studies education graduate students' views on academic literacy skills. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(3), 1462–1489. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1498781 Koç, F., & Özkoçak, V. (2019). Türkiye’de lisansüstü eğitime dair güncel sorunlar. IHEC 2019: 4. Uluslararası Yükseköğretim Çalışmaları Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı (ss. 58–62). Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retnaningdyah, P., & Laksono, K. (2018). Exploring academic literacy practices in postgraduate level. In 2nd Social Sciences, Humanities and Education Conference: Establishing Identities through Language, Culture, and Education (SOSHEC 2018) (pp. 265–266). Atlantis Press. Wingate, U. (2015). Academic literacy and student diversity: The case for inclusive practice (Vol. 42). Multilingual Matters. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık. 22. Research in Higher Education
Ignite Talk From Metrics to Meaning: A Holistic Monitoring Framework for Non-Competitive Research Funding Ghent University, Belgium Presenting Author:Across European higher education systems, calls to fundamentally rethink research funding architectures are gaining momentum. Competitive grant schemes, dominated by peer reviewed calls, remain the prevailing model but face growing criticism. Rising application volumes reduce success rates without reflecting research quality (Naddaf, 2025). Competitive funding is also inefficient (Sandström & Van den Besselaar, 2018), requiring substantial reviewer time while selection quality remains uncertain (Bendiscioli, 2019; Guthrie, Ghiga I, & Wooding, 2018; Jerrim, & Vries, 2020). Moreover, objective assessment of research proposals remains challenging (Bornmann, et al., 2014), leaving room for informal mechanisms such as nepotism and gender bias (Sandström & Hällsten, 2004; Wennerås & Wold, 1997). For researchers, this system often results in increased workload, demotivation and diminished career prospects (Kinman, 2015; Winefield et al., 2003). In response, Ghent University reformed its internal research funding model by replacing competitive calls with freely deployable, non-competitive research funding for every research-active professor (Upton, 2023). This reform aims to stimulate collaboration (e.g., pooling resources for PhD funding), support innovative research beyond call-driven logics, reduce workload and strengthen academic autonomy. Over time, it seeks to reshape research culture. This raises a fundamental policy question: Does non-competitive research funding achieve its intended effects, and how does it influence collaboration, workload, autonomy, motivation, research conditions and different forms of research? To address this, Ghent University is developing a transparent and methodologically robust monitoring system combining survey data with researcher-level and organizational-level administrative data, which together provide several advantages. First, survey data examine mechanisms underlying differences in research conditions and outcomes - such as job demands, job resources, autonomy and wellbeing – grounded in the Job Demand–Control model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) and the Job Demands–Resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). These frameworks explain why effects occur, rather than simply indicating whether they occur. Second, the survey measures intentions and expected behavioural changes using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 2011). Because intentions are strong predictors of future behaviour, they provide early signals of how researchers expect to adjust their research agendas, collaborations and resource use. These insights emerge long before traditional output indicators—such as publications, citations or grant applications—become visible and are less sensitive to external influences such as publication cycles, review delays or disciplinary norms. Third, integrating administrative data and survey data provides a holistic perspective of academic research while reducing researcher burden. Administrative data capture structural characteristics (e.g., personnel records, publication counts, potentially funding data), while survey data highlight experiential and contextual dimensions absent from institutional systems Finally, insights from policy enactment research (Ball et al., 2012) inform the monitoring design, recognising that funding reforms are interpreted and shaped differently across organisational contexts. Together, these elements allow two key contributions: (1) it broadening research evaluation beyond narrow output metrics by incorporating mechanisms, experiences and intentions; and (2) enhancing policy relevance through indicators that support evidence‑informed decision‑making while remaning sensitive to disciplinary diversity and varied research practices. In this Ignite Talk, we present: (a) the indicator set under development, and (b) the conceptual survey instrument. Participants are invited to provide feedback on the conceptual model, indicator set, survey design and broader European applicability. In line with the ECER theme, we conceptualise monitoring as a participatory policy technology: a collaborative tool for collective understanding and democratic improvement rather than a top‑down control mechanism. This work contributes to future research governance by providing an evidence‑informed and participatory monitoring model for emerging funding systems, and to SIG 23 by framing monitoring as a political and organisational practice shaped by actors, institutional cultures and interpretations of funding regimes. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The monitoring framework follows a multi-method design combining researcher-level and organizational-level administrative data with a comprehensive survey instrument. Administrative data provide objective information about research-related structural characteristics, such as personnel records, publication output, project participation and—where available—funding-related metadata. Survey data complement these records by capturing experiences, mechanisms and perceptions that are not embedded in institutional systems. The monitoring system and its indicators are developed through an iterative co design process involving faculties, the Research Council, the data protection officer, data managers, early career researchers and individual academics. This participatory approach ensures institutional legitimacy and alignment with disciplinary diversity. The monitoring system and survey instrument are theoretically grounded in two complementary models of work experiences and conditions: the Job Demand–Control model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) and the Job Demands–Resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). These frameworks help explain how work demands, autonomy and available resources influence motivation, wellbeing and research conditions. The survey thereby uncovers mechanisms that may shape differences in output, collaboration or research environments. In addition, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 2011) provides a framework for assessing intentions, which serve as powerful predictors of future behaviour. By mapping intentions and behavioural expectations, the monitoring system identifies early signs of possible changes in research practices, thematic orientations, collaboration patterns and resource use. This is particularly important because intentions shift faster than traditional output indicators, and are less influenced by external factors such as publication cycles, disciplinary variation or timing of funding calls. Together, administrative and survey data allow for a holistic, multidimensional understanding of academic research. This integrated approach increases analytical depth while reducing survey burden, as much information is automatically retrieved from existing systems. Its primary purpose is to detect whether non-competitive research funding achieves its intended effects and to identify the mechanisms and early indicators through which these effects may emerge. Insights from policy enactment theory (Ball, Maguire & Braun, 2012) further inform the methodological design, ensuring that the monitoring system captures how non-competitive funding is interpreted, adapted and operationalised within different organisational and disciplinary settings. Ignite Talk focus: We present the indicator set and the conceptual survey instrument, and invite participants—particularly from different European contexts—to provide feedback on conceptual coherence, indicator relevance and methodological robustness. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This project develops a transparent, shared and widely supported monitoring system that conceptualises non-competitive research funding as a policy intervention with structural implications for academic research. By combining researcher-level and organizational-level administrative data with survey indicators on job demands, job resources, autonomy, motivation, wellbeing and intentions, the system transcends traditional performance measurement and provides a rich and multidimensional understanding of research conditions. The survey component offers a key advantage: it can detect early changes triggered by policy interventions. Intentions, expectations and perceptions evolve more quickly than traditional output indicators—such as publications or grant applications—while also being less sensitive to external influences. Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the monitoring system thus delivers early insights into how researchers anticipate adapting their behaviours, collaborations and thematic orientations. The integration of administrative and survey data creates a holistic perspective on research work: administrative data capture objective structures, while survey data highlight experiential and mechanism based dimensions not found in existing databases. This approach also reduces survey burden and increases analytical accuracy. The multi-method design, grounded in established theoretical models (JDC, JD-R, TPB) and supported by participatory collaboration with diverse stakeholders, yields a robust, transparent and methodologically innovative instrument. Guided by insights from policy enactment, the system recognises that non-competitive funding is enacted differently across contexts and that monitoring must reflect these situated realities. As such, it contributes to trust, legitimacy and transparency in the university’s research funding policy. At the European level, this framework offers a transferable and scalable model for institutions exploring alternatives to competitive funding structures—and how to monitor them. It facilitates inter-institutional learning and contributes to broader debates on sustainable, equitable and human-centred research funding in European higher education. References Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056 Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in Secondary Schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203153185 Bendiscioli S. The troubles with peer review for allocating research funding: Funders need to experiment with versions of peer review and decision-making. EMBO Rep. 2019;20(12):e49472-e. Guthrie S, Ghiga I, Wooding S. (2018). What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? F1000Research, 6, 1335. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11917.2 Jerrim, J., Vries, R. (2023) Are peer-reviews of grant proposals reliable? An analysis of Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funding applications. The Social Science Journal, 1, 91 – 109, DOI: 10.1080/03623319.2020.1728506. Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life. Basic Books. Kinman, G. (2015). Work stressors, social support, and work–life balance in academic employees. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Work and Family (pp. 211–224). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199337538.013.019 Naddaf, M. (2025) Is academic research becoming too competitive? Nature examines the data. Nature, 646, 1036 – 1037. DOI: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03119-z Sandröm, U., & Hällsten, M. (2008). Persistent nepotism in peer review. Scientometrics, 74(2), 175 – 189. Upton, B. (2023). Belgian university introduces universal basic research funding. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/belgian-university-introduces-universal-basic-research-funding Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387(22 May), 341 – 343. DOI: 10.1038/387341a0 Winefield, A. H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., Hapuarachchi, J., & Boyd, C. (2003). Occupational stress in Australian university staff: Results from a national survey. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(1), 51–63. DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.10.1.51 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Research Trends in Academic Literacy: A Bibliometric Analysis 1: Fırat University, Türkiye (Turkey); 2: İnönü University, Türkiye (Turkey) Presenting Author:The 21st century is characterized as a modern and digital era in which rapid advances in science and technology have fundamentally transformed how knowledge is produced, disseminated, and circulated. While this transformation has significantly facilitated access to information for scientists, researchers, and society at large, it has also created an increasingly competitive environment shaped by knowledge production and use. In this context, cultivating individuals who not only consume information but can effectively utilize and generate new knowledge has become a priority for nations worldwide (İbili & Özbaş, 2023). The quantitative expansion of scientific knowledge has markedly increased the need for higher-order cognitive skills that extend beyond mere acquisition to include comprehension, synthesis, critical evaluation, source interrogation, and reconstruction. Academic literacy has emerged as one of the core competencies addressing this need, gaining growing prominence in recent years (García-Jiménez & Guzmán-Simón, 2015). Indeed, academic literacy is recognized as a critical competency area that supports societies' scientific, cultural, and economic development while playing an essential role in sustaining knowledge-based prosperity (Laugksch, 2000). As a relatively recent concept, academic literacy has evolved into an area of intensive scholarly interest over the past three decades, particularly within education research. Early studies in the field conceptualized academic literacy narrowly in terms of grammar instruction and literacy skills. However, paralleling developments in education, the meaning of being academically literate has evolved into a multidimensional competency encompassing academic modes of thinking, writing, speaking, and reading, as well as processes of accessing information, evaluating knowledge, participating in academic discourse, and understanding disciplinary epistemologies—all aimed at advancing knowledge within one's field of study (Neeley, 2005). This evolution has led scholars to reconceptualize academic literacy not merely as an individual competency but as a set of practices that shape participation in academic communities. Research within this framework has examined dimensions including academic writing, critical reading, source use, academic ethics, and digital and data literacy together, defining academic literacy as a multilayered construct. In recent years, digitalization, the open science movement (Bowman & Keene, 2018; Woolston, 2015; Foster & Deardorff, 2017), and AI-supported academic production processes (Petrişor, 2025; Scarlat & Petrişor, 2025) have further deepened debates around academic literacy and expanded the field's scope. Parallel to these developments, scholarly publications focused on academic literacy have increased markedly in recent years. Despite this quantitative growth, research that comprehensively examines the structural characteristics, temporal development trends, prominent thematic foci, collaboration networks, and influential publication sources within the academic literacy field remains limited (Bassett & Macnaught, 2025; Li, 2022; Meza, 2021). Existing studies typically address academic literacy by focusing on specific contexts, student populations, or pedagogical interventions, with relatively less attention devoted to mapping the field's holistic development and research trends. This gap highlights a clear need for systematic and comprehensive mapping of the broader research landscape in academic literacy. This study aims to examine scholarly publications focused on academic literacy through bibliometric analysis, revealing the historical development, research trends, and prominent structural characteristics of publications addressing this concept. Accordingly, the study seeks to analyze: a) The distribution of publications in academic literacy by year, b) The most productive authors, journals, and countries in academic literacy, c) Citation patterns and influential works in the academic literacy literature, d) Key concepts and thematic foci used across the research domain. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study aims to examine a bibliometric analysis of scholarly publications focused on academic literacy. Bibliometric analysis has emerged as a powerful method for investigating the development of an academic field through objective indicators (Arslan, 2022). Bibliometric studies can reveal the intellectual structure and evolution of a research domain through indicators such as publication counts, citation patterns, keyword co-occurrences, and author and country collaborations (Donthu et al., 2021). This approach, increasingly employed in education and social sciences, holds significant potential for understanding the dynamics of interdisciplinary fields such as academic literacy (Meza, 2021). Research data were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database using thematic keywords structured through the Topic filter and Boolean operators (AND/OR). The retrieved articles were indexed in Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), Book Citation Index – Social Sciences & Humanities (BKCI-SSH), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Book Citation Index – Science (BKCI-S), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH). The analysis spans the period from 1997 to 2025, enabling comprehensive assessment of developmental trajectories in academic literacy scholarship. Data cleaning and merging processes were conducted using R 4.1, and subsequent analytical outputs were generated through the biblioshiny() function in the bibliometrix package. The resulting dataset comprises 894 articles in academic literacy published across 382 different sources. These publications include contributions from 1,622 distinct authors, with 301 studies published as single-authored works. The average of 2.16 authors per article suggests that relatively small research teams predominate in the field. The international co-authorship rate was calculated as 9.396%. The dataset contains 2,332 distinct author keywords and 29,084 references. The average age of examined articles is 8.23 years, with an average citation count of 13.59 per article. The annual growth rate of publications was calculated as 16.5%, indicating an increase in scientific production within academic literacy in recent years. To examine the temporal dynamics of publication output in academic literacy, a publication life cycle analysis was conducted based on annual publication counts. Annual publication cycles and cumulative publication growth were modeled using a logistic growth model. The coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.819 indicates that the model explains approximately 82% of the variance in annual publication counts. This high degree of model fit suggests that it reliably represents publication trends in academic literacy. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study analyzed publications in academic literacy through bibliometric indicators, revealing the field's structural characteristics, developmental trends, and intellectual patterns. Findings indicate that academic literacy scholarship is concentrated in specific journals. Higher education-focused outlets, particularly the Journal of Academic Language and Learning, Teaching in Higher Education and Higher Education Research & Development, emerge as the field's primary publication venues. This demonstrates that academic literacy research is predominantly situated within higher education contexts. Author analyses reveal that sustained contributions in the field come from a limited number of researchers. Scholars such as Baker S., Lea M.R., Archer A., and Fouche I. stand out in terms of both publication counts and impact levels. At the institutional level, the University of Cape Town and the Open University are notable as the institutions with the highest publication output in academic literacy. This finding indicates that the field is concentrated particularly in specific geographic regions and academic centers. Citation analyses revealed that Lea and Street's (1998) work constitutes the field's theoretical core and occupies a central position in the academic literacy literature. Keyword and thematic analyses show that academic literacy research has concentrated over time around "academic literacy," "academic writing," "higher education," and "academic literacies," while in recent years shifting toward emerging themes such as "practices," "social justice," and "ChatGPT." Acknowledgment This study was conducted within the scope of the research project titled “Striving for Quality Education and a Resilient Society: Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of an Academic Literacy Teaching Program for Postgraduate Education in the Aftermath of Disasters". The project is supported by TÜBİTAK under the 1001 - Scientific and Technological Research Projects Support Program - Special Calls with the project number 323K170. We would like to express our gratitude to TÜBİTAK for their support and to all participants who contributed to this research. References Bowman, N. D., & Keene, J. R. (2018). A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices. Communication Research Reports, 35(4), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273 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. Foster, E. D., & Deardorff, A. (2017). Open science framework (OSF). Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 105(2), 203. García-Jiménez, E., & Guzmán-Simón, F. (2015). La alfabetización académica en la Universidad. Un estudio predictivo. RELIEVE-Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 21(1). İbili, H., & Özbaş, M. (2023). Öğretmen adaylarının akademik okuryazarlık düzeyleri ile iletişim becerileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 12(2),364-376 Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in higher education, 23(2), 157-172. Li, D. (2022). A review of academic literacy research development: from 2002 to 2019. Asian-Pacific journal of second and foreign language education, 7(1), 5. Meza, C. S. R. (2021). A bibliometric analysis of academic literacy: A review of the state of the art, from the past to the future Análisis bibliométrico de la alfabetización académica: una revisión del estado del arte, del pasado al futuro. Revista de Educacion, 394, 63-94. Petrişor, A. I. (2025). AI-Supported Academic Scientific. Building Trust in the Generative Artificial Intelligence Era: Technology Challenges and Innovations, 241. Scarlat, C., & Petrişor, A. I. (2025). To Trust or Not to Trust Generative AI-Supported Academic Scientific Research Publications as a Matter of Trust and Ethics. In Building Trust in the Generative Artificial Intelligence Era (pp. 241-257). Routledge. Woolston, C. (2015). Online debate erupts to ask: is science broken?. Nature, 519(7544), 393-393. | ||