Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회지)

Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Analysis of Korean Universities' Journal Publication Research Performance Evaluation Standards

국내대학의 학술논문 연구업적평가기준 비교 분석

  • 이혜경 (경북대학교 일반대학원 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 양기덕 (경북대학교 사회과학대학 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2017.05.19
  • Accepted : 2017.06.19
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As a first step in developing a more effective and robust approach to faculty research performance assessment, this study analyzed the existing faculty research assessment methods by comparing Korean universities' research evaluation standards, National Research Foundation of Korea's (KRF) standard for assessing research proposals, and various bibliometric measures. The study data included research evaluation standards of KRF along with 27 Korean universities with Library and Information Science (LIS) department, and the publication data of 183 LIS faculties in Korean universities from 2001 to 2015, which consisted of 3,863 papers 16,978 citations. After the comparative analysis of research evaluation standards, the study examined the rankings of institutions and faculty produced by applying the collected standards and bibliometric metrics to the publication data. The study showed that Korean university standards for research evaluation, which aim to consider both productivity and impact of faculty research, differ from similar bibliometric measures such as h-index, and the difference could significantly impact the assessment of faculty research performance.

본 연구는 보다 효율적이고 균일하게 교원의 연구업적을 평가하기 위한 기초 연구로서, 현재 국내 대학의 교원업적평가 기준과 한국연구재단의 연구업적평가기준, 그리고 여러 계량서지학 지표를 비교하여 국내의 교원연구업적평가 방식을 분석하였다. 본 연구를 진행하기 위하여 국내 대학 27곳의 교원업적평가기준과 한국연구재단 연구업적평가기준을 수집하였으며, 183명의 국내 문헌정보학과 교수의 2001년부터 2015년 사이 발표된 학술논문 3,863편과 16,978건의 인용을 수집하였다. 이를 토대로 우선 현재 시행중인 국내 대학의 연구업적평가지표들을 비교 한 후, 대학지표들과 저자기여도 산정식을 가중한 계량서지학적 지표들을 수집한 데이터에 적용하여 산출한 저자와 대학별 순위들을 분석하였다. 국내 대학의 연구업적평가지표는 연구업적의 생산성과 영향성을 고루 평가하고자 하였으나, h-index처럼 이와 유사한 계량서 지학 지표와 다른 평가 결과를 나타냄으로써, 평가지표가 평가결과에 각기 다른 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 발견하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Dong-no Kim, Min-haeng Lee, and Tae-gyun Park. 2005. "Constructing an Evaluation Model for the Professors' Academic Achievement in the Humanities." Journal of Education Evaluation, 19(3): 1-20.
  2. Eunkyung Nam and Ji-Hong Park. 2014. "Factors Influencing Research Collaboration in the Field of Informetrics." Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 31(4): 201-227. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.4.201
  3. Hee-Yoon Yoon and Sin-Young Kim. "An Analysis on Correlations between Journal Impact Factor and Research Performance Evaluation Weight." Journal of Information management, 36(3): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1633/JIM.2005.36.3.001
  4. Jae Yun Lee and EunKyung Chung. 2014. "A Comparative Analysis on Multiple Authorship Counting for Author Co-citation Analysis." Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 31(2): 57-77. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.2.057
  5. Jae-Yun Lee. 2006. "Some Improvements on H-Index : Measuring Research Outputs by Citations." Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 23(3): 167-186. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2006.23.3.167
  6. Jin-Sik Chung. 2001. "An Analytical Study on Research Trends of Library and Information Science in Korea: 1996-2000." Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 35(3): 55-78.
  7. Jin-Sik Chung. 2009. "A Study on Assessment of Faculty Performance in Research Achievement : A Focus on Library and Information Science Field." Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 20(2): 129-142.
  8. Jongwook Lee and Kiduk Yang. 2011. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Faculty Research Performance Assessment Methods." Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management 28(4): 119-140. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.119
  9. Jung-Pyo Sohn. 2003. "An Analytical Study on Research Trends of Library and Information Science in Korea: 1957-2002." Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 34(3): 9-32.
  10. Kim, Doo-Beom. 1996. "The Analytic Approach for Faculty Performances Evaluation." Journal of the Korean Society of Women's Culture, 3: 13-29.
  11. Kim, Wang Jun, Yun, Hongju, Rah, Minjoo. 2012. "A Comparative Analysis of Faculty Evaluation Systems of National Universities in Korea." The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 29(1): 143-165.
  12. Lee, Hyeon Cheong and Rah, Minjoo. 1995. "The Management System and Criteria for Faculty Evaluation: A Practical Guide." Korean Journal of Higher Education, 7(1): 133-154.
  13. Pan Jun Kim. 2011. "A Study on Framework for Linkage of Research Performance Evaluation and Research Information Service." Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(4): 243-261. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.243
  14. Se-Hoon Oh. 2005. "A Study on the Research Trends of Library & Information Science in Korea by analyzing Journal articles and the Cited Literatures." Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 22(3): 379-408. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2005.22.3.379
  15. So-Young Yu, Jae Yun Lee, EunKyung Chung, and Boram Lee. 2015. "A Review of Declarations on Appropriate Research Evaluation for Exploring Their Applications to Research Evaluation System of Korea." Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 32(4): 249-272. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.249
  16. Yeon-Kyoung Chung, Yoon-Kyung Choi. 2011. "A Study on Faculty Evaluation of Research Achievements in Humanities and Social Sciences." Journal of Information management, 42(3): 211-233. https://doi.org/10.1633/JIM.2011.42.3.211
  17. Birnholtz, J. P. 2007. "When Do Researchers Collaborate? Toward a Model of Collaboration Propensity." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14):2226-2239 https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20684
  18. Cronin, B. and Meho, L. 2006. "Using h-index to rank influential information Scientists." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9): 1275-1278. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20354
  19. Drott, M. C. 1995. "Reexamining the role of conference papers in scholarly communication." Journal of the American Society for Information Science of Technology, 46(4): 299-305 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199505)46:4<299::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-0
  20. Egghe, L. 2006. "An improvement of the h-index: the g-index." ISSI newsletter, 2(1): 8-9.
  21. Hagen, N. T. 2008. "Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis." PLoS One, 3(12): e4021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004021
  22. K. Yang and Lee J. 2013. "Bibliometric Approach to Research Assessment: Publication Count, Citation Count, & Author Rank." Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 1(1): 27-41. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2013.1.1.2
  23. Katz J. S. and Martin, B. R. 1997. "What is research collaboration?" Research Policy, 26: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1
  24. Lee, J. and K. Yang. 2015. "Co-authorship Credit Allocation Methods in the Assessment of Citation Impact of Chemistry Faculty." Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 49(3): 273-289.
  25. Lee, J. Y. and Chung. E. 2014. "A Comparative Analysis on Multiple Authorship Counting for Author Co-citation Analysis." Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 31(2): 57-77. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.2.057
  26. Lisee C., Lariviere V., and Archambault, E. 2008. "Conference proceeding as a source of Scientific information: A bibliometric analysis." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11): 1776-1784. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20888
  27. Meho L. and Yang, K. 2007. "Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google scholar." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13): 2105-2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677
  28. Seglen, P. O. 1997. "Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research." British Medical Journal, 314: 498-502. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.498
  29. Vinkler, P. 1993. "Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness." Scientometrics, 26(1):213-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016801
  30. Vinkler, P. 2000. "Evaluation of the publication activity of research teams by means of Scientometric indicators." Current Science, 79(5): 602-612.
  31. 왕상한. 2012. 국내외 대학의 교수업적평가 사례 분석 연구. 교육과학기술부.
  32. 윤석경. 1996. 연구업적 평가를 위한 인용분석 지표개발에 관한 연구. 사회과학연구, 7: 155-177.
  33. 조수련. 2006. 오픈엑세스 자원의 논문 및 저자 연구업적 평가모형 개발에 관한 연구. 박사학위논문, 성균관대학교 일반대학원 문헌정보학과.
  34. 최기석. 2004. A대학교 교수 연구업적평가제도에 대한 사례연구. 석사학위논문, 동국대학교 경영대학원 경영학과.

Cited by

  1. 국내 문헌정보학 분야의 공동연구 동향 분석 vol.50, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.50.2.201906.191
  2. 국제 및 국내 문헌정보학 분야의 연구성과 비교 분석 vol.55, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4275/kslis.2021.55.1.365