Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Network Analysis of Readers' Countries of Korean Studies using Mendeley Co-readership Data

Mendeley co-readership 정보를 활용한 한국 관련 논문의 글로벌 독자 국가 네트워크 분석

  • 조재인 (인천대학교 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 박종도 (인천대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2018.11.12
  • Accepted : 2018.12.12
  • Published : 2018.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Mendeley readership data could be used to understand how research outcome be spent outside of academia in multi way. So it could be utilized to understand unknown world which citation rate could not explain still now. This study, by conducting a country network analysis using Mendeley's co readership data about articles of Korea related research, clusters countries that share common academic interest. As a result, the US and other advanced countries in all fields showed high overall and regional centrality, indicating that they have overall cooperation and potential for exchange of Korea related studies. Some developing countries have shown high regional centrality and are linked to common academic interests. In the medical and social sciences, the OECD and developing countries have formed a separate group of readers, and the engineering sector has been characterized by emerging developing countries as a large community of readers. In addition, engineering science field has shown that network density is relatively high, so there might be high possibility of academic exchanges, knowledge dissemination and cooperation among countries.

Mendeley의 독자 정보는 학계 밖에서 학문의 결과물이 어떻게 소비되고 있는지 다각도로 파악하여 피인용도로는 해석할 수 없었던 미지의 세계를 예측하는데 활용될 수 있다. 본 연구는 Mendeley의 co-readership 데이터를 활용해 한국 관련 논문의 독자 국가 네트워크 분석을 수행하여 공통의 학문적 관심사를 공유하는 국가 군집을 이해하고 이들 국가가 네트워크 상에서 어떠한 영향력을 가지는지 확인하였다. 그 결과 전 분야에서 미국을 비롯한 선진국은 대체로 높은 전역중심성을 보여 한국 관련 연구에 대한 전반적인 협력과 잠재적 교류 가능성을 가지는 것으로 나타났으며, 일부 개발도상국은 높은 지역중심성을 보여 상호간 공통의 학문적 관심사로 연계되어 있는 것으로 확인되었다. 한편 의학과 사회과학 분야는 OECD 국가와 개발도상국이 분리된 독자층을 이루었으며, 공학 분야는 신흥경제개발국이 대규모 독자 군집으로 형성되는 특징을 보였다. 또한 공학은 네트워크 밀도가 상대적으로 높게 나타나 국가간 학문적 교류와 지식의 확산, 협력의 가능성이 높은 것으로 분석되었다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 인천대학교

References

  1. Lee, Jae Yun (2006). A novel clustering method for examining and analyzing the intellectual structure of a scholarly field. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 23(4), 215-231. https://doi.org/10.3743/kosim.2006.23.4.215
  2. Lee, Jae Yun (2013). A comparison study on the weighted networkd centrality measures of tnet and WNET. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 30(4), 241-264. https://doi.org/10.3743/kosim.2013.30.4.241
  3. Jeong, Dae-hyun, Kwon, Young-il, Hong, Soon-ki, & Cho, Keuntae (2014). An analysis of the effect of density of the joint research network between countries on technology diffusion: Focusing on the case of secondary battery and the electric vehicle field. Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 14(9), 582-588. https://doi.org/10.5392/jkca.2014.14.09.582
  4. Cho, Jane (2015). A study about scholarly impact measurement through altmetrics. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 46(1), 65-81. https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.46.1.201503.65
  5. Cho, Jane (2017). Study on readers about library and information science fields' articles by analyzing mendeley. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 48(1), 77-97. https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.48.1.201703.77
  6. Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123-1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1565-y
  7. Cho, Jane. (2017). A comparative study of the impact of Korean research articles in four academic fields using altmetrics. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18(1), 38-51. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-02-2016-0005
  8. Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419-1430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1261-3
  9. Haunschild, R., & Bornmann, L. (2015). F1000Prime: An analysis of discipline-specific reader data from Mendeley [version 2; referees: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6062.2
  10. Haunschild, R., Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics. PeerJ Computer Science, 1, 32. https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.32
  11. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Lariviere, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLOS ONE, 10(3). https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495
  12. Kraker P., Schlogl C., Jack K., & Lindstaedt S. (2015). Visualization of co-readership patterns from an online reference management system. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 169-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.12.003
  13. Leydesdorff, L., Heimeriks, G., & Rotolo, D. (2016) Journal portfolio analysis for countries, cities, and organizations: Maps and comparisons. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 67(3), 741-748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23551
  14. Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Montreal, 541-551.
  15. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627-1638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23071
  16. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627-1638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23071
  17. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Lariviere, V. (2015). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of mendeley user categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 66(9), 1832-1846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23286
  18. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1849-1857. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23515
  19. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of 'alternative metrics' in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491-1513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0