• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.37-66
• /
• 2023

Scientometrics and research evaluation describe and analyze research publications when conducting publication, citation, and topic analyses. However, what exactly is a (scientific, academic, scholarly or research) publication? This article demonstrates that there are many problems when it comes to looking in detail at quantitative publication analyses, citation analyses, altmetric analyses, and topic analyses. When is a document a publication and when is it not? We discuss authorship and contribution, formally and informally published documents, as well as documents in between (preprints, research data) and the characteristics of references, citations, and topics. What is a research publication? Is there a commonly accepted criterion for distinguishing between research and non-research? How complete and unbiased are data sources for research publications and sources for altmetrics? What is one research publication? What is the unit of a publication that causes us to count it as "1?" In this regard, we report problems related to multi-author publications and their counting, weighted document types, the unit and weighting of citations and references, the unit of topics, and counting problems-not only at the article and individual researcher level (micro-level), but also at the meso-level (e.g., institutions) and macro-level (e.g., countries). Our results suggest that scientometric counting units are not reliable and clear. Many scientometric and research evaluation studies must therefore be used with the utmost caution.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.77-97
• /
• 2017

With reference management tool based on web, we could understand not only impact about non-author, such as hand-on worker, educator, who are out of academia, but also trace the subject fields of readers and their status. This study by analyzing mendeley, understand what kinds of subject fields and status of readers read library and information science field articles. As a result of analyzing the status and the major of the reader, readers were distributed in the fields of business administration, education and so on, and according to the reader's major, there was a significant difference (p = .000) between the subject area of relatively read a lot. By the way, as the result of relational analysis between citation rate and numbers of mendeley readership about medeley saved articles, correlation coefficient shows 0.585, however as the result of relational analysis limiting the groups, in case of author group who tends to read the articles for citing, correlation coefficient shows 0.619. On the other hand, non-author group shows 0.384.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.107-124
• /
• 2018

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.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.47-69
• /
• 2020

This research provides a quantitative analysis on research articles published in PLoS ONE, a multidisciplinary open access journal, by authors affiliated with Korean institutions. Korean authors published more than 6,500 research ariticles in the mega journal between 2006 and 2019. Korea is ranked the top 11th place in terms of article publishing in the journal. Most articles by Korean authors are concentrated in the biomedical fields. In recent years, the overall production of PLoS ONE has decreased as authors migrated to competing mega journals such as Scientific Reports and BMJ Open. The change might have been affected in part by the delay in the review period and the dropping impact factor score. The open access share of the Korean PLoS ONE authors of more than 10 articles hovers around 30%. However, there is a significant variation among researchers reaching up to 50% discrepancies. Among altmetrics provided by PLoS ONE, the saves are highly correlated with the views and the citations. On the contrary, the shares show low correlation with other use metrics. A follow up, survey questionnarie based research involving researchers who have published in PLoS ONE is planned in order to investigate author motivation and experience in the review process.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.55 no.1
• /
• pp.365-392
• /
• 2021

In order to assess the state of library and information science (LIS) research in Korea, the study analyzed bibliometric data of papers published in past 18 years in Korea Citation Index (KCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) journals. The analysis of study data, which consisted of 6,301 KCI journal papers with 26,474 citations and 86,727 SSCI journal papers with 1,196,961 citations from 2002 to 2020, involved comparison of research productivity and impact, collaboration trends, and key areas of research between domestic and international LIS scholars with normalizations by units of analysis for size differences. Even with size normalization, the study found a marked difference in citation patterns between domestic and international LIS research. Korean LIS authors were twice as productive as international LIS authors but a little over a half as impactful. The results also showed a much higher level of skewness in international research, where a fraction of top authors, institutions, and journals received a lion's share of citations. The trend of increasing co-authorship was much more pronounced among international publication, where the recent popularity of larger collaboration groups suggests multi-disciplinary and increasingly complex nature of modern LIS research in the world stage. The keyword analysis revealed a much more diverse subject area in international than domestic LIS research with a recent shift towards technology, such as big data, blockchain, and altmetrics. Keywords in SSCI journals also exhibited a less connection between popularity and impact than KCI keywords, where popular keywords did not necessarily correspond to impactful keywords.