• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.115-134
• /
• 2012

The author co-citation analysis is generally based on the frequency of the first author because most citation databases include only the first author in the bibliographic information. In this sense, the purpose of this study is to provide a better knowledge structure by utilizing the multiple authorship of author co-citation analysis. To achieve the purpose of this study, four different data sets are prepared: (1) counting the first author, (2) counting all the author without limiting the total frequency, (3) counting all the author with limiting the total frequency, and (4) counting adjusted frequencies based on the order of author subscription. The findings of this study show that there are clear differences between the knowledge structure counting all the author and the one counting only the first author. In addition, depending on the different methods, there are subtle changes of cluster members for authors.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.52 no.1
• /
• pp.231-258
• /
• 2018

This study attempted to identify dynamically changing structure and analyze factors of collaboration. In order to perform this study, 1,631 articles in SCI journals were collected, and 3,898 researchers' information were extracted. To examine the dynamics of collaboration networks, the co-authorship data collected from 2001 to 2015 were divided into three sets, and were analyzed with respect to each period. The results of this study were summed up as: 1) "Co-authorship of the last year" was entirely significant factors while research career was significant only in the period of 2 to 3. 2) It was found that "Influence of the researchers" and "Emergence of the researchers" were significant factors in the period of 2 to 3 and in the period of 1 to 2. 3) "Same institutions", "Same subject", and "Journal similarity" were significant factors in all periods.

• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.76-106
• /
• 2021

The study analyzed bibliometric data of papers published in Korea Citation Index (KCI) and Web of Science (WoS) journals from 2002 to 2021. After examining size differences of KCI and WoS domains in the number of authors, institutions, and journals to put publication and citations counts in perspective, the study investigated co-authorship patterns over time to compare collaboration trends of Korean and international scholars and analyzed the data at author, institution, and journal levels to explore how the influences of authors, institutions, and journals on research output differ across domains. The study also conducted frequency-based analysis of keywords to identify key topics and visualized keyword clusters to examine topic trends. The result showed Korean LIS authors to be twice as productive as international authors but much less impactful and Korean institutions to be at comparable levels of productivity and impact in contrast to much of productivity and impact concentrated in top international institutions. Citations to journals exhibited initially increasing pattern followed by a decreasing trend though WoS journals showed far more variance than KCI journals. Co-authorship trends were much more pronounced among international publication, where larger collaboration groups suggested multi-disciplinary and complex nature of international LIS research. Keyword analysis found continuing diversification of topics in international research compared to relatively static topic trend in Korea. Keyword visualization showed WoS keyword clusters to be much denser and diverse than KCI clusters. In addition, key keyword clusters of WoS were quite different from each other unlike KCI clusters which were similar.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.57-77
• /
• 2014

As co-authorship has been prevalent within science communities, counting the credit of co-authors appropriately is an important consideration, particularly in the context of identifying the knowledge structure of fields with author-based analysis. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics of co-author credit counting methods by utilizing correlations, multidimensional scaling, and pathfinder networks. To achieve this purpose, this study analyzed a dataset of 2,014 journal articles and 3,892 cited authors from the Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea: Planning & Design from 2003 to 2008 in the field of Architecture in Korea. In this study, six different methods of crediting co-authors are selected for comparative analyses. These methods are first-author counting (m1), straight full counting (m2), and fractional counting (m3), proportional counting with a total score of 1 (m4), proportional counting with a total score between 1 and 2 (m5), and first-author-weighted fractional counting (m6). As shown in the data analysis, m1 and m2 are found as extreme opposites, since m1 counts only first authors and m2 assigns all co-authors equally with a credit score of 1. With correlation and multidimensional scaling analyses, among five counting methods (from m2 to m6), a group of counting methods including m3, m4, and m5 are found to be relatively similar. When the knowledge structure is visualized with pathfinder network, the knowledge structure networks from different counting methods are differently presented due to the connections of individual links. In addition, the internal validity shows that first-author-weighted fractional counting (m6) might be considered a better method to author clustering. Findings demonstrate that different co-author counting methods influence the network results of knowledge structure and a better counting method is revealed for author clustering.

• Journal of Internet of Things and Convergence
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.7-12
• /
• 2021

Wisdom Contents are created with experiences and ideas of multiple authors, and consumed in Internet based Social Network Services that are not subjected to regional restrictions. Existing copyright management systems are designed for the protection of professional authors' rights, and effective in domestic area. On the contrary, the blockchain protocol is subjected to the service and the block is added by the consensus of participating nodes. If the data is stored to the blockchain, it cannot be modified or deleted. In this paper, we propose the blockchain based undeniable multi-signature scheme for the protection of multiple authorship on Wizdom Contents. The proposed scheme is consisted of co-authors' common public key generation, multi-signature generation and verification protocols. In the undeniable signature scheme, the signature cannot be verified without help of the signer. The proposed scheme is best suited to the contents purchase protocol. All co-authors cannot deny the fairness of the automated profit distribution through the verification of multiple authorship on Wizdom Contents.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.164-173
• /
• 2011

Purpose: This research aimed to analyze the patterns of co-authorship network among the Korean radiation oncologists and to identify attributing factors for the formation of networks. Materials and Methods: A total of 1,447 articles including contents of ‘Radiation Oncology' and 'Therapeutic Radiology' were searched from the KoreaMed database. The co-authorship was assorted by the author's full name, affiliation and specialties. UCINET 6.0 was used to fi gure out the author's network centrality and the cluster analysis, and KeyPlayer 1.44 program was used to get a result of key player index. Sociogram was analyzed with the Netdraw 2.090. The statistical comparison was performed by a t-test and ANOVA using SPSS 16.0 with p-value < 0.05 as the significant value. Results: The number of articles written by a radiation oncologist as the first author was 1,025 out of 1,447. The pattern of coauthorship was classified into five groups. For articles of which the first author was a radiation oncologist, the number of singleauthor articles (type-A) was 81; single-institution articles (type-B) was 687; and multiple-author articles (type-C) was 257. For the articles which radiation oncologists participated in as a co-author, the number of single-institution articles (type-D) was 280 while multiple-institution articles (type-E) were 142. There were 8,895 authors from 1,366 co-authored articles, thus the average number of authors per article was 6.51. It was 5.73 for type-B, 6.44 for type-C, 7.90 for type-D, and 7.67 for type-E (p = 0.000) in the average number of authors per article. The number of authors for articles from the hospitals published more than 100 articles was 7.23 while form others was 5.94 (p = 0.005). Its number was 5.94 and 7.16 for the articles published before and after 2001 (p = 0.000). The articles written by a radiation oncologist as the first author had 5.92 authors while others for 7.82 (p = 0.025). Its number was 5.57 and 7.71 for the Journal of the Korean Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and others (p = 0.000), respectively. Among the analysis, a significant difference in the average number of author per article was indicated. The out-degree centrality of network among authors was 4.26% (2.03-7.09%) while in-degree centrality was 1.31% (0.53-2.84%). The three significant nodes were classified and listed as following: Choi, Eun Kyung for 1991-1995, Kim, Dae Young for 1998-2001, Park, Won and Lee, Sang Wook for 2003-2010. Choi, Eun Kyung and Kim, Dae Young appeared in two cases, and ranked as the highest degree in centrality. In the key player analysis, Choi, Eun Kyung and Lee, Sang Wook appeared in two cases, and ranked as the highest. From the cluster analysis, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul National University and Yonsei University revealed as the three large clusters when Ulsan University, Chonnam National University, and Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Science as the medium clusters. Conclusion: The Korean radiation oncologist's society shows a closed network with numerous relationships among the particular clusters, and the result indicates it is different from other institutions in the pattern of co-authorship formation of the major hospitals.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.51 no.2
• /
• pp.117-132
• /
• 2017

This paper aims to explore the impacts of various authorship-related factors on future citations of conference articles in 'Information Science' discipline. A large body of bibliometric studies has suggested that the impacts of various authorship-related factors on the future citations vary by the discipline and there is no well-grounded factor that is unanimously significant across all academic fields. That is, it is necessary to separately assess the impact of authorship-related factors on 'Information Science' articles. Moreover, while a number of bibliometric studies have focused on journal articles, the exploration of conference articles has been significantly fewer. Therefore, this study, which is based on 1,957 conference articles in 'Information Science' field, examined several factors about authors and the contributions of the factors to the future citation. The sources of citation rates of conference articles were Google Scholar and Scopus. As the results, among eight factors considered in this paper, the first authors' publishing tenure and job title and the average number of publications of other authors significantly contributed to the changes of citations. However, the number of authors, the number of affiliated institues, the number of the first authors' publications and the average publishing tenure of the other authors made little contributions on citations.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.15 no.10
• /
• pp.387-399
• /
• 2015

Recently collaboration network is generated to find out experts in their field as potential collaborators in health care sector. In this paper, the co-author network of a National Cancer Center researcher was generated for identifying each researcher's role and collaborative research pattern. The co-author network of 2,437 authors was extracted from 1,194 SCI(E) publications from 2000 to 2010 and author's role was analyzed by author's centrality value. Centrality reflecting only the number of papers and centrality weighted by the paper number, impact factor, and authorship contribution was evaluated. On the comparison with simple degree centrality value and the weighted degree centrality, difference of value was statistically significant(t=11.66, p=0.00). Co-author network considering various variables of the paper provides more objective figure of researcher's role. This suggests that co-author network could be more effective in identifying potential collaborators.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.7-26
• /
• 2017

There has been growing interest in the methods for measuring the credits of individual authors in multi-authored research papers in response to the increase of research collaboration. Having a good understanding for academic norms of individual discipline is essential to measure author credit effectively. However, many Korean universities do not consider different norms for determining the order of authors across disciplines. Rather, they tend to use a standardized method to assess the credits of authors in multi-authored papers. Therefore, this study presented some problems of applying a standardized method to measure author credits in multi-authored papers in economics. The findings of this study confirmed the frequent use of alphabetical author order in economics papers; however, many university guidelines for research evaluation do not take account the alphabetical authorship in measuring the credits of authors. The authors suggest the needs for (1) establishment of a clear definition for primary authors, (2) flexibility in assessment methods for author credit, and (3) empirical research on author credit.

• Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.493-514
• /
• 2012

Research collaboration between industry and universities is high on many policy agenda's nowadays, especially with regard to science-based technological innovation. Nonetheless, there have been few attempts at examining large-scale systematic and quantitative data on the nature and extent of university-industry collaborations. The objective of this paper is to explore the patterns and trends of research collaborations between universities and companies for scientific knowledge production in the seven science-based technologies. This paper uses co-authored articles published in major scientific journals in the world as an indicator of collaborative scientific research between universities, companies and governmental research institutes. The tens of thousands of co-authorship papers in the northeast region in the US over the years 2006 to 2010 were analyzed for collaboration patterns and their spatial characteristics. This paper finds that there were increases both in the proportions of multiple authored, particularly five or more, papers, and in the volume of international collaborations. By examining a type of collaborations between different institutions, research collaboration between universities and companies in this region is relatively high share at national level. This suggests that the national or even international scale seems more appropriate for innovation policies.