• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.27-41
• /
• 2013

We investigated how bibliometric indicators such as publication count and citation count affect the assessment of research performance by computing various bibliometric scores of the works of Korean LIS faculty members and comparing the rankings by those scores. For the study data, we used the publication and citation data of 159 tenure-track faculty members of Library and Information Science departments in 34 Korean universities. The study results showed correlation between publication count and citation count for authors with many publications but the opposite evidence for authors with few publications. The study results suggest that as authors publish more and more work, citations to their work tend to increase along with publication count. However, for junior faculty members who have not yet accumulated enough publications, citations to their work are of great importance in assessing their research performance. The study data also showed that there are marked differences in the magnitude of citations between papers published in Korean journals and papers published in international journals.

• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.56-75
• /
• 2021

We introduce a new research assessment measure, called the research excellence index. The measure, which we denote by RE-index, accurately assesses the research performance of a researcher. The methodology used in deriving the RE-index tackles many of the flaws of popular research performance indicators such as publication counts, citation counts, and the h and g indices. A dataset is introduced, which takes advantage of the wide coverage of Scopus and the Library of Congress, and, at the same time, deals with the Scopus database depth problem. For an academic publication x, a prestige-type and length scores are assigned, and if x is published in an academic periodical publication J, the stature of J is identified through a quartile score. The three scores are used to assign a value score to every academic publication, and cited academic publications are given citation scores that encompass both cases of including and excluding self-citations. The foregoing scores are used to derive another set of scores measuring the combined qualitative and quantitative aspects of the creative work, citations of creative work, informative work and citations of informative work of a researcher. The scores take into consideration co-authorship. From these scores, two versions of the RE-index for a researcher are derived, covering the cases of including and excluding self-citations. The new measure is calculated for two mathematicians.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.44-66
• /
• 1997

This study is a critical assessment of research productivity through publication among scientists and engineers. Through the analysis of the 223 mail questionnaires collected from professors of mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemistry and physics, this study obtains the particular determinants of publication productivity at the science and engineering schools in Korea. The data are analyzed using correlation, ANOVA, multiple regression analysis and path analysis. The result shows that early research productivity and the number of doctoral students are very important to publish good research articles. Also the qualities of professors' Ph.D. institution and the quality of employing university are critical influencing factors to publication productivity.

• 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 the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.47 no.5
• /
• pp.791-808
• /
• 2012

This study sets out to assess achievement of two series of publication titled "the Geography of Korea", which established itself as the most representative publication on Korea's geography. For assessment, this study selected Delphi method to survey Korean geographical professionals on the publication by requesting respondents to rate the adequacy of its: publishing system, production team organization, array of topics, target reader, classification of regions, and use of visual materials. The results showed the respondents highly appreciated the significance of the publications and generally agreed that the past publications had adequate level of: publication frequency, time allowed for writing, number of pages, selection criteria of authors, range of topics, region classification schemes. On the other hand, dissatisfaction from the respondents came from the lack of chief supervisor over each section or the whole publication. The geographers also stressed the need to enhance the publication's accessibility to the wider public by adopting easier writings and also requested diversification of visual aid design. This study also examined the difference between respondent groups by occupations and by past involvement in the publication. The result of this study can serve as a foundation to identify the desirable direction of future publications on "the Geography of Korea".

• Proceedings of the Technology Innovation Conference
• /
• 1996.12a
• /
• pp.77-98
• /
• 1996

This study is a critical assessment of research productivity through publication among scientists and engineers. This study scrutinizes previous findings on the correlates and determinant3 of publication productivity: Provides overview and organization of that knowledge ; indicates gape and shortcomings n the research; and identifies the questions and issues which are both answered and unanswered. through the analysis of the 223 mail questionnaires collected from professors of mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemistry and physics, this study obtains the particular determinants of publication productivity at the science and engineering schools in Korea. Especially, early research productivity and the number of doctoral students are very important to publish good research articles. Also the qualities of professors' Ph. D. institution and employing university are critical influencing factors to publication productivity. The data are analyzed using correlation, ANOVA, and multiple regression analysis and all the regression models are statistically significant. All the variables in this study are focused on the socialization of individual research scientists and any psychological or personal background variables are excluded, because the perspective of this article is not that of scientific sociologist but of science and technology Policy interest. This study proves that there exists an scriptive advantage according to the individual background such as his Ph. D. institution and employing university in Korea. This study also shows that all research resources and research performances are unequally distributed. This result proposes that supporting basic research at university must begins with relative assessment of researchers, departments, and institutions in consideration with their research environment and to evaluate researchers in compared with excellent research university like SNU, KAIST, POSTECH is unequal and inadequate.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.119-140
• /
• 2011

Effective assessment of faculty research performance should involve considerations of both quality and quantity of faculty research. This study analyzed methods for evaluating faculty research output by comparing the rankings of Library and Information Science(LIS) faculty by publication counts, citation counts, and research performance assessment guidelines employed by Korean universities. The study results indicated that faculty rankings based on publication counts to be significantly different from those based on citation counts. Additionally, faculty rankings measured by university guidelines showed bigger correlations with rankings based on publication counts than rankings by citation counts, while differences in universities guidelines did not significantly affect the faculty rankings. The study findings suggest the need for bibliometric indicators that reflect the quality as well as the quantity of research output.

• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.45-60
• /
• 2018

Research performance evaluation in Korean universities follows strict guidelines that specify scoring systems for publication venue categories and formulas for co-authorship credit allocation. To find out how the standards differ across universities and how they differ from bibliometric research evaluation measures, this study analyzed 25 standards from major Korean universities and rankings produced by applying standards and bibliometric measures such as publication and citation counts, normalized impact score, and h-index to the publication data of 195 tenure-track professors of library and information science departments in 35 Korean universities. The study also introduced a novel impact score normalization method to refine the methodology from prior studies. The results showed the university standards to be mostly similar to one another but quite different from citation-driven measures, which suggests the standards are not quite successful in quantifying the quality of research as originally intended.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.48 no.2
• /
• pp.295-322
• /
• 2017

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.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.155-161
• /
• 2000

Environmental impact assessment(EIA), the only preventive system to manage development projects destroying the nature and ecosystem systematically, has been accomplished since the late 1970. EIA connotes intrinsic limits predicting uncertain future with the aid of present data. Furthermore, EIA has been used as not decision-making tools but regulatory means. Therefore, EIA has been criticized severely. In order to present direction of development of EIA, we analyzed problems of management of EIA, and concluded measures as follows are needed. 1. Control of investigation of environmental impact statements 2. Development of evaluating methods and publication 3. Fostering of institute for research and investigation of EIA 4. Construction of harmony of environment and development 5. Upgrade of state of proxy executing EIA.