• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• 제1권1호
• /
• 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
• /
• 제9권3호
• /
• 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.

• 기술혁신연구
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• 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
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• 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.

• 대한지리학회지
• /
• 제47권5호
• /
• pp.791-808
• /
• 2012

이 연구는 우리나라 대표적 현대 지리지인 "한국지지"와 "한국지리지"의 사업성과를 평가한 것이다. 1980년대와 2000년대에 수행된 지리지 발간사업에 대하여 지리학 전문가를 대상으로 지리지 편찬체계와 참여인력, 지리지의 내용과 구성, 시각자료 활용 등에 대해 델파이 조사를 실시하였다. 지리학 전문가들은 "한국지지"와 "한국지리지"의 의의를 높게 평가하였고, 동시에 문제점을 지적하였다. 편찬주기, 소요기간, 분량, 집필진 선정방식, 주제구분과 권역구분 등에 대해서는 현행방식에 만족하였다. 편찬방식에 있어 집필진 외에 상위책임자를 추가할 것, 난이도에 있어 보편적 독자를 더욱 염두에 둘 것, 시각자료 활용에 있어 도안과 표현의 다양화 등을 주문하였다. 이러한 응답성향은 응답자의 직업, 지리지 편찬 참여경력에 따라 다소 차이를 보였다. 전문가를 대상으로 수행한 지리지 사업성과 평가는 추후 지리지가 나아가야 할 방향을 고려하는 과정에서 주요 고려사항이 될 것으로 판단된다.

• 기술경영경제학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 기술경영경제학회 1996년도 제10회 동계학술발표회 논문집
• /
• 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.

• 정보관리학회지
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.119-140
• /
• 2011

교수연구업적을 보다 효과적으로 평가하기 위해서는 연구의 정량 및 정성적 측면을 고려하여야 한다. 본 연구에서는 연구의 양적 측면을 보여주는 논문 수와 질적 측면을 반영하는 피인용 수에 의한 국내 문헌정보학과 교수의 연구업적 평가순위를 국내 대학에서 사용되는 연구업적 평가규정을 적용한 순위와 비교 분석하였다. 연구결과, 논문 수에 의한 교수별 순위가 피인용 수에 의한 순위와 차이가 있으며, 대학별 교수 업적평가는 피인용 수보다는 논문 수에 의한 평가와 가까운 것으로 나타났다. 또한 대학별 상이한 논문 배점기준은 교수업적평가 결과에 별다른 영향을 끼치지 않았다. 향후 연구에서는 연구의 양적 및 질적 수준을 보다 잘 반영하는 계량서지학적 지표에 관한 연구가 진행되어야 할 것으로 본다.

• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• 제6권3호
• /
• 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.

• 한국도서관정보학회지
• /
• 제48권2호
• /
• pp.295-322
• /
• 2017

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.

• 환경영향평가
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• 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.