초록

연구자 성과 평가를 위해 널리 사용되는 h-지수는 일관성 부족 문제와 공저자 수를 고려하지 않는다는 문제를 가지고 있다. 이를 극복하기 위해 h-지수와 g-지수, 그리고 공저 보정 방안을 검토하고 2004년부터 2013년 사이의 실제 KCI 데이터를 대상으로 분석해본 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 일관성 결여 문제를 해소하기 위해서는 g-지수를 사용하는 것이 더 바람직하다고 판단된다. 둘째, 연구 성과의 양적인 측면과 질적인 측면을 한꺼번에 반영하는 복합 지수라는 h-지수와 g-지수의 고유한 특성을 유지하기 위해서는 반드시 공저를 보정하여 지수를 측정해야 한다. 셋째, 공저자 수로 나눈 인용빈도를 사용하는 hC-지수와 gC-지수를 적용하면 단독 저술 비중이 높은 인문학 분야 연구자도 공정하게 평가할 수 있고, 특정 분야나 특정 기관에 속한 연구자가 상위 순위를 과점하는 현상을 방지할 수 있다.

Abstract

The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for evaluating individual researchers. However, it has been criticized for its inconsistency with reflecting increased number of citations and disregarding the number of co-authors in a paper. In order to overcome these problems, we examined the g-index and other Hirsch-type indices considering the number of co-authors. Test data collection was extracted from Korean Citation Index database published from 2004 to 2013. The results of this study are as follows: First, g-index is more reliable indicator than h-index with consistency. Second, number of co-authors must be considered to maintain the h-index as an complex indicator applying the quality and the quantity of research performance. Finally, hc-index and gc-index, with fractionalised counting of the papers, can fairly measure the research performance of humanities researchers, and successfully prevent specific disciplines or institutions occupying majority of top rankings.

초록

Abstract

This study aims at proposing three prestige indices—closeness prestige, input domain, and proximity prestige- as useful measures for the impact of a particular node in citation networks. It compares these prestige indices with other impact indices as it is still unknown what dimensions of impact these indices actually measure. The prestige indices enable us to distinguish the most prominent actors in a directed network, similar to the centrality indices in undirected networks. Correlation analysis and principal component analysis were conducted on the author citation network to identify the differentiated implications of the three prestige indices from the existing impact indices. We selected simple citation counting, h-index, PageRank, and the three kinds of centrality indices which assume undirected networks as the existing impact measures for comparison with the three prestige indices. The results indicate that these prestige indices demonstrate distinct impact dimension from the other impact indices. The prestige indices reflect indirect impact while the others direct impact.