초록

Abstract

A large and reliable citation database is necessary to identify and analyze citation behavior of Korean researchers in science and technology. Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI) built the Korea Science Citation Database (KSCD), and have provided Korea Science Citation Index (KSCI) and Korea Journal Citation Reports (KJCR) services. In this article, citing behavior of Korean scientists on Korean journals was examined by using the KSCD that covers 459 Korean core journals. This research dealt with (1) statistical numeric information of journals in KSCD, (2) analysis of document types cited, (3) ratio of domestic to international documents cited and ratio of citing different disciplines, (4) analysis on immediacy index, peak time, and half-life of cited documents, and (5) analysis on impact of journals based on KJCR citation indicators. From this research, we could find the immediacy citation rate (average 2.36%), peak-time (average 1.7 years) and half-life (average 5.2 years) of cited journals in Korea. We also found that the average journal self-citation rate is more than 50% in every field. In sum, citing behavior of Korean scientists on Korean journals was comprehensively identified from this research.

초록

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.

Abstract

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.