초록

본 연구는 ‘한국연구재단 오픈액세스 2021(안)’에 대한 실행방안을 도출하기 위한 것이다. 본 연구는 APC 지원규모와 방법 및 절차, 국내 학술지의 오픈액세스 전환 지원, 오픈액세스 리포지터리에 논문을 기탁하는 방안 등 세 가지 측면에서 실행방안을 제안하였다. 첫째, APC는 합리적인 수준에서 지원되어야 하며 그 상한액을 설정하기 위하여 매년도 이전 3년간 오픈액세스 학술지에 출판한 논문의 APC 평균값이나 중위값을 적용한다. 또한 APC는 오픈액세스 학술지와 오픈액세스전환약정 학술지에 논문을 출판하는 경우 지원하고 하이브리드 학술지나 이중접근 학술지에는 지원하지 않는다. 둘째, 국내 학술지 오픈액세스 출판전환을 위하여 과도기에는 KJCI에 CCL 적용을 등록한 오픈액세스 학술지와 오픈액세스 출판 전환의향서를 제출한 학술지에 대하여 지원사업 신청이 가능하도록 해야 한다. 셋째, 하이브리드 학술지와 이중접근 학술지 및 구독학술지에 출판한 경우 원문기탁과 동시에 엠바고 등 저작권 사항을 보고해야 한다. 본 연구의 결과는 한국연구재단이 국내 학술지 출판환경과 국제적인 학술커뮤니케이션 상황에 부합하는 오픈액세스 정책을 신속하면서도 안정적이고 지속적으로 실행하는데 기초 자료로 활용될 수 있을 것이다.

Abstract

This study aims to identify the methods of implementation for the ‘National Research Foundation of Korea Open Access 2021(Plan)’. This study covers the methods of implementation in the three following core items: 1) developing the details on the amount, method, and procedures of APC support; 2) proposing methods for facilitating the transition of domestic Korean academic journals to open access journals; and 3) developing methods of entrusting papers to open access repositories. APC support should be guaranteed at a reasonable level. The average or median of APC values for the previous three years will be applied to set the upper limit for support each year. APC support will be provided when the paper is published to open access journals or transitioning journals to open access. Hybrid journals or dual access journals are not included. Support for open access publishing of academic journals in Korea during the transition period will be available for open access journals that have registered for CCL in KJCI or journals that have submitted their application for transitioning to open access. Publishing in hybrid, dual access or subscription-based journals must be accompanied by items related to copyright such as embargo. Research results will be used for the detailed implementation plan of ‘NRF OA2021 (Plan)’. They will serve as the base data for the rapid, stable, and sustainable implementation of open access policy in NRF, addressing the Korean domestic academic journal publishing environment and the field of international academic communication.

초록

최근까지 학술지의 영향력을 측정하기 위하여 Thomson Reuters(ISI)의 영향력지수(JIF: Journal Impact Factor)가 널리 사용되어왔다. 그러나, 이러한 JIF는 학술지 단위가 아니라 수록 논문의 평균 영향력을 측정하는 지표라는 근본적인 한계를 가지고 있으며, 이외에도 다양한 측면에서 많은 문제점들이 지적되었다. 특히 국내 인용색인은 국제적인 인용색인 데이터베이스에 비해서 인용 데이터의 규모가 상당히 제한적이므로, 이를 고려하여 국내 학술지 인용 환경에 적합한 지수의 적용이 필요하다. 따라서 이 연구는 최근 급속히 확산되고 있는 Hirsch 유형 지수(h-type indices)를 적용하여 국내 학술지의 영향력을 보다 더 상세하게 측정할 수 있는 실제적인 방안을 모색하였다. 결과적으로, h-지수의 변형지수(hs-지수, fs-지수)를 사용하거나 호 단위 합산(호 기반 h-지수, 호 기반 f-지수) 방법을 통하여, 기존 Hirsch 유형 지수들의 변별력을 향상시킬 수 있음은 물론 국내 학술지의 영향력을 더욱 정밀하게 측정할 수 있는 것으로 나타났다.

Abstract

The journal impact factor(JIF) of the Thomson Reuters(ISI) has been widely used to assess the impact of journal as well as its quality. However, the JIF contains its critical limitation, in which it does not measure the impact of journal but the average impact of articles in journal. Besides significant number of problems of the JIF has been noticed. Furthermore, given the limited coverage of domestic citation index database in comparison to those of international citation index, it is necessary to apply a more appropriate index with a high level of discriminating power. This study, therefore, aims to introduce some practical methods to measure the impact of domestic journals by using the Hirsch-type indices. As the Hirsch-type indices has been often used for overcoming the limitations of the JIF in worldwide, we hope that our research outcome offers an effective alternative to gauge the impact of journals more accurately. Consequently, using the variations of the h-index(hs-index, fs-index) or the sum of issue level(issue based h-index, issue based f-index), we argue that it would improve the discrimination capacity of the Hirsch-type indices significantly and that we can measure the impact of domestic journals more clearly.

초록

Abstract

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.