초록

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the importance of author keyword with analysis the position of author keyword in journal . In the first stage, an analysis was carried out on the position of author keyword. We examined the importance of author keyword by using degree centrality, closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, eigenvector centrality and effective size of structural hole. In the next stage, We performed analysis on correlation between network centrality measures and the position of author keyword. The result of correlation analysis on network centrality measures and the position of author keyword shows that there are the more significant areas of the result of the correlation analysis on degree centrality, betweenness centrality and the position of keyword. In addition, These results show that we need to consider that the possible way as measuring the importance of author keyword in journal is not only a term frequency but also degree centrality and betweenness centrality.

초록

본 연구는 2004년에서 2012년까지 9년간의 KERIS 문헌복사 트랜잭션 데이터를 대상으로 문헌복사 서비스 참여기관에 대한 통계 분석과 네트워크 분석을 수행하였다. 연구 결과 발견한 주요 사실은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 신청건수가 제공건수에 비해 많은 기관이 전체 기관 중에서 약 80%를 차지하고 있었다. 둘째, 신청과 제공면 모두 건수가 많은 상위기관들에게 문헌복사 서비스 의존도가 높으며, 특히 제공면에서 그 집중도가 더욱 높았다. 셋째, 2012년 대학도서관 학술지를 대상으로 주제별 네트워크 분석 결과 각 주제별로 단일기관 집중형, 복수기관 주도형, 다수기관 분산형과 같은 세 가지 유형의 협력체제가 나타남을 파악하였다.

Abstract

In this study, we analyzed KERIS Document Delivery Service (DDS) using its transaction data for the period of nine years from 2004 to 2012. We first examined the overall statistics focusing on member contributions, and conducted a network analysis based on the records of request/response (supply) between member libraries. Key findings include the following: First, in over 80% of member libraries, the number of outgoing requests exceeded the number of their responses to incoming requests. That is, for the vast majority of member libraries, their participation was concentrated on the request side. Second, KERIS DDS relies heavily on a relatively small number of top contributors, especially on the supply side. While the top contributors were active in both requests and responses (supplies), in most cases, they received and processed a disproportionally large number of requests. Third, the network analysis based on DDS requests for journal articles in 2012 further revealed the central role of top contributors. The level and pattern of concentration, however, appeared to differ by subjects (DDC). Three main patterns of centralization were found in different subjects - a network centered on a single member, a network having multiple centers, or a distributed network.

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.

초록

이 연구는 국내외 정보학 분야 학회지 동향을 파악하기 위하여 1990년부터 2013년까지 국내 정보관리학회지와 국외 JASIST의 논문 제목과 초록을 대상으로 텍스트 마이닝 기법을 통한 명사, 명사구 동시출현 분석을 수행하였다. 전 기간을 5구간으로 나누고 전체적인 동향을 살펴보기 위해 고빈도 동시출현단어를 분석하였으며, 세부 주제를 파악하기 위해 상위 키워드와 동시에 출현하는 단어를 분석하였다. 마지막으로 과거와 다르게 새로운 키워드가 등장하는 2010년 이후 동향을 중점적으로 네트워크 분석을 수행하였다. 분석 결과 전반적으로 국내의 경우 정보관리학회지는 도서관, 정보 서비스, 정보 이용자, 정보 자료 조직 주제 분야가 많이 차지하고 있었고 JASIST는 정보 검색, 정보 이용자, 웹 관련 정보학, 계량 정보학 중심으로 연구가 진행되었다.

Abstract

This paper carried out co-word analysis of noun and noun phrase using text-mining technique in order to grasp the research trends on domestic and international information science articles. It was conducted based on collected titles and articles of the papers published in the Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management (KOSIM) and Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) from 1990 to 2013. By dividing whole period into five publication window, this paper was organized into the following processes: 1) analysis of high frequency co-word pair to examine the overall trends of both information science articles 2) analysis of each word appearing with high frequency keyword to grasp the detailed subject 3) focused network analysis of trend after 2010 when distinctively new keyword appeared. The result of the analysis shows that KOSIM has considerable portion of studies conducted regarding topics such as library, information service, information user and information organization. Whereas, JASIST has focused on studies regarding information retrieval, information user, web information, and bibliometrics.