바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • P-ISSN1013-0799
  • E-ISSN2586-2073

연구성과의 질적 평가를 위한 계량정보학적 분석에 관한 연구

A Study on Informetric Analysis for Measuring the Qualitative Research Performance

정보관리학회지, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2009, v.26 no.3, pp.377-394
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2009.26.3.377
강대신 (한국과학기술연구원)
문성빈 (연세대학교)

  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

초록

본 연구는 기존의 연구성과 분석의 한계를 극복하고 영향력이나 파급효과 등 질적 중심의 연구성과 분석을 위해 텍스트 마이닝, 인용 분석 등을 활용한 새로운 계량정보학적 분석지표를 제안하였다. 즉, 논문품질지수, 인용 영향력지수, 지식확산지수, 국제협력연구지수, 우수논문 생산지수 등 새로운 연구성과 분석지표를 제안하여 질적인 측면을 중심으로 한 연구성과 분석이 가능하도록 하였다. 그리고 제안된 지표를 활용하여 사례분석을 수행하여 그 가능성을 확인하였다.

Abstract

There are some limitations in the existing bibliometric methods to satisfy the various requests of the interest parties including researchers, managers, policy makers to identify 1) which research group or researcher is the key player, and the overall trends of the particular technological sub-fields, 2) which research groups, institutions or countries mainly use their research outputs, 3) what are the spin-offs from research outputs to some scientific and technological fields, 4) in which levels they are when comparing their quantitative and qualitative research outputs to those of other competitive institutions. It is essential to develop new informetric indicators and methodologies in order to satisfy stakeholder's various demands and to strengthen qualitative analysis in measuring research performance. This study suggested informetric indicators such as article quality index, citation impact index, international cooperation index, excellent article production index and methodologies including citation analysis, text mining.

참고문헌

1

Bozeman, B. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599-616.

2

Huth, E. J. (2003). Scope-adjusted impact factor. Journal of Medical Library As- sociation, 91(3), 285-.

3

Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown—citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145-154.

4

Moed, H. F. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: database description, o- verview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3), 381-422.

5

Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis of sci- entific journals and journal impact measures. Current Science, 89(12), 1990-1996.

6

Pudovkin, A. I. (2002). Algorithmic procedure for finding se- mantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 1113-1119.

7

Rinia, E. J. (2001). Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research. Research Policy, 30, 357-361.

8

Schubert, A. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5), 281-291.

9

Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2003). Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57(2), 257-280.

10

Van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). R&D evaluation at the beginning of the new century. Research Evaluation, 9(2), 81-86.

11

Vinkler, P. (1986). Evaluation of some meth- ods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 10(3), 157-177.

정보관리학회지