바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.26 No.3
Citation Share

A Study on Informetric Analysis for Measuring the Qualitative Research Performance

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2009, v.26 no.3, pp.377-394
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2009.26.3.377


& (2009). A Study on Informetric Analysis for Measuring the Qualitative Research Performance. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 26(3), 377-394, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2009.26.3.377
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

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.

keywords
연구성과, 분석지표, 인용분석, research performance, informetric indicator, citation analysis, research performance, informetric indicator, citation analysis

Reference

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.

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management

e-Submission OA Policy