바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

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

기관단위 연구성과 평가방법에 관한 연구: h-지수 및 변형지수를 중심으로

A Study on the Evaluation Methods of Research Institution: Based on the h-index and its Variants

정보관리학회지, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2010, v.27 no.1, pp.249-267
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.1.249
박지연 (이화여자대학교)
김정은 (대외경제정책연구원)
민윤경 (포스코경영연구소)

  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

초록

h-지수는 개인의 연구성과를 측정하는 지표로 지수의 강건성과 계산의 용이성 등이 인정되면서 이를 보완하는 다양한 변형지수들이 연구되었으며, 이 지수들을 이용하여 연구자 개인의 영향력 평가는 물론, 저널, 학과, 대학, 연구소 등 기관단위 평가를 하려는 시도가 이루어지고 있다. h-지수를 이용한 기관단위의 평가 방법으로는 기관 h-지수, 평균 h-지수, 메타 h-지수 등 세 가지가 있으며, 본 연구에서는 국내 10개 경영대학을 대상으로 h-지수 및 변형지수들의 특징 및 상관관계를 살펴 본 후, 위의 세 가지 방법을 모두 적용하여 각 방법론을 비교 분석하였다.

Abstract

The h-index is a new tool for measuring research outputs based on citation and many variants of h-index have been proposed to improve the weaknesses of h-index. The h-index and its variants can be applied to institutional evaluation in three different ways. We worked out 447 practical cases of professors from 10 business schools and examined h-index and its variants. And then we compared three evaluation methods of research institution based on the h-index and its variants.

참고문헌

1

이재윤. (2006). 연구성과 측정을 위한 h-지수의 개량에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 23(3), 167-186.

2

Arencibia-Jorge, R.. (2008). Applying successive H indices in the institutional evaluation: A case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 155-157.

3

Arencibia-Jorge, R.. (2009). Influence of individual researcher's visibility on institutional impact: an example of Prathap's approach to successive h-indices. Scientometrics, 79(3), 507-516.

4

Batista, P.D.. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research valid across discipline. Scientometrics, 68(1), 179-189.

5

Bornmann, L.. (2007). What do we know about the h index?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381-1385.

6

Bornmann, L.. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A Comparison of nine variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830-837.

7

Bornmann, L.. (2009). Do we need the h-index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1286-1289.

8

Braun, T.. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1), 169-173.

9

Cronin, B.. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientist. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1275-1278.

10

Egghe, L.. (2006). An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. IISI Newsletter, 2(1), 8-9.

11

Grant, J.. (2007). Academic Institutions in the US and Canada ranked according to research productivity in the field of Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology, 21, 1139-1144.

12

Hirsch, J. E.. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (16569-16572). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

13

Jin, B.. (2006). h-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus, 1(1), 8-9.

14

Quoted in Rousseau, R.. (2006). New developments related to the Hirsch index. http://eprints.rclis.org/6376.

15

Jin, B.. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855-863.

16

Kosmulski, M.. (2006). A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(3), 4-6.

17

Lazaridis, T.. (2010). Ranking university departments using the mean h-index. Scientometrics, 82(2), 211-216.

18

Lehmann. S., A. D. Jackson, and B. Lautrup. (2006). Measures and mismeasures of scientific quality. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512238.

19

Luz, M.. (2008). Institutional h-index: The performance of a new metric in the evaluation of Brazilian Psychiatric Postgraduation Programs. Scientometrics, 77(2), 361-368.

20

Molinari, A.. (2008). Mathematical aspects of new criterion for ranking scientific institutions based on the h-index. Scientometrics, 75(2), 339-356.

21

Oppenheim, C.. (2007). Using the h-index to rank influential British Researchers in information science and librarianship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 297-301.

22

Prathap, G.. (2006). Hirsch-type indices for ranking institutions' scientific research output. Current Science, 91(11), 1439-.

23

Ravichandra Rao, I.K.. (2007). Distributions of Hirsch-index and G-index: An empirical study (655-658). Proceedings of the 11th conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics. Spanish Research Council.

24

Quoted in Bornmann, L.. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A Comparison of nine variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830-837.

25

Ruane, F.. (2008). Rational(succes sive) h-indices: an application to economics in the republic of Ireland. Scientometrics, 75(2), 395-405.

26

Schubert, A.. (2007). Successive h-indices. Scientometrics, 70(1), 201-205.

27

Schreiber, M.. (2008). An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1513-1522.

28

Schreiber, M.. (2010). Revisiting the g-index: the average number of citations in the g-Core. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 169-174.

29

Tol, Richard S. J.. (2009). The h-index and its alternatives: An application to the 100 most prolific economists. Scientometrics, 80(2), 317-324.

정보관리학회지