바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

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

학술논문 품질평가를 위한 다방면 인용분석방식

Multi-faceted Citation Analysis for Quality Assessment of Scholarly Publications

정보관리학회지, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2011, v.28 no.2, pp.79-96
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.2.079
Yang, Kiduk (경북대학교)
Lokman Meho (American University of Beirut, Lebanon)

  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

Abstract

Despite the widespread use, critics claim that citation analysis has serious limitations in evaluating the research performance of scholars. First, conventional citation analysis methods yield one-dimensional and sometimes misleading evaluation as a result of not taking into account differences in citation quality, not filtering out citation noise such as self-citations, and not considering non-numeric aspects of citations such as language, culture, and time. Second, the citation database coverage of today is disjoint and incomplete, which can result in conflicting quality assessment outcomes across different data sources. This paper discuss the findings from a citation analysis study that measured the impact of scholarly publications based on the data mined from Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, and briefly describes a work-in-progress prototype system called CiteSearch, which is designed to overcome the weaknesses of existing citation analysis methods with a robust citation-based quality assessment approach.

참고문헌

1

Aksnes, D. W. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33-41.

2

Bakkalbasi, N. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 7, -.

3

Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). An ego-centric citation analysis of the works of Michael O. Rabin based on multiple citation indexes. Information Processing and Management, 42(6), 1553-1566.

4

Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271.

5

Bar-Ilan, J. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26-34.

6

Bauer, K. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(930), -.

7

Bergstrom, C. T. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), -.

8

Cronin, B. (1984). The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication:Taylor Graham.

9

Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152.

10

Giustini, D. (2006). Blog posting at UBC Academic Search-Google Scholar Blog. http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/googleschol ar/archives/025964.html.

11

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an in dividual’'s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572.

12

Holden, G. (2005). Bibliometrics: A potential decision making aid in hiring, reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions. Social Work in Health Care, 41(3), 67-92.

13

Holmes, A. (2001). Use of citation analysis to predict the outcome of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise for Unit of Assessment (UoA) 61: Library and Information Management. Information Research, 6(2), -.

14

Jacsó, P. (2005). As we may search-comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation- enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537-1547.

15

Kleinberg, J. (1998). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment (668-677). Proceeding of the 9th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms.

16

Kousha, K. (2006). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines (72-73). Book of Abstracts, 9th International Science & Technology Indicators Conference, Leuven, Belgium.

17

Lewison, G. (2001). Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine. Research Evaluation, 10(2), 89-95.

18

MacRoberts, M. H. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435-444.

19

Marchionini, G., P. (2006). Information and library science MPACT: A preliminary analysis. Library & Information Science Research, 28(4), -.

20

Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343-362.

21

Meho, L. I. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.

22

Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation:Springer.

23

Nisonger, T. E. (2004). Citation autobiography: An investigation of ISI database coverage in determining author citedness. College & Research Libraries, 65(2), 152-163.

24

Norris, M. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’' literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161-169.

25

Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The New Generation of Citation Indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170-180.

26

Seglen, P. O. (1998). Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 69(3), 224-229.

27

van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer-review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420.

28

Vaughan, L. (2008). A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics, 74(2), 317-330.

29

West, J. D.. (2010). Big Macs and Eigenfactor Scores: Don't Let Correlation Coefficients Fool You. http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1807.

정보관리학회지