바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

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

저자동시인용분석을 위한 복수저자 기여도 산정 방식의 비교 분석

A Comparative Analysis on Multiple Authorship Counting for Author Co-citation Analysis

정보관리학회지, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2014, v.31 no.2, pp.57-77
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.2.057
이재윤 (명지대학교)
정은경 (이화여자대학교)

  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

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.

참고문헌

1

Chung, Y. M.. (2002). A co-citation analysis of multiple authorship in the subject field of Information Science and Computer Science. Journal of Knowledge Processing and Management, 3(2), 1-26.

2

Cole, J. R.. (1973). Social stratification in science:The University of Chicago Press.

3

Egghe, L.. (2000). Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : Consequences to evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 145-157.

4

Eom, S.. (2008). All author cocitation analysis and first author co-citation analysis : A comparative empirical investigation. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 53-61.

5

Garvey, W. D.. (1979). Communication, the Essence of Science : Facilitating Information Exchange among Librarians, Scientists, Engineers, and Students:Pergamum Press.

6

Gauffriau, M.. (2005). Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies. Scientometrics, 64(1), 85-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0239-6.

7

Glanzel, W.. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the Sciences(1980-1998) : A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461-473.

8

Hagen, N. T.. (2008). Harmonic allocation of authorship credit : Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE, 3(12), e4021-. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004021.

9

Hagen, N. T.. (2010). Harmonic publication and citation counting: Sharing authorship credit equitably-not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics, 84(3), 785-793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0129-4.

10

Howard, G. S.. (1987). Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of American Psychology Association. American Psychologist, 42(11), 975-986.

11

곽선영. (2012). 복수저자기반 동시인용분석을 활용한 지적구조 분석: 경제학 분야를 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 29(1), 115-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2012.29.1.115.

12

이종욱. (2011). 교수연구업적 평가법의 계량적 분석: 국내 문헌정보학과 교수연구업적을 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 28(4), 119-140.

13

Lindsey, D.. (1980). Production and citation measures in the sociology of science : The problem of multiple authorship. Social Studies of Science, 10, 145-162.

14

Perssson, O.. (2001). All author citations versus first author citations. Scientometrics, 50(2), 339-344.

15

Prathap, G.. (2011). The fractional and harmonic p-indices for multiple authorship. Scientometrics, 86, 239-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010534009428.

16

Price, D. D. S.. (1981). Multiple authorship. Science, 212, 986-.

17

박지연. (2013). 저자서지결합분석에 의한 문헌정보학의 지적구조 분석에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 30(4), 31-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.031.

18

유종덕. (2011). 저자프로파일링분석과 저자동시인용분석의 유용성 비교 검증. 정보관리학회지, 28(1), 123-144.

19

Rousseau, S.. (1998). The scientific wealth of European nations : Taking effectiveness into account. Scientometrics, 42, 75-87.

20

Rousseau, R.. (2004). A classification of author co-citations : Definitions and search strategies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(6), 513-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.10401.

21

Schneider, J.. (2009). A comparative study of first and all-author co-citation counting, and two different matrix generation approaches applied for author co-citation analyses. Scientometrics, 80(1), 103-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2019-y.

22

Sonnenwald, D.H.. (2008). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643-681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410121.

23

Trueba, F.. (2004). A robust formula to credit authors for their publications. Scientometrics, 60(2), 181-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000027792.09362.3f.

24

Tscharntke, T.. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biology, 5(1), 13-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018.

25

Van Hooydonk, G.. (1998). Standardizing relative impacts : Estimating the quality of research from citation counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences, 49, 932-941.

26

White, H. D.. (1981). Author co-citation : A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327-355.

27

Zhao, D.. (2006). Towards all-author co-citation analysis. Information Processing and Management, 42, 1578-1591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2006.03.022.

28

Zhao, D.. (2011). Counting first, last, or all authors in citation analysis : A comprehensive comparison in the highly collaborative stem cell research field. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(4), 654-676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21495.

정보관리학회지