바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

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

연구성과평가 지침 리뷰 및 국내 적용 제안을 위한 고찰

A Review of Declarations on Appropriate Research Evaluation for Exploring Their Applications to Research Evaluation System of Korea

정보관리학회지, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2015, v.32 no.4, pp.249-272
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.249
유소영 (한남대학교)
이재윤 (명지대학교)
정은경 (이화여자대학교)
이보람 (이화여자대학교 대학원 문헌정보학과)

  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

초록

연구성과평가와 연구비 배분에 인용분석을 포함한 계량정보학적 분석방법이 많이 사용되고 있으며, 부적절한 적용 및 해석에 대한 우려와 지적 또한 계속되고 있다. 이에 따라 최근 연구성과평가 지침과 권고안이 학술 커뮤니티와 계량서지학적 연구집단에서 연이어 발표되고 있다. 따라서 이 연구에서는 2015년 발표된 라이덴 선언(Leiden Manifesto)을 중심으로 Thomson Reuters 백서, 프랑스 과학원 권고안, DORA 선언, IEEE 권고안을 비교하고 이를 통해 국내 연구성과평가 환경에의 제안 가능성을 살펴보고자 하였다. 비교분석 결과, 다수의 권고안은 연구의 목적과 연구 주제분야별 특성을 반영하고 다양한 지표를 활용한 다면적 평가를 통해 총체적인 평가를 지향하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 국내 연구성과평가시스템 적용에서 고려해 볼 주요 권고안이라고 할 수 있으며, 추후 이에 대한 이해관계자들의 의견 수렴 등을 통하여 국내 연구성과시스템에의 적용가능성을 보다 심층적으로 살펴볼 필요가 있을 것이다.

Abstract

Inappropriate applications of bibliometric approach and misinterpretation on the analysis in research evaluation have been found and recognized nationally and internationally as the use of the approach has been rapidly adopted in various sectors in research evaluation systems and research funding agencies. The flood of misuse led to several numbers of declarations and statements on appropriate research evaluation, including Leiden Manifesto, DORA, IEEE Statement, etc. The similar recommendations from five different declarations, Leiden Manifest, IEEE Statement, DORA, Institut de France, and Thomson Reuters White paper were reviewed and meta-analyzed in this study and it is revealed that most of them emphasize evaluation on quality in various aspects with multiple indicators. Research evaluation with assessing multiple aspects of individual research based on the understandings of its purpose and pertinent subject area was revealed as being mostly advised in the declarations, and this recommendation can be regarded as being mostly requested in national research evaluation system. For future study, interviews with relevant stakeholders of national research evaluation system in order to explore its application are needed to confirm the findings of this review.

참고문헌

1

고영만. (2013). 학술지의 피인용횟수 순위를 적용한 tapered h-지수의 변형지표 “Kor-hT”에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 30(4), 111-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.111.

2

김판준. (2011). 연구 성과평가와 연구정보서비스의 연계를 위한 기초 연구: 과학기술 분야 연구개발사업을 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 28(4), 243-261.

3

김판준. (2010). 학술지 영향력 측정을 위한 h-지수의 응용에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 27(1), 269-287.

4

설혜심. (2011). 학문의 분화와 통섭. 학림, 32, 91-124.

5

이재윤. (2011). 국내 인용 데이터베이스에서 저널 페이지랭크 측정 방안. 한국비블리아학회지, 22(4), 361-379.

6

이재윤. (2011). 인용 네트워크 분석에 근거한 문헌 인용 지수 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 45(2), 119-143.

7

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

8

조은성. (2011). 국내외 마케팅 학술지의 영향력: Kor-Factor와 Impact Factor의 문제점을 중심으로. 마케팅관리연구, 16(2), 53-82.

9

(2015). 중앙일보 대학평가. http://univ.joongang.co.kr/.

10

한국정보과학회. (2013). 컴퓨터 분야 성과지표 개선(안). 한국정보과학회.

11

Åström, F.. (2013). How implementation of bibliometric practice affects the role of academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 45(4), 316-322.

12

Ball, R.. (2006). Bibliometric analysis: A new business area for information professionals in libraries?. Scientometrics, 66(3), 561-577.

13

Bladek, M.. (2014). DORA: San Francisco declaration on research assessment (May 2013). College and Research Libraries News, 75(4), 191-196.

14

Butler-Adam, J.. (2013). DORA: The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. South African Journal of Science, 109(7/8), 1-1.

15

Cagan, R.. (2013). The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 6(4), 869-870.

16

Garfield, E.. (2009). From information retrieval to scientometrics-is the dog still wagging its tail. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/dalianchina2009.html.

17

Gomez Marin, J. E.. (2015). Why to disagree with the San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Infectio, 19(3), 99-100.

18

Grant Steen, R.. (2013). Journal impact factor: Baby and bathwater discarded?. European Science Editing, 39(3), 64-65.

19

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-.

20

Hicks, D.. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431.

21

Hoppeler, H.. (2013). The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 216, 2163-2164.

22

IEEE. (2013). Appropriate use of bibliometric indicators for the assessment of journals, research proposals, and individuals. https://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/ieee_bibliometric_statement_sept_2013.pdf.

23

King, J.. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13(5), 261-271.

24

Jiménez-Contreras, E.. (2002). Impactfactor rewards affect Spanish research. Nature, 417, 898-.

25

이재윤. (2014). A Comparative Analysis on Multiple Authorship Counting for Author Co-citation Analysis. 정보관리학회지, 31(2), 57-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.2.057.

26

Leydesdorff, L.. (2012). Percentile ranks and the integrated impact indicator (I3). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1901-1902.

27

Moed, H. F.. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 256-277.

28

Pourquié, O.. (2013). The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Development, 140(13), 2643-2644.

29

Pendlebury, D. A.. (2009). The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 1-11.

30

Pendlebury, D. A.. (2010). Using bibliometrics in evaluating research. https://services.anu.edu.au/files/system/Pendlebury_White_Paper.pdf.

31

Pugh, E. N.. (2013). Embracing the principles of the san francisco declaration of research assessment: Robert Balaban’s editorial. The Journal of General Physiology, 142(3), 175-.

32

Schekman, R.. (2013). Reforming research assessment. eLife, 2(2), e00855-.

33

Schubert, A.. (2009). Using the h-index for assessing single publications. Scientometrics, 78(3), 559-565.

34

Servaes, J.. (2014). On impact factors and research assessment. At the start of volume 31 of telematics and informatics. Telematics and Informatics, 31(1), 1-2.

35

Thomson Reuters. (2008). Using bibliometrics: A guide to evaluating research performance with citation data. http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/325133_thomson.pdf.

36

Way, M.. (2013). The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Journal of Cell Science, 126, 1903-1904.

정보관리학회지