바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

논문 상세

다음
논문 투고

Vol.34 No.2
Citation Share

경제학 분야 교수 연구업적 평가 시 알파벳 순 저자표기 반영실태 분석

Do Korean Universities Consider Alphabetical Authorship in Economics in Faculty Research Evaluation?

정보관리학회지 / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2017, v.34 no.2, pp.7-26
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2017.34.2.007
이종욱 (공주대학교)
서현덕 (인하대학교)
이종욱, & 서현덕. (2017). 경제학 분야 교수 연구업적 평가 시 알파벳 순 저자표기 반영실태 분석. 정보관리학회지, 34(2), 7-26, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2017.34.2.007
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

전 세계적으로 협동연구가 증가함에 따라 복수저자 연구업적물 상의 개별저자 기여도를 보다 정확하고 합리적으로 산정하는 것이 중요해지고 있다. 효과적인 저자 기여도 산정을 위해서는 개별 학문분야의 고유한 연구행태 및 규범에 대한 이해가 우선되어야 한다. 그럼에도 불구하고 연구업적 평가 시 개별 학문분야의 특수성을 고려하지 않고 일률적인 방식으로 저자 기여도를 산정하는 경우가 많다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 국내 대학에서 사용하는 교수 연구업적 평가방식에 제시된 복수저자 기여도 측정방식이 특정 학문분야 즉, 경제학 분야 교수의 연구업적 평가에 적용되었을 때 나타나는 문제점을 제시하고 이를 해결할 수 있는 방안을 제안하였다. 본 연구에서는 문헌연구, 업적평가 규정분석 및 경제학 분야 교수 면담 등을 통하여 경제학 분야의 알파벳 순 저자표기 관행을 확인하였고, 이러한 표기방식이 연구업적 평가과정에 제대로 고려되고 있지 않음을 알 수 있었다. 연구결과를 토대로 저자들은 세 가지 즉, (1) 대학 업적평가 규정상의 주저자에 대한 명확한 정의 및 인정기준 확립, (2) 복수저자 기여율 평가규정의 융통성 제고, (3) 저자 기여율에 대한 인식연구의 필요성 등을 제안하였다.

keywords
research evaluation, co-authorship, economics, alphabetical order, credit, 업적평가, 복수저자, 경제학, 알파벳 순, 기여도

Abstract

There has been growing interest in the methods for measuring the credits of individual authors in multi-authored research papers in response to the increase of research collaboration. Having a good understanding for academic norms of individual discipline is essential to measure author credit effectively. However, many Korean universities do not consider different norms for determining the order of authors across disciplines. Rather, they tend to use a standardized method to assess the credits of authors in multi-authored papers. Therefore, this study presented some problems of applying a standardized method to measure author credits in multi-authored papers in economics. The findings of this study confirmed the frequent use of alphabetical author order in economics papers; however, many university guidelines for research evaluation do not take account the alphabetical authorship in measuring the credits of authors. The authors suggest the needs for (1) establishment of a clear definition for primary authors, (2) flexibility in assessment methods for author credit, and (3) empirical research on author credit.

keywords
research evaluation, co-authorship, economics, alphabetical order, credit, 업적평가, 복수저자, 경제학, 알파벳 순, 기여도

참고문헌

1.

이재윤. (2016). 공저자 수를 고려한 h-지수 산출. 정보관리학회지, 33(3), 7-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.3.007.

2.

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.

3.

이종욱. (2015). Co-authorship Credit Allocation Methods in the Assessment of Citation Impact of Chemistry Faculty. 한국문헌정보학회지, 49(3), 273-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2015.49.3.273.

4.

이혜경. (2015). 국내대학의 학술논문 공동연구 기여도 산정 기준 비교 분석. 한국도서관·정보학회지, 46(4), 191-205.

5.

정연경. (2011). 인문·사회과학 분야 교수의 연구업적물 평가에 관한 연구. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 42(3), 211-233.

6.

Tony Becher. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382007.

7.

Christopher L. Brown. (2011). First-author conditions: evidence from finance journal coauthorship. Applied Economics, 43(25), 3687-3697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036841003689739.

8.

Joost P. H. Drenth. (1998). Multiple authorship: The contribution of senior authors. JAMA, 280(3), 219-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.219.

9.

Maxim Engers. (1999). First‐Author Conditions. Journal of Political Economy, 107(4), 859-883. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/250082.

10.

Tove Faber Frandsen. (2010). What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 608-617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.010.

11.

Nils T. Hagen. (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.

12.

Nils T. Hagen. (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.

13.

Nils T. Hagen. (2013). Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 784-791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.06.005.

14.

Hodge, S. E.. (1981). Publication credit. Science, 213(4511), 950-.

15.

Jinseok Kim. (2014). A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation. Scientometrics, 101(1), 587-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1253-3.

16.

David Laband. (2006). Alphabetized coauthorship. Applied Economics, 38(14), 1649-1653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036840500427007.

17.

Jiang Li. (2010). Ranking of library and information science researchers: Comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgments. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 554-563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.005.

18.

Marion Maisonobe. (2016). The world network of scientific collaborations between cities: domestic or international dynamics?. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1025-1036. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.06.002.

19.

Jake M. Najman. (2016). The validity of publication and citation counts for Sociology and other selected disciplines. Journal of Sociology, 39(1), 62-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/144078330303900106.

20.

Jacob B. Slyder. (2011). Citation pattern and lifespan: a comparison of discipline, institution, and individual. Scientometrics, 89(3), 955-966. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0467-x.

21.

Smith, L. C.. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83-101.

22.

Jean Tague-Sutcliffe. (1992). An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing & Management, 28(1), 1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(92)90087-g.

23.

C. MIRJAM VAN PRAAG. (2008). The Benefits of Being Economics Professor A (rather than Z). Economica, 75(300), 782-796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2007.00653.x.

24.

E.S. Vieira. (2010). Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.06.002.

25.

P. Vinkler. (1993). Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness. Scientometrics, 26(1), 213-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02016801.

26.

Vinkler, P.. (2000). Evaluation of the publication activity of research teams by means of scientometric indicators. Current Science, 79(5), 602-612.

27.

Ludo Waltman. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 700-711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.008.

28.

Peter Weingart. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?. Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7.

29.

Jonathan D. Wren. (2007). The write position. A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors. EMBO reports, 8(11), 988-991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401095.

정보관리학회지

논문 투고 OA 정책