바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.34 No.3
Citation Share

A Proposal on Modified g-index for Evaluating Research Performance

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2017, v.34 no.3, pp.209-228
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2017.34.3.209

(2017). A Proposal on Modified g-index for Evaluating Research Performance. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 34(3), 209-228, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2017.34.3.209
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

This study suggests a new Hirsch-type composite index, ‘transposed g-index’ with a different viewpoint on h-index and g-index. From this new point of view, the axes of the graph describing the h-index and g-index are transposed so that the horizontal axis corresponds to the citation frequency threshold and the vertical axis corresponds to the number of documents. Based on this transposed graph, a new indicator transposed g-index is suggested and applied to library and information science researchers’ outcomes in Korean Citation Index database. The results show that this new index has more discriminating power than h-index and g-index, and is more sensitive to differences in quantitative aspects than quality of research. It is expected that the transposed g-index will be helpful for the multifaceted evaluation of the research outcome because it has differentiating characteristics that distinguish consistent researchers who continue to study from those who do not.

keywords
research performance, h-index, g-index, transposed g-index, researcher evaluation, research evaluation, 연구성과, h-지수, g-지수, 전치 g-지수, 연구자 평가, 연구 평가

Reference

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.

안혜림. (2016). The Distinct Impact Dimensions of the Prestige Indices in Author Citation Networks. 정보관리학회지, 33(2), 61-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.2.061.

3.

유소영. (2015). 연구성과평가 지침 리뷰 및 국내 적용 제안을 위한 고찰. 정보관리학회지, 32(4), 249-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.249.

4.

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

5.

이재윤. (2014). 공동연구 네트워크 분석을 위한 중심성 지수에 대한 비교 연구. 정보관리학회지, 31(3), 153-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.3.153.

6.

이재윤. (2015). 문헌동시인용 분석을 통한 한국 문헌정보학의 연구 전선 파악. 정보관리학회지, 32(4), 77-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.077.

7.

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

8.

이재윤. (2015). 논문 인용 영향력 측정 지수의 편향성에 대한 연구: KCI 수록 논문을 대상으로. 정보관리학회지, 32(4), 205-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.205.

9.

Bornmann, L.. (2011). The h index as a research performance indicator. European Science Editing, 37, 77-80.

10.

Quentin L. Burrell. (2007). On the h-index, the size of the Hirsch core and Jin's A-index. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 170-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.01.003.

11.

Rodrigo Costas. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 267-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1997-0.

12.

Leo Egghe. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7.

13.

Gingras, Y.. (2016). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Use and abuse:The MIT Press.

14.

J. E. Hirsch. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.

15.

허선. (2014). Journal Metrics-Based Position of Diabetes & Metabolism Journal after the Change of Its Text Language to English. Diabetes and Metabolism Journal, 38(3), 187-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2014.38.3.187.

16.

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.

17.

Roemer, R. C.. (2015). Meaningful metrics: A 21st-century librarian’s guide to bibliometrics, altmetrics, and research impact:Association of College & Research Libraries.

18.

Rousseau, R.. (2006). New developments related to the Hirsch index. Science Focus, 1(4), 23-25.

19.

Michael Schreiber. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21218.

20.

Todeschini, R.. (2016). Handbook of bibliometric indicators: Quantitative tools for studying and evaluating research:Wiley-VCH.

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management

e-Submission OA Policy