Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Exploring a Researcher's Personal Research History through Self-Citation Network and Citation Identity

자기 인용 네트워크와 인용 정체성을 이용한 연구자의 연구 이력 분석에 관한 연구

  • Received : 2012.02.19
  • Accepted : 2012.03.21
  • Published : 2012.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper compares two recent methods for exploring a scientist's research history: citation identity and self-citation network. The former is proposed by White(2000), while the latter is suggested by Hellsten et al.(2007). An experimental citation analysis was carried out on the research output of Young Mee Chung, a renouned Korean information scientist. The result shows that the two methods divided the research period into two sub-periods in the same way. They also identified the major research themes very similarly. In the analysis of each method's performance in depth, the two methods revealed different functions to understand a researcher's history. Citation identity was useful to identify authors who have affected Chung's research in terms of research topics. whereas, self-citation network was successful to identify the core papers and leading papers of the research sub-periods. This study indicates the combination of two methods can provide rich information on a scientist's research history.

이 연구에서는 연구자의 연구 이력을 분석하기 위해서 White(2000)가 제안한 인용 정체성과 Hellsten 등(2007)이 제안한 자기 인용 네트워크의 두 가지 최신 기법을 비교해보았다. 국내 대표적인 정보학자인 정영미의 연구 성과물을 대상으로 실험적인 분석을 수행해본 결과 두 기법에서 구분한 연구 시기가 동일하게 나뉘었으며 주요 연구 주제도 유사하게 파악되었다. 그러나 인용 정체성 지도에서는 주제영역별로 영향받은 주요 저자를 파악할 수 있는 반면에 자기 인용 네트워크에서는 시기별 핵심 문헌과 선도문헌이 식별되었다. 따라서 이 두 가지 기법을 상호보완적으로 사용할 때 연구자의 연구 이력에 대해서 풍부한 정보를 획득할 수 있다는 결론을 얻었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 기지훈 (2011.11.18). 자기인용 네트워크: 학자의 학문세계 분석에 대한 새로운 접근. 제6회 COREN 컨퍼런스 발표자료, 경희대학교, 서울, 대한민국.(Ki, Ji-Hoon (2011.11.18). Self-citation network: A new approach to explore a scholar's research history. Paper presented at the Sixth COREN Conference, Kyung Hee Unversity, Seoul, Korea.)
  2. 이재윤 (2006). 지적 구조 분석을 위한 새로운 클러스터링 기법에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 23(4), 215-231(Lee, Jae Yun (2006). A novel clustering method for examining and analyzing the intellectual structure of a scholarly field. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 23(4), 215-231.)
  3. 이재윤 (2011). 인용 네트워크 분석에 근거한 문헌 인용 지수 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 45(2), 119-143. doi: 10.4275/KSLIS.2011.45.2.119(Lee, Jae Yun (2011). A study on document citation indicators based on citation network analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 45(2), 119-143. doi: 10.4275/KSLIS.2011.45.2.119)
  4. 이재윤, 김판준, 강대신, 김희정, 유소영, 이우형 (2011). 계량서지적 기법을 활용한 LED 핵심 주제영역의 연구 동향 분석. 정보관리연구, 42(3), 1-26.(Lee, Jae Yun, Kim, Pan Jun, Kang, Dae-Shin, Kim, Heejung, Yu, So-Young, & Lee, Woo Hyoung (2011). Bibliometric analysis on LED research trends. Journal of Information Management, 42(3), 1-26.)
  5. 이종욱, 양기덕 (2011). 교수연구업적 평가법의 계량적 분석. 정보관리학회지, 28(4), 119-140. doi: 10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.119(Lee, Jongwook, & Yang, Kiduk (2011). A bibliometric analysis of faculty research performance assessment methods. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(4), 119-140. doi: 10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.119)
  6. Barrat, A., Bathelemy, M., & Vespignani, A. (2008). Dynamical processes on complex networks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Bonnevie-Nebelong, E. (2006). Journal citation identity, journal citation image and internationalisation: Methods for journal evaluation. Scientometrics, 66(2), 411-424. doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0029-9
  8. Davarpanah, M. R., & Aslekia, S. (2008). A scientometric analysis of international LIS journals: Productivity and characteristics. Scientometrics, 77(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1803-z
  9. Fragkiadaki, E., Evangelidis, G., Samaras, N., & Dervos, D. A. (2011). f-Value: Measuring an article's scientific impact. Scientometrics, 86(3), 671-686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0302-9
  10. Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2011). Structured evaluation of the scientific output of academic research groups by recent h-based indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.08.003
  11. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. (2006). A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics, 67(2), 263-277. doi: 10.1556/Scient.67.2006.2.8
  12. Hellsten, I., Lambiotte, R., Scharnhorst, A., & Ausloos, M. (2007). Self-citations, co-authorships and keywords: A new approach to scientists' field mobility? Scientometrics, 72(3), 469-486, doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1680-5
  13. Lee, Jae Yun, & Choi, Sanghee (2011). Intellectual structure and infrastructure of informetrics. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Society, 28(2), 11-36. doi: 10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.2.011
  14. Nebelong-Bonnevie, E., & Frandsen, T. F. (2006). Journal citation identity and journal citation image: A portrait of the Journal of Documentation. Journal of Documentation, 62(1), 30-57. doi: 10.1108/00220410610642039
  15. Schvaneveldt, R. W. (Ed.) (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  16. Tsay, Ming-yueh (2011). A bibliometric analysis and comparison on three information science journals: JASIST, IPM, JOD, 1998-2008. Scientometrics, 89(2), 591-606. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0460-4
  17. White, H. (2000). Toward ego-centered citation analysis. In B. Cronin, & H.B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 475-496). Medford, New Jersey: Information Today, Inc.

Cited by

  1. Ego-centered Topic Citation Analysis on Folksonomy Research Documents vol.29, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2012.29.4.295
  2. Bibliometric Analysis to Analyze Topic Areas of Faculty for Academic Library Service vol.30, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.1.237
  3. An Analysis of Related Movie Information Using The Co-Word Method vol.31, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.4.161
  4. A Comparison Study on the Weighted Network Centrality Measures of tnet and WNET vol.30, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.241