Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science (한국문헌정보학회지)

Korean Society For Library And Information Science (한국문헌정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Research Productivity and Citation Performance of Researchers by Co-authorship Type in the Biological Sciences

생명과학 분야 연구자들의 공동연구 유형별 연구 생산성과 인용 성과 분석

  • 김미진 (전주대학교 사회과학대학 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2018.07.16
  • Accepted : 2018.08.11
  • Published : 2018.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to provide an in-depth analysis on the research productivity and the research performance of the School of Biological Sciences' faculty at the S University by their co-authorships and further to identify any difference in the citedness by their co-authorships. For the years 2004-2013, a total of 1,135 publications, published by thirty-nine faculty members, were collected and their publication patterns were analyzed by co-authorships. For the years 2004-2016, the citations to the 1,135 publications were analyzed by co-authorships. Among the four co-authorship types, the total number of publications by the domestic and international co-authorships amounted to 832(73.3%), and the study also found a statistical difference in the citation performance, i.e., the average number of citations per paper by co-authorships (F =4.830, $p=0.003^{**}$).

본 연구의 목적은 생명과학 분야에서 많은 연구개발비의 지원과 스타과학자로 구성된 S대학교 생명과학부에 소속된 교수진의 공동연구 유형별 연구 생산성과 인용 성과를 심도 있게 분석하고, 더 나아가 공동연구 유형별 인용 평가지표인 피인용빈도와 발간 당해 연도 피인용빈도, 그리고 논문 1편당 평균 피인용빈도에서 차이가 있는지 밝히는데 있다. 이를 위해 연구 대상자들이 발표한 Web of Science 등재 학술지 논문 1,135편(2004-2013년)을 공동연구 유형별로 발행패턴을 분석하였으며, 1,135편에 대한 13년간 피인용빈도(2004-2016년)를 수집하여 공동연구 유형별 피인용도를 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 네 가지 유형의 공동연구 중 국내 타 기관과 국제 공동연구 논문이 832편으로 73.3%를 차지하였으며, 공동연구 유형에 따른 논문 한 편당 평균 피인용빈도에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다(F=4.830, $p=0.003^{**}$).

Keywords

References

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. 2011. 2010 Science and Technology Annual. Seoul: Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning.
  2. Ministry of Science and ICT. 2018. 2017 Science and Technology Annual. Seoul: Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning.
  3. Kim, Hong-Ryul. 2005. "A Study on the Citation Analysis of Scholarly Journals in the Field of Life Sciences." Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 22(3): 85-102. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2005.22.3.085
  4. Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning. 2016. Biotechnology 2015. Daejeon: Biotech Policy Information Center.
  5. Yu, So-Young and Lee, Jae-Yoon. 2008. "Journal Citation Analysis for Library Services on Interdisciplinary Domains: A Case Study of Department of Biotechnology, Y University." Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 25(4): 283-308. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2008.25.4.283
  6. Bordons, M. et al. 1996. "Local, Domestic and International Scientific Collaboration in Biomedical Research." Scientometrics, 37(2): 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093625
  7. Harirchi, G., Melin, G. and Etemad, S. 2007. "An Exploratory Study of the Feature of Iranian Co-authorships in Biology, Chemistry and Physics." Scientometrics, 72(1): 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1693-0
  8. Journal Citation Reports. 2018. Web of Science. Thomson Reuters. [online] [cited 2018. 6. 30.]
  9. Kim, M. 2007. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Effectiveness of Korea's Biotechnology Stimulation Plans, with a Comparison with Four Other Asian Nations." Scientometrics, 72(3): 371-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-1585-8
  10. Krauskopf, M., Vera, M. I. and Albertini, R. 1995. "Assessment of A University's Scientific Capabilities and Profile: The Case of the Faculty of Biological Sciences of the Pontificia Universidad Catolica De Chile." Scientometrics, 34(1): 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019175
  11. Lee, C. K. 2003. "A Scientometric Study of the Research Performance of the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in Singapore." Scientometrics, 56(1): 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021902724734
  12. Moed, H. F. et al. 1991. "International Scientific Co-operation and Awareness within the European community: Problems and Perspectives." Scientometrics, 21: 291-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093972
  13. Moed, H. F. 2000. "Bibliometric Indicators Reflect Publication and Management Strategies." Scientometrics, 47(2): 323-346. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005695111622
  14. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2009. The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda. Paris: OECD.
  15. Rey-Rocha, J., Garzon-Garcia, B. and Martin-Sempere, M. J. 2006. "Scientists'Performance and Consolidation of Research Teams in Biology and Biomedicine at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research." Scientometrics, 69(2): 183-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0149-2