Categorization of Academic Papers by Types of Contributions: Comparison of KJCBP and JEP: General

오늘날 학계에서는 수많은 논문들이 발표되고 있으나, 이들의 특성이나 우수성을 파악하고 구분할 수 있는 기준은 마땅하지 않은 것으로 보인다. 본 연구는 학술지에 실린 논문들을 기여 방식에 따라 분류할 수 있을지 알아보기 위해 수행되었다. 이를 위해 연구자들은 Spellman, DeLoache와 Bjork(2007)의 핵심주장 유형화 기준과 Sternberg, Kaufman과 Pretz(2002)의 추진 모형을 변형하여 논문의 유형화를 시도하였다. 2012년부터 2014년까지 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물과 미국 실험심리학회지: 일반(Journal of Experimental Psychology: General)에 게재된 논문들을 각각 50여 편씩 선정하여 분류했다. 약간의 차이는 있지만 두 학술지 모두에서 지배적 이론에 대한 비판을 제기하는 연구 혹은 기존의 패러다임으로부터 벗어나 새로운 관점을 형성하려는 논문은 상대적으로 적다는 것이 발견되었다. 논의에서는 보다 정교하고 객관화된 논문 유형화 방식 개발의 필요성에 대한 논의와 함께 이런 분류체계의 실용적 활용 방안에 대한 제안이 이루어졌다.

keywords: 논문평가, 연구동향, 주장의 유형, 추진 모형, 창의성, research assessment, trends analysis, types of claims, Propulsion Model, creativity

Abstract

Researchers of today face a flood of academic papers, yet they have few practical means of recognizing the quality or type of those papers. The current study aims to realize and implement two frames that can categorize research papers according to how they contribute to the advancement of the field. Spellman, DeLoache, and Bjork(2007) suggested 5 types of claims that researchers make in their papers and Sternberg, Kaufman, and Pretz(2002) invented a way to categorize creative findings according to the type of their contributions. We utilized these two sets of categories to assort recent(2012∼2014) papers from Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology(KJCBP) as well as American Journal of Experimental Psychology: General(JEP: General). Results showed that relatively few papers challenge dominant theories or develop new approaches in order to reject or replace current theories, while more than half of the research in both journals seemed to accept and support the prior findings. After further improvement, this categorization scheme may provide reliable guideline in assessing whether a research is meaningful and contributing.

keywords: 논문평가, 연구동향, 주장의 유형, 추진 모형, 창의성, research assessment, trends analysis, types of claims, Propulsion Model, creativity

참고문헌

Adler, R., Ewing, J., & Taylor, P. (2009). Citation statistics. Statistical Science, 24(1), 1-14.

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2005). Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work?. Scientometrics, 65(3), 391-392.

Cagan, R. (2013). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 6(4), 869.

Earp, V. J. (2010). A bibliometric snapshot of the journal of higher education and its impact on the field. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 29(4), 283-295.

Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes to science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108-111.

Garfield, E. (1986). Which medical journals have the greatest impact?. Annals of Internal Medicine, 105(2), 313-320.

Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: a brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979-980.

Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90-93.

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569- 16572.

10.

Jinha, A. E. (2010). Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23(3), 258-263.

11.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago press.

12.

Loscalzo, J. (2011). Can scientific quality be quantified?. Circulation, 123(9), 947-950.

13.

Lluch, J. O. (2005). Some considerations on the use of the impact factor of scientific journals as a tool to evaluate research in psychology. Scientometrics, 65(2), 189-197.

14.

Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498-502.

15.

Spellman, B. A., DeLoache, J. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). Making claims in papers and talks. In R. J. Sternberg, H. L. Roediger III, & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of kinds of creative contributions. New York: Psychology Press.

17.

Togia, A. (2013). The Status of Cognitive Psychology Journals: An Impact Factor Approach. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 32(2), 86-102.

18.

Tomcho, T. J., Foels, R., Walter, M. I., Yerkes, K., Brady, B., Erdman, M., Dantoni, L., Venables, M., & Manry, A. (2015). Outside the Classroom and Beyond Psychology A Citation Analysis of the Scientific Influence of Teaching Activities. Teaching of Psychology, 42(1), 5-13.

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.27 No.4

학술논문의 기여 유형에 따른 분류: 한·미 실험심리학회지의 비교

Categorization of Academic Papers by Types of Contributions: Comparison of KJCBP and JEP: General

초록

Abstract

참고문헌

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물