바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.27 No.4

Citation Share

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

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2015, v.27 no.4, pp.659-677
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.4.004



& (2015). Categorization of Academic Papers by Types of Contributions: Comparison of KJCBP and JEP: General. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 27(4), 659-677, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.4.004

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

Reference

1.

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

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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.

5.

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

6.

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

7.

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

8.

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

9.

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.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy