바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.30 No.1
Citation Share

A Comparative Analysis of the Humanities Citation Tools: NAVER Scholar and KCI

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2013, v.30 no.1, pp.33-50
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.1.033

(2013). A Comparative Analysis of the Humanities Citation Tools: NAVER Scholar and KCI. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 30(1), 33-50, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.1.033
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify differences between KCI and Naver Scholar as citation analysis tools. Four subcategories in the humanities category were selected as the subject of study. The recall of Naver Scholar was 64%(2,227 times) and the KCI's was 77%(2,665 times). There were some differences in the results at the individual article level or the subcategory level, but the gaps were not significant. Therefore, researchers who analyze citations are urged to use both databases because neither of them are complete, but supplementary to each other.

keywords
인용분석, 인용색인, 인용 데이터베이스, 인문학, 네이버, 한국학술지인용색인, citation analysis, citation index, citation database, humanities, NAVER, KCI, citation analysis, citation index, citation database, humanities, NAVER, KCI

Reference

1.

김판준. (2010). 학술지 영향력 측정을 위한 h-지수의 응용에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 27(1), 269-287.

2.

김홍렬. (2005). 국내 참고문헌 데이터베이스 운영현황 및 실태에 관한 분석. 정보관리학회지, 22(2), 23-39.

3.

네이버. 네이버전문정보. http://academic.naver.com/info.nhn?dir_id=1.

4.

이재윤. (2011). 국내 인용 데이터베이스에서 저널 페이지랭크 측정 방안. 한국비블리아학회지, 22(4), 361-379.

5.

이정연. (2010). 인용정보를 활용한 학술정보서비스 고도화 전략. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 41(1), 43-67.

6.

이종욱. (2011). 교수연구업적 평가법의 계량적 분석: 국내 문헌정보학과 교수연구업적을 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 28(4), 119-140.

7.

한국연구재단. KCI. https://www.kci.go.kr/.

8.

허선. (2005). KoMCI(Korean Medical Citation Index)와 KCI(Korea Citation Index)의 2004년도 영향력지표값 비교분석. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 36(3), 183-193.

9.

Ball, R.. (2006). Science indicators revisited : Science Citation Index versus SCOPUS : A bibliometric comparison of both citation databases. Information Service & Use, 26(4), 293-301.

10.

Bauer, K.. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-lib Magazine, 11(9), -.

11.

Bergman, E. M. L.. (2012). Finding citations to social work literature : The relative benefits of using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 370-379.

12.

최선희. (2011). A Study of Citing Patterns of Korean Scientists on Korean Journals. 정보관리학회지, 28(2), 97-115.

13.

김병규. (2011). Citing Behavior of Korean Scientists on Foreign Journals in KSCD. 정보관리학회지, 28(2), 117-133.

14.

Levine-Clarka, M.. (2008). A comparative citation analysis of Web of Science of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 32-46.

15.

Levine-Clarka, M.. (2009). A comparative analysis of social sciences citation tools. Online Information Review, 33(5), 986-996.

16.

Meho, L. I.. (2007). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125, 58(13), 2105-2125.

17.

Norouzi, A.. (2005). Google Scholar : The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170-180.

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management

e-Submission OA Policy