바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.4
Citation Share

Discipline Bias of Document Citation Impact Indicators: Analyzing Articles in Korean Citation Index

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2015, v.32 no.4, pp.205-221
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.205


& (2015). Discipline Bias of Document Citation Impact Indicators: Analyzing Articles in Korean Citation Index. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 32(4), 205-221, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.205
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

The impact of a journal is commonly used as the impact of an individual paper within that journal. It is problematic to interpret a journal’s impact as a single paper’s impact of the journal, so there are several researches to measure a single paper’s impact with its own citation counts. This study applied 8 impact indicators to Korean Citation Index database and examined discipline bias of each indicator. Analyzed indicators are simple citation counts, PageRank, f-value, CCI, c-index, single publication h-index, single publication hs-index, and cl-index. PageRank has the least discipline bias at highly ranked papers and journal bias in a discipline. On the contrary, simple citation counts showed strongly biased results toward a certain discipline or a journal. KCI database provides only simple citation counts. It needs to show PageRank (global indicator) to discover influential papers in diverse areas. Furthermore it needs to consider to provide the best of local indicators. Local indicators can be calculated only with papers in users’ search results because they uses citation counts of citing papers and the number of references. They are more efficient than global indicators which explore the whole database. KCI should also consider to provide Cl-index (local indicator).

keywords
연구 평가, 인용 지수, 인용 네트워크, 분야 편향성, 페이지랭크, research evaluation, citation indicator, citation network, discipline bias, PageRank

Reference

1.

신은자. (2013). 한국 재료공학 논문의 피인용 영향요인에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 30(1), 131-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.1.131.

2.

이재윤. (2006). 연구성과 측정을 위한 h-지수의 개량에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 23(3), 167-186.

3.

이재윤. (2011). 인용 네트워크 분석에 근거한 문헌 인용 지수 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 45(2), 119-143.

4.

이재윤. (2011). 단일 문헌의 인용 영향력 측정 방식의 개선 (119-143). 제18회 한국정보관리학회 학술대회 발표논문집.

5.

정영미. (2001). 지식 분류의 자동화를 위한 클러스터링 모형 연구. 정보관리학회지, 18(2), 203-230.

6.

Bi, H. H.. (2011). Comprehensive citation index for research networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 23(8), 1274-1278.

7.

Bornmann, L.. (2011). Does the h index for assessing single publications really work? A case study on papers published in chemistry. Scientometrics, 89(3), 835-843.

8.

Egghe, L.. (2010). On the relation between Schubert's h-index of a single paper and its total number of received citations. Scientometrics, 84(1), 115-117.

9.

Fragkiadaki, E.. (2011). f-Value: Measuring an article's scientific impact. Scientometrics, 86(3), 671-686.

10.

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

11.

Page, L.. (1999). The PageRank citation ranking:Bringing order to the Web. Stanford InfoLab.

12.

Schubert, A.. (2009). Using the h-index for assessing single publications. Scientometrics, 78(3), 559-565.

13.

Singhal, A.. (1996). Document length normalization. Information Processing & Management, 32(5), 619-633.

14.

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment: Putting science into the assessment of research. http://www.ascb.org/dora/.

15.

Thor, A.. (2011). The calculation of the single publication h index and related performance measures: A web application based on Google Scholar data. Online Information Review, 35(2), 291-300.

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management

e-Submission OA Policy