바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.34 No.3
Citation Share

An Investigation on Characteristics and Intellectual Structure of Sociology by Analyzing Cited Data

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2017, v.34 no.3, pp.109-124
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2017.34.3.109


& (2017). An Investigation on Characteristics and Intellectual Structure of Sociology by Analyzing Cited Data. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 34(3), 109-124, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2017.34.3.109
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Through a wide variety of disciplines, practices on data access and re-use have been increased recently. In fact, there has been an emerging phenomenon that researchers tend to use the data sets produced by other researchers and give scholarly credit as citation. With respect to this practice, in 2012, Thomson Reuters launched Data Citation Index (DCI). With the DCI, citation to research data published by researchers are collected and analyzed in a similar way for citation to journal articles. The purpose of this study is to identify the characteristics and intellectual structure of sociology field based on research data, which is one of actively data-citing fields. To accomplish this purpose, two data sets were collected and analyzed. First, from DCI, a total of 8,365 data were collected in the field of sociology. Second, a total of 12,132 data were collected from Web of Science with a topic search with ‘Sociology’. As a result of the co-word analysis of author provided-keywords for both data sets, the intellectual structure of research data-based sociology was composed of two areas and 15 clusters and that of article-based sociology was composed with three areas and 17 clusters. More importantly, medical science area was found to be actively studied in research data-based sociology and public health and psychology are identified to be central areas from data citation.

keywords
사회학, 동시출현단어분석, DCI, 지적구조, 네트워크 분석, sociology, co-word analysis, DCI, intellectual structure, network analysis

Reference

1.

조재인. (2016). Data Citation Index를 기반으로 한 연구데이터 인용에 관한 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 50(1), 189-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2016.50.1.189.

2.

Christopher W. Belter. (2014). Measuring the Value of Research Data: A Citation Analysis of Oceanographic Data Sets. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e92590-. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092590.

3.

Piero Dalerba. (2016). CDX2 as a Prognostic Biomarker in Stage II and Stage III Colon Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(3), 211-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1506597.

4.

Anne R. Diekema. (2014). The NSF/NIH Effect: Surveying the Effect of Data Management Requirements on Faculty, Sponsored Programs, and Institutional Repositories. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(3-4), 322-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.04.010.

5.

European Commission. (2015). Study on open science: Impact, implications and policy options. https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/expert-groups/rise/study_on_open_science-impact_implications_and_policy_options-salmi_072015.pdf.

6.

Bernard Lo. (2015). Sharing clinical trial data: Maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. JAMA, 313(8), 793-794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.292.

7.

Hailey Mooney. (2012). The Anatomy of a Data Citation: Discovery, Reuse, and Credit. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 1(1), 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1035.

8.

National Cancer Institute. (2006). Data sharing policy. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/docs/data_sharing_policy.pdf.

9.

National Institutes of Health. (2003). NIH data sharing policy and implementation guideline. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm.

10.

Omwoyo Bosire Onyancha. (2016). Open Research Data in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Bibliometric Study Using the Data Citation Index. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(3), 227-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9463-6.

11.

C PARR. (2005). Data sharing in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(7), 362-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.023.

12.

R. D. Peng. (2011). Reproducible Research in Computational Science. Science, 334(6060), 1226-1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1213847.

13.

(2017). QS World University Rankings. https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2017/sociology.

14.

Nicolas Robinson-García. (2016). Analyzing data citation practices using the data citation index. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(12), 2964-2975. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23529.

15.

J. S. Ross. (2012). Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis. BMJ, 344(jan03 1), d7292-d7292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7292.

16.

Simberloff, D.. (2005). Long-lived digital data collections: Enabling research and education in the 21st century:National Science Foundation.

17.

T. L. Spires-Jones. (2016). Opening up: open access publishing, data sharing, and how they can influence your neuroscience career. European Journal of Neuroscience, 43(11), 1413-1419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13234.

18.

Stodden, V.. (2014). Implementing reproducible research:CRC Press.

19.

이재윤. COOC ver 0.4 프로그램 [cited 2017.02.06.].

20.

이재윤. WNET ver 0.4.1 프로그램 [cited 2017.02.06.].

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management

e-Submission OA Policy