JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Bibliometric Approach to Research Assessment: Publication Count, Citation Count, & Author Rank
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Bibliometric Approach to Research Assessment: Publication Count, Citation Count, & Author Rank
Yang, Kiduk; Lee, Jongwook;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
We investigated how bibliometric indicators such as publication count and citation count affect the assessment of research performance by computing various bibliometric scores of the works of Korean LIS faculty members and comparing the rankings by those scores. For the study data, we used the publication and citation data of 159 tenure-track faculty members of Library and Information Science departments in 34 Korean universities. The study results showed correlation between publication count and citation count for authors with many publications but the opposite evidence for authors with few publications. The study results suggest that as authors publish more and more work, citations to their work tend to increase along with publication count. However, for junior faculty members who have not yet accumulated enough publications, citations to their work are of great importance in assessing their research performance. The study data also showed that there are marked differences in the magnitude of citations between papers published in Korean journals and papers published in international journals.
 Keywords
Bibliometrics;Citation Analysis;Author Rank;Research Assessment;
 Language
English
 Cited by
1.
Looking Beyond the Numbers: Bibliometric Approach to Analysis of LIS Research in Korea,양기덕;이종욱;최원찬;

한국문헌정보학회지, 2015. vol.49. 4, pp.241-264 crossref(new window)
2.
국내대학의 학술논문 공동연구 기여도 산정 기준 비교 분석,이혜경;양기덕;

한국도서관정보학회지, 2015. vol.46. 4, pp.191-205 crossref(new window)
 References
1.
Bergstrom, C. T. (2007). Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries News,68(5), 314-316.

2.
Chung, J. S. (2009). A study on assessment of faculty performance in research achievement: A focus on library and information science field. Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for Library and Information Science, 20(2), 129-142.

3.
Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.

4.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152. crossref(new window)

5.
Funkhouser, E. T. (1996). The evaluative use of citation analysis for communications journals. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 563-574. crossref(new window)

6.
Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science. New York, NY: Wiley.

7.
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, 12(46): 16569-16572.

8.
Holmes, A., & Oppenheim, C. (2001). Use of citation analysis to predict the outcome of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise for Unit of Assessment (UoA) 61: Library and information management. Information Research, 6(2). Retrieved from http: //informationr.net/ir/6-2/paper103.html

9.
Li, J., Sanderson, M., Willett, P., Norris, M., & Oppen heim. C. (2010). Ranking of library and information science researchers: Comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgments. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 554-556. crossref(new window)

10.
MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435-444. crossref(new window)

11.
Meho, L., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125. crossref(new window)

12.
Oppenheim, C. (1995). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise Ratings for British library and information science university departments. Journal of Documentation, 51(1), 18-27. crossref(new window)

13.
Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1998). The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the Web. Retrieved from http://dbpubs.stanford. edu/pub/showDoc. Fulltext?lang = en & doc = 1999- 66 & format = pdf.

14.
Schloegl, C., & Stock, W. G. (2004). Impact and relevance of LIS journals: A scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals-Citation analysis versus reader survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(13), 1155-1168. crossref(new window)

15.
Seglen, P. O. (1998). Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 69(3), 224-229. crossref(new window)

16.
Sekercioglu, C. H. (2008). Quantifying coauthor contributions. Science, 322(5900), 371-375.

17.
Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83-101.

18.
Yang, K., & Lee, J. (2012). Analysis of publication patterns in Korean library and information science research. Scientometrics, 93(2), 233-251. crossref(new window)

19.
Yang, K., Lee, J., Choi, S. H., & You, B. J. (2012). Comparison and analysis of data coverage for citation index. Eighth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics (WIS) & Thirteenth COLLNET Meeting. Seoul: COLLNET.

20.
Yang, K., & Meho, L. (2011). Multi-faceted citation analysis for quality assessment of scholarly publications. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(2), 79-96. crossref(new window)

21.
Zhang, C. T. (2009). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. Embo Reports, 10(5), 416-417. crossref(new window)