Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

인문학 분야의 인용 데이터정보원 비교 분석: 네이버 전문정보, KCI

  • 박상근 (경기대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2013.02.15
  • Accepted : 2013.03.13
  • Published : 2013.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

이 연구의 목적은 인문학분야를 대상으로 인용DB간 구축 정보를 비교하고 차이가 있는 경우 그 원인과 문제점을 분석하여 구축 정보의 정확성을 향상시킬 수 있는 방안을 제시하는데 있다. 이를 위해 인용정보를 구성하는 주요 항목 중의 하나인 피인용횟수를 기준으로 네이버와 KCI에서 국내학술논문을 비교하였다. 조사결과, KCI가 네이버보다 좀 더 정확한 인용정보를 제공하고 있었지만 그 차이는 크지 않았다. 각 인용DB간 차이의 원인은 수록범위의 불완전성, 서지정보의 오류, 참고문헌 구축의 불완전성, 링크와 관련된 오류 등으로 조사되었다. 두 인용DB 모두 개선의 여지가 남아있으며, 양자를 상호보완적으로 활용한다면 인문학 분야에서 더욱 완전한 인용정보를 파악할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김판준, 이재윤 (2010). 학술지 영향력 측정을 위한 h-지수의 응용에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 27(1), 269-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.1.269 (Kim, Pan-Jun, & Lee, Jae Yun (2010). A study on journal impact measurement with Hirsch-type indices. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 27(1), 269-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.1.269)
  2. 김홍렬, 정경희 (2005). 국내 참고문헌 데이터베이스 운영현황 및 실태에 관한 분석. 정보관리학회지, 22(2), 23-39. (Kim, Hong-Ryul, & Joung, Kyoung-Hee (2005). An analysis on the operations of reference databases in Korea. Journal of the Korea Society for Information Management, 22(2), 23-39.) https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2005.22.2.023
  3. 네이버. 네이버전문정보. [cited 2012.11.15] Retrieved from http://academic.naver.com/info.nhn?dir_id=1 (NAVER. NAVER Scholar. [cited 2012.11.15] Retrieved from http://academic.naver.com/info.nhn?dir_id=1)
  4. 이재윤 (2011). 국내 인용 데이터베이스에서 저널 페이지랭크 측정 방안. 한국비블리아학회지, 22(4), 361-379. (Lee, Jae Yun (2011). Journal Page Rank calculation in the Korean Science Citation Database. Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 22(4), 361-379.)
  5. 이정연, 유소영, 이재윤 (2010). 인용정보를 활용한 학술정보서비스 고도화 전략. 정보관리연구, 41(1), 43-67. (Lee, Jung-Yeoun, Yu, So-Young, & Lee, Jae Yun (2010). Strategy for scholarly information service using citation information. Journal of Information Management, 41(1), 43-67.) https://doi.org/10.1633/JIM.2010.41.1.043
  6. 이종욱, 양기덕 (2011). 교수연구업적 평가법의 계량적 분석. 정보관리학회지, 28(4), 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.119 (Lee, Jong-Wook, & Yang, Ki-duk (2011). A bibliometric analysis of faculty research performance assessment methods. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(4), 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.119)
  7. 한국연구재단. KCI. [cited 2012.11.15] Retrieved from https://www.kci.go.kr/ (National Research Foundation of Korea. KCI. [cited 2012.11.15] Retrieved from https://www.kci.go.kr/)
  8. 허선, 이춘실 (2005). KoMCI(Korean medical citation index)와 KCI(Korea citation index)의 2004년도 영향력지표값 비교분석. 정보관리연구, 36(3), 183-193. (Huh, Sun, & Lee, Choon-Shil (2005). Comparative analysis of KoMCI 2004 and KCI 2004 impact factor. Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 183-193.) https://doi.org/10.1633/JIM.2005.36.3.183
  9. Ball, R., & Tunger, D. (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., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002
  12. Choi, S.-H., Kim, B.-K., Kang, M., You, B.-J., Lee, J., & Park, J.-W. (2011). A study of citing patterns of Korean scientists on Korean journals. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(2), 97-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.2.097
  13. Kim, B.-K., Kang, M., Choi, S.-H., Kim, S.-Y. You, B.-J., & Shin, J.-D. (2011). Citing behavior of Korean scientists on foreign journals in KSCD. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(2), 117-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.2.117
  14. Levine-Clarka, M., & Gil, E. L. (2008). A comparative citation analysis of Web of Science of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 32-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963560802176348
  15. Levine-Clarka, M., & Gil, E. L. (2009). A comparative analysis of social sciences citation tools. Online Information Review, 33(5), 986-996. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520911001954
  16. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677
  17. Norouzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170-180.

Cited by

  1. An Experimental Study on the Performance Improvement of Automatic Classification for the Articles of Korean Journals Based on Controlled Keywords in International Database vol.48, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2014.48.3.491
  2. Profiling and Co-word Analysis of Teaching Korean as a Foreign Language Domain vol.30, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.195