Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

A Review of Declarations on Appropriate Research Evaluation for Exploring Their Applications to Research Evaluation System of Korea

연구성과평가 지침 리뷰 및 국내 적용 제안을 위한 고찰

  • 유소영 (한남대학교 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 이재윤 (명지대학교 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 정은경 (이화여자대학교 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 이보람 (이화여자대학교 대학원 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2015.11.29
  • Accepted : 2015.12.14
  • Published : 2015.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Inappropriate applications of bibliometric approach and misinterpretation on the analysis in research evaluation have been found and recognized nationally and internationally as the use of the approach has been rapidly adopted in various sectors in research evaluation systems and research funding agencies. The flood of misuse led to several numbers of declarations and statements on appropriate research evaluation, including Leiden Manifesto, DORA, IEEE Statement, etc. The similar recommendations from five different declarations, Leiden Manifest, IEEE Statement, DORA, Institut de France, and Thomson Reuters White paper were reviewed and meta-analyzed in this study and it is revealed that most of them emphasize evaluation on quality in various aspects with multiple indicators. Research evaluation with assessing multiple aspects of individual research based on the understandings of its purpose and pertinent subject area was revealed as being mostly advised in the declarations, and this recommendation can be regarded as being mostly requested in national research evaluation system. For future study, interviews with relevant stakeholders of national research evaluation system in order to explore its application are needed to confirm the findings of this review.

연구성과평가와 연구비 배분에 인용분석을 포함한 계량정보학적 분석방법이 많이 사용되고 있으며, 부적절한 적용 및 해석에 대한 우려와 지적 또한 계속되고 있다. 이에 따라 최근 연구성과평가 지침과 권고안이 학술 커뮤니티와 계량서지학적 연구집단에서 연이어 발표되고 있다. 따라서 이 연구에서는 2015년 발표된 라이덴 선언(Leiden Manifesto)을 중심으로 Thomson Reuters 백서, 프랑스 과학원 권고안, DORA 선언, IEEE 권고안을 비교하고 이를 통해 국내 연구성과평가 환경에의 제안 가능성을 살펴보고자 하였다. 비교분석 결과, 다수의 권고안은 연구의 목적과 연구 주제분야별 특성을 반영하고 다양한 지표를 활용한 다면적 평가를 통해 총체적인 평가를 지향하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 국내 연구성과평가시스템 적용에서 고려해 볼 주요 권고안이라고 할 수 있으며, 추후 이에 대한 이해관계자들의 의견 수렴 등을 통하여 국내 연구성과시스템에의 적용가능성을 보다 심층적으로 살펴볼 필요가 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 고영만, 조수련, 박지영 (2013). 학술지의 피인용횟수 순위를 적용한 tapered h-지수의 변형지표 "Kor-hT"에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 30(4), 111-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.111 Ko, Young Man, Cho, Soo-Ryun, & Park, Ji Young (2013). A study on the "Kor-hT", a modified tapered h-index, by applying the ranking according to the number of citations of journals in evaluating Korean journals. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 30(4), 111-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.111
  2. 김판준 (2011). 연구 성과평가와 연구정보서비스의 연계를 위한 기초 연구: 과학기술 분야 연구개발사업을 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 28(4), 243-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.243 Kim, Pan Jun (2011). A study on framework for linkage of research performance evaluation and research information service. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(4), 243-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.243
  3. 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
  4. 설혜심 (2011). 학문의 분화와 통섭. 학림, 32, 91-124. Seol, Hyesim (2011). Differentiation and consilience of disciplines. Hak-Lim, 32, 91-124.
  5. 이재윤 (2011a). 국내 인용 데이터베이스에서 저널 페이지랭크 측정 방안. 한국비블리아학회지, 22(4), 361-379. Lee, Jae Yun (2011a). Journal PageRank calculation in the Korean Science Citation Database. Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 22(4), 361-379.
  6. 이재윤 (2011b). 인용 네트워크 분석에 근거한 문헌 인용 지수 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 45(2), 119-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2011.45.2.119 Lee, Jae Yun (2011b). A study on document citation indicators based on citation network analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 45(2), 119-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2011.45.2.119
  7. 이종욱, 양기덕 (2011). 교수연구업적 평가법의 계량적 분석: 국내 문헌정보학과 교수연구업적을 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 28(4), 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.119 Lee, Jongwook, & Yang, Kiduk (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
  8. 조은성, 송재도 (2011). 국내외 마케팅 학술지의 영향력: Kor-Factor와 Impact Factor의 문제점을 중심으로. 마케팅관리연구, 16(2), 53-82. Cho, Eun Seong, & Song, Jae Do (2011). The influence of Korean and international marketing journals: Focused on the problems of Kor-Factor and Impact Factor. Journal of Marketing Management Research, 16(2), 53-82.
  9. 중앙일보 대학평가. [2015.11.10]. Retrieved from http://univ.joongang.co.kr/ Joongangilbo University Rank. [2015.11.10]. Retrieved from http://univ.joongang.co.kr/
  10. 한국정보과학회 (2013). 컴퓨터 분야 성과지표 개선(안). 한국정보과학회. Retrieved from http://an.kaist.ac.kr/-sbmoon/tmp/kiisereport.pdf KIISE (2013). Improvement plan of research performance measures in computer science. KIISE. Retrieved from http://an.kaist.ac.kr/-sbmoon/tmp/kiisereport.pdf
  11. Astrom, F., & Hansson, J. (2013). How implementation of bibliometric practice affects the role of academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 45(4), 316-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961000612456867
  12. Ball, R., & Tunger, D. (2006). Bibliometric analysis: A new business area for information professionals in libraries? Scientometrics, 66(3), 561-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0041-0
  13. Bladek, M. (2014). DORA: San Francisco declaration on research assessment (May 2013). College and Research Libraries News, 75(4), 191-196. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.75.4.9104
  14. Butler-Adam, J. (2013). DORA: The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. South African Journal of Science, 109(7/8), 1-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2013/a0032
  15. Cagan, R. (2013). The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 6(4), 869-870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/dmm.012955
  16. Garfield, E. (2009). From information retrieval to scientometrics-is the dog still wagging its tail. Keynote Address at WIS & COLLNET. Retrieved from http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/dalianchina2009.html
  17. Gomez Marin, J. E. (2015). Why to disagree with the San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Infectio, 19(3), 99-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infect.2015.04.001
  18. Grant Steen, R. (2013). Journal impact factor: Baby and bathwater discarded? European Science Editing, 39(3), 64-65.
  19. Hagen, N. T. (2008). Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE, 3(12), e4021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004021
  20. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-the-leiden-manifesto-for-research-metrics-1.17351 https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
  21. Hoppeler, H. (2013). The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 216(Pt 12), 2163-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jeb.090779
  22. IEEE (2013). Appropriate use of bibliometric indicators for the assessment of journals, research proposals, and individuals. Retrieved from https://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/ieee_bibliometric_statement_sept_2013.pdf
  23. King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13(5), 261-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016555158701300501
  24. Jimenez-Contreras, E., Lopez-Cozar, E. D., Ruiz-Perez, R., & Fernandez, V. M. (2002). Impactfactor rewards affect Spanish research, Nature, 417 (27 June 2002), 898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/417898b
  25. Lee, Jae Yun, & Chung, EunKyung (2014). A comparative analysis on multiple authorship counting for author co-citation analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 31(2), 57-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.2.057
  26. Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2012). Percentile ranks and the integrated impact indicator (I3). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1901-1902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22641
  27. Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 256-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002
  28. Pourquie, O. (2013). The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Development (Cambridge, England), 140(13), 2643-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/dev.099234
  29. Pendlebury, D. A. (2009). The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0008-y
  30. Pendlebury, D. A. (2010). Using bibliometrics in evaluating research. Retrieved from https://services.anu.edu.au/files/system/Pendlebury_White_Paper.pdf
  31. Pugh, E. N., & Gordon, S. E. (2013). Embracing the principles of the san francisco declaration of research assessment: Robert Balaban's editorial. The Journal of General Physiology, 142(3), 175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1085/jgp.201311077
  32. Schekman, R., & Patterson, M. (2013). Reforming research assessment. eLife, 2(2), e00855. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00855
  33. Schubert, A. (2009). Using the h-index for assessing single publications. Scientometrics, 78(3), 559-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2208-3
  34. Servaes, J. (2014). On impact factors and research assessment. At the start of volume 31 of telematics and informatics. Telematics and Informatics, 31(1), 1-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.09.005
  35. Thomson Reuters (2008). Using bibliometrics: A guide to evaluating research performance with citation data. Retrieved from http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/325133_thomson.pdf
  36. Way, M., & Ahmad, S. A. (2013). The San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Journal of Cell Science, 126(Pt 9), 1903-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jcs.134460