Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

A Proposal on Modified g-index for Evaluating Research Performance

연구성과 평가를 위한 g-지수의 변형 지수 제안

  • 이재윤 (명지대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2017.08.30
  • Accepted : 2017.09.05
  • Published : 2017.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study suggests a new Hirsch-type composite index, 'transposed g-index' with a different viewpoint on h-index and g-index. From this new point of view, the axes of the graph describing the h-index and g-index are transposed so that the horizontal axis corresponds to the citation frequency threshold and the vertical axis corresponds to the number of documents. Based on this transposed graph, a new indicator transposed g-index is suggested and applied to library and information science researchers' outcomes in Korean Citation Index database. The results show that this new index has more discriminating power than h-index and g-index, and is more sensitive to differences in quantitative aspects than quality of research. It is expected that the transposed g-index will be helpful for the multifaceted evaluation of the research outcome because it has differentiating characteristics that distinguish consistent researchers who continue to study from those who do not.

이 연구에서는 기존의 h-지수와 g-지수에 대해 달리 해석해보고 새로운 Hirsch 유형 복합 지표인 전치 g-지수를 제안하고자 한다. 새로운 해석에 따라서 h-지수 및 g-지수 산출 그래프의 가로축이 인용빈도 기준값에 해당하고 세로축이 논문 수가 되도록 축을 전치하고, 이로부터 새로운 전치 g-지수를 제안하였다. 한국학술지인용색인 KCI의 문헌정보학 분야 연구자들을 대상으로 적용해본 결과, 제안된 새 지수는 h-지수 및 g-지수에 비해서 변별력이 높으며 연구의 질보다 연구의 양 차이에 더 민감한 것으로 나타났다. 연구를 지속하는 꾸준한 연구자를 그렇지 못한 연구자와 변별해주는 차별화된 특성을 가지고 있으므로 전치 g-지수는 다면적인 연구 성과 평가에 도움이 될 것으로 기대된다.

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://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://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.111)
  2. 안혜림, 박지홍 (2016). 저자 인용 네트워크에서 명망성 지표의 차별된 영향력 측정기준에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 33(2), 61-76. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.2.061(Ahn, Hyerim, & Park, Ji-Hong (2016). The distinct impact dimensions of the prestige indices in author citation networks. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 33(2), 61-76. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.2.061)
  3. 유소영, 이재윤, 정은경, 이보람 (2015). 연구성과평가 지침 리뷰 및 국내 적용 제안을 위한 고찰. 정보관리학회지, 32(4), 249-272. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.249(Yu, So-Young, Lee, Jae Yun, Chung, EunKyung, & Lee, Boram (2015). A review of declarations on appropriate research evaluation for exploring their applications to research evaluation system of Korea. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 32(4), 249-272. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.249)
  4. 이재윤 (2006). 연구성과 측정을 위한 h-지수의 개량에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 23(3), 167-186. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2006.23.3.167(Lee, Jae Yun (2006). Some improvements on h-index: Measuring research outputs by citation. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 23(3), 167-186. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2006.23.3.167)
  5. 이재윤 (2014). 공동연구 네트워크 분석을 위한 중심성 지수에 대한 비교 연구. 정보관리학회지, 31(3), 153-179. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.3.153(Lee, Jae Yun (2014). A comparative study on the centrality measures for analyzing research collaboration networks. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 31(3), 153-179. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.3.153)
  6. 이재윤 (2015). 문헌동시인용 분석을 통한 한국 문헌정보학의 연구 전선 파악. 정보관리학회지, 32(4), 77-106. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.077(Lee, Jae Yun (2015). Identifying the research fronts in Korean library and information science by document co-citation analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 32(4), 77-106. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.077)
  7. 이재윤 (2016). 공저자 수를 고려한 h-지수 산출. 정보관리학회지, 33(3), 7-29. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.3.007(Lee, Jae Yun (2016). Calculating the h-index and its variants considering the number of authors in a paper. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 33(3), 7-29. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.3.007)
  8. 이재윤, 최상희 (2015). 논문 인용 영향력 측정 지수의 편향성에 대한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 32(4), 205-221. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.205(Lee, Jae Yun, & Choi, Sanghee (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. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.205)
  9. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2011). The h index as a research performance indicator. European Science Editing, 37, 77-80. Retrieved from http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/icons/viewpoints.pdf
  10. Burrell, Q. L. (2007). On the h-index, the size of the Hirsch core and Jin's A-index. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 170-177. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.01.003
  11. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 267-288. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1997-0
  12. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131-152. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7
  13. Gingras, Y. (2016). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Use and abuse. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  14. 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, 102(46), 16569-16572. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
  15. Huh, Sun (2014). Journal metrics-based position of diabetes & metabolism journal after the change of its text language to English. Diabetes and Metabolism Journal, 38(3), 187-193. http://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2014.38.3.187
  16. Lee, Jongwook, & Yang, Kiduk (2015). Co-authorship credit allocation methods in the assessment of citation impact of chemistry faculty. Journal of the Korean Library and Information Science Society, 49(3), 273-289. http://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2015.49.3.273
  17. Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2015). Meaningful metrics: A 21st-century librarian's guide to bibliometrics, altmetrics, and research impact. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries.
  18. Rousseau, R. (2006). New developments related to the Hirsch index. Science Focus, 1(4), 23-25. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/7616/1/Hirsch_new_developments.pdf
  19. Schreiber, M. (2010). Revisiting the g-index: The average number of citations in the g-core. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 169-174. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21218
  20. Todeschini, R., & Baccini, A. (2016). Handbook of bibliometric indicators: Quantitative tools for studying and evaluating research. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.