Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Do Korean Universities Consider Alphabetical Authorship in Economics in Faculty Research Evaluation?

경제학 분야 교수 연구업적 평가 시 알파벳 순 저자표기 반영실태 분석

  • 이종욱 (공주대학교 사범대학 문헌정보교육과) ;
  • 서현덕 (인하대학교 경제학과)
  • Received : 2017.05.17
  • Accepted : 2017.06.08
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

There has been growing interest in the methods for measuring the credits of individual authors in multi-authored research papers in response to the increase of research collaboration. Having a good understanding for academic norms of individual discipline is essential to measure author credit effectively. However, many Korean universities do not consider different norms for determining the order of authors across disciplines. Rather, they tend to use a standardized method to assess the credits of authors in multi-authored papers. Therefore, this study presented some problems of applying a standardized method to measure author credits in multi-authored papers in economics. The findings of this study confirmed the frequent use of alphabetical author order in economics papers; however, many university guidelines for research evaluation do not take account the alphabetical authorship in measuring the credits of authors. The authors suggest the needs for (1) establishment of a clear definition for primary authors, (2) flexibility in assessment methods for author credit, and (3) empirical research on author credit.

전 세계적으로 협동연구가 증가함에 따라 복수저자 연구업적물 상의 개별저자 기여도를 보다 정확하고 합리적으로 산정하는 것이 중요해지고 있다. 효과적인 저자 기여도 산정을 위해서는 개별 학문분야의 고유한 연구행태 및 규범에 대한 이해가 우선되어야 한다. 그럼에도 불구하고 연구업적 평가 시 개별 학문분야의 특수성을 고려하지 않고 일률적인 방식으로 저자 기여도를 산정하는 경우가 많다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 국내 대학에서 사용하는 교수 연구업적 평가방식에 제시된 복수저자 기여도 측정방식이 특정 학문분야 즉, 경제학 분야 교수의 연구업적 평가에 적용되었을 때 나타나는 문제점을 제시하고 이를 해결할 수 있는 방안을 제안하였다. 본 연구에서는 문헌연구, 업적평가 규정분석 및 경제학 분야 교수 면담 등을 통하여 경제학 분야의 알파벳 순 저자표기 관행을 확인하였고, 이러한 표기방식이 연구업적 평가과정에 제대로 고려되고 있지 않음을 알 수 있었다. 연구결과를 토대로 저자들은 세 가지 즉, (1) 대학 업적평가 규정상의 주저자에 대한 명확한 정의 및 인정기준 확립, (2) 복수저자 기여율 평가규정의 융통성 제고, (3) 저자 기여율에 대한 인식연구의 필요성 등을 제안하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 인하대학교

References

  1. 이재윤 (2016). 공저자 수를 고려한 h-지수 산출. 정보관리학회지, 33(3), 7-29. https://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. https://doi.org/10.3743/kosim.2016.33.3.007
  2. 이재윤, 정은경 (2014). 저자동시인용분석을 위한 복수저자 기여도 산정 방식의 비교 분석. 정보관리학회지, 31(2), 57-77. https://doi.org/10.3743/kosim.2014.31.2.057 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. https://doi.org/10.3743/kosim.2014.31.2.057
  3. 이종욱, 양기덕 (2012). Co-authorship credit allocation methods in the assessment of citation impact of chemistry faculty. 한국문헌정보학회지, 49(3), 273-289. https://doi.org/10.4275/kslis.2015.49.3.273 Lee, Jongwook, & Yang, Kiduk (2012). Co-authorship credit allocation methods in the assessment of citation impact of chemistry faculty. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 49(3), 273-289. https://doi.org/10.4275/kslis.2015.49.3.273
  4. 이혜경, 양기덕 (2015). 국내대학의 학술논문 공동연구 기여도 산정 기준 비교 분석. 한국도서관․정보학회지, 46(4), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.46.4.201512.191 Lee, Hyekyung, & Yang, Kiduk (2015). Comparative analysis of Korean universities' co-author credit allocation standards on journal publications. Journal of the Korean Library and Information Science Society, 46(4), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.46.4.201512.191
  5. 정연경, 최윤경 (2011). 인문․사회과학 분야 교수의 연구업적물 평가에 관한 연구. 정보관리연구, 42(3), 211-233. https://doi.org/10.1633/jim.2011.42.3.211 Chung, Yeon-Kyoung, & Choi, Yoon-Kyung (2011). A study on faculty evaluation of research achievements in Humanities and Social Sciences. Journal of Information Management, 42(3), 211-233. https://doi.org/10.1633/jim.2011.42.3.211
  6. Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382007
  7. Brown, C. L., Chan, K. C., & Chen, C. R. (2011). First-author conditions: Evidence from finance journal coauthorship. Applied Economics, 43(25), 3687-3697. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036841003689739
  8. Drenth, J. P. H. (1998). Multiple authorship: The contribution of senior authors. JAMA, 280(3), 219-221. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.219
  9. Engers, M., Gans, J. S., Grant, S., & King, S. P. (1999). First-author conditions. Journal of Political Economy, 107(4), 859-883. https://doi.org/10.1086/250082
  10. Frandsen, T. F., & Nicholaisen, J. (2010). What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 608-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.010
  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004021
  12. Hagen, N. T. (2010). Harmonic publication and citation counting: Sharing authorship credit equitably - not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics, 84(3), 785-793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0129-4
  13. Hagen, N. T. (2013). Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 784-791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.06.005
  14. Hodge, S. E., & Greenberg, D. A. (1981). Publication credit. Science, 213(4511), 950.
  15. Kim, J., & Diesner, J. (2014). A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation. Scientometrics, 101(1), 587-602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1253-3
  16. Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. (2006). Alphabetized coauthorship. Applied Economics, 38(14), 1649-1653. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500427007
  17. Li, J., Sanderson, M., Willett, P., Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2010). Ranking of library and information science researchers: Comparison of data sources for correlating citation data, and expert judgments. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 554-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.005
  18. Maisonobe, M., Eckert, D., Grossetti, M., Jegou, L., & Milard, B. (2016). The world network of scientific collaborations between cities: Domestic or international dynamics? Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1025-1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.06.002
  19. Najman, J. M., & Hewitt, B. (2003). The validity of publication and citation counts for sociology and other selected disciplines. Journal of Sociology, 39(1), 62-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078330303900106
  20. Slyder, J. B., Stein, B. R., Sams, B. S., Walker, D. M., Beale, J., Feldhaus, J. J., & Copenheaver, C. A. (2011). Citation pattern and lifespan: A comparison of discipline, institution, and individual. Scientometrics, 89(3), 955-966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0467-x
  21. Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83-101.
  22. Tague-Sutcliffe, J. (1992). An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing & Management, 28(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(92)90087-g
  23. van Praag, C. M., & van Praag, E. M. S. (2008). The benefits of being economic professor A (rather than Z). Economica, 75(300), 782-796. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2007.00653.x
  24. Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2010). Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.06.002
  25. Vinkler, P. (1993). Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness. Scientometrics, 26(1), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02016801
  26. Vinkler, P. (2000). Evaluation of the publication activity of research teams by means of scientometric indicators. Current Science, 79(5), 602-612.
  27. Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 700-711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.008
  28. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7
  29. Wren, J. D., Kozak, K. Z., Johnson, K. R., Deakyne, S. J., Schilling, L. M., & Dellavalle, R. P. (2007). The write position: A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors. EMBO Reports, 8(11), 988-991. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401095