Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

An Analysis on Scholarly Communication Characteristics of Domestic Researchers in High Energy Physics Focused on SCOAP3 Open Access Journals

고에너지 물리학 분야 국내 연구자들의 학술 커뮤니케이션 특성 분석: SCOAP3 오픈 액세스 학술지를 중심으로

  • 이선희 (한국과학기술정보연구원) ;
  • 김지영 (한국과학기술정보연구원)
  • Received : 2020.05.26
  • Accepted : 2020.06.18
  • Published : 2020.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper analyzed SCOAP3 journals, which have been evaluated as successful open access models, to understand the characteristics of scholarly communication among domestic researchers in the field of high energy physics (HEP). As research methods, a quantitative analysis using statistics and a network analysis of authors' affiliated institutions and academic journals were conducted to understand collaboration and research activities of domestic researchers in the HEP field. The results of the study revealed that, among the 10 SCOAP3 journals in which Korean researchers participated, the proportion of articles in which Korean authors participated was 8.0% of the total. The proportion of papers with more than 1,000 co-authors per paper was 28.7% of the total. The results of this analysis proved that Korean researchers were actively collaborating in the HEP global network. From the results of the network analysis to understand the cooperative relationship centered on the affiliated organization, the cooperative network could be divided into three clusters: a cluster centered on S universities, a cluster centered on K research institutes that provided researchers a cooperative infrastructure with CERN, and a cluster centered on I research institute. Through the network analysis for research institutes and journals, it was found that JHEP, PRD, and PLB among academic journals were highly participating journals, and universities and researchers were also participating in the writing of open access papers. The results of this study can be used as a basic resource for understanding researchers and building a research information environment in libraries.

본 논문은 고에너지 물리학(HEP) 분야 국내 연구자들의 학술 커뮤니케이션의 특성을 파악하고자 성공적인 오픈액세스 모델로 평가되는 SCOAP3 학술지를 분석하였다. HEP 분야 국내 연구자들의 협업과 연구 활동 내용을 파악하기 위한 연구방법으로 통계를 활용한 양적 분석과 저자 소속기관과 학술지에 대한 네트워크 분석을 수행하였다. 연구 결과, 국내 연구자가 참여한 10종의 SCOAP3 학술지 가운데 국내 저자 참여 논문 비율은 전체 논문 가운데 8.0%였다. 논문 한 편당 공저자 수가 천명이 넘는 논문 비율이 전체 논문의 28.7%나 되었다. 이 분석 결과들은 HEP 글로벌 네트워크에서 국내 연구자들이 적극적으로 협업하고 있다는 것을 증명하였다. 소속기관을 중심으로 협력 관계를 파악하고자 네트워크 분석을 실시한 결과, 협력 네트워크를 3개의 클러스터로 구분할 수 있었다. 즉 S대학 중심의 클러스터, CERN과 협력 인프라를 제공하는 K연구기관 중심의 클러스터, 그리고 I연구원 중심의 클러스터로 나누어졌다. 연구기관과 학술지의 네트워크 분석을 통하여 학술지 중 JHEP, PRD, PLB가 참여도가 높은 학술지였으며 대학들과 연구원들도 협력하여 오픈 액세스 논문 저작에 참여하고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 본 연구 결과는 SCOAP3 컨소시엄에 참여하는 도서관들이 HEP 분야 연구자를 이해하고 이들을 위한 최적의 연구 정보환경을 구축하기 위한 기초자료로 활용될 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim, Ga-Yoon (2019). Analysis on destination network characteristics of using 2-mode network analysis: Case of Japanese tourists visiting Korea. Journal of Tourism Studies, 31(4), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.21581/jts.2019.11.31.4.23
  2. Kim, Dong-Rae, Kwon, Ki-Seok, & Jeong, Seok-Bong (2015). Knowledge structure analysis on business administration research using keyword network analysis. Journal of Decision Science, 23(1), 111-125.
  3. Kim, Yonghak (2016). Social network analysis (3rd ed.). Seoul: Park Young-sa.
  4. Nam, Eunkyung, & Park, Ji-Hong (2014). Factors influencing research collaboration in the field of informetrics. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 31(4), 201-227. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.4.201
  5. Park, Chan Sook (2019). Using text network analysis for analyzing academic papers in nursing. Perspectives in Nursing Science, 16(1), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.16952/pns.2019.16.1.12
  6. Seo, Tae-Sul, Hwang, Hyekyong, & Kim, Wan-Jong (2017, April). Current status of publication of open access articles by Korean physicsists in HEP. Poster session presented at the 2017 Korean Physical Society Spring Conference, DCC, Daejeon.
  7. Shon, Dongwon (2002). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). Seoul: Kyungmoon-sa.
  8. Lee, Gyeong Min, Kim, Chan Hui, & Park, Han Woo (2017). Network analysis of SNS-mediated learning community: A Facebook group ‘Magic of flipped-learning’. Journal of The Korean Data Analysis Society, 19(2), 873-884. https://doi.org/10.37727/jkdas.2017.19.2.873
  9. Lee, Bangrae, Yeo, Woon-Dong, Lee, June-Young, Lee, Chang-Hoan, Kwon, Oh-Jin, & Moon, Yeong-Ho (2008). Development of the KnowledgeMatrix as an informetric analysis system. Journal of the Korean Contents Association, 8(1), 68-74. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2008.8.1.068
  10. Lee, Soo-Sang (2013). Analytical study on the relationship between centralities of research networks and research performances. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 44(3), 405-428. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2003.44.3.405
  11. Lee, Jae Yun (2006). Centrality measures for bibliometric network analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 40(3), 191-214. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2006.40.3.191
  12. Lee, Jae Yun, & Choi, Sanghee (2013). Collaboration networks and document networks in informetrics research from 2001 to 2011: Finding influential nations, institutions, documents. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 30(1), 179-191. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.1.179
  13. Zhu, Yu-Peng, & Park, Han-Woo (2019). Evaluating blockchain research trend using bibliometricsbased network analysis. Journal of Digital Convergence, 17(6), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2019.17.6.219
  14. Borgman, C. L. (2000). Digital libraries and the continuum of scholarly communication. Journal of Documentation, 56(4), 412-430. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007121
  15. Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 2-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440360102
  16. Dastidar, P. G. (2004). Ocean science & technology research across the countries: A global scenario. Scientometrics, 59(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:scie.0000013296.33677.ef
  17. Everett, M. G., & Borgatti, S. P. (2013). The dual-projection approach for two-mode networks. Social Networks, 35(2), 204-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2012.05.004
  18. Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
  19. Gentil-Beccot, A., Mele, S., & Brooks, T. (2010). Citing and reading behaviours in high-energy physics. Scientometrics, 84(2), 345-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0111-1
  20. Gephi (n.d.). Retrieved from https://gephi.org/
  21. Goldschmidt-Clermont, L. (2002). Communication patterns in high-energy physics. High Energy Physics Libraries Webzine, issue 6. http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/6/papers/1/
  22. Heuer, R. D., Holtkamp, A., & Mele, S. (2008). Innovation in scholarly communication: Vision and projects from High-Energy Physics. Information Services & Use, 28(2), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2008-0570
  23. KnowledgeMatrix Plus (n.d.). Retrieved from http://mirian.kisti.re.kr/km/
  24. Kohls, A., & Mele, S. (2018). Converting the literature of a scientific field to open access through global collaboration: The experience of SCOAP3 in particle physics. Publications, 6(2), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6020015
  25. Krause, J., Mele, S., & Lindqvist, C. M., (2007). Quantitative study of the geographical distribution of the authorship of High-Energy Physics journals, (No. CERN-OPEN-2007-014).
  26. Modularity (n.d.). Retrieved from https://github.com/gephi/gephi/wiki/Modularity/
  27. Nagpaul, P. (2002). Visualizing cooperation networks of elite institutions in India. Scientometrics, 54(2), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016036711279
  28. Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5200-5205. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307545100
  29. Price, D. D. S., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011-1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024051
  30. SCOAP3 KOREA (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.kesli.or.kr/scoap3/html/pop_scoap3.html
  31. SCOAP3 (n.d.). Retrieved from https://scoap3.org/scoap3-repository/
  32. Spink, A, Robins, D., & Schamber, L., (1998). Use of scholarly book reviews: Implications for electronic publishing and scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44(9), 364-374. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(19980401)49:4<364::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-3
  33. Tableau (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.tableau.com/
  34. VOSviewer (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.vosviewer.com/