Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

A Study on Categorizing Researcher Types Considering the Characteristics of Research Collaboration

공동연구 특성을 고려한 연구자 유형 구분에 대한 연구

  • 이재윤 (명지대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2023.05.13
  • Accepted : 2023.06.08
  • Published : 2023.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Traditional models for categorizing researcher types have mostly utilized research output metrics. This study proposes a new model that classifies researchers based on the characteristics of research collaboration. The model uses only research collaboration indicators and does not rely on citation data, taking into account that citation impact is related to collaborative research. The model categorizes researchers into four types based on their collaborative research pattern and scope: Sparse & Wide (SW) type, Dense & Wide (DW) type, Dense & Narrow (DN) type, Sparse & Narrow (SN) type. When applied to the quantum metrology field, the proposed model was statistically verified to show differences in citation indicators and co-author network indicators according to the classified researcher types. The proposed researcher type classification model does not require citation information. Therefore, it is expected to be widely used in research management policies and research support services.

기존의 연구자 유형 구분 모델은 대부분 연구성과 지표를 활용해왔다. 이 연구에서는 인용 영향력이 공동연구와 관련이 있다는 점을 감안하여 인용 데이터를 활용하지 않고 공동연구 지표만으로 연구자 유형을 분석하는 새로운 방법을 모색해보았다. 공동연구 패턴과 공동연구 범위를 기준으로 연구자를 Sparse & Wide (SW) 유형, Dense & Wide (DW) 유형, Dense & Narrow (DN) 유형, Sparse & Narrow (SN) 유형의 4가지로 구분하는 모델을 제안하였다. 제안된 모델을 양자계측 분야에 적용해본 결과, 구분된 연구자 유형별로 인용지표와 공저 네트워크 지표에 차이가 있음이 통계적으로 검증되었다. 이 연구에서 제시한 공동연구 특성에 따른 연구자 유형 구분 모델은 인용정보를 필요로 하지 않으므로 연구관리 정책과 연구지원서비스 측면에서 폭넓게 활용할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문에서는 과학기술정책연구원(STEPI)의 "정부R&D 수행 이력 분석을 통한 대학 연구자 성장경로 모형개발 연구"의 보고서(발간 2022년 12월) 일부를 활용하였다.

References

  1. Kang, Hyunmoo, Kim, Cheong Sig, Lee, Yongsoon, & Rho, Thae Tscheon (2010). A study on the social network of the technological education in Korea: focused on the journal of KTEA. The Korean Journal of Technology Education, 10(1), 47-69.
  2. Lee, Jae Yun (2006). Some improvements on h-index: Measuring research outputs by citations. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 23(3), 167-186. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2006.23.3.167
  3. 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
  4. Lee, Jae Yun (2016a). 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
  5. Lee, Jae Yun (2016b). Comparative analysis on the relationships between the centralities in co-authorship networks and research performance considering the number of co-authors. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 33(4), 175-199. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.4.175
  6. Lee, Jae Yun (2019). Improving the perfectionism index to identify influential journals versus mass producers. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 36(2), 201-222. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2019.36.2.201
  7. Lee, Yoon-Jung, Kim, Eunjeung, & Kim, Ji Sun (2019). Analysis of co-author network in technology & home economics education of practical arts. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education, 32(1), 103-124. http://doi.org/10.24062/kpae.2019.32.1.103
  8. Son, Yong-Jung (2017). The centrality of joint research in port economics using social network analysis. The Journal of Korean Island, 29(1), 95-110. 
  9. Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594-607. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.007
  10. Beaver, D. B. (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration: part II. Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite, 1799-1830. Scientometrics, 1(2), 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016966
  11. Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170-1182. https://doi.org/10.1086/228631
  12. Bordons, M., Aparicio, J., Gonzalez-Albo, B., & Diaz-Faes, A. A. (2015). The relationship between the research performance of scientists and their position in co-authorship networks in three fields. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 135-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.12.001
  13. Bornmann, L. (2017), Is collaboration among scientists related to the citation impact of papers because their quality increases with collaboration? An analysis based on data from F1000Prime and normalized citation scores. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 1036-1047. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23728
  14. Cole, S. & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: Study in operation of reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 32(3), 377-390. http://doi.org/10.2307/2091085
  15. Corley, E. A. & Sabharwal, M. (2010). Scholarly collaboration and productivity patterns in public administration: Analysing recent trends. Public Administration, 88(3), 627-648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01830.x
  16. 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
  17. Ding, J., Yang, L., & Liu, Q. (2013). Measuring the academic impact of researchers by combined citation and collaboration impact. Proceedings of the 2013 ISSI Conference, 1177-1187.
  18. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152 (2006). http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7
  19. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239. http://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7 
  20. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569-16572. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
  21. Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Sugimoto, C. R., & Tsou, A. (2015), On the relationship between collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1323-1332. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23266
  22. Servia-Rodriguez, S., Noulas, A., Mascolo, C., Fernandez-Vilas, A., & Diaz-Redondo, R. P. (2015). The evolution of your success lies at the centre of your co-authorship network. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0114302. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114302
  23. Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2015). Ranking and identifying influential scientists versus mass producers by the perfectionism index. Scientometrics, 103(1), 1-31. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1515-0
  24. Wang, Y. & Song, X. (2020). Quantum science and quantum technology. Statistical Science, 35(1), 51-74, http://doi.org/10.1214/19-STS745
  25. Watts, D. J. & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440-442. http://doi.org/10.1038/30918
  26. Xu, Q. A. & Chang, V. (2020). Co-authorship network and the correlation with academic performance. Internet of Things, 12, 100307. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2020.100307