Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회지)

Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of International Achievements and Inequality in Research in the Field of Library and Information Science

문헌정보학 분야 연구의 국제적 성과와 격차에 대한 분석

  • Jane Cho
  • 조재인 (인천대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2024.05.23
  • Accepted : 2024.06.10
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined the output performance of papers published in international journals in the LIS field over the past 20 years and used the Gini coefficient and Hirschman-Herfindahl (HHI) index to understand the international gap in academic paper output and its changes. In addition, the characteristics of academic publications were visualized focusing on the top producing countries of academic papers, and differences according to sub-research areas were also identified. As a result of the analysis, first, although the United States and China are leading the publication of papers over the past five years, the results produced by the Netherlands showed relatively high influence and international and industrial cooperation results. Second, a high inter-country gap index (g= 0.7-0.8) has been maintained in terms of paper production and citation volume over the past 20 years, but the concentration of top countries is showing a trend of easing over time, as CR3 (Concentration Ration 3) decreased from 63.3% to 43.2%, HHI decreased from 2,129.6 to 976.1. Third, the LS field showed the highest gap between countries and a high degree of concentration centered on the United States, while the SM field was confirmed to be the most dispersed.

본 연구는 지난 20년간 LIS(Library & Information Science) 분야 국제 저널에 출판된 논문의 산출 성과를 살펴보고 국제적 격차와 그 변화를 이해하였다. 더불어 학술 논문의 상위 생산 국가를 중심으로 학술 출판 특징을 시각화하고, 하위 연구 영역에 따른 차이도 확인하였다. 분석 결과 첫 번째, 최근 5년간의 논문 출판은 미국과 중국이 주도하고 있으나, 네덜란드가 생산한 논문에서 상대적으로 높은 영향력과 국제 및 산업체 협력 성과가 나타났다. 두 번째, 지난 20년간 논문 생산 및 피인용량에 있어서는 높은 국가 간 격차 지수가(g = 0.7-0.8) 유지되고 있으나, CR3(Concentration Ration 3)은 63.3%에서 43.2%로, HHI는 2,129.6에서 976.1로 감소해, 상위 국가 집중도는 시간이 지남에 따라 완화되는 추세를 나타냈다. 세 번째, LS(Library Science) 분야는 가장 높은 국가 간 격차와 미국 중심의 높은 집중도가 나타났으며, SM(Scientometrics) 분야는 논문 생산 기여국이 가장 분산되어 있는 것으로 확인되었다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2023년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 인문사회분야 중견연구자지원사업의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2023S1A5A2A01075381).

References

  1. Beak, Il (2017). Korean film distribution problems and solutions. Marxist Studies, 14(3), 169-204. https://doi.org/0.26587/marx.14.3.201708.007
  2. Cha, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Hoon-Min (2009). Understanding market structure. Click Economy Education, 70. Available: https://eiec.kdi.re.kr/material/clickView.do?click_yymm=200906&cidx=1033 1033
  3. Cho, Young-shin & Lee, Seon-mi (2010). Analysis of media market concentration by market definition. Journal of Cyber Communication, 27(2), 215-252.
  4. Infomax. (2012, December 24). CR, Concentration Ratio. Available: https://news.einfomax.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=48750
  5. Kim, Jun-hyuk, Lee, Nam-woo, & Seo, Deok-rok (2016). Analysis of multidisciplinary research characteristics of Korean international academic papers using diversity indicators. Convergence Research Review, 2(2), 34-79.
  6. Lee, Jae-woo & Jang, Young-jae (2000). Is the Herfindahl index superior to the CRk concentration index: hypothesis verification and policy implications. Economic Research, 48(1), 5-33.
  7. Park, Joo-yeon & Jeon, Beomsu (2009). Research on diversity in the media market: focusing on measuring market concentration. Journal of Journalism and Information Studies, 46(1), 37-61. http://doi.org/10.22174/jcr.2009.46.1.37
  8. Park, No-kyung (2002). Bank merger and market concentration analysis: CR4 and H-H analysis focus. Industrial Economics Research, 15(1), 152-142.
  9. Seong, wook-je (2010). A diversity study by measuring the usage intensity of domestic current affairs information media. Broadcasting and Communication Research, 72, 194-225. http://doi.org/10.22876/kjbtr.2010.72.007
  10. Yang, Hyun-chae, Seong, gyeon-gmo, Shin, Eun-jeong, & Kim Young-rin (2018). Institutional Reinterpretation and Response to Competition and Limiting Effects in the Government R&D System. Seoul: Science and Technology Policy Institute.
  11. Bromberg, M. (2023). Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) Definition, formula, and example. Available: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hhi.asp
  12. Chang, Y. W. & Nabavi, M. (2024). Comparison of disciplines, topics, and methods in studies in Journal of Informetrics and Scientometrics from 2016 to 2020. Scientometrics, 129, 1415-1439. https://doi-org-ssl.access.inu.ac.kr/10.1007/s11192-024-04947-y
  13. Cho, J. (2021). Analysis of global inequality in research outcome using the Gini coefficient. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 22(1), 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-05-2020-0027
  14. Clarivate (2021). Indicator Handbook. Available: https://incites.help.clarivate.com/Content/Indicators-Handbook/ih-about.htm
  15. CWTS. (2024). Scientometrics Using Open Data. Available: https://www.cwts.nl/education/cwts-course-program/scientometrics-using-open-data
  16. Elango, B., Rajendran, P., & Bornmann, L. (2018). A macro level scientometric analysis of world tribology research output. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1410/1410.1625.pdf
  17. Feyzabadi, VY., Mehrolhassani, MH., & Pourhosseini, SS. (2019). Measuring research inequality in medical sciences universities of Iran from 2008 to 2017: a descriptive study. Iranian Journal of Epidemiology, 14, 27-39.
  18. Hsiao, TM. & Chen, Kh. (2020). The dynamics of research subfields for library and information science: an investigation based on word bibliographic coupling. Scientometrics, 125, 717-737. https://doi-org-ssl.access.inu.ac.kr/10.1007/s11192-020-03645-9
  19. Huang, M., Chang, H., & Chen, D. (2012). The trend of concentration in scientific research and technological innovation: a reduction of the predominant role of the U.S. in world research & technology. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 457-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.03.003
  20. Huang, M., Shaw, W.-C., & Lin, C.-S. (2019). One category, two communities: subfield differences in "Information Science and Library Science." Scientometrics, 119(2), 1059-1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03074-3
  21. Jeon, J. & Kim, S.Y. (2018). Is the gap widening among universities? on research output inequality and its measurement in the Korean higher education system. Quallty & Quantity, 52, 589-606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0652-y
  22. Kwiek, M. (2021). The prestige economy of higher education journals: a quantitative approach higher education. The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 81(3), 493-519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00553-y
  23. Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, E. (2009). The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 858-862. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21011
  24. Leydesdorff, L. & Wagner, C. (2009). Is the United States losing ground in science? a global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics, 78, 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-1830-4
  25. Merton, R. K. (1968). Matthew effect in science: reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
  26. Ni, C. & Ding, Y. (2010). Journal clustering through interlocking editorship information. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504701202
  27. Park, E. & Kim, W. (2021). Inequality in scientific impact: evidence from the hospitality and tourism literature. Tourism & Leisure Research, 33(2), 385-406. https://doi.org/10.31336/JTLR.2021.2.33.2.385
  28. Sin, S. (2006). Are library and information science journals becoming more internationalized?: a longitudinal study of authors' geographical affiliations in 20 lis journals from 1981 to 2003. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504201201
  29. Wu, J. (2015). Distributions of scientific funding across universities and research disciplines. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.12.007
  30. Xie, Y., Wu, Q., Zhang, P., & Li, X. (2020). Information Science and Library Science (IS-LS) journal subject categorization and comparison based on editorship information. Journal of Informetrics, 14(4), 101069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101069
  31. Yu, B. & Shu, F. (2023). The Matthew Effect in China's social sciences and humanities research: a comparative analysis of CSSCI and SSCI. Scientometrics, 128, 6177-6193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04818-y
  32. Zhi, Q. & Meng, T. (2016). Funding allocation, inequality, and scientific research output: an empirical study based on the life science sector of Natural Science Foundation of China. Scientometrics, 106, 603-628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1773-5