• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.48 no.2
• /
• pp.295-322
• /
• 2017

As a first step in developing a more effective and robust approach to faculty research performance assessment, this study analyzed the existing faculty research assessment methods by comparing Korean universities' research evaluation standards, National Research Foundation of Korea's (KRF) standard for assessing research proposals, and various bibliometric measures. The study data included research evaluation standards of KRF along with 27 Korean universities with Library and Information Science (LIS) department, and the publication data of 183 LIS faculties in Korean universities from 2001 to 2015, which consisted of 3,863 papers 16,978 citations. After the comparative analysis of research evaluation standards, the study examined the rankings of institutions and faculty produced by applying the collected standards and bibliometric metrics to the publication data. The study showed that Korean university standards for research evaluation, which aim to consider both productivity and impact of faculty research, differ from similar bibliometric measures such as h-index, and the difference could significantly impact the assessment of faculty research performance.

• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.93-114
• /
• 2022

This study aims to propose the ways to improve the research performance evaluation to support the establishment of a sound research culture. For the study, we analyzed the cases of domestic and foreign research performance evaluation, and a survey and an interview were conducted for faculty and research performance evaluation officials, respectively. In the study, the direction of establishing the principle of research performance evaluation, the method of categorizing the type of research performance, the method and procedure of research performance evaluation, and necessary documents were proposed. First, eight principles were suggested to be considered in evaluating research achievements to ensure the validity, reliability, and transparency of the evaluation while supplementing the limitations of quantitative evaluation. Second, the main types of research achievements were categorized into journal articles, books, and presentations at academic conferences. Third, as a research achievement evaluation method, a hybrid evaluation using quantitative and qualitative and multiple measurement indicators was proposed. Fourth, a total of 11 steps (required 7 steps) were presented as a procedure for research achievement evaluation. Fifth, publications, evaluation documents, and committee chair's reports were proposed as major documents for research achievement evaluation. The research achievement evaluation improvement plan presented in this study should be flexibly applied in consideration of the characteristics of the academic and research fields and universities.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.56 no.4
• /
• pp.309-333
• /
• 2022

A survey was conducted to analyze the perceptions related to research performance evaluation from 2,618 professors. The survey is to find out the perception about two parts. One is a survey of professors' perceptions about the faculty performance evaluation, which is currently being conducted at each university. The other is that we analyzed the perception of the introduction of qualitative performance evaluation indicators, an alternative to the quantitative performance evaluation. As a result, we confirmed followings. Quantitative research performance evaluation is carried out in most universities. Research performance evaluation is not appropriate for a department or research field. And an extension of the evaluation period is required. Quantitative evaluation have a negative impact on the academic community. Quantitative evaluation needs to be improved. As regard to the introduction of the qualitative evaluation, we confirmed that professors perceived that qualitative evaluation is necessary to evaluate research performance, and they also have negative opinions about introduction of qualitative evaluation.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.211-232
• /
• 2022

Research performance evaluation has been based heavily on quantitative criteria. Various limitations however were revealed and the demand for excellence in research quality was growing and the importance of qualitative evaluation factors was increasing as well. The study investigates and introduces cases for improving research evaluation that have appeared around the world since 2010. To extract qualitative factors that can be introduced in research achievement evaluation in Korea this study investigated and organized the performance evaluation cases of foreign universities and proposed the introduction of the evaluation method in Korea. Qualitative evaluation factors were extracted by analyzing achievement evaluation documents evaluation procedures and evaluation standards of top 10 universities around the world. As a results this study proposes the use of various performance evaluation documents mulch-faceted evaluation and multi-level performance evaluation process and various qualitative performance evaluation standards. In traditional bibliometrics, while the degree of citation was measured when generating research evaluation indicators, future indicators may reflect recommendation scores as indicators, or include industrial connectivity and utilization in education / industry. It is hoped that the performance evaluation method will be balanced through this paper and ultimately the professor's research achievement evaluation will be a process that can help individuals grow into excellent researchers and develop the research environment.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.7-26
• /
• 2017

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.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.119-140
• /
• 2011

Effective assessment of faculty research performance should involve considerations of both quality and quantity of faculty research. This study analyzed methods for evaluating faculty research output by comparing the rankings of Library and Information Science(LIS) faculty by publication counts, citation counts, and research performance assessment guidelines employed by Korean universities. The study results indicated that faculty rankings based on publication counts to be significantly different from those based on citation counts. Additionally, faculty rankings measured by university guidelines showed bigger correlations with rankings based on publication counts than rankings by citation counts, while differences in universities guidelines did not significantly affect the faculty rankings. The study findings suggest the need for bibliometric indicators that reflect the quality as well as the quantity of research output.

• 대학교육
• /
• s.82
• /
• pp.66-74
• /
• 1996

연구.교육.사회활동이라는 삼분법적 교수업적 평가제는 특정 분야의 천재성이 인정되지 않는 평범한 대학상과 상식적인 교수상만 만들어낸다. -무의미한 논문, 저술의 양산에 질린 우리가 예.체능계 교수들의 업적평가를 일반계의 틀에 맞춘다는 것 자체가 뒤떨어진 발상이다. 예술가는 예술작품으로 평가받아야 한다. 그러기 위하여 창작평가위원회가 따로 설치되어야 한다.

• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.129-142
• /
• 2009

This study aims to evaluate research performance of Library and Information Science faculty in Korea. By doing so, this study explores the possibility of enhancing research quality in the field of Library and Information Science. According to a survey to the faculty members, 41 respondents published a total of 49 monographs and 239 journal articles during the five year period from 2003 to 2007. The result shows variations in individual scholars publications. Suggestions were made for the improvement of research performance in terms of quality and quantity.

• Journal of Information Management
• /
• v.42 no.3
• /
• pp.211-233
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study is to develop key elements of evaluating research achievements in humanities and social sciences at universities in Korea. Literature reviews and analysis of policies for faculty evaluation in domestic universities were carried to define concepts and types of research achievements. Questionnaire surveys and case studies were performed to find measures, criteria and requirements of research achievements assessment in 26 domestic universities and several foreign universities. As a result, basic principles and key elements of evaluation in research achievements that reflected quantity and quality of research were proposed. The result of this study will stimulate research activities and promote the national research competitiveness with ensuring internal stabilities in universities.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Information Management Conference
• /
• 2015.08a
• /
• pp.17-22
• /
• 2015

본 연구는 국내대학의 교원들의 학술논문업적에 관한 합리적이고 객관적인 평가방법 개발에 비계가 되고자, 현재 국내 대학에서 시행중인 교원업적평가 중 학술논문평가기준을 비교 분석하였다. 우선 문헌정보학과가 포함된 국내 종합대학 27개교의 학술논문평가기준을 수집하여 비교한 다음, 2001년에서 2014년까지의 전국문헌정보학과 교원들의 학술논문 서지데이터를 이용하여 학술지의 영향력지수 및 피인용횟수를 적용한 순위와 27개대학 평가기준을 적용한 순위를 학교별, 저자별로 도출하여 비교 분석하였다. 본 연구를 통하여 교원들의 공정한 평가방안 마련에 도모하고자 하며, 교원의 연구 및 학문활동의 상승 제고 뿐 아니라 대학 내 연구환경 개선까지 다방면으로 교원의 사기진작에 도움이 되고자 한다.