• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.73-96
• /
• 2007

In this study, the characteristics of scholarly communication through the Web and scientific journals are explored, and scholarly communication patterns in two scientific disciplines are compared to reveal the difference. Economics and Computer Science-Information Systems are selected as two disciplines to be analyzed. In the data collection process, 10 keywords are extracted from a database for each subject field, and scholarly Web pages and journal articles related to these keywords are collected and analyzed. Our investigation includes the characteristics of scholarly Web pages, Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) analysis of co-linked Web pages as well as co-cited journal articles, and changes in the scholarly communication activities occurring on the Web and in scientific journals respectively over time. We found certain differences as well as common features in scholarly communication patterns between the Web and scientific journals for both fields of Economics and Computer Science. We also found that scholarly communication occurring on the Web displays unique features for each subtopic within the same field of study.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Information and Commucation Sciences Conference
• /
• 2022.05a
• /
• pp.18-21
• /
• 2022

최근 정보기술(IT)의 급속한 발전, 코로나19(COVID-19)로 인한 글로벌 팬데믹 현상 등으로 오픈 액세스(OA), 오픈 사이언스(OS), 개방형 동료평가(Open Peer Review, OPR)와 같은 새로운 학술출판 관행이 과학기술분야 학술연구 현장에도 영향을 미치고 있다. OPR 시스템의 도입과 같은 새로운 학술연구출판 관행과 제도는 가치, 동기, 수단, 라이센스, 인센티브 등과 서로 밀접하게 연결되어 있다. OPR의 개념과 실체가 무엇인지는 기존 연구들을 통하여 최근 어느 정도 정립이 됐다. 하지만 OPR을 통해 연구자 개인이나 학회, 출판사 등에 새로운 기회, 도전 과제 및 미래 전망에 대하여 어떠한 영향을 미치는 가에 대한 연구는 중요하지만 제한적이다. 특히 학술연구출판 관행에 대한 다양한 연구가 국내외에서 진행되었지만 국내에서 학술지를 발간하는 학회차원에서 학술연구출판 관행, 특히 OPR에 대한 구체적인 조사분석은 거의 진행되지 않았다. 그렇기에 OPR에 대한 학술출판 생태계의 다양한 참여 주체들의 관점을 자세히 탐구할 필요성이 있다. 이에 본 연구는 과학기술분야 학술지의 학술연구출판 관행과 관련하여 학회 차원에서 새로운 학출연구 출판관행, 특히 OPR에 어떠한 인식을 가지고 있는가에 대한 연구를 진행하고자 한다. 본 연구는 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 학술연구논문투고심사시스템(ACOMS)를 활용하는 학회를 중심으로 설문조사를 통하여 수집된 OPR 관련 학술연구출판 관행과 제도 변화에 대한 인식을 분석했다.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.47 no.4
• /
• pp.265-288
• /
• 2016

The study aimed to suggest a model sample for guidance system for copyright of domestic journals and open access policy. Toward this end, analyses were conducted to examine copyright of domestic journals and open access environment. As a result of analyses, it turned out that 33.8% of domestic journals had 'regulations on ownership of rights to papers published in journals,' and that the subject to ownership of rights to papers published in domestic journals accounted for 28.8%, which was the highest rate. Of domestic journals, 34% charged a subscription fee, and they were toll access journals, and 56% were free access journals. As for system examples of guide system for copyright of foreign journals and open access policy, analyses were conducted to examine and investigate SHERPA/RoMEO in the U.K. and SCPJ in Japan and generate considerations at a time of domestic application. What needs to be taken into account is that overseas examples are focused on collecting and introducing self-archiving policy by authors for academic journals, so there are limitations in offering information including open access publication policy for domestic journals. Based on the analytical result, the study designated the purpose, direction and four steps that need to be considered at a time of development of guide system models for copyright and open access policy for domestic journals before suggestion of the basic direction and operational methods by stage.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.97-130
• /
• 2024

The current debate in the academic community is on the criteria for predatory journals. Researchers are perplexed about what constitutes a predatory journal. The purpose of this study is to investigate how South Korean researchers discover and evaluate predatory journals. In order to achieve this, we collected 2,484 statements, comprising posts and comments, from Korean researcher communities, namely the Biological Research Information Center (BRIC), Hibrain.net, Phdkim.net, and the Scholarly Ecosystem Against Fake Publication Environment (SAFE). We divided the data into three primary categories-journals, publishers, and researchers-for the topic analysis. For each statement, we assigned 11 in-depth subtopic tags based on these categories. Six main points of contention emerged from the combinations of these sub-topic tags: (1) researchers' confusion about predatory journals and discussions about research performance; (2)(3) researchers' positive and negative perceptions of predatory journals; (4) researchers' evaluation criteria for journal quality and problems associated with the quality of Korean journals; (5) changes in publishing brought about by the introduction of open access (OA) and associated issues; and (6) discussions on broader issues within the academic ecosystem. By using a qualitative approach to examine how South Korean researchers view predatory journals, this study aims to advance basic knowledge of the discourse around them in the communities of domestic researchers.

• 한국의학학술지인용정보
• /
• s.2002
• /
• pp.313-314
• /
• 2003

• 한국의학학술지인용정보
• /
• s.2002
• /
• pp.278-312
• /
• 2003

• 한국의학학술지인용정보
• /
• s.2002
• /
• pp.13-18
• /
• 2003

• 한국의학학술지인용정보
• /
• s.2006
• /
• pp.379-420
• /
• 2007

• 한국의학학술지인용정보
• /
• s.2006
• /
• pp.423-423
• /
• 2007

• 한국의학학술지인용정보
• /
• s.2006
• /
• pp.2-7
• /
• 2007