• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.49 no.3
• /
• pp.273-289
• /
• 2015

This study examined changes in citation index scores and rankings of thirty-five chemistry faculty members at Seoul National University using different co-authorship credit allocation models. Using 1,436 Web of Science papers published between 2007 and 2013, we applied the inflated, fractional, harmonic, network-based allocation, and harmonic+ models to calculate faculty's h-, R-, and normalization of h- and R- index scores and rankings. The harmonic+ model, which is based on our belief that contribution of primary authors should be the same regardless of collaboration, is designed to minimize the penalty for research collaboration imposed by harmonic and NBA models by boosting the contribution of collaborating primary authors to be on the equal footing with single authors. Although citation rankings by different models are correlated with each other within the same type of citation indicator, rankings of many faculty members changed across models, suggesting the importance of an accurate and relevant authorship credit allocation model in the citation assessment of researchers. The study also found that authorship patterns in conjunction with citation counts are important factors for robust authorship models such as harmonic and NBA, and harmonic+ model may be beneficial for collaborating primary authors. Future research that reexamines the models with updated empirical data would provide further insights into the robustness of the models.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.191-205
• /
• 2015

As the first step in developing the optimal co-authorship allocation method, this study investigated the co-authorship allocation standards of Korean Universities on journal publications. The study compared the standards of 27 Korean universities with Library and Information Science (LIS) departments, and analyzed author rankings generated by applying inflated, fractional, harmonic, and university standard method of co-authorship allocation to 189 Korean LIS faculty publications from 2001 to 2014. The university standards most similar to the standard co-authorship allocation method in bibliometrics(i.e. Vinkler) were those whose co-author credits summed up to 1. However, the university standards differed from Vinkler's in allocating author credits based on primary and secondary author classification instead of allocation based on author ranks. The statistical analysis of author rankings showed that the harmonic method was most similar to the university standards. However, the correlation between the university standards whose co-author credits summed up to greater than 1 and harmonic method was lower. The study results also suggested that middle-level authors are most sensitive to co-authorship allocation methods. However, even the most generous university standards of co-authorship allocation still penalizes collaborative research by reducing each co-authors credit below those of single authors. Follow-up studies will be needed to investigate the optimal method of co-authorship credit allocation.

• Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.45-60
• /
• 2018

Research performance evaluation in Korean universities follows strict guidelines that specify scoring systems for publication venue categories and formulas for co-authorship credit allocation. To find out how the standards differ across universities and how they differ from bibliometric research evaluation measures, this study analyzed 25 standards from major Korean universities and rankings produced by applying standards and bibliometric measures such as publication and citation counts, normalized impact score, and h-index to the publication data of 195 tenure-track professors of library and information science departments in 35 Korean universities. The study also introduced a novel impact score normalization method to refine the methodology from prior studies. The results showed the university standards to be mostly similar to one another but quite different from citation-driven measures, which suggests the standards are not quite successful in quantifying the quality of research as originally intended.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.47 no.1
• /
• pp.217-242
• /
• 2016

To investigate the characteristics of Korean researchers who have published journal articles in the international Library and Information Science (LIS) journals, we analyzed the types of institutions of the authors and their disciplines by publication year and journal type. Specifically, we analyzed 819 pieces of author information from 384 articles published between 2005 and 2014 in 31 journals using the existing categories, allowing comparisons of research trends between past and current and between Korean and international researchers. In addition, we used a co-authorship credit allocation method to calculate the credits of individual authors in an accurate manner, and found that 342.6 of 384 papers were contributed by solely Korean researchers. We demonstrated that the internationality and quality of Korean LIS research has increased during this time. In particular, authors who were affiliated with universities took the lead in publishing papers, and we presented that the nature of research might be related to the type of author affiliation. Based on the disciplinary backgrounds of the researchers, we also suggest that LIS research is associated with such disciplines, computer science, management, and communications.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.105
• /
• pp.95-126
• /
• 2008

We are all too aware of the ravages of scientific misconduct in the Korean academic community. Plagiarism and fabricated research have become an important issue after many figures such scientist Hwang Woo-suk, former Education Minister Kim Beong-joon and former Korea University President Lee Phil-sang were involved in research ethics scandals. Recent case of falsified data is the instance of Seoul University investigator Hwnag Woo-suk admittted full responsibility for the fabrication and use of false data in a paper published in 2005. Another important lessons learned by Hwang case were that the need of international accepted standards about research misconduct, the matter of authorship, proper allocation of credit, respect for human subjects in scientific research and conflict of interests. And Education Minister Kim Byong-joon have drawn the attention of the general public to the issue of self-plagiarism. Important lessons learned by Kim case were that the need of clear criteria on what is considered plagiarism and historical application. Most recently, Korea University president Lee Phil-sang plagiarized his pupils' academic work. Important lessons learned by Lee case were that the need of after penalty about research misconduct, research mentoring, and desirable whistleblowing. And I suggested three major lessons learned by synthesized review. The fist is the need of public system and institution, the second is the role of media, and the third is the need and direction of research ethics education. The government, universities and research centers are aware of the matters and lessons learned about reseach ethics of Hwang, Kim and Lee cases. And they suggest to set up education programs, guidelines and institutional measures for research ethics.