• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.85-104
• /
• 2001

The purpose of the study is to investigate the international standings of Korean medical journals and to provide a concrete journal evaluation data. The SciSearch database was searched for the 7,779 papers published in 8 Korean medical journals between 1989 and 1998. The frequency of citation to each journal was measured for each year, and the journal impact factor was calculated from 1991 to 1999 exactly as it is calculated in the Jour~~lnl Citation Reports (JCR). The Korean-language journals were rarely cited in SCI, even though the journals were of the medical areas where Korean researchers published a great deal of SCI papers. The number of citations to English-language journals started to grow from 1994 and increased rapidly from 1997. The citation interval is getting shorter, resulting in the drastic increases in the impact factors in the recent years. The nine-year averages of impact factors of the journals were distributed between 0.002 and 0.126. The international standings of Korean medical journals are very poor. When the impact factors were compared to those of SCI journals in the same subject category, Korean-language journals fell below the last SCI journals ranked by the impact factor, and the English-language journals were at the bottom among the SCI journals. The impact factors of 3 English-language Korean medical journals were about 2.0 when they became SCI journals in the late 1990s.

• Proceedings of the Korea Technology Innovation Society Conference
• /
• 2017.05a
• /
• pp.103-113
• /
• 2017

SCI(E)논문은 국가연구개발사업으로부터 도출되는 대표적 1차 산출 성과이며, R&D활동의 흐름을 파악할 수 있는 가장 중요한 지표 중 하나이다. 우리나라는 1980년대 50위권에 머물렀던 SCI(E)논문수가 1990년대를 거치면서 비약적으로 확대되었고, 최근 양적 규모 면에서는 세계 12위 수준을 유지할 만큼 괄목한 만한 성장을 이루었다. 최근 이러한 양적 확대 속에서, 논문의 질적 수준이 정체되고 있다는 문제점이 종종 거론되고 있다. 따라서 우리나라의 SCI(E)논문 성과가 가지는 질적 수준을 평가하기 위해 다양한 노력이 있어 왔다. 대표적인 SCI(E)논문의 질적 지표로 논문 피인용횟수와 저널 영향력지수가 있다. 그러나 이러한 지표는 학문 분야간 인용 특성을 반영하지 못하므로, 국내 연구자 사이에서도 다양한 순위보정영향력지수를 개발하고자 하는 시도가 있어 왔다. 본 논문에서는 그간 개발된 순위보정영향력지수를 추가적으로 보완하여, 보다 의미 있는 지표를 도출하고자 하였으며, 해당 지표를 국가연구개발사업 SCI(E)논문 성과에 적용하여 우리나라 SCI(E)논문 성과의 질적 수준을 검토하였다.

• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.27-41
• /
• 2002

The study investigated the citation indicators and the citation analysis data developed in the KoMCI(Korean Medical Citation Index) project. With the full understanding of the current level of citation rates of Korean medical journals by Korean medical journals. and of the characteristics and problems associated with the KoMCI citation indicators, it is possible to further develop or modify citation indicators which will better represent the citation patterns of Korean medical journals. The highest impact factor reported in the KoMCI 2000 : Korean Medical Journal Citation Reports, which covered 69 Korean medical journals published in 2000 is 0.424 and the average is 0.182. It is because only 8.5% of references cited in Korean medical journal articles is to the Korean journal articles, The journal self-citation rates are very high (usually higher than 50%) due to the fact that there are only a few Korean journals published in the same subject area. The KoMCI impact factors of two Korean SCI journals for which SCI JCR reported the SCI 2000 impact factors are about 1/3 of the SCI impact factors. It is because SCI is based on the citations received from 5,900 journals whereas KoMCI is from 69 journals.

• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.199-218
• /
• 2003

The discriminating power of journal evaluation criteria of Korean medical journals were measured. The study used the data of 76 medical journals, collected in the "Korean Medical Journal Evaluation" process conducted by the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (KAMJE) between 1997 and 1999. For each evaluation criterion, the distribution of the individual score vs the total score of a journal received was plotted and their correlations were analyzed. It is found that the evaluation criteria with a high discriminating power are the ones associated with the peer review system and the journal editing. The evaluation criteria with a low discriminating power are the journal frequency and how often a chief editor is changed. Some evaluation criteria such as "Journal holding rates of medical libraries" and "year-end index" need modifications in the evaluation methods. Other evaluation criteria such as "Journal self-citation rate","SCI citation rate" and "SCI impact factor" need to modify the score ranges. It is recommended that the new evaluation criteria such as "citation rate by Korean medical journals" and "Access availability of the journal information through major Korean medical abstract databases" should be added.formation through major Korean medical abstract databases" should be added.dded.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.49-65
• /
• 2000

The availability and use (citedness) of Korean medical journals are measured based on the bibliometric data of 82 journals evaluated by the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors between 1997 and 1999. A Korean medical journal is held on the average by one half of Korean medical libraries investigated. Only 10 journals (12.2%) are covered in any of 36 abstract and index databases in the field of medicine searchable through DIALOG. The journal self-citation rate is 3.402%. 1.092% of papers are cited at least once by SCI journal papers within 3 years after publication. The average SCI impact factor of Korean medical journals is 0.111, However, the impact factor of MEDLINE or SCISearch journals is 10 times higher. The results show that the Korean medical journals are not easily available domestically and internationally. They are hardly cited by Korean colleagues or by foreign scholars either.

• Journal of Information Management
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.21-31
• /
• 2006

Methodology Science Citation Index, developed by TS, has been used as an indicator to evaluate academic and research performance in worldwide research environment, as the world goes. With this trend, Korean Science Citation Index(KSCI) databases for domestic journals in the field of science and engineering have been constructed by some institutes such as KISTI, KRF, KOSEF, and so on. Many institutes in Korea are accepting the Impact Factor(IF) and SCI databases, proposed by TS as toolkits for evaluating research capability of their members without any criticism. However, the IF, mostly used as an analyzing tool, has been criticized by many different sectors. The validity of IF has been examined and/or complimented by a case study. In this study various indices as substitutes for IF are scrutinized and examined to maximize the usability of KSCI database.

• Economic and Environmental Geology
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.227-235
• /
• 2014

For technology level assessment of KIGAM World Class Laboratories (WCL) candidates, bibliometric and qualitative analysis was conducted on their research papers listed on the SCIE database during 2009-2012. For the six research areas of geoscience and mineral resources, a research excellence indicator was applied using a Modified Rank Normalized Impact Factor (mrnIF), which was introduced by Heo et al. (2008) and Cho (2013). The KIGAM research department in rare metals utilization had the highest score for Impact Factor (IF) per paper in 2012 but the groundwater department or the exploration geophysics department came first based on the position and the mrnIF. Applying the mrnIF, the KIGAM research department in groundwater achieved excellent results in 2009 and 2011 and the urban mine department or exploration geophysics department came first place in other years. In the groundwater area, the percentage of research papers over 80 or 90 mrnIF, using Cho (2013)'s research excellence index, was the highest in 2011. The Cho (2013)'s excellent research indicator, 20%, the ratio of over 90 mrnIF was matched in the urban mining area for the whole research period, 2009-2012, and in the groundwater area for several years except 2010. Qualitative analysis of research papers can show the technology level of research departments. KIGAM World Class Laboratories (WCL) candidates should focus on increasing the quality and the quantity of their research papers.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.85-108
• /
• 2013

This paper introduces a new qualitative measurement indicator, Relatively Rank-normalized Impact Factor ($R^2nIF$) that can overcome drawbacks of the existing research performance measures. With the help of this innovative indicator, this study analyzes and compares the quality of research papers across countries and National Science Indicators (NSI) standard academic fields. The development of an improved bibliometric indicator for evaluating the quality of research papers and disentangling the "international" dimension of research performance will be of interest to academics and practitioners alike.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.376-399
• /
• 2008

Science and technology (S&T) is one of the most important elements in a nation's competitiveness. In an effort to strengthen their national competitiveness, all countries are focusing on upgrading the level of eir S&T. With these factors in mind, Korea has increased its support of national research and development (R&D). In recent years, this added support has resulted in an increased interest in the effectiveness of R&D. We have made continuous efforts to enhance the accountability and effectiveness of R&D by strengthening performance evaluation and considering R&D evaluation results during the budget review (appropriation) process. In order to change to a performance based system, we need to develop objective and scientific indicators to measure and evaluate the quality of the research performance of R&D programs. One of the primary research outcomes is publications. The impact factor of publications is widely used to evaluate overall journal quality and the quality of the papers published therein. However, the use of impact factors has been criticised because they can vary greatly when works from different subject areas are compared. In order to overcome this limitation, we have developed three kinds of qualitative indicators, which are functions of the impact factor. Two of these qualitative indicators, Modified Rank Normalized Impact Factor and Ordinal Rank Normalized Impact Factor, are based on order statistics (rank) for all journals from a specific specialty. The third qualitative indicator, Relative Field Impact Factor, uses the average impact factor of all journals within a subject category. We also suggest a quantitative indicator, Percentage of Contribution. In this study, we suggest 4 indicators and use them to evaluate the performance of outcomes from three R&D programs supported by the Ministry of Education, Science & Technology. We also perform a simulation study to verify the effectiveness of the proposed indicators. It can be shown that the proposed Ordinal Rank Normalized Impact Factor is the most reliable and effective indicator for comparing research performance across subject categories. However, we recommend using previous indicators in combination with the proposed indicators in this study for the research evaluation of R&D programs.

• Bulletin of Food Technology
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.19-72
• /
• 2003

고도의 정보사회가 될 것으로 예견되는 21세기 전 세계는 창의적이고 원천적인 과학기술을 지속적으로 창출하면서 선진적 우위확보를 위해 치열한 경쟁을 벌이고 있다. 우리나라도 지금까지 이룩한 경제성장을 발판으로 이제부터는 더욱 생산적이고 독창적인 세계 일류 지식과 과학기술을 창출해 내야 할 위치에 있다. 세계적으로 새로운 지식은 대부분 학술지와 도서를 통해 발표되고 있으며, 미국의 과학정보기구인 ISI(Institute for Scientific Information)는 세계의 우수 학술지를 평가하여 그 중에서 가장 영향력이 높은 3~4%의 학술지를 SCI(Science Citation Index), SSIC(Social Science Citation Index), AHCI(Arts and Humanities Citation Index)로 전별하여 발표하고 있음은 잘 알려진 바와 같다. 우리 학계에서도 수 년 전부터 연구업적 등의 평가에 이들 분류를 적극 활용하고 있으며, 개개의 연구자들도 연구성과를 SCI 등에 등재된 학술지에 발표하기 위한 노력을 배가하고 있는 실정이다. 그러나 안타까운 것은 우리나라에서 발간되는 학술지 중 과학기술 분야 단 5종만이 SCI에 등재되어 있을 뿐이어서 우리의 학문이 세계적으로 교류되고 인정받는데 상대적으로 불리한 위치에 있다는 사실이다. 국내 학술지가 이들Index에 등재될 경우 우리의 연구성과가 보다 빠르고 쉽게 국제적으로 소개.인정되며, 이는 우리의 과학기술 수준을 한 단계 높이는데 첩경이 될 것이라는 점은 의심의 여지가 없다. 과학기술 평가과정은 측정 가능한 연구투자와 연구결과 현상으로 간주할 수 있는데, 일반적으로 연구투자는 연구투자에 필요한 모든 요소들이 실체적이며 평가하는 데에 있어서 인력, 재정 자원, 장비, 재료, 건물 등과 같이 구체적이고 경험을 요구하지 않기 때문에 그 모든 연구결과보다 평가하기가 용이하나 과학기술의 연구결과는 연구 과정을 통해 보다 비실체적이고 양적으로 측정하기 어려운 지식으로 구성되어 있어 평가하는데 어려움이 뒤따른다. 과학기술 연구결과를 양적이나 질적으로 측정하는데 있어 일반적으로 이용되는 시스템은 없으나 국가의 과학기술 수준은 보통 그 나라 과학기술 활동의 연구결과를 과학기술 생산성이나 연구결과물 즉 논문 등의 출판을 통한 배포나 인용분석 등에 기초한 양적 평가지표를 이용해 측정하는 서지적 방법에 의해 평가되고 있다.연구활동 결과로 발표된 연구논문은 새로운 연구논문의 자료로 인용되게 되는데, 일반적으로 인용이 많이 된 논문일수록 질적인 가치가 높다고 하므로 논문의 발표량과 인용된 횟수는 연구활동을 평가하는 척도로 활용점에 따라 과학기술분야 논문의 국가별, 기관별, 분야별 논문수와 피인용도는 과학기술 수준 평가의 척도가 될 수 있으며 이러한 평가는 과학기술 정책 수립 및 투자, 연구활동에 대한 평가 등의 중요한 자료로 활용될 수 있다. 과학기술분야 전반에 걸친 SCI 기반의 NSI, NCR 데이터베이스를 분석하여 우리나라 과학기술분야의 수준을 평가할 수 있는 지표를 산출하여 우리나라의 과학기술 수준을 정확히 파악하고, 세계 추세를 분석하여 앞으로 나아갈 정책방향을 설정하는데 도움이 되도록 하며, 국내 기관별, 분야별 분석을 통하여 과학기술 수준을 평가할 수 있는 객관적인 자료를 제공함과 동시에 국내 연구 인력간의 건전한 경쟁을 유도하여 과학기술 발전에 기여하고자 한다.