• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2006.11a
• /
• pp.667-671
• /
• 2006

Co-Authorship analysis is a kind of bibliometric analysis. and a well established tool for character of knowledge network in some technical fields. If more than two authors co-author an article, there is a relation of knowledge. So This study aims at discovering the trends and phases of OLED technology using co-authorship analysis, a kind of bibliographic analysis. The Science Citation Index Expanded(SCIE) database was used to search for the number of times paired Korean articles were co-authored in OLED field.

• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.149-169
• /
• 2021

As collaboration of research is increasing in social science, this study aims to investigate the changes in patterns of research collaboration in the field of library and information science, over the years from 2002 to 2020. The data used for this study were collected from four major journals in the field to analyze the frequency of co-authored research articles by journals and by institutions that all authors were associated with. Also, the institutions data were used to build a co-authorship network, which produced various indices including TBC (Triangle Betweenness Centrality) that showed which institutions were more central than others in the network. The result shows the number of co-authored articles were constantly increasing in all journals, and some institutions, mostly universities, showed the higher centrality scores than others and the range of collaboration were also expanded.

• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2006.11a
• /
• pp.90-94
• /
• 2006

The research about social network for analyzing human relationship has been steadily worked due to the importance in the social science field. It is also important that analyzing the relationship between researchers in the academic and research fields. Especially, the network by joint research or citation between researchers is useful to evaluating projects or making policy on academic and research fields. This paper describes a method that generates two kinds of researcher networks showing co-authorship and citation relationship between researchers based on national R&D reference information ontology. We infer pair of researchers in co-authorship or citation relationship by SPARQL query from the ontology which is composed of research outcomes and their participating researchers in RDF triples. By postprocessing, we construct researcher network which links researchers in co-authorship and citation relationship.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.52 no.1
• /
• pp.231-258
• /
• 2018

This study attempted to identify dynamically changing structure and analyze factors of collaboration. In order to perform this study, 1,631 articles in SCI journals were collected, and 3,898 researchers' information were extracted. To examine the dynamics of collaboration networks, the co-authorship data collected from 2001 to 2015 were divided into three sets, and were analyzed with respect to each period. The results of this study were summed up as: 1) "Co-authorship of the last year" was entirely significant factors while research career was significant only in the period of 2 to 3. 2) It was found that "Influence of the researchers" and "Emergence of the researchers" were significant factors in the period of 2 to 3 and in the period of 1 to 2. 3) "Same institutions", "Same subject", and "Journal similarity" were significant factors in all periods.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.167-192
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this research was to investigate the characteristics of library and information science (LIS) field in Asian countries, focusing on the case of Taiwan. In order to conduct this study, the obtained statistical data and co-authorship networks based on eight major LIS journals in Taiwan were analyzed and compared to the case of South Korea. In Taiwan like Korea, papers published by a single-author and 2 to 3 co-authors were the most common. The centrality analysis showed that leading professors in the national-level university in Taiwan have strong and distinctive ties in the network. Additional unique characteristics pertaining to collaboration in Taiwan include the existence of journals focused on practical aspects in the field of LIS and active research participation involving librarians who publish papers in these journals.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.15 no.10
• /
• pp.387-399
• /
• 2015

Recently collaboration network is generated to find out experts in their field as potential collaborators in health care sector. In this paper, the co-author network of a National Cancer Center researcher was generated for identifying each researcher's role and collaborative research pattern. The co-author network of 2,437 authors was extracted from 1,194 SCI(E) publications from 2000 to 2010 and author's role was analyzed by author's centrality value. Centrality reflecting only the number of papers and centrality weighted by the paper number, impact factor, and authorship contribution was evaluated. On the comparison with simple degree centrality value and the weighted degree centrality, difference of value was statistically significant(t=11.66, p=0.00). Co-author network considering various variables of the paper provides more objective figure of researcher's role. This suggests that co-author network could be more effective in identifying potential collaborators.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.164-173
• /
• 2011

Purpose: This research aimed to analyze the patterns of co-authorship network among the Korean radiation oncologists and to identify attributing factors for the formation of networks. Materials and Methods: A total of 1,447 articles including contents of ‘Radiation Oncology' and 'Therapeutic Radiology' were searched from the KoreaMed database. The co-authorship was assorted by the author's full name, affiliation and specialties. UCINET 6.0 was used to fi gure out the author's network centrality and the cluster analysis, and KeyPlayer 1.44 program was used to get a result of key player index. Sociogram was analyzed with the Netdraw 2.090. The statistical comparison was performed by a t-test and ANOVA using SPSS 16.0 with p-value < 0.05 as the significant value. Results: The number of articles written by a radiation oncologist as the first author was 1,025 out of 1,447. The pattern of coauthorship was classified into five groups. For articles of which the first author was a radiation oncologist, the number of singleauthor articles (type-A) was 81; single-institution articles (type-B) was 687; and multiple-author articles (type-C) was 257. For the articles which radiation oncologists participated in as a co-author, the number of single-institution articles (type-D) was 280 while multiple-institution articles (type-E) were 142. There were 8,895 authors from 1,366 co-authored articles, thus the average number of authors per article was 6.51. It was 5.73 for type-B, 6.44 for type-C, 7.90 for type-D, and 7.67 for type-E (p = 0.000) in the average number of authors per article. The number of authors for articles from the hospitals published more than 100 articles was 7.23 while form others was 5.94 (p = 0.005). Its number was 5.94 and 7.16 for the articles published before and after 2001 (p = 0.000). The articles written by a radiation oncologist as the first author had 5.92 authors while others for 7.82 (p = 0.025). Its number was 5.57 and 7.71 for the Journal of the Korean Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and others (p = 0.000), respectively. Among the analysis, a significant difference in the average number of author per article was indicated. The out-degree centrality of network among authors was 4.26% (2.03-7.09%) while in-degree centrality was 1.31% (0.53-2.84%). The three significant nodes were classified and listed as following: Choi, Eun Kyung for 1991-1995, Kim, Dae Young for 1998-2001, Park, Won and Lee, Sang Wook for 2003-2010. Choi, Eun Kyung and Kim, Dae Young appeared in two cases, and ranked as the highest degree in centrality. In the key player analysis, Choi, Eun Kyung and Lee, Sang Wook appeared in two cases, and ranked as the highest. From the cluster analysis, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul National University and Yonsei University revealed as the three large clusters when Ulsan University, Chonnam National University, and Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Science as the medium clusters. Conclusion: The Korean radiation oncologist's society shows a closed network with numerous relationships among the particular clusters, and the result indicates it is different from other institutions in the pattern of co-authorship formation of the major hospitals.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.57-77
• /
• 2014

As co-authorship has been prevalent within science communities, counting the credit of co-authors appropriately is an important consideration, particularly in the context of identifying the knowledge structure of fields with author-based analysis. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics of co-author credit counting methods by utilizing correlations, multidimensional scaling, and pathfinder networks. To achieve this purpose, this study analyzed a dataset of 2,014 journal articles and 3,892 cited authors from the Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea: Planning & Design from 2003 to 2008 in the field of Architecture in Korea. In this study, six different methods of crediting co-authors are selected for comparative analyses. These methods are first-author counting (m1), straight full counting (m2), and fractional counting (m3), proportional counting with a total score of 1 (m4), proportional counting with a total score between 1 and 2 (m5), and first-author-weighted fractional counting (m6). As shown in the data analysis, m1 and m2 are found as extreme opposites, since m1 counts only first authors and m2 assigns all co-authors equally with a credit score of 1. With correlation and multidimensional scaling analyses, among five counting methods (from m2 to m6), a group of counting methods including m3, m4, and m5 are found to be relatively similar. When the knowledge structure is visualized with pathfinder network, the knowledge structure networks from different counting methods are differently presented due to the connections of individual links. In addition, the internal validity shows that first-author-weighted fractional counting (m6) might be considered a better method to author clustering. Findings demonstrate that different co-author counting methods influence the network results of knowledge structure and a better counting method is revealed for author clustering.

• International Journal of Contents
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.52-61
• /
• 2015

In the past decade, East Asian Research has received attention from researchers as well as in South Korea society-at-large. The broad category of East Asian Research includes various disciplinary fields, such as "history, economics, and politics; however, few studies have used quantitative analysis to explore its development. In this paper, we used network analysis to identify the disciplines and active research areas, focusing on productivity, collaboration patterns, and citation networks of East Asian Research in South Korea. For this study, 6,646 journal publications related with East Asian Research and indexed by KCI (Korean Citation Index) during the 10-year period of 2004-2013 were considered. Results show that East Asian Research was led during this period by sole-researchers, rather than interdisciplinary studies. Moreover, a co-institution network represents active institutions with a high degree and collaborative centrality. In terms of journal-journal citation networks, journals belonging to both "history" and "Korean literature" disciplines were dominant.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2021.07a
• /
• pp.117-122
• /
• 2021

In order to reveal the co-research relationship with key research institutes in the computer field in Korea, which have high competitiveness in the ICT field, this paper analyzes the co-author network of research institutes based on the papers of Korean journals. For this study, 15 computer journals published in Korea were selected and collected for the past 5 years. In addition, authors, affiliated institutions, and country information were extracted from the papers, and experimental data were produced using institutional identification data and SNA analysis techniques. Through this, statistical analysis was performed on researchers, research institutes, and countries, and the centrality of research institutes was measured through co-authored network analysis and visualized as a map. The results of the research that analyzed the co-author relationship based on the papers in computer science journals published in Korea are as follows. First, the status of co-author relations among researchers was statistically analyzed in detail. The number of authors, the number of co-authors, and statistics by co-authoring countries, as well as the ratio of co-authored research by institution and the ratio of co-authored by country were revealed. The co-authoring status of papers in English journals was analyzed separately to compare and analyze characteristics. Second, the centrality of each individual was measured through the co-authored network analysis of the identified researchers, institutions and countries affiliated with the institution, and the frequency of connection between data by level was identified. In addition, the co-authorization network between research institutes was visualized and presented as a map so that the overall view of the co-authoring network was presented, and the connection frequency between the institutes was checked. It is possible to recommend a research partner based on the co-authoring behavior of Korean computer researchers and the co-authoring relationship between major research institutes. For this, additional research is needed to analyze the subject areas of each institution.