초록

전통적인 저자동시인용분석은 인용색인 데이터베이스가 색인하는 제 1저자만을 대상으로 하기 때문에 제1저자 이외의 저자의 기여도가 제외된다는 한계를 지니고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 경제학 분야를 대상으로 하여 복수저자기반의 저자동시인용분석을 활용하여 해당 학문분야의 지적구조를 제시하고자 한다. 이를 위하여 네 가지 실험집단을 구성하였다. (1) 인용된 문헌의 제 1저자만을 고려한 저자동시인용분석, (2) 문헌당 총합 제한 없이 복수저자에게 동일한 인용빈도 부여한 저자동시인용분석, (3) 문헌당 총 합을 제한하여 인용빈도를 부여한 저자동시인용분석, (4) 저자기입 순서를 고려하여 인용빈도를 부여한 저자동시인용분석. 본 연구의 결과는 크게 제 1저자만 고려한 방식과 복수저자를 모두 고려한 방식에 따라 군집형성에 있어서 차이를 보였다. 또한 복수저자의 인용빈도를 구하는 방식에 따라서 군집의 소속이 달라지는 변화를 찾아볼 수 있다. 이러한 결과는 공동저작이 증가하는 학문적 추세에 비추어서 학문의 지적구조를 밝히기 위해서는 복수저자가 고려된 저자동시인용분석이 중요하다는 점을 시사한다.

Abstract

The author co-citation analysis is generally based on the frequency of the first author because most citation databases include only the first author in the bibliographic information. In this sense, the purpose of this study is to provide a better knowledge structure by utilizing the multiple authorship of author co-citation analysis. To achieve the purpose of this study, four different data sets are prepared: (1) counting the first author, (2) counting all the author without limiting the total frequency, (3) counting all the author with limiting the total frequency, and (4) counting adjusted frequencies based on the order of author subscription. The findings of this study show that there are clear differences between the knowledge structure counting all the author and the one counting only the first author. In addition, depending on the different methods, there are subtle changes of cluster members for authors.

초록

Abstract

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.