바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

논문 상세

다음
논문 투고

Vol.33 No.1
Citation Share

토픽 모델링 기반 정보학 분야 학술지의 학제성 측정 연구

Topic Modeling based Interdisciplinarity Measurement in the Informatics Related Journals

정보관리학회지 / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2016, v.33 no.1, pp.7-32
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.1.007
진설아 (과학기술정책연구원)
송민 (연세대학교)
진설아, & 송민. (2016). 토픽 모델링 기반 정보학 분야 학술지의 학제성 측정 연구. 정보관리학회지, 33(1), 7-32, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.1.007
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

본 연구는 인용 정보와 주제범주 분류체계를 기반으로 한 기존 하향식 접근법과 달리 문헌에 출현한 단어정보를 기반으로 세부주제를 자동 추출하는 토픽 모델링을 사용하여 학제성을 측정하였다. JCR 2013의 Information & Library Science 주제범주에서 5년 영향력 지수 상위 20개 학술지의 최근 5년 동안의 논문 제목과 초록 텍스트를 분석대상으로 사용하였다. 학제성을 측정하기 위한 지수로 ‘분야적 다양성’을 나타내는 Shannon 엔트로피 지수와 Stirling 다양성 지수, ‘네트워크 응집성’을 나타내는 지수로는 토픽 네트워크의 평균 경로길이를 사용하였다. 계산된 다양성과 응집성 지수를 통해 학제성의 유형을 분류한 후 각 유형을 대표하는 학술지들의 토픽 네트워크를 비교하였다. 이를 통해 본 연구의 텍스트 기반 다양성 지수는 기존의 인용정보 기반 다양성 지수와 다른 양상을 보이고 있어 상호보완적으로 활용될 수 있으며, 다양성과 응집성을 모두 고려하여 분류된 각 학술지의 토픽 네트워크를 통해 개별 학술지가 다루는 세부주제의 특성과 연결 정도를 직관적으로 파악할 수 있었다. 이를 통해 토픽 모델링을 통한 텍스트 기반의 학제성 측정이 학술지의 학제성을 나타내는 데에 다양한 역할이 가능함을 확인하였다.

keywords
textmining, topic modeling, scholarly journal, interdisciplinary, diversity index, 텍스트마이닝, 토픽모델링, 학술지, 학제성, 다양성 지수

Abstract

This study has measured interdisciplinarity using a topic modeling, which automatically extracts sub-topics based on term information appeared in documents group unlike the traditional top-down approach employing the references and classification system as a basis. We used titles and abstracts of the articles published in top 20 journals for the past five years by the 5-year impact factor under the category of ‘Information & Library Science’ in JCR 2013. We applied ‘Discipline Diversity’ and ‘Network Coherence’ as factors in measuring interdisciplinarity; ‘Shannon Entropy Index’ and ‘Stirling Diversity Index’ were used as indices to gauge diversity of fields while topic network’s average path length was employed as an index representing network cohesion. After classifying the types of interdisciplinarity with the diversity and cohesion indices produced, we compared the topic networks of journals that represent each type. As a result, we found that the text-based diversity index showed different ranking when compared to the reference-based diversity index. This signifies that those two indices can be utilized complimentarily. It was also confirmed that the characteristics and interconnectedness of the sub-topics dealt with in each journal can be intuitively understood through the topic networks classified by considering both the diversity and cohesion. In conclusion, the topic modeling-based measurement of interdisciplinarity that this study proposed was confirmed to be applicable serving multiple roles in showing the interdisciplinarity of the journals.

keywords
textmining, topic modeling, scholarly journal, interdisciplinary, diversity index, 텍스트마이닝, 토픽모델링, 학술지, 학제성, 다양성 지수

참고문헌

1.

강범일. (2014). 트위터 관련 연구에 대한 계량정보학적 분석. 정보관리학회지, 31(3), 293-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.3.293.

2.

박소윤. (2013). 문헌정보학 분야의 학제성과 연구 영향력에 관한 연구.

3.

박자현. (2013). 토픽모델링을 활용한 국내 문헌정보학 연구동향 분석. 정보관리학회지, 30(1), 7-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.1.007.

4.

Adams, J.. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research. Higher Education Funding Council for England.

5.

Bache, K.. (2013). Text-based measures of document diversity (23-31). Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM.

6.

Bordons, M.. (2004). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research:Kluwer.

7.

Brillouin, L.. (1956). Science and information theory:Academic Press.

8.

Carayol, N.. (2005). Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research?. Research evaluation, 14(1), 70-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154405781776355.

9.

Chua, A. Y.. (2008). The shift towards multi‐disciplinarity in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2156-2170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20929.

10.

Cronin, B.. (2008). The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 551-564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20764.

11.

Ding, Y.. (2013). The distribution of references across texts: Some implications for citation analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 583-592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.03.003.

12.

Herring, S. D.. (1999). The value of interdisciplinarity: A study based on the design of Internet search engines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(4), 358-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(1999)50:4<358::aid-asi14>3.0.co;2-7.

13.

Larivière, V.. (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 126-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21226.

14.

Levitt, J. M.. (2009). The most highly cited Library and Information Science articles: Interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patterns. Scientometrics, 78(1), 45-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1927-1.

15.

Leydesdorff, L.. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 87-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.09.002.

16.

Leydesdorff, L.. (2013). Interactive overlays of journals and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of aggregated journal-journal citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2573-2586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22946.

17.

Mann, G. S.. (2006). Bibliometric impact measures leveraging topic analysis (65-74). Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference. IEEE.

18.

Moravcsik, M. J.. (1975). Some results on the function and quality of citations. Social Studies of Science, 5(1), 86-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631277500500106.

19.

Morillo, F.. (2001). An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 51(1), 203-222.

20.

Morillo, F.. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237-1249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.10326.

21.

National Academies. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (Cosepup) & Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research:The National Academies Press.

22.

Nichols, L. G.. (2014). A topic model approach to measuring interdisciplinarity at the National Science Foundation. Scientometrics, 100(3), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1319-2.

23.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Interdisciplinarity in science and technology. Directorate for science. technology and industry.

24.

Porter, A. L.. (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 8(3), 161-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02016934.

25.

Porter, A. L.. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719-745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2.

26.

Prebor, G.. (2010). Analysis of the interdisciplinary nature of library and information science. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42(4), 256-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961000610380820.

27.

Qin, J.. (1997). Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 48(10), 893-916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199710)48:10<893::aid-asi5.

28.

Rafols, I.. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262-1282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015.

29.

Rafols, I.. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity:Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0041-y.

30.

Rinia, E. J.. (2002). Impact measures of interdisciplinary research in physics. Scientometrics, 53(2), 241-248.

31.

Schummer, J.. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425-465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/b:scie.0000018542.71314.38.

32.

Shannon, C. E.. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423.

33.

Simpson, E. H.. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688-.

34.

Stirling, A.. (1998). On the economics and analysis of diversity. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php.pdf.

35.

Stirling, A.. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(15), 707-719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2007.0213.

36.

Tang, R.. (2004). Evolution of the interdisciplinary characteristics of information and library science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 54-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450410107.

37.

Yegros-Yegros, A.. (2010). Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher scientific impact (-). STI Indicators Conference.

정보관리학회지

논문 투고 OA 정책