↓ Skip to main content

Statistical relationships between journal use and research output at academic institutions in South Korea

Overview of attention for article published in Scientometrics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Statistical relationships between journal use and research output at academic institutions in South Korea
Published in
Scientometrics, March 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11192-015-1563-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Youngim Jung, Jayhoon Kim, Minho So, Hwanmin Kim

Abstract

In this study, we analysed the statistical association between e-journal use and research output at the institution level in South Korea by performing comparative and diachronic analyses, as well as the analysis by field. The datasets were compiled from four different sources: national reports on research output indicators in science fields, two statistics databases on higher education institutions open to the public, and e-journal usage statistics generated by 47 major publishers. Due to the different data sources utilized, a considerable number of missing values appeared in our datasets and various mapping issues required corrections prior to the analysis. Two techniques for handling missing data were applied and the impact of each technique was discussed. In order to compile the institutional data by field, journals were first mapped, and then the statistics were summarized according to subject field. We observed that e-journal use exhibited stronger correlations with the number of publications and the times cited, in contrast to the number of undergraduates, graduates, faculty members and the amount of research funds, and this was the case regardless of the NA handling method or author type. The difference between the maximum correlation for the amount of external research funding with two average indicators and that of the correlation for e-journal use were not significant. Statistically, the accountability of e-journal use for the average times cited per article and the average JIF was quite similar with external research funds. It was found that the number of e-journal articles used had a strong positive correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficients of r > 0.9, p < 0.05) with the number of articles published in SCI(E) journals and the times cited regardless of the author type, NA handling method or time period. We also observed that the top-five institutions in South Korea, with respect to the number of publications in SCI(E) journals, were generally across a balanced range of academic activities, while producing significant research output and using published material. Finally, we confirmed that the association of e-journal use with the two quantitative research indicators is strongly positive, even for the analyses by field, with the exception of the Arts and Humanities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Turkey 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 40 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 11 24%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 14 30%
Social Sciences 13 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 3 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,789,223
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#1,189
of 2,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,434
of 263,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#20
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.