Analisis Perbandingan Bobot Kepenulisan Artikel Ilmiah di Jurnal BIP Edisi Juni 2024 Menggunakan Metode Straight Counting, Complete Counting, Fractional Counting, dan Proportional Counting

Sarmila Sarmila; Cecep Ibrahim

doi:10.52423/jlpi.v5i3.104

Authors

Sarmila Sarmila Universitas Halu Oleo
Cecep Ibrahim Universitas Halu Oleo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52423/jlpi.v5i3.104

Keywords:

Bobot kepenulisan, kaloborasi multi-penulis, publikasi ilmiah, transparansi

Abstract

Pemilihan metode penghitungan bobot kepenulisan yang adil dalam artikel ilmiah sangat penting, terutama dalam publikasi yang melibatkan kolaborasi multi-penulis. Hal ini bertujuan untuk memastikan pembagian kontribusi yang adil dan transparan, sehingga setiap penulis mendapatkan pengakuan yang sesuai dengan perannya dalam penelitian. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk membandingkan empat metode penghitungan bobot kepenulisan, yaitu straight counting, complete counting, fractional counting, dan proportional counting, dalam artikel Jurnal Berkala Ilmu Perpustakaan dan Informasi (BIP) Vol. 20 No.1 edisi Juni 2024. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah analisis kuantitatif dengan menerapkan masing-masing metode pada 15 artikel dalam jurnal tersebut. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa metode Proportional Counting memberikan pembagian bobot yang lebih adil dibandingkan metode lainnya, karena mempertimbangkan posisi penulis dalam artikel. Studi lanjutan berupa wawancara kualitatif disarankan untuk mengeksplorasi pandangan penulis tentang metode ini.

Author Biography

Cecep Ibrahim, Universitas Halu Oleo

Program Studi Perpustakaan dan Ilmu Informasi

References

Aksnes, D.W., Schneider, J.W., & Gunnarsson, M. (2012). Ranking national research systems by citation indicators: A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 36-43.

AGUS, W. dan WIJAYANTI, A. 2018. Tentang Dalil Lotka. Perbedaan Antara Complete Count dengan Straight Count :Studi Produktivitas Penulis pada Majalah Visi Pustaka Periode Terbit Tahun 2005-2014. Media Pustakawan. 25(1).

Cronin, B., & Meho, L.I. (2001). Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 872-894.

Donner, P. (2020). A validation of coauthorship credit models with empirical data from the contributions of phd candidates. Quantitative Science Studies, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00048.

Freitas, J. and Rosas, F. (2020). Scientific collaboration at national institute of the atlantic forest (brazil) on scopus database: analysis of institutional domain. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.601442.

Gauffriau, N., Larsen, M.L., Maye, R., Roulin-Perriard, V., & Von Ins, M. (2007). Counting methods and field normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.04431.

Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P., Maye, I., Roulin-Perriard, A., & Ins, M. (2007). Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research. Scientometrics, 73(2), 175-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1800-2.

Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P., Maye, I., Roulin-Perriard, A., & Ins, M. (2008). Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods. Scientometrics, 77(1), 147-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1934-2.

Gauffriau, M. and Larsen, P. (2005). Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies. Scientometrics, 64(1), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0239-6.

Lee, J. Y., Chung, E.K. (2014). Analisis komparatif terhadap berbagai metode penghitungan penulis ganda untuk analisis kutipan bersama penulis (A Comparative Analysis on Multiple Authorship Counting for Author Co-citation Analysis. Jurnal Informasi Manajemen Korea, 58-59.

Ludo, W. and Eck, N. J. V. 2013. Field-normalized citation impact indicatorsand the choice of an appropriate counting method. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands. 1(1).

Liu, X. (2024). Mapping translation process research: a bibliographic study on special issues since year 2005. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(2), 1169. https://doi.org/10.59400/fls.v6i2.1169.

Minhas, N. (2021). Authorship ethics: an overview of research on the state of practice.. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2103.14456.

Osareh, F., Zahabi, S., & Akbarzadeh, F. (2022). Co-authorship network analysis of medical images researchers with emphasis on micro and macro metrics. Journal of Clinical Research in Paramedical Sciences, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.5812/jcrps-131621.

Pandey, P. (2023). Pendekatan penelitian kuantitatif dan aplikasinya dalam penelitian ilmu perpustakaan dan informasi. Access an International Journal of Nepal Library Association, 2(01), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.3126/access.v2i01.58895.

Rousseau, R. and Zhang, L. (2020). Bilateral co-authorship indicators based on fractional counting. Journal of Data and Information Science, 6(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0005.

Stock, W., Dorsch, I., Reichmann, G., & Schlögl, C. (2022). Labor productivity, labor impact, and co-authorship of research institutions: publications and citations per full-time equivalents. Scientometrics, 128(1), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04582-5

Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N.J.P. (2016). Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.02452v4.

Waltman, L. and Eck, N. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics,9(4),872-894.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001

Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2011). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 32(3), 163-171.