Search

Purpose Alternative metrics (altmetrics) are non-traditional metrics to measure the social impact of research results, which were unable to be assessed by the previous methods, by calculating how research results are reflected in various social media. The purpose of this paper is to measure and compare the impact of Korean study results in four fields that were published in international journals using altmetrics.Design/methodology/approach This study analysed the impact of 383 Korean research articles published by international journals in the field of medical science, engineering, social science and arts and humanities through altmetrics and compared it with bibliometrics.Findings As a result, the frequency of research articles which are “discussed” through social media such as Twitter was shown to be highest in the medical science than in other fields. In addition, the frequency of research articles which were “saved” through reference management tool such as Mendeley was shown to be higher in the social science and the arts and humanities than in other fields. Furthermore, as a result of a correlation analysis between altmetrics and bibliometrics, it is found that there exists a positive correlation between the number of articles which were “saved” in Mendeley and “cited” in follow-up studies.Originality/value This study examined the impact of the articles originating in non-English-speaking nations; it could be referred by other non-English-speaking nations that are trying to identify invisible impact of their research output on global society. By finding the academic field which are receiving special attention from global community using altmetrics, researchers could prospect country’s overall research impact and utilize it to make a future R&D plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Basic research' is based on epistemological and intentional criteria. In terms of science policy, however, these criteria imply contradictory views on investment in 'basic research'. The former espouses the linear model of innovation and encourages policy-makers concerned with economic problems to expand investment on basic research. However, the latter can collide with the policy norm of policy-makers and discourage investment in 'basic research' in an institutional setting where the nation-state prevails over scientists, as in South Korea. Emphasizing policy ideas and policy learning, this paper empirically shows that changes in investment priority and the emergence of new concepts about 'basic research' are co-products of a policy paradigm of the linear model and a policy norm of industrial competitiveness in Korea. Specifically, emphasis was placed on the balance between pure and oriented basic research, but moved on to 'oriented basic research', 'basic engineering', and to 'basic research' coupled with 'woncheon-technology'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]