This article describes the structure of academic hyperlinks embedded in universities’ Web sites hosted in Korea and examines the relationship between the structure of this hyperlink network and the journal publishing of universities. Studying the two phenomena together helps in understanding the changing process of communication created and sustained through traditional and emerging communication media. Four groups with distinctive features were identified. One group (A) was composed of members who had the highest efficiency in terms of the structural whole concept, and they had received the highest number of hyperlinks with other universities. The first group (A) showed high numbers of out-links toward two other groups (C and D). However, one group (C) had a relatively significant number of links to other members in the same group (within-group links), while the other group (D) did not. Analysis confirmed that hyperlink creation and reception correlate with authorship, indicating that expanding one’s research identity via hyper-links might be an indicator of the productiveness of researchers and research institutes.
Arunachalam, S., and M. J. Doss. 2000. Mapping international collaboration in science in Asia through coauthorship analysis. Current Science79 (5): 621-628.
2.
Bar-Ilan, J.2004. A microscopic link analysis of academic institutions within a country: The case of Israel. Scientometrics59 (3): 391-403.
3.
Barnett, G. A., J. A. Danowski, and W. D. J. Richards. 1993. Communications networks and network analysis: A current assessment. Progress in Communication Sciences12 (2): 1-21.
4.
Bjorneborn, L., and P. Ingwersen. 2001. Perspectives of webometrics. Scientometrics50 (1): 65-82.
5.
Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman. 2002. UCINET for Windows. Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies.
6.
Borgman, C. L., and J. Furner, eds. 2001. Academic communication and bibliometrics 36. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
7.
Brin, S., and L. Page. 1998. The anatomy of a large scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems30 (1-7): 107-117.
8.
Cawkell, T.2000. Visualizing citation connections. In The Web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield, edited by B. Cronin, 177-194. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
9.
Cronin, B.2001. Bibliometrics and beyond: Some thoughts on Web-based citation analysis. Journal of Information Science27 (1): 1-7.
10.
Finholt, T. A.2001. Collaboratories. In Annual review of information science and technology 36, edited by B. Cronin and D. Shaw, 73-107. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
11.
Finholt, T. A., and L. Sproull. 1990. Electronic groups at work. Organizational Science1:41-64.
12.
Freeman, L. C.1979. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks1:215-239.
13.
Garfield, E.1964. Science citation index: A new dimension in indexing. Science144 (3619): 649-654.
14.
Garfield, E.1974. Historiographs, librarianship, and the history of science. Essays of an Information Scientist2:136-150. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v2p134y1974-76.pdf.
15.
Giddens, A.1979. Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
Giddens, A.1986. Constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
17.
Glänzel, W.1995. International scientific collaboration in a changing Europe: A bibliometric analysis of coauthorship links and profiles of 5 East-European countries in the sciences and social sciences, 1984-1993. Science and Science of Science4:24-31.
18.
Glänzel, W., and A. Schubert. 2001. Double effort = double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics50 (2): 199-214.
19.
Harries, G., D. Wilkinson, L. Price, R. Fairclough, and M. Thelwall. 2004. Hyperlinks as a data source for science mapping. Journal of Information Science30 (5): 436-447.
20.
Haythornthwaite, C., and B. Wellman. 1998. Work, friendship and media use for information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science46 (12): 1101-1114.
21.
Heimeriks, G., M. Hörlesberger, and P. van den Besselaar. 2003. Mapping communication and collaboration in heterogeneous research networks. Scientometrics58 (2): 391-413.
22.
Ingwersen, P.1998. The calculation of Web impact factors. Journal of Documentation54 (2): 236-243.
23.
International Telecommunication Union. 2004. Digital Access Index. http://www.itu.int/ITUD/ict/dai/index.html.
24.
Koku, E., N. Nazer, and B. Wellman.2001. Netting scholars: Online and offline. American Behavioral Scientist43:1750-1772.
25.
Korea Network Information Center. 2004. Survey on the computer and Internet usage. http://isis.nic.or.kr/eng_report_down/upload/summary200312_eng.pdf.
26.
Kraut, R. E., C. Egido, and J. Galegher. 1990. Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration. In Intellectual teamwork, edited by J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut, and C. Egido, 149-171. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Leydesdorff, L.1989. Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization. Research Policy18:209-223.
28.
Leydesdorff, L., and M. Curran. 2000. Mapping university-industry-government relations on the Internet: The construction of indicators for a knowledge-based economy. Cybermetrics4. http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v4i1p2.html.
29.
Leydesdorff, L., and I. Hellsten. 2005. Metaphors and diaphors in science communication: Mapping the case of stem-cell research. Science Communication27:64-99.
30.
Marshakova, I. V.1973. System of document connections based on references. Nauchno-Teknicheskaia Informatsiia2:3-8.
31.
Merton, R. K.1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Nentwich, M.2003. Cyberscience: Research in the age of the Internet. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
33.
Nerdi. 2002. Knowledge production in the new digital networks. http://www.niwi.knaw.nl/nerdi/.
34.
Newman, M. E. J.2000. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/2/404.
35.
Park, H. W.2002. Examining the determinants of who is hyperlinked to whom: A survey of Webmasters in Korea. First Monday7 (11). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_11/park/.
36.
Park, H. W.2005. A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and the Netherlands using triple helix indicators. Scientometrics65 (1): 3-27.
37.
Park, H. W., and M. Thelwall. 2003. Hyperlink analyses of the World Wide Web: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication8 (4). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol8/issue4/park.html.
38.
Park, H. W., and M. Thelwall. 1998. Academic communication in developmental dyslexia: Influence of network structure on change in a hybrid problem area. Journal of the American Society for Information Science49 (2): 151-168.
39.
Scott, J.1991a. Networks of corporate power: A comparative assessment. Annual Review of Sociology17:181-203.
40.
Scott, J.1991b. Social network analysis: A handbook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41.
Small, H.1973. Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science24 (4): 265-269.
42.
Small, H.1999. Visualizing science through citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science50 (9): 799-813.
43.
Smith, A., and M. Thelwall. 2002. Web impact factors for Australasian universities. Scientometrics54 (1-2): 363-380.
44.
Thelwall, M.2002a. Research dissemination and invocation on the Web. Online Information Review26 (6): 413-420.
45.
Thelwall, M.2002b. The top 100 linked pages on UK university Web sites: High counts are not usually directly associated with quality scholarly content. Journal of Information Science28 (6): 485-493.
46.
Thelwall, M.2003. What is this link doing here? Beginning a fine-grained process of identifying reasons for academic hyperlink creation. Information Research8 (3). http://informationr.net/ir/8-3/paper151.html.
47.
Thelwall, M.2004. Link analysis: An information science approach. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
48.
Thelwall, M., and G. Harries. 2004. Do better scholars’ Web publications have significantly higher online impact?Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology55 (2): 149-159.
49.
Thelwall, M., and R. Tang. 2003. Disciplinary and linguistic considerations for academic Web linking: An exploratory hyperlink mediated study with Mainland China and Taiwan. Scientometrics58 (1): 153-179.
50.
Thelwall, M., R. Tang, and E. Price. 2003. Linguistic patterns of academic Web use in Western Europe. Scientometrics56 (3): 417-432.
51.
Vaughan, L., and M. Thelwall. 2005. A modeling approach to uncover hyperlink patterns: The case of Canadian universities. Information Processing & Management41 (2): 347-359.
52.
Walsh, J. P., and N. G. Maloney. 2002. Computer network use, collaboration structures and productivity. In Distributed work, edited by P. Hinds and S. Kiesler, 433-458. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53.
Walsh, J. P., and N. G. Maloney. 2003. Problems in scientific collaboration: Does email hinder or help?http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Ejwalsh/WalshMaloneyAAAS.pdf.
54.
Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
White, H. C., S. A. Boorman, and R. L. Breiger. 1976. Social structure from multiple networks I: Block models of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology81 (4): 730-780.
56.
White, H. D., and B. C. Griffith. 1982. Author co-citation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science32 (3): 163-172.
57.
Wilkinson, D., G. Harries, M. Thelwall, and E. Price. 2003. Motivations for academic Web site interlinking: Evidence for the Web as a novel source of information on informal scholarly communication. Journal of Information Science29 (1): 59-66.
