Korean journals in the Science Citation Index: What do they reveal about the intellectual structure of S&T in Korea?
During the last decade, we have witnessed a sustained growth of South Korea’s research output in terms of the world share of publications in the Science Citation Index database. However, Korea’s citation performance is not yet as competitive as publication performance. In this study, the authors examine the intellectual structure of Korean S&T field based on social network analysis of journal-journal citation data using the ten Korean SCI journals as seed journals. The results reveal that Korean SCI journals function more like publication places, neither research channels nor information sources among national scientists. Thus, these journals may provide Korean scholars with access to international scientific communities by facilitating the respective entry barriers. However, there are no citation relations based on their Korean background. Furthermore, we intend to draw some policy implications which may be helpful to increase Korea’s research potential.
💡 Research Summary
The paper investigates the intellectual structure of South Korea’s science and technology (S&T) system by applying social network analysis (SNA) to journal‑journal citation data, using ten Korean journals indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) as seed journals. Over the past decade, Korea’s share of SCI publications has risen dramatically, yet its citation impact lags behind this growth. To explore why, the authors extracted all citation records involving the ten seed journals from the Web of Science for the period 2005‑2015. They constructed both a two‑mode network (seed journals ↔ cited and citing journals) and a one‑mode network (direct citations among the seed journals), pruning edges with fewer than five citations to reduce noise. Using UCINET and NetDraw, they calculated standard centrality measures—degree (connectivity), betweenness (mediating role), and closeness (proximity to other nodes)—and performed modularity‑based community detection to reveal structural clusters.
The analysis yields four key findings. First, Korean SCI journals occupy peripheral positions in the global citation network: their average degree centrality is only about 0.12, indicating limited direct connections to other journals. Second, betweenness centrality is similarly low, showing that Korean journals rarely act as bridges linking otherwise disconnected parts of the network. Third, community detection reveals that the seed journals do not form a cohesive domestic cluster; instead, they converge on the same high‑impact international journals (e.g., Nature, Science, Physical Review Letters) as common sources of citations. This pattern suggests that Korean researchers preferentially consult international outlets rather than domestic ones for scientific information. Fourth, the directionality of citation flow is highly asymmetric: Korean journals cite international journals extensively, while the reverse flow (international journals citing Korean journals) is minimal, with a reverse‑citation rate below 5 %. Consequently, Korean SCI journals function more as “publication outlets” that provide a gateway for Korean scholars to enter the international literature, rather than as “research channels” or “information sources” within the national community.
Based on these results, the authors propose several policy recommendations. Enhancing the editorial and peer‑review standards of Korean journals to align fully with international best practices could improve their visibility and credibility. Adjusting research evaluation metrics to give greater weight to citations of domestic journals may encourage Korean scholars to cite locally. Expanding open‑access platforms and national bibliographic services would facilitate smoother integration of Korean journals into the global citation ecosystem. Finally, establishing targeted programs—such as incentives for citing Korean journals or collaborative special issues—could nurture a culture of domestic citation and strengthen the internal knowledge circulation.
In conclusion, while Korean SCI journals currently do not serve as central nodes that shape citation flows, they do play a valuable role in lowering barriers for Korean researchers to engage with the worldwide scientific community. Future policy should therefore address both the quality of the journals themselves and the citation behavior of researchers, aiming to transform these outlets from peripheral gateways into influential hubs that enhance Korea’s overall S&T research potential.