This research is a descriptive bibliometric study of the literature of the field of Korean studies. Its goal is to quantitatively describe the literature and serve as a model for such research in other area studies fields. This study analyzed 193 source articles and 7,166 citations in the articles in four representative Korean and Asian studies journals published in North America from 1977 to 1996. The journals included in this study were Korean Studies (KS), the Journal of Korean Studies (JKS), the Journal of Asian Studies (JAS), and the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (HJAS). Subject matters and author characteristics of the source articles were examined, along with various characteristics such as the form, date, language, country of origin, subject, key authors, and key titles of the literature cited in the source articles. Research in Korean studies falls within fourteen broad disciplines, but concentrated in a few disciplines. Americans have been the most active authors in Korean studies, followed closely by authors of Korean ethnicity. Monographic literature was used most. The mean age of publications cited was 20.87 and the median age of publications cited was 12. The Price Index of Korean studies as a whole is 21.9 percent. Sources written in English were most cited (47.1%) and references to Korean language sources amounted to only 34.9% of all sources. In general, authors preferred sources published in their own countries. Sources on history were cited most by other disciplines. No significant core authors were identified. No significant core literature were identified either. This study indicates that Korean studies is still evolving. Some ways of promoting research in less studied disciplines and of facilitating formal communication between Korean scholars in Korea and Koreanists in North America need to be sought in order to promote well-balanced development in the field. This study suggests that as many and as great a variety of titles in all formats as possible need to be collected to support research in Korean studies.

This study conducted a bibliometric analysis for the purpose of identifying the crucial leadership constructs that best explain and/or define effective educational leadership in two decades (1990-2000 and 2001-2010). The study reviewed top authors in educational leadership and analyzed their top cited works to identify leadership constructs which were (a) unique to leadership works within the 1990-2000 decade, (b) unique to the 2001-2010 decade, and c) similar or different between the two decades. The study found that the leadership constructs did evolve and shift during the study period and addressed the changing demands of individuals, educational organizations, and the external environment. Crucial educational leadership constructs were the product of the efforts of researchers in educational leadership to promote effective school leadership, improve learning outcomes and student performance, and create beneficial organizational results. The findings of the study highlight the potential impact and benefit of the continually upgrading and refreshing the understanding, training, and preparation of current and future school leaders.

Ist die Zitationsanalyse ein geeignetes Instrument zur Forschungsevaluation? Diese Dissertation untersucht, ob die zugrunde liegenden Zitationsdaten ausreichend fehlerfrei sind, um aussagekräftige Ergebnisse der Analysen zu erzielen, beziehungsweise sollte dies nicht der Fall sein, ob der Prozess, der die zitierenden und zitierten Artikel einander zurordnet, ausreichend robust gegenüber Ungenauigkeiten in den Daten ist. Ungenauigkeiten wurden als Unterschiede in den Datenwerten der bibliographischen Angaben definiert. Die untersuchten Daten setzen sich aus gezielt ausgewählten Publikationen des Web of Science (WoS) zusammen, welche eine geschichtete Stichprobe ergeben. Die bibliographischen Daten von 3.929 Referenzen wurden in einer qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse bewertet und die bibliographischen Ungenauigkeiten in einer Taxonomie zusammengefasst. Um genau festzulegen, welche von diesen tatsächlich den Zuordnungsprozess von Zitationen beeinflussen, wurde eine spezifische Untergruppe von Zitationen, d.h. Zitationen die von WoS nicht erfolgreich dem jeweilig zitierten Artikel zugeordnet wurden, untersucht. Die Ergebnisse wurden mit den Daten zweier weiterer bibliographischen Datenbanken, Scopus und Google Scholar, sowie den Daten dreier angewandter bibliometrischer Forschungsgruppen, CWTS, iFQ und Science-Metrix, trianguliert. Die Zuordnungsalgorithmen von CWTS und iFQ konnten rund zwei Drittel dieser Zitierungen erfolgreich zuordnen. Scopus und Google Scholar konnten ebenso über 60% der fehlenden Zitierungen erfolgreich mit dem entsprechenden zitierten Artikel verbinden, während Science-Metrix nur eine geringe Anzahl an Referenzen (5%) schaffte. Vollkommen falsche erste Seitenzahlen sowie Zahlendreher in Publikationsjahren können in allen Datenquellen nicht richtig zugeordnete Zitierungen verursachen. Basierend auf den Ergebnissen wurden Lösungsvorschläge formuliert, die im Stande sind den Zuordnungsprozess von Zitationen in bibliometrischen Datenquellen zu verbessern. / Is citation analysis an adequate tool for research evaluation? This doctoral research investigates whether the underlying citation data is sufficiently accurate to provide meaningful results of the analyses and if not, whether the citation matching process can rectify inaccurate citation data. Inaccuracies are defined as discrepancies in the data values of bibliographic references, since they are the essential part in the citation matching process. A stratified, purposeful data sample was selected to examine typical cases of publications in Web of Science (WoS). The bibliographic data of 3,929 references was assessed in a qualitative content analysis to identify prevailing inaccuracies in bibliographic references that can interfere with the citation matching process. The inaccuracies were categorized into a taxonomy. Their frequency was studied to determine any strata-specific patterns. To pinpoint the types of inaccuracies that influence the citation matching process, a specific subset of citations, i.e. citations not successfully matched by WoS, was investigated. The results were triangulated with five other data sources: with data from two bibliographic databases in their role as citation indexes (Scopus and Google Scholar) and with data from three applied bibliometric research groups (CWTS, iFQ and Science-Metrix). The matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ were able to match around two thirds of these citations correctly. Scopus and Google Scholar also handled more than 60% successfully in their matching. Science-Metrix only matched a small number of references (5%). Completely incorrect starting page numbers and transposed publication years can cause a citation to be missed in all data sources. However, more often it is a combination of more than one kind of inaccuracy in more than one field that leads to a non-match. Based on these results, proposals are formulated that could improve the citation matching processes of the different data sources.