臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究運用書目耦合與共被引研究1990年至2017年電子化政府領域之研究變遷，分別分析比較Web of Science、Scopus、以及整合後的資料集之研究文獻，總計3,381篇文獻。
研究結果顯示，經書目耦合與共被引分析之結果，得出電子化政府重要研究議題為：以文獻回顧或案例探討電子化政府相關議題、電子化政府與社群媒體、開放政府相關研究、使用者採用電子化政府系統或服務、政府採用資訊科技相關議題、評估印度各部門電子化政府之效率、電子化政府服務與利害關係人等共七項研究議題。前五項議題具有未來持續發展之研究趨勢；第六項的「評估印度各部門電子化政府之效率」為區域性之研究議題，較難成為全球的研究趨勢；第七項的「電子化政府服務與利害關係人」研究議題，在2012年之後就較少有學者關注。
分別由WOS、Scopus、以及Geoogl Scholar三個資料集取得之高被引文獻，並沒有顯著差異，顯見電子化政府領域之高被引文獻具有穩定性。分析高被引文獻的研究主題，其主要研究議題與使用書目耦合以及共被引分析之結果相符，雖然其出版年與各研究議題的高峰期並不一致。

This study applies bibliographic coupling and co-citation to investigating e-government research articles published from 1990 to 2017. The research articles, totally 3,381, indexed in Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and union of WoS and Scopus are analyzed and compared.
The results show that the important research topics of the e-government studies: 1) literature review or case studies for e-government, 2) e-government and social media, 3) open government, 4) users adopting e-government systems or services, 5) governments adopting information technology, 6) assessment of e-government in India, 7) e-government services and stakeholders. The first 5 topics demonstrate their future of research trends. However, the sixth topic, “assessment of e-government in India”, is a local research topic and is difficult to become a global research topic. The seventh topic, “e-government services and stakeholders”, is not hot after the year of 2012.
The highly cited articles extracted from WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar are not different significantly. This shows that the highly cited articles are reliable in the e-government research field. In addition, the research topics of highly cited articles are compatible to those retrieved from the results of bibliographic coupling and co-citation. However, the publishing dates of highly cited articles are not consistent to the peak periods of research topics.

致謝 i
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目次 v
表目次 vii
圖目次 ix
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題 2
第三節 研究範圍與限制 3
第四節 名詞解釋 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 引用文獻分析 5
第二節 書目耦合分析 12
第三節 共被引分析 14
第四節 電子化政府 17
第三章 研究設計與實施 27
第一節 研究架構 27
第二節 資料蒐集 30
第四章 研究結果分析 35
第一節 書目耦合結果分析 35
第二節 共被引結果分析 76
第三節 書目耦合結果與共被引結果之比較 121
第四節 電子化政府領域之高被引文獻 153
第五章 結論與建議 169
第一節 結論 169
第二節 研究限制與未來研究建議 172
參考文獻 175

方瑀紳（2014）。科技教育研究主題的演進與研究前沿：1970～2013年研究文獻的共被引分析。國立臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
何光國（1994）。文獻計量學導論。台北市：三民。
吳毓星（2009）。臺灣電子化政府發展之研究。華人經濟研究，7（2），137-145。
林巧雯（2009）。以關鍵詞、書目耦合、共被引探討圖書資訊學研究主題之分布及變遷。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
林逢慶（2004）。電子化政府與政府改造。研考雙月刊，28（2），44-54。
林裕權（2007）。政府e化十年的回顧與展望。研考雙月刊，36（1），13-22。
林曉蔓（2017）。長期照護研究文獻計量與可視化分析。義守大學資訊工程研究所博士論文，未出版，臺中市。
崔灝東（2008）。由全球化觀點探討臺灣電子化政府之發展。多國籍企業管理評論，2（1），155-168。
張郁蔚（2008）。以直接引用、書目耦合及共同作者探討圖書資訊學跨學科之變遷。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
張嘉彬（2010）。以書目耦合及共被引探討不同引用區間之研究前沿：以OLED領域為例。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
張嘉彬（2016）。從研究方法探討研究前沿。大學圖書館，20（1），88-112。
曾至沅（2008）。公司治理領域之知識結構：作者共被引分析。國立交通大學經營管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
游佳萍、鍾岳秀（2010）。我國各縣市電子化政府實行顧客關係管理之研究。資訊社會研究，（18），343-372。
項靖、翁芳怡（2010）。我國政府網路民意論壇版面使用者滿意度之實證研究。公共行政學報，4，259-286。
黃朝盟、吳濟安（2007）電子化政府的影響評估。研考雙月刊，31（1），76-85。
劉維寧（2013）。2003-2012年自我規範領域發展趨勢研究－以共被引觀點。國立高雄師範大學人力與知識管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
蔡欣倫（2018a）。文獻計量法可視化分析：以金屬增材製造（3D打印）技術發展為例。科學與人文研究，5（3），97-120。
蔡欣倫（2018b）。文獻計量法可視化分析：探索博物館教育之發展現況。科學與人文研究，5（4），188-206。
簡宏瑋（2012）。電子化政府推動成果。研考雙月刊，36(6)，72-79。
Ahlgrena, P., Collianderb, C. (2009). Document–document similarity approaches and science mapping: Experimental comparison of five approaches. Journal of Informetrics, 3(1), 49-63.
Alzahrani, L., Al-Karaghouli, W., & Weerakkody, V. (2017). Analysing the critical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens’ perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. International Business Review, 26(1), 164-175.
Bazm, S., Kalantar, S. M., & Mirzaei, M. (2016). Bibliometric mapping and clustering analysis of Iranian papers on reproductive medicine in Scopus database (2010-2014). International journal of reproductive biomedicine, 14(6), 371.
Bellardo, T. (1980). The use of co-citations to study science. Library Research, 2(3), 231-237.
Bhughman, J. C. (1974), A structural analysis of the literature of sociology. Library Quarterly, 44, 293-308.
Bradford, S. C. (1948). Documentation. London: Crosby Lockwood.
Cawkell, A. E., & Newton, I. (1976). Understanding science by analysing its literature. Current Contents, (33), 7-13.
Cheng, S., & Ding, L. (2012). A quantitative study on the research fronts of electronic government. In Business Intelligence and Financial Engineering (BIFE), 2012 Fifth International Conference on (pp. 481-485). IEEE.
Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of E-government: are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523-536.
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Devi, B. M. (2007). Bibliographic coupling in toxicology journals. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 54, 103-105.
Diodato, V. (1994). Dictionary of Bibliometrics. New York: The Haworth Press.
Edge, D. (1979). Quantitative measures of communication in science: A critical review. History of Science, 17(2), 102-134.
Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics. quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science publishers.
Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1973), Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks. Scientometrics, 55(3), 349-361.
Garfield, E. (1965). Can citation indexing be automated. In Statistical association methods for mechanized documentation, symposium proceedings (Vol. 269, pp. 189-192). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, Miscellaneous Publication 269.
Garfield, E. (1978). Citation data as science indicators. Retrieved from http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p580y1983.pdf
Garfield, E. (1979a). Citation Indexing--Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: John Wiley.
Garfield, E. (1979b). Citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359-375.
Garfield, E. (1979c). Journal citation studies 32. Canadian journals, part 2: Analysis of Canadian research published at home and abroad. Current Content, (34), 249-253.
Garfield, E. (1980). ABCs of Cluster Mapping. Part 1. Most Active Fields in the Life Sciences in 1978. In: Essays of an Information Scientist. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
Garfield, E. (1983). Citation indexing - Its theory and application in science, technology and humanities. Philadelphia: ISI Press. Retrieved from http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/ci/title.pdf
Garfield, E. (1988). Announcing the SCI compact disk edition-CD-Rom gigabyte storage technology, novel software, and bibliographic coupling make desk-top research and discovery a reality. Current contents, (22), 3-13.
Garfield, E., Sher, I. H., & Torpie, R. J. (1964). The use of citation data in writing the history of science. Retrieved from http://www.scimaps.org/exhibit/docs/Garfield1964use.pdf
Garson, G. D. (2004). The promise of digital government. In A. Pavlichev, & G. D. Garson (Eds.), Digital government: Principles and best practices (pp. 2-15). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Gibbs, W. W. (1995). Lost science in the third world. Scientific American, 273(2), 92-99.
Glänzel, W., & Czerwon, H. J. (1995). A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to research-front and other core documents. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 167-176).
Glänzel, W., & Czerwon, H. J. (1996). A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level. Scientometrics, 37(2), 195-221.
Gould, P., & White, R. (1974). Mental maps. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Huang, Z., & Bwoma, P. (2003) An overview of critical issues of e-government. Issues of Information Systems IV, (1), 164-170.
Irvine, J., & Martin, B. R. (1985). Basic research in the east and west: A comparison of the scientific performance of high-energy physics accelerators. Social Studies of Science, 15(2), 293-341.
Janssens, F., Tran Quoc, V., Glänzel, W., & De Moor, B. (2006). Integration of textual content and link information for accurate clustering of science fields. In Proceedings of the I International Conference on Multidisciplinary Information Sciences & Technologies (InSciT2006). Current Research in Information Sciences and Technologies. Volume I (pp. 615-619). Springer.
Justice, J. B., Melitski, J., & Smith, D. L. (2006). E-Government as an Instrument of fiscal accountability and responsiveness do the best practitioners employ the best practices? The American Review of Public Administration, 36(3), 301-322.
Kaplan, N. (1965). The norms of citation behavior: Prolegomena to the footnote. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 16(3), 179-184.
Kessler, M. M. (1962). An experimental study of bibliographic coupling between technical papers (No. 62 673TN1). Massachusetts Institute for Technology, Lincoln Laboratory.
Kessler, M. M. (1963a). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10-25.
Kessler, M. M. (1963b). Bibliographic coupling extended in time: Ten case histories. Information Storage and Retrieval, 1(4), 169-187.
Kessler, M.M. (1965). Comparison of the results of bibliographic coupling and analytic subject indexing. American Documentation, 16(3), 223-233.
Kochen, M. (1974). Principles of information retrieval. Los Angeles: Melville.
Koenig, M. E. (1983). A bibliometric analysis of pharmaceutical research. Research Policy, 12(1), 15-36.
Koh, C. E., Ryan, S., & Prybutok, V. R. (2005). Creating value through managing knowledge in an e-government to constituency (G2C) environment. Journal of Computer Information System, 45(4), 32-41.
Kolsaker, A., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2006). Citizen-centric e-government: A critique of the UK model. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 3(2), 127-138.
Kudo, H. (2008). Does e-government guarantee accountability in public sector? Experiences in Italy and Japan. Southern Review of Public Administration, 32(1): 93.
Lancaster, F. W. (1991). Bibliometric methods in assessing productivity and impact of research. Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science.
Lawani, S. M. (1982). On the heterogeneity and classification of authorself-citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 33(5), 281-284.
Layne, K., & Lee, J. W. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136.
Layus, P., & Kah, P. (2015). Bibliometric Study of Welding Scientific Publications by Big Data Analysis. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Applications, 3(5), 94-102.
Line, M. B. (1979). The Influence of the Type of Sources Used on the Results of Citation Analyses. Journal of Documentation, 35, 265-84.
Löfstedt, U. (2005). E-government assessment of current research and some proposals for future directions. International journal of public information systems, 1(1).
Martyn, L. A, (1976). Use studies in library planning. Library Trends, 24(30), 483-496.
McCain, K. W. (1991). Core journal networks and cocitation maps: New bibliometric tools for serials research and management. The Library Quarterly, 61(3), 311-336.
Medaglia, R. (2007). Measuring the diffusion of eParticipation: A survey of Italian local government. Information Polity, 12(4), 265-280.
Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & Vanraan, A. F. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research policy, 14(3), 131-149.
Mutula, S., M., & Mostert, J. (2010). Challenges and opportunities of e-government in South Africa. Electronic Library, 28(1), 38-53. doi:10.1108/02640471011023360
Nicholas, D., & Maureen R. (1978). Literature and Bibliometrics. London: Clive Bingley.
OECD (2003). The e-government imperative: Main findings. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN015120.pdf
Osareh, F. (1996). Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: A review of literature II. Libri, 46(4), 217-225.
Peritz, B. C. (1992). Opinion paper on the objectives of citation analysis: Problems of theory and method. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(6), 448-451.
Phugnar, L. P. (2012). A Citation Analysis of Doctoral Dissertations in Library and Information Science Accepted by the Universities in Western India (Doctoral thesis, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune). Retrieved from http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/18612/8/08_chapter%203.pdf
Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing & Management, 12(5), 297-312.
Price, D. D. S. (1966). The science of scientists. Medical Opinion and Review, 1(10), 88-97.
Reddick, C. G. (2004). A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly, 21(1), 51-64.
Rice, R. E., Borgman, C. L., Bednarski, D., & Hart, P. J. (1989). Journal-to-journal citation data: Issues of validity and reliability. Scientometrics, 15(3-4), 257-282.
Sá, F., Rocha, Á., Gonçalves, J., & Cota, M. P. (2016). From the quality of traditional services to the quality of local e-government online services: A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 149-160.
Scholl, H. J. (2009). Profiling the EG research community and its core. In Wimmer, M. A., Scholl, H. J., Janssen, M., & Traunmüller, R. (Eds.), Electronic government: 8th international conference (EGOV 2009), Vol. 5693. (pp. 1–12). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Scholl, H. J. (2010). Electronic government: A study domain past its infancy. In H. J. Scholl (Ed.), e-Government: Information, technology, and transformation, Vol. 17. (pp. 11–32). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Scholl, H. J. J., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2014). Forums for electronic government scholars: Insights from a 2012/2013 study. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 229-242.
Sen, S. K., & Gan, S. K. (1983). A mathematical extension of the idea of bibliographic coupling and its applications. Annals of Library Science and Documentation, 30(2), 78-82.
Shaw, W, M. (1979). Entropy, information and communication. In Information Choices and Policies: Proceedings of the 1979 ASIS Annual Meeting vol.16, 42nd Annual Meeting Minneapolis, Minnesota.
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 Science, 24, 265-269.
Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trend, 30(1), 83-106.
Tabatabaei-Malazy, O., Ramezani, A., Atlasi, R., Larijani, B., & Abdollahi, M. (2016). Scientometric study of academic publications on antioxidative herbal medicines in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Journal of diabetes & metabolic disorders, 15(1), 48.
Tsai, N., Choi, B., & Perry, M. (2015). Improving the process of e-govenrment initiative: An in-depth case study of web-based GIS implementation. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 368-376. doi: 10.1016./j.giq.2008.11.007
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053-1070.
Van Velsen, L., Van der Geest, T., Ter Hedde, M., & Derks, W. (2009). Requirements engineering for e-Government services: A citizen-centric approach and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 26(3), 477-486.
Velho, L. (1986). The “meaning” of citation in the context of a scientifically peripheral country. Scientometrics, 9(1-2), 71-89.
Velho, L. (1987). The author and the beholder: How paradigm commitments can influence the interpretation of research results. Scientometrics, 11(1-2), 59-70.
Vezyridis, P., & Timmons, S. (2016). Evolution of primary care databases in UK: a scientometric analysis of research output. BMJ open, 6(10), e012785.
Vinkler, P. (1986). Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 10(3-4), 157-177.
VOSviewer (2019). Welcome to VOSviewer. Retrieved January 18, 2019, from www.vosviewer.com/
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Non reactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Weerakkody, V., Irani, Z., Lee, H., Osman, I., & Hindi, N. (2015). E-government implementation-A bird''s eye view of issues relating to costs, opportunities, benefits and risks. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(4), 889-915. doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9472-3
Welch, E. W., & Hinnant, C. C. (2003). Internet use, transparency, and interactivity effects on trust in government. In System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 7). IEEE.
Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2004). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371-391.
West, D. M. (2000). Assessing E-government: The Internet, democracy, and service delivery by state and federal governments. Retrieved from http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovtreport00.html
West, D. M. (2004) E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15-17.
White, H. D. (1981). Co-cited author retrieval online: An experiment with the social indicators literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 32(1), 16-21.
White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author co-citation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 32(3), 163-171.
Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004). Does e‐government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. Governance, 17(2), 275-297.
Xiong, J. A. (2006). Current status and needs of Chinese e-government users. The Electronic Library, 24(6), 747-762.
Yeung, A. W. K., Goto, T. K., & Leung, W. K. (2017). The changing landscape of neuroscience research, 2006–2015: a bibliometric study. Frontiers in neuroscience, 11, 120.