臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要可有效協助使用者從眾多學術文獻中，篩選出符合需要的資源，一則節省使用者的時間，二則可豐富文章的替代紀錄，提昇檢索系統的查全率和查準率，摘要在學術資源激長的現代更顯得重要。然摘要的品質至少會受到期刊稿約的要求、內容結構、以及適讀性（readability）的影響，因此，學術期刊對摘要做出了何種要求、現行摘要的內容結構為何，以及適讀性表現，便成了值得探討的議題。
本研究選定社會科學領域的期刊為研究對象，以高影響力的TSSCI以及SSCI期刊為研究樣本，先以內容分析法瞭解其稿約內容（TSSCI：84份；SSCI：375份）、摘要內容結構（IMRD）與內容完整性（TSSCI：585份；SSCI：598份），再以適讀性公式檢測摘要內文的適讀性。
首先，在期刊稿約對摘要提供的要求與說明方面，發現：TSSCI期刊對作者提供的寫作引導很少，而SSCI有較多期刊對摘要進行相對深入的要求；TSSCI期刊對英文摘要的字數限制較SSCI寬鬆；結構性摘要的採用情形並不普遍。而再進一步分析各期刊對摘要內容的實質要求時，發現SSCI期刊的要求較為多元而細緻，為作者提供了相對具體的指引。就本節的研究結果，本研究首先建議TSSCI期刊可參考SSCI期刊稿約的內容要求項目，進而仿效、修訂之。其次，本研究亦建議TSSCI期刊可多加採用結構性摘要，一方面提昇內容資訊的揭露程度、減少資訊遺漏的問題，另一方面亦讓作者、編輯有一定的架構可依循。第三，後續研究可繼續深究摘要字數限制與內容完整性，以及符合各學門需求的摘要篇幅長短的問題。
而在摘要內容結構分析方面，普遍而言，I、R的摘寫情形較佳，但M、D則較差，但也有部分學門有M不適用的問題；各學門之間的差異多數達統計上的顯著差異。若以各學門的內容結構資訊豐富程度是否高於整體的平均值觀察，TSSCI摘要整體表現較佳者為社會學和心理學，SSCI則為社會學。另外，本研究另以摘要的內容完整性進行分析，發現TSSCI與SSCI各約只有一成左右的摘要，為內容完整且各部資訊豐富的摘要。相對而言，即使納入結構略次的摘要，仍尚有三到四成的摘要資訊揭露程度不足，可能無法有效協助使用者選擇文獻。有鑑於社會科學領域同時有實徵和非實徵研究，後續相關研究可繼續探討如何精進內容分析的架構，以產出更符合領域現況的編碼框架。
最後，本研究透過適讀性分析工具檢測TSSCI與SSCI摘要的適讀性程度，發現TSSCI中文摘要的適讀年級值為6.34，SSCI英文摘要的Flesch Reading Ease值則為17.12，但同時也凸顯了現有適讀性工具是否適合檢測摘要的問題。未來相關領域的研究者應採用多元的角度檢視摘要的適讀性問題，並納入使用者的觀點與使用習慣，以使摘要更貼近現實情境中的需求。

Abstracts assist in users’ relevance judgment when they face a growing body of scholarly literatures. Abstracts play a key role in the scholarly communication system. Good abstracts save users’ time, serve as the surrogates of the original papers, and may enhance the effectiveness of search. However, the in the age of author-written abstracts, the quality of abstracts is affected by whether appropriate author guides are provided, whether the abstract content is well structured and readable. The aims of this study is to provide a survey of scholarly guidelines and to examine how informative and readable the current abstracts are.
This study drew samples from highly influential social science journals. 84 TSSCI and 375 SSCI journals were selected for the author guides analysis. As to the abstract content structure and readability analyses, 585 TSSCI Chinese abstracts and 598 SSCI English abstracts were further drawn from the leading journals of six social sciences areas.
The findings show that TSSCI journal guidelines provide less instruction on abstract writing than SSCI journals. Structured abstracts were not widely mandated. Compared with TSSCI’s guidelines, this study found that SSCI’s are more detailed and comprehensive. Based on the finding, this paper suggests that TSSCI journals may consider adopting structured abstracts to make it more informative for users and to provide authors and editors a structure to follow.
This study also investigated how informative the author-written abstracts are, using an IMRD (introduction-methodology-results-discussion) content scheme. The finding shows, for most sample abstracts, I (introduction) and R (result) were well represented, while M (method) and D (discussion) were not. Chi-square test showed that the differences between subject disciplines reached statistical significance. In TSSCI, sociology and psychology journals’ abstracts perform better than the average. In SSCI, sociology also performed well above the average. Strictly speaking, in both the TSSCI and SSCI, only a small portion (approximately 10%) of abstracts can be called informative abstracts.
Finally, this study examined the readability of TSSCI and SSCI’s abstracts. However, the result pointed out that current available readability tests may not be feasible for abstracts. Researchers of related fields can also examine readability issues of abstracts, and include users’ viewpoints and behaviors to fit real situation.

第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究背景與研究問題 1
第二節　名詞解釋 5
第三節　研究預期貢獻 5
第四節　研究範圍與限制 6
第二章　文獻回顧 9
第一節　摘要的目的與功能 9
第二節　摘要與學術傳播 11
第三節　摘要的內容與結構 12
一、指示性摘要 13
二、資訊性摘要 14
三、結構性摘要 14
第四節　摘要者與摘要品質 17
第五節　摘要內容的完整性與適讀性 20
一、摘要類型與摘要內容的完整性 20
二、摘要的適讀性 22
第三章　研究方法與實施 25
第一節　研究方法與研究樣本 25
一、RQ1之抽樣步驟 26
二、RQ2與RQ3之抽樣步驟 29
第二節　資料處理與分析 35
一、RQ1之資料處理 35
二、RQ2之資料處理 36
三、RQ3之資料處理 39
第三節　RQ2之編碼方式與編碼一致性 42
第四章　研究發現與討論 47
第一節　期刊稿約分析結果 47
一、期刊稿約對摘要之要求程度 47
二、期刊稿約對摘要語種與字數之要求 50
三、對摘要內容的實質要求 53
第二節　摘要內容結構與摘要類型分析 64
一、摘要內容結構分析 64
二、摘要類型分析 70
第三節　摘要適讀性檢測結果 75
一、TSSCI摘要適讀性檢測結果 75
二、SSCI摘要適讀性檢測結果 76
第四節　研究結果討論 78
一、稿約分析結果討論 78
二、摘要內容結構分析結果討論 79
三、摘要適讀性檢測結果討論 80
第五章　結論與建議 83
第一節　結論 83
一、期刊稿約分析結果 83
二、摘要內容結構分析結果 84
三、摘要適讀性檢測結果 86
第二節　建議 87
一、實務改善之建議 87
二、進一步研究建議 87
附錄 89
附錄一：TSSCI與SSCI學門、學科分類對照表 89
附錄二：SSCI圖書資訊學期刊列表 94
附錄三：國家科學委員會期刊排序原始結果 96
參考文獻 97

人文及社會科學發展處（2006）。期刊排序。2012年10月10日，取自http://www.nsc.gov.tw/hum/lp.asp?CtNode=1144&CtUnit=813&BaseDSD=7
王麗莉、范并思（1998）。社會科學交流與期刊編輯行為研究情報資料工作。情報資料工作，7-12。
行政院國家科學委員會社會科學研究中心（2011）。TSSCI資料庫收錄學門類表。2012年5月22日，取自http://ssrc.sinica.edu.tw/ssrc-home/list.htm
行政院國家科學委員會社會科學研究中心（2012）。臺灣社會科學引文索引核心期刊基本評量標準。2013年7月15日，取自http://www.hss.ntu.edu.tw/ data/database_tssci_5/1-2 臺灣社會科學引文索引核心期刊基本評量標準.doc
武者小路澄子（1989）。原著論文と抄録の関係における質的分析：情報の圧縮化へのアプローチ。Library and Information Science，26，1-29。
邱皓政（2010）。量化研究與統計分析：SPSS（PASW）資料分析範例解析（第五版）。臺北市：五南。
桑良至（1993）。文摘學概論。北京：中國書籍。
荊溪昱（1995）。中學國文教材的適讀性研究：適讀年齡值的推估。教育研究資訊，3（3），113-127。
荊溪昱、趙世範、翁淩志（2007）。中文文章適讀性線上分析系統之發展研究。科技教育課程改革與發展學術研討會論文集，2006，47-57。
國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系（2010）。中文文章適讀性線上分析系統。2012年6月6日，取自http://140.127.45.25/Readability/Analyze/About.aspx
莊道明（1995）。摘要標準。載於胡述兆總編輯，圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典（下冊，頁2002）。臺北市：漢美。
陳元勇（1993）。社會科學文摘的幾個特點。圖書與情報，3，45-47。
陳世敏（1971）。中文可讀性公式試擬。新聞學研究，8，181-226。
陳光華（1999）。電子文件自動處理之硏究。臺北市：臺灣學生。
景霞、周偉敬（2001）。從《化學文摘》對摘要的修改看英文摘要撰寫的常見問題。編輯學報，13，41-42。
曾曉梅（2001）。科技期刊英文摘要編校的常見疏誤。編輯學報，13（5），266-268。
經濟部標準檢驗局（1993）。摘要撰寫標準。臺北市：經濟部標準檢驗局。
劉芳明、龔學民（2007）。從外籍編委審校英文摘要看編校英文摘要應注意的問題。編輯學報，19（1），20-22。
劉永新、陳忠才（1991）。淺談自然科學學報英文摘要的文字加工。編輯學報，3（4），96-99。
劉湘川（1994）。抽樣的方法。載於黃光雄與簡茂發主編，教育研究法（修訂版，頁91-114）臺北市：師大書苑。
數位學習研究室（2010）。文本可讀性指標自動化分析系統。2012年10月5日，取自http://www.chinesereadability.net/index.aspx
歐用生（1994）。內容分析法。載於黃光雄與簡茂發主編，教育研究法（修訂版，頁229-254）臺北市：師大書苑。
鄭玉玲（1995）。摘要。載於胡述兆總編輯，圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典（下冊，頁2000-2001）。臺北市：漢美。
蘇諼（1996）。自動摘要法。中國圖書館學會會報，56，41-47。
Weber, R.（1989）。內容分析法導論（Basic content analysis，林義男、陳淳文譯）。臺北市：巨流圖書公司。（原著出版年：1988）
Neuman, W.（2000）。社會研究方法：質化與量化取向（Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches, 3 rd ed.，朱柔若譯）。臺北市：揚智文化。（原著出版年：1997）
Miller, R., Acton, C., Fullerton, D. & Maltby, J.（2006）。SPSS在社會科學的應用（SPSS for Social Scientists，莊文忠譯）。臺北市：五南。（原著出版年：2002）
Abstracting and indexing (A&I). (2004). In Dictionary for Library and Information Science (pp. 4). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Abstracting journal. (2004). In Dictionary for Library and Information Science (pp. 4). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Abstracting service. (2004). In Dictionary for Library and Information Science (pp. 4). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Association of College & Research Libraries. (2003). Principles and strategies for the reform of scholarly communication 1. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/principlesstrategies
American National Standards Institute. (1997). Guidelines for abstracts. Bethesda, MD: NISO Press.
Armstrong, C. J., & Wheatley, A. (1998). Writing abstracts for online databases: results of an investigation of database producers’ guidelines. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 32(4), 359-371.
Barjak, F. (2006). The role of the internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1350-1367.
Bernier, C. (2003). Abstract and abstracting. In Encyclopedia of library and information science (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1-15). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Borgman, C. L. (1990). Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Borko, H., & Bernier, C. (1975). Abstracting concepts and methods. New York: Academic Press.
Borko, H., & Chatman, S. (1963). Criteria for acceptable abstracts: A survey of abstracters'' instructions. American Documentation, 14(2), 149-160.
Chan, S. K., & Foo, S. (2004). Interdisciplinary perspectives on abstracts for information retrieval. Iberica, 8, 101-124.
Chander, H. (2003) Abstracting and indexing services. In J. Feather & P. Sturges (Ed.), International encyclopedia of information and library science (2nd ed., pp. 1-3). London: Routledge.
Cleveland, D., & Cleveland, A. (2001). Introduction to indexing and abstracting (3rd ed.). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Cremmins, E. T. (1996). The art of abstracting. Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press.
Cross, C., & Oppenheim, C. (2006). A genre analysis of scientific abstracts. Journal of Documentation, 62(4), 428-446.
Day, R. A. (1989). The origins of the scientific paper: The IMRAD format. American Medical Writers Association Journal, 4(2), 16-18.
Dronberger, G. B., & Kowitz, G. T. (1975). Abstract readability as a factor in information systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26(2), 108-111.
DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information Plain-Language Services.
Extract. (2004). In Dictionary for Library and Information Science (pp. 265). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Elsevier. (2013). Graphical abstracts. Retrieved February 22, 2013, from http://www.elsevier.com/authors/graphical-abstract
Fidel, R. (1986). Writing abstracts for free-text searching. Journal of Documentation, 42(1), 11-21.
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221-233.
Guimaraes, C. A. (2006). Structured abstracts. Narrative review. Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, 21(4), 263-268.
Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010). Quality of abstracts in articles submitted to a scholarly journal: A mixed methods case study of the journal research in the schools. Library & Information Science Research, 32, 53-61.
Hartley, J. (1997). Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social science journals? Learned Publishing, 10(4), 313-317.
Hartley, J., & Betts, L. (2009). Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2010-2018.
Hartley, J., & Sydes, M. (1996). Which layout do you prefer? An analysis of readers'' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts. Journal of Information Science, 22(1), 27-37.
Hartley, J., & Sydes, M. (1997). Are structured abstracts easier to read than traditional ones? Journal of Research in Reading, 20(2), 122-136.
Haynes, R. B., Mulrow, C. D., Huth, E. J., Altman, D. G., & Gardner, M. J. (1990). More informative abstracts revisited. Annals of Internal Medicine, 113(1), 69-76.
Holosko, M. J. (2009). Enhancing practitioner knowledge through a unique abstracting format used with research on social work practice journal articles. Research on Social Work Practice, 19 (2), 234-238.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 8-18.
King, R. (1976). A comparison of the readability of abstracts with their source documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(2), 118-121.
Klare, G. R. (2000). The measurement of readability: Useful information for communicators. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 107-121.
Klenke, K. (2008). Qualitative research in the study of leadership (1st ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Koltay, T. (2010). Abstracts and abstracting: A genre and set of skills for the twenty-first century. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Lancaster, F. W. (2003). Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice (3rd ed.). London: Facet Publishing.
Lawlor, B. (2003). Abstracting and information services: managing the flow of scholarly communication—past, present, and future. Serials Review, 29(3), 200-209.
Milas-Bracović, M., & Zajec, J. (1989). Author abstracts of research articles published in scholarly journals in Croatia (Yugoslavia): An evaluation. Libri, 39(4), 303-318.
Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Jamali, H. R. (2007). The use, users, and role of abstracts in the digital scholarly environment. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33, 446-453.
Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. R., Rowlands, I., & Fieldhouse, M. (2009). Student digital information-seeking behaviour in context. Journal of Documentation, 65(1), 106-132.
Nunn, R. (2009). Addressing academic inequality: A response in support of Wen and Gao. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 694-696.
Peacock, P. J., Peters, T. J., & Peacock, J. L. (2009). How well do structured abstracts reflect the articles they summarize? European Science Editing, 35(1), 3-5.
Pinto, M. (2003). Abstracting/abstract adaptation to digital environments: research trends. Journal of Documentation, 59(5), 581-608.
Pinto, M. (2006). A grounded theory on abstracts quality: Weighting variables and attributes. Scientometrics, 69(2), 213-226.
Pinto, M., & Lancaster, F. W. (1999). Abstracts and abstracting in knowledge discovery. Library Trends, 48(1), 234-248.
Roel, E. (2004). Electronic journal publication: A new library contribution to scholarly communication two years on. C&RL News, 65(1). Retrieved June 22, from http://www.ala.org/acrl/issues/scholcomm/crlnews/electronicjournal
Rowley, J. (1988). Abstracting and indexing (2nd ed.). London: Clive Bingley Limited.
Salton, G. (1989). Automatic text processing: The transformation, analysis, and retrieval of information by computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Šauperl, A., Klasinc, J., & Lužar, S. (2008). Components of abstracts: Logical structure of scholarly abstracts in pharmacology, sociology, and linguistics and literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1420-1432.
Scholarly communication. (2004). In Dictionary for Library and Information Science (pp. 634). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Smith, C. (2000). Content analysis and narrative analysis. In H. Reis & C. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 313-333). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Subramanyam, K. (Ed.) (1979) Scientific literature. In M. A. Drake (Ed.), The encyclopedia of library and information science (Vols. 26, pp. 393-409). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Summary. (2004). In Dictionary for Library and Information Science (pp. 696). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Swales, J. W. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taddio, A., Pain, T., Fassos, F. F., Boon, H., Ilersich, A. L., & Einarson, T. R. (1994). Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 150(10), 1611-1615.
Tibbo, H. (1992). Abstracting across the disciplines: A content analysis of abstracts from the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities with implications for abstracting standards and online information retrieval. Library and Information Science Research, 14(1), 31-56.
Thomson Reuters. (2012). Social science citation index scope note. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/scope/scope_ssci/
Ufnalska, S. B., & Hartley, J. (2009). How can we evaluate the quality of abstracts? European Science Editing, 35(3), 69-71.
Weil, B. H. (1970). Standards for writing abstracts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 21(5), 351-357.
Wheatley, A., & Armstrong, C. J. (1997). A survey of the content and characteristics of electronic abstracts. London: Library Information Technology Centre.
Wimmer, R., & Dominick, J. R. (1994). An introduction to mass media research. California:Wadsworth.
Wong, H.-l., Truong, D., Mahamed, A., Davidian, C., Rana, Z., & Einarson, T. R. (2004). Quality of structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association: a 10-year follow-up study. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 21(4), 467-473.
Zhang, C., & Liu, X. (2011). Review of James Hartley''s research on structured abstracts. Journal of Information Science, 37(6), 1-7.
Zhang, L., Kopak, R., Freund, L., & Rasmussen, E. (2010). A taxonomy of functional units for information use of scholarly journal articles. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1-10.