(34.204.191.31) 您好!臺灣時間:2019/10/20 14:00
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
本論文永久網址: 
line
研究生:張郁蔚
研究生(外文):Yu-Wei Chang
論文名稱: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
論文名稱(外文):The Study of Interdisciplinary Changes in Library and Information Science- Using Direct Citation, Bibliographic Coupling and Co-authorship
指導教授:黃慕萱黃慕萱引用關係
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:圖書資訊學研究所
學門:傳播學門
學類:圖書資訊檔案學類
論文出版年:2009
畢業學年度:97
語文別:中文
論文頁數:222
中文關鍵詞:跨學科分析圖書資訊學直接引用書目耦合共同作者
外文關鍵詞:interdisciplinary analysislibrary and information sciencedirect citationbibliographic couplingco-authorship
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:11
  • 點閱點閱:1065
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
本研究旨在以直接引用、書目耦合及共同作者等三種書目計量方法探討近30年(1978-2007)圖書資訊學之跨學科變遷情形,辨識對圖書資訊學有重要影響的學科,並以指標測量跨學科程度,以及比較三種書目計量方法之跨學科分析結果。本研究除進行圖書資訊學之整體分析外,亦將圖書資訊學分為圖書館學及資訊科學二個學科、區分圖書資訊學期刊文獻參考文獻的資料類型以及就10種圖書資訊學期刊分別進行跨學科分析,並比較分析結果,另輔以每10年及每年之不同時間長度觀察跨學科變遷情形。本研究對象係影響係數較高前10種圖書資訊學期刊之1978-2007出版的論文,經排除電腦科學文獻後,以20%之系統抽樣方式,過濾出1,536篇期刊文獻為圖書資訊學樣本期刊文獻,再依三種書目計量方法特性蒐集個別期刊文獻的27,678個參考文獻、不同期刊文獻之間共同的8,906個參考文獻及期刊合著文獻之1,536位共同作者資料,據以個別建立不同資料檔,以利進行相關的跨學科分析。
研究結果顯示,在學科分布之學科比例及排名部分,圖書資訊學高度依賴本身學科,並有自然科學傾向,但圖書館學較傾向社會科學領域,資訊科學較傾向自然科學領域。另比例最高與次高學科之比例差距明顯、全部學科累積比例有明顯集中於排名前幾大學科,以及三大科學領域的部分學科均有隨時間持續提高排名之情形,拉近其與圖書資訊學之間的關係。
在跨學科程度方面,資訊科學之跨學科程度明顯高於圖書館學,「圖書類」參考文獻之跨學科程度亦明顯高於「期刊類」參考文獻,而10種期刊中,Library Resources & Technical Services 的跨學科程度最低,Scientometrics的跨學科程度最高,且資訊科學期刊之跨學科數值未必高於圖書館學期刊。此外,跨學科數值與圖書資訊學比例之間有反比關係存在,以及圖書資訊學、資訊科學之跨學科程度呈現隨時間增加而提高之成長趨勢,但圖書館學以不同方法分析之結果則顯示其跨學科程度未必有提高情形。
至於三種書目計量方法之比較,以直接引用方法分析產出之學科數量最多,以共同作者方法分析產出之學科數量最少,以及每年之學科數量有呈現往上成長之趨勢。此外,以直接引用、書目耦合及共同作者等三種方法分析產出之學科排名結果有顯著一致性,彼此可互相取代,且三種書目計量方法中,以直接引用及書目耦合之學科排名一致性最高。但造成三種計量方法之分析結果仍有不一致的之原因,可能在於理論依據不同,致直接引用依據之全部參考文獻、書目耦合依據之共同參考文獻及共同作者依據合著期刊論文之共同作者,在樣本對象及樣本數量均不同情形下,跨學科結果不盡相同。其中共同作者之產生因至少須有2位不同作者共同發表文獻之事實,故相較於直接引用及書目耦合僅是作者單方面的引用行為,共同作者之產生遠比產生參考文獻困難,且共同作者反映的跨學科意義比直接引用及書目耦合更具體。因此在三種書目計量方法之應用與解釋上,須先確立欲呈現之跨學科意義,再採取適合之書目計量方法,如強調人際關係、合著關係之實質跨學科交流,可採用共同作者方式;如著重資訊流向的關係,可採用直接引用方法,但如強調核心參考文獻之跨學科結果,則可使用書目耦合方式。
由於圖書館學及資訊科學有不同的跨學科特性,圖書資訊學之跨學科分析應再就圖書館學及資訊科學個別分析,以免圖書資訊學之整體分析結果淡化圖書館學及資訊科學之跨學科差異。另「圖書類」參考文獻及「期刊類」參考文獻之跨學科結果並不相近,加上圖書及期刊文獻均是最常被引用的資料來源,故「圖書類」參考文獻須是參考文獻的分析範圍。
This study used bibliometric methods including direct citation, bibliographic coupling and coauthorship to analyze interdisciplinary characteristics in Library and Information Science (LIS) and used Brillouin’s Index , an interdisciplinary indicator, to measure the interdisciplinary degree. In addition, the interdisciplinary characteristics in library science, information science, types of references and 10 LIS journals are compared, and interdisciplinary changes over time are tracked. Subjects were 27,678 references of 1,536 articles, 8,906 references from 1,536 citing articles which share items in their reference lists and 1,536 authors of 644 co-authored articles published in 10 LIS journals, consisting of 5 library science journals and 5 information science journals, systematic sampling 15%.
The major findings were summarized as follows. LIS literature and authors has the heaviest reliance on LIS literature and authors, following general science literature and authors. Library science has interdisciplinary characteristics distinct from information science. For example, library science is a social science-oriented discipline while information science is a natural science-oriented discipline. As for the percentage distribution of discipline, large differences in percentage distribution between the two highest ranking disciplines are obvious, and about 80% of citations or coauthors concentrate top 5 disciplines ranked by percentage distribution of discipline. In addition, the ranking of some disciplines in humanities, social sciences and natural sciences has been raising every 10 years.
Degree of interdisciplinarity in information science is higher than library science. However, degree of interdisciplinarity in information science journals is not higher than all library science journals. Among 10 LIS journals, Library Resources & Techninical Services has the lowest degree of interdisciplinrarity, while Scientometrics has the highest degree of interdisciplinarity. In addition, a reverse relationships between the percentage distribution of citations to LIS literature and the degree of interdisciplinarity. The higher percentage distribution of citations to LIS literature or coauthor in LIS , the lower the degree of interdisciplinarity. Degree of interdisciplinarity in LIS and information science has positive growth trends, but not all the analysis results by three bibliometric methods have shown library science also has the same trends.
The number of discipline has positive growth trends in LIS, library science and information science. Further, 30 disciplines ranking in LIS, library science and information science analyzed by three bibliometric methods are obviously consistent. Especially, direct citation and bibliographic coupling has the highest consistency among three bibliometric methods. In the view of the high consistency, three bibliometrics methods can replace one another. However, the possible reason that explains different results analyzed by three bibliometric methods is the difference between bibliometric theories. It is not surprised to see the different analysis results from different samples. Comparing a reference to a co-author, it is more difficult to increase a co-author than a reference does. When applying for the three bibliometric methods, it is important to make sure the meaning of interdisciplinarity, then take proper bibiometric method. For example, co-authorship can present more practical interdisciplinary interaction, direct citation can track the information flow among literature, and bibliographic coupling can show interdisciplinary characteristics existing in core references.
In short, both library science and information science has their disciplinary nature, library science and information science should be analyzed separately to present individual interdisciplinary characteristics. Also, books and journal articles are main cited sources, book citations should be included in citations samples.
中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………...… i
英文摘要…………………………………………………………………….………..…. iii
目次…………………………………………………………………………………..…. vii
圖目次………………………………………………………………….……………..…. ix
表目次…………………………………………………………………….…………..…xiii
第一章 導論………………………………………………….…………………….. 1
第一節 問題陳述…………………………………………………………….. 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題……………………………………………….. 7
第三節 研究範圍與限制…………………………………………………….. 8
第四節 名詞定義…………………………………………………………….. 9
第二章 文獻探討………………………………………………………………….. 13
第一節 跨學科概述…………………………………………………………. 13
第二節 直接引用與跨學科研究……………………………………….…… 18
第三節 書目耦合、共被引與跨學科研究………………………………..... 30
第四節 共同作者與跨學科研究……………………………………………..48
第三章 研究設計與實施…………………………………………………………...63
第一節 研究方法與研究設計………………………………………………..63
第二節 研究對象…………………………………………………………......66
第三節 研究步驟……………………………………………………………..71
第四節 資料處理與分析……………………………………………………. 74
第四章 研究結果………………………………………………………………….. 77
第一節 圖書資訊學之跨學科分析…………………………………………..77
第二節 圖書館學與資訊科學之跨學科比較………………………………..88
第三節 不同資料類型參考文獻之跨學科比較……………………………102
第四節 圖書資訊學期刊之跨學科比較……………………………………119
第五節 圖書資訊學之跨學科變化……………………………………...………131
第六節 圖書資訊學之跨學科程度……………………………………………...153
第五章 結論與建議…………………………………………………………….. 179
第一節 結論……………………………………………………………….. 179
第二節 建議……………………………………………………………….. 193
第三節 研究貢獻……………………………………………………………….. 197
第四節 進一步研究建議………………………………………………….. 199
參考文獻………………………………………………………………………...… 201
附錄 參考文獻及共同作者之所屬學科代碼表…………………………..……. 221
何蕙菩(民97)。圖書資訊學知識來源與知識擴散學科之研究。未出版之碩士論文,臺灣大學圖書館學研究所,台北市。
吳冠儀 (民92)。1999-2001年海峽兩岸圖書資訊學核心期刊論文主題及引文之分析研究。未出版之碩士論文,淡江大學圖書資訊學研究所,台北縣。
林欣怡 (民94)。臺灣與日本圖書資訊學研究之比較。未出版之碩士論文,台灣大學圖書資訊學研究所,台北市。
武杰 (2004)。跨學科研究與非線性思維。北京:中國社會科學出版社。
侯海燕 (2006)。基於知識圖譜的科學計量學進展研究。未出版之博士論文,理工大學科學學與科技管理學系研究所,大連市。
施孟雅 (民91)。從專業期刊文獻分析我國台灣地區的圖書館學研究。台北市:漢美。
唐小荃 (2005)。利用引文分析圖書館學的相關期刊。未出版之碩士論文,武漢大學圖書館學研究所,武漢市。
馬楠、官建成 (2006)。利用引文分析識別研究前沿的進展與展望。中國科技論壇,2006(4),110-113,128。
馬費成、宋恩梅(2006)。我國情報學研究分析:以ACA為方法。情報研究, 25(3),259-268。
張存剛、李明、陳德梅(2004)。社會網路分析。社會學研究,2004(2),109-111。
張進、洪漪(1997)。圖書館學情報學博士論文(1997-2004年)調查與分析。情報學報,16(3),163-173。
許蓮蓮(2004)。中國社會科學發展與作者分布實證研究。未出版之碩士論文,天津師範大學,天津市。
程煥文(2002)。近年來中國大陸圖書館學教育發展走向的思考。圖書館建設,2002(5),3-6。
楊良斌、金碧輝(2009)。跨學科研究中學科交叉度的定量分析探討。情報雜誌,28 (4),39-43。
傅雅秀(民91)。從生命科學期刊論文作者數探討科學合作。圖書資訊學刊,17,71-80。
馮茜、陳強(1999)。中外自然科學家合作研究的比較。情報理論與實踐,22(5),336-339。
趙悅陽、崔雷(2005)。專題文獻的同被引聚類分析在表現學科專業發展歷史的可靠性評價。情報學報,24(4),414-421。
劉仲林、趙曉春、程妍、魏巍(2009)。國外交叉學科(跨學科)研究新進展。河池學院學報,29 (1),8-12。
劉霓(2008)。跨學科研究的發展與實踐。國外社會科學,2008(1),46-55。
蔣穎、金碧輝、劉筱敏(2000)。期刊論文的作者合作度與合作作者的自引分析。圖書情報工作,2000(12),23-28。
鄭麗敏(民84)。近20年台灣地區圖書館學與資訊科學期刊論文用參考文獻特性分析(下)。教育資料與圖書館學,32(2),210-238。
鍾旭(2000)。中國情報學圖書館學檔案學者著者跨學科研究的文獻計量學研究。情報學報,19(2),187-192。
譚修雯(民86)。從引文分析探討學科知識結構的可能性:以社會科學博碩士論文為例。未出版之碩士論文,淡江大學教育資料科學研究所,台北縣。
蘇國賢、蔡明璋(2003)。台灣社會學者的隱形學群與知識生產。台灣社會學會年會暨邁向新世紀的公平社會-社群、風險與不平等研討會。台北市。
黨亞茹(1996)。合著網絡系統及其遞階結構模型。情報學報,15(3),228-236。
Acedo, F. J., Carmen, B., Casanueva, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies : an empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957-983.
Al-Sabbagh, I. A. (1987). The evolution of the inter disciplinarity of information science : a bibliometric study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Amir, S. (1985). On the degree of interdisciplinarity of research programs : a quantitative assessment. Scientometrics, 8(1-2), 117-136.
Andrews, J. E. (2003). An author co-citation analysis of medical informatics. Journal of the Medical Library Association ( JMLA ), 91(1), 47-56.
Asimov, I. (1962). The genetic code. New York: New American Library.
Astrom, F. (2007). Changes in the LIS research front : time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990-2004. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 947-957.
Barabasi, A. L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2001, March 31, 2007). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Retrieved August 11, 2007.
Bassecoulard, E., Lelu, A., & Zitt, M. (2007). Mapping nanosciences by citation flows : a preliminary analysis. Scientometrics, 70(3), 859-880.
Bayer, A. E., Smart, J. C., & McLaughlin, G. W. (1990). Mapping intellectual structure of a scientific subfield through author cocitations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 444-452.
Beaver, D. D. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics, 60(3), 399-408.
Beaver, D. d., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration part I. the professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65-84.
Bhattacharya, S., & Meyer, M. (2004). Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration: an exploration of co-invention and co-authorship analyses. Scientometrics, 61(3), 443-456.
Bobinski, George. (2007). Libraries and librarianship : sixty years of challenge and change, 1945-2005. Lanham, Maryland : The Scarecrow Press.
Bordons, M., Gomez, I., & Morillo, F. (2003). Interdisciplinary in science: a tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237-1249.
Bordons, M., Zulueta, M. A., Romero, F., & Barrigon, S. (1999). Measurintg intedisciplinary colaboration within a university : the effects of the multidisciplinary resarch programme. Scientometrics, 46(3), 383-398.
Borgman, C. L., & Rice, R. E. (1992). The convergence of information science and communication: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(6), 397-411.
Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Borner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351-374.
Braam, R. R., Moed, H. F., van Raan, A. F. J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1991). Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis. I. Structural aspects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(4), 233-251.
Bracken, J. K., & Tucker, J. M. (1989). Characteristics of the journal literature of bibliographic instruction. College & Research Libraries, 50, 665-673.
Brandt, D. S. (2007). Librarians as partners in e-research : Purdue University libraries promote collaboration. College & Research Libraries News, 68(6), 365-367, 396.
Braun, T., & Schubert, A. (2003). A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in sciences 1980-1999. Scientometrics, 58(1), 183-189.
Broadus, R. N. (1971). The literature of the social sciences: A survey of citation studies. International Social Science Journal 13(2), 236-243.
Butter, L. (1991). Analyzing the library periodical literature : content and authorship. College & Research Libraries, 38-53.
Cano, V. (1999). Bibliometric overview of library and information science research in Spain. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(8), 675-680.
Carayol, N., & Thi, T. U. N. (2005). Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research? Research Evaluation, 14(1), 70-79.
Cheung, K.-f. (1990). Interdisciplinary relationships between social work and other disciplines : A citation study. Social Work Research & Abstracts, 26(3).
Choi, J. M. (1988a). An analysis of authorship in anthropology journals, 1963 and 1983. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian, 6(3/4), 85-94 s.
Choi, J. M. (1988b). Citation analysis of intra- and interdisciplinary communication patterns of anthropology in the U.S.A. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian, 6(3/4), 65-84.
Chung, Y.-K. (1995). Characteristics of references in international classification systems literature. Library Quarterly, 65(2), 200-215.
Cline, G. S. (1982). College & Research Libraries :its first forty years. College & Research Libraries, 43(2), 208-232.
Cole, S. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences. American Journal of Sociology 89(8), 111-139.
Cotta, C., & Merelo, J.-J. (2005). The complex network of evolutionary computation authors : an initial study. Retrieved August 11, 2007, from http://www.iitk.au.uk/kangal/complexNetworkEC.pdf
Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & Barre, K. L. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 855-871.
Cunningham, S. J., & Dillon, S. M. (1997). Authorship patterns in information systems. Scientometrics, 39(1), 19-27.
Davidse, R. J., & Raan, A. F. J. v. (1997). Out of particles : impact of CERN, DESY and SLAC research to fields other than physics. Scientometrics, 40(2), 171-193.
Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G. G., & Foo, S. (2000). Journal as markers of intellectual space : journal co-citation analysis of information retriecal area, 1987-1997. Scientometrics, 47(1), 55-73.
Ding, Y., Foo, S., & Chowdhury, G. (1999). A bibliometric analysis of collaboration in the field of information retrieval. Internal inform and library review, 30, 367-376.
Earle, P., & Vickery, B. (1969). Social science literature use in the UK as indicated by citations. Journal of Documentation, 25(2), 123-141.
Eaton, J. P., Ward, J. C., Kumar, A., & Reingen, P. H. (1999). Structural analysis of co-author relationships and author productivity in selected outlets for consumer behavior research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(1), 39-59.
Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics : Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publisher.
El Kader, M. A., Ojasoo, T., Miquel, J. F., Okubo, Y., & Dore, J. C. (1998). Hierarchical author networks: an analysis of European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) publications. Scientometrics, 42(3), 405-421.
Farber, M. (2005). Single-authored publications in the sciences at Israeli universities. Journal of Information Science, 31(1), 62-66.
Garfield, E. (1963). Citation indexes in sociological and historical research. American Documentation, 14(4), 289-191.
Garfield, E. (1994). Research fronts. Current Contents, 41, 3-7.
Garfield, E. (2004). Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains literature. Journal of Information Science, 30(2), 119-145.
Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992). Of Nobel class:part 1. an overview of ISI studies on highly cited authors and Nobel laureates. Current Comments, 33, 116-126.
Glanzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998): a bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461-473.
Glanzel, W., & Czerwon, H. J. (1996). A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national regional and instututiona level. Scientometrics, 37(2), 195-221.
Glanzel, W., & De Lange, C. (1997). Modeling and measuring multilateral co authorship in international scientific collaboration. Part 2. A comparative study on the extent and change of international scientific collaboration links. Scientometrics, 40(3), 605-626.
Goodall, G., Julien, H., Lajoie-Paquette, D., & Mckechnie, L. (2005). How human information behaviour researchers use each other''s work: a basic citation analysis study. Information Research, 10(2). Retrieved August 11, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/10-2/paper220.html
Gu, Y. (2004). Global knowledge management research : a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 61(2), 171-190.
Gupta, B. M., & Karisiddappa, C. R. (1998). Collaboration in theoretical population genetics specialty. Scientometrics, 42(3), 349-376.
Hargens, L. L. (1986). Migration patterns of U. S. PH.D.s among disciplines and specialities. Scientometrics, 9(3-4), 145-164.
Hart, R. (1990). Funded and Non-Funded Research: Characteristics of Authorship and Patterns of Collaboration in the 1986 Library and Information Science Literature. Library and Information Science Research, 12(1), 71-86.
Hart, R. L. (2000). Co-authorship in the academic library literature: a survey of attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(5), 339-345.
Heffner, A. G. (1979). Authorship Recognition of Subordinates in Collaborative Research. Social Studies of Science, 9(3), 377-384.
Heffner, A. G. (1981). Funded research, multiple authorship, and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics, 3(1), 5-12.
Hinze, S. (1999). Collaboration and cross disciplinarity in autoimmune diseases. Scientometrics, 46(3), 457-471.
Hollis, A. (2001). Coauthorship and the output of academic economists. Labour Economists, 8(4), 503-530.
Huang, M.-H., Chiang, L.-Y., & Chen, D.-Z. (2003). Constructing a patent citation map using bibliographic coupling : a study of Taiwan''s high-tech companies. Scientometrics, 58(3), 489-506.
Hurd, J. M. (1992). Interdisciplinary research in the sciences : Implications for library organization. College & Research Libraries, 53(4), 283-297.
Jarneving, B. (2001). The cognitive structure of current cardiovascular research. Scientometrics, 50(3), 365-189.
Jarneving, B. (2005). A comparison of two bibliometric methods for mapping of the research front. Scientometrics, 65(2), 245-263.
Jones, C., Champman, M., & Woods, P. C. (1972). The characteristics of the literature used by historians. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 4(3), 137-156.
Kageura, K., & Yoshikane, F. (2004). Comparative analysis of coauthorship networks of different domains: the growth and change of networks. Scientometrics, 60(3), 433-444.
Karki, R. (1996). Searching for bridges between disciplines: an author co-citation analysis on the research into scholarly communication. Journal of Information Science, 22(5), 323-334.
Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541-554.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1-18.
Kessler, M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Journal of American Documentation, 14, 10-25.
Kessler, M. (1965). Comparison of the results of bibliographic coupling and analytic subject indexing. American Documentation, 16(3), 223-233.
Khawam, Y. (1992). L''apport de la bibliometrie aux recherches interdisciplinares. Le cas de l''intelligence artificielle. The contribution of library science to interdisciplinary research: the example of artificial intelligence. Documentaliste, 29(3), 129-135.
Khawam, Y. J. (1990). Citation patterns in the artificial intelligence journal literature : a study in the determination of an interdisciplinary research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.
Kim, H.-s. (1990). An essay on semantic shift. In J. M. Pemberton & A. E. Prentice (Eds.), Information science : the interdisciplinary context (pp. 103-114). New York: Neal-Schuman.
Kishel, D. A. (1986). Coauthor group development among scientists involved in gravitational wave. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University,
Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries : knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia.
Knievel, J. E., & Kellsey, C. (2005). Citation analysis for collection development: A comparative study of eight humanities fields. Library Quarterly 75(2), 142-168.
Kretschmer, H. (1997). Patterns of behaviour in co authorship networks of invisible colleges. Scientometrics, 40(3), 579-591.
Kuusi, O., & Meyer, M. (2007). Anticipating technological breakthroughts : using bibliographic coupling to explore the nanotubes paradigm. Scientometrics, 70(3), 759-777.
LaBonte, K. B. (2005). Citation analysis : a method for collection development for a rapidly developing field. Issues in Science and Technology librarianship, 43. Retrieved August 11, 2007, from http://www.istl.org/05-summer/refereed.html
LaBorie, T., & Halperin, M. (1976). Citation patterns in library science dissertations. Journal of education for Librarianship, 16, 271-283.
Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, E. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks : a comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519-533.
Liang, L., Guo, Y., & Davis, M. (2002). Collaborative patterns and age structures in Chinese publications. Scientometrics, 54(3), 473-489.
Lipetz, B.-A. (1999). Aspects of JASIS authorship through five decades. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(11), 994-1003.
Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1462-1480.
Liu, Z., & Wang, C. (2005). Mapping interdisciplinarity in demography: a journal network analysis. Journal of Information Science, 31(4), 308-316.
March, J. G. (1965). Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.
McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: a technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433-443.
McCain, K. W. (1991). Core journal networks and cocitation maps : new bibliometric tools for serials research and management. Library Quarterly, 61(3), 311-336.
McCain, K. W. (1991). Mapping economics through the journal literature : an experiment in journal cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(4), 290-296.
McCain, K. W. (1998a). Neural networks research in context : a longitudinal journal cocitional analysis of an emerging interdisdiplinary field. Scientometrics, 41(3), 389-410.
McCain, K. W. (1998b). Neural networks research in context: A longitudinal journal cocitation analysis of an emerging interdisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 41(3), 389-410.
McDowell, J. M., & Melvin, M. (1983). The Determinants of Co-Authorship: An Analysis of the Economics Literature. Review of Economics and Statistics, 65(1), 155-160.
Meho, L. I., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2000). Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance:a case study of Kurdish scholarship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 123-138.
Meyer, T., & Spencer, J. (1996). A citation analysis study of library science : who cites librarians? College and Research Libraries, 57(1), 23-33.
Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network : disciplinary cohesion from 1963-1999. American Sociological Review, 69, 213-238.
Moore, M. E., Vaughan, K. T. L., Hayes, B. E., & McLendon, W. (2005). Developing and interdisciplinary collaboration center in an academic health sciences library. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 24(4), 99-107.
Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gomez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinary in science : a tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237-1249.
Morris, S. A., Yen, G., Wu, Z., & Asnake, B. (2003). Time line visualization of research fronts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 413-422.
Moya-Anegon, F., Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z., Corera-Alvarez, E., Herrero-Solana, V., Munoz-Fernandez, F. J., & Vargas-Quesada, B. (2004). A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories. Scientometrics, 61(1), 129-145.
Mullins, N. C. (1973). Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology. New York: Harper & Row.
Neeley, J. D. (1981). The management and social science literatures : an interdisciplinary cross-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 217-223.
Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404-409.
Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(Suppl.1), 5200-5205.
Norris, R. P. (1993). Authorship patterns in CJNR : 1970-1991. Scientometrics, 28(2), 151-158.
Noyons, E. (2001). Bibliometric mapping of science in a science policy context. Scientometrics, 50(1), 83-98.
Odell, J. & Gabbard, R. (2008). The interdisciplinary influence of library and information science 1996-2004:a journal-to-journal citation analysis. College & Research Libraries, 69(6), 546-564.
Oh, W., Choi, J. N., & Kim, K. (2006). Coauthorship dynamics and knowledge capital : the patterns of cross-disciplinary collaboration in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 265-292.
Oppenheim, C. (1995). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for British library and information science university department. Journal of Documentation, 51(1), 18-27.
Ortega, L., & Antell, K. (2006). Tracking cross-disciplinary information use by author affiliation : demonstration of a method. College & Research Libraries, 67(5), 446-462.
Pair, C. L. (1980). Switching between academic disciplines in universities in the Nertherlands. Scientometrics, 2(3), 177-191.
Palmer, C. L., & Neumann, L. J. (2002). The information work of interdisciplinary humanities scholars : exploration and translation. Library Quarterly, 72(1), 85-117.
Persson, O. (1994). The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986-1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 31-38.
Peters, H. P. F., Braam, R. R., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1995). Cognitive resamblance and citation relations in chemical engineering publicaitons. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(1), 19-21.
Pierce, S. J. (1990). Boundary crossing in research literatures as a means of interdisciplinary information transfer. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 271-279.
Pieters, R., & Baumgartner, H. (2002). Who talks to whom? intra- and interdisciplinary communication of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 483-509.
Ponzi, L. J. (2002). The intellectual structure and interdisciplinary breadth of Knowledge Management: A bibliometric study of its early stage of development. Scientometrics, 55(2), 259-272.
Porter, A. L., & Chubin, D. E. (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 8(3/4), 161-176.
Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S., & Perreault, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary research : meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 187-195.
Price, D. J. d. (1965). Networks of Scientific Papers. Science, 149(3683), 510-515.
Price, D. J. d., & Beaver, D. D. B. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychology, 21, 1011-1018.
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348-349.
Qin, J. (1994). An investigation of research collaboration in the sciences through the philosophical transaction 1901-1991. Scientometrics, 29(2), 219-238.
Qiu, L. (1992). A study of interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Evaluation, 2(3), 169-175.
Raan, A. F. J. v., & Leeuwen, T. N. v. (2002). Assessment of the scientific basis of interdeisciplinarity, applied research : application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research. Research Policy, 31, 611-632.
Rigney, D., & Barnes, D. (1980). Patterns of Interdisciplinary Citation in the Social Sciences. Social Science Quarterly, 61, 114-127.
Rinia, E. J. (2007). Measurement and evaluation of interdisciplinary research and knowledge transfer. Leiden University.
Rinia, E. J., Leeuwen, T. N. v., Bruins, E. E. W., Vuren, H. G. v., & Raan, A. F. J. v. (2002). Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics, 54(3), 347-362.
Rinia, E. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Bruins, E. E. W., Van Vuren, H. G., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange. Scientometrics, 51(1), 293-309.
Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 35(11), 1343-1357
Sampson, Z. J. (1995). Authorship counts. Forty years of the Physical Review and Physical Review Letters. Scientometrics, 32(2), 219-226.
Sanz-Casado, E., Martin-Moreno, C., Garcia-Zorita, C., & Lascurain-Sanchez, M. L. (2004). Study of interdisciplinarity in chemistry research based on the production of Puerto Rican scientists 1992-2001. Information Research, 9(4). Retrieved August 11, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/9-4/paper182.html
Sanz-Menendez, L., Bordons, M., & Zulueta, N. A. (2001). Interdisciplinarity as a multidimensional concept : its measure in three different research areas. Research Evaluation, 10(1), 47-58.
Schrader, A. M. (1985). A bibliometric study of JEL, 1960-1984. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 25, 279-300.
Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425-465.
Schwechheimer, H., & Winterhager, M. (2001). Mapping interdisciplinary research fronts in neuroscience: a bibliometric view to retrograde amnesia. Scientometrics, 51(1), 311-318.
Sharabchiev, J. T. (1989). Cluster analysis of bibliographic references as a scientometric method. Scientometrics, 15(1-2), 127-137.
Shirabe, M., & Tomizawa, H. (2002). Likelihood of overseas access to international co authorships. Scientometrics, 53(1), 123-129.
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(4), 265-269.
Small, H. (1981). Knowledge representation via co-citation clusters: The information community: an alliance for progress proceedings of the 4Fourth ASIS Annual Meeting 1981., edited by Lois F. Lunin, Madeline Henderson and Harold Wooster, White Plains, New York, Knowledge Industry Publications Inc. for the American Society for Information Science, 1981 The information community: an alliance for progress proceedings of the 4Fourth ASIS Annual Meeting 1981. Volume 18. Washington, DC October 25-30, 1981, 330 (abstract only.
Small, H. (1981). The relationship of information science to the social sciences-a co-citation analysis. Information Processing and Management, 17(1), 39-50 s.
Small, H. (1999a). A passage through science: crossing disciplinary boundaries. Library Trends, 48(1), 72-108.
Small, H. (1999b). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799-813.
Small, H., & Griffith, B. C. (1974). The structure of scientific literatures I : identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, 4(1), 17-40.
Small, H. G. (1976). Structural dynamics of scientific literature. International Classification, 3(2), 67-74.
Small, H. G., & Koenig, M. E. D. (1977). Journal cuustering using a bibliographic coupling method. Information Processing & Management, 13, 277-288.
Snow, C. P. (2000). The two cultures. 林志成、劉藍玉(譯)。兩種文化。 臺北市: 貓頭鷹。
Song, C.-H. (2003). Interdisciplinarity and knowledge inflow/outflow structure among science and engineering research in Korea. Scientometrics, 58(1), 129-141.
Steele, T. W., & Stier, J. C. (2000). The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences : a forestry case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(5), 476-484.
Stefaniak, B. (2001). International cooperation in science and in social sciences as reflected in multinational papers indexed in SCI and SSCI. Scientometrics, 52(2), 193-210.
Tang, R. (2004). Evolution of the interdisciplinary characteristics of information and library science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 54-63.
Taylor, R. (1966). Professional Aspects of Information Science and Technology. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 1, 15-40.
Terry, J. L. (1996). Authorship in College & Research Libraries revisited : gender, instiutional affiliation, collaboration. College & Research Libraries, 57(4), 377-383.
Thi, T. U. N., & Lahatte, A. (2003). Measuring and assessing relative disciplinary openness in university research units. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 29-37.
Tijssen, R. J. W. (1992). A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology : co-classification analysis of energy research. Research Policy, 21, 27-44.
Tomov, D. T., & Mutafov, H. G. (1996). Comparative indicators of interdisciplinarity in modern science. Scientometrics, 37(2), 267-278.
Urata, H. (1990). Information flows among academic disciplines in Japan. Scientometrics, 18(3-4), 309-319.
Vakkari, P. (1994). Library and Information Science: Its Content and Scope. Advances in Librarianship, 18, 1-54.
Van Raan, A. (2000). The interdisciplinary nature of science : theoretical framework and bibliometric-empirical approach. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 66-78). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Westbrook, J. H. (1960). Identifying significant research. Science, 132(3435), 1229-1234.
White, H. D. (1983). A cocitation map of the Social Indicators Movement. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(5), 307-312.
White, H. D. (1990). Author co-citation analysis : overview and defense. In C. L. Borgman (Ed.), Scholarly communication and bibliometrics (pp. 84-106). Newbury Park: Sage.
White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163-171.
White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327-355.
Zhao, D. (2006). Towards all-author co-citation analysis. Information Processing & Management, 42, 1578-1591.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔