跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.208.132.74) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/09/26 08:40
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:王鈞湄
研究生(外文):Chun-Mei Wang
論文名稱:適用於人文社會學者之非傳統學術指標研究
論文名稱(外文):Exploring alternative metrics for scholarly performance in social science and humanities in Taiwan
指導教授:唐牧群唐牧群引用關係
口試委員:陳光華藍文欽
口試日期:2013-07-22
學位類別:碩士
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
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:中文
論文頁數:80
中文關鍵詞:學術評量學術傳播科學計量學
外文關鍵詞:scholarly evaluationscholarly communicationscientometrics
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:1247
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:49
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
傳統上欲呈現一位學者之學術表現時,多由其各類型著作之數量及著作被引用之數量著手,以這些指標進行學術表現呈現,其中又以學術期刊論文之著作數與被引數為主要利用之數據。對於人文及社會兩個學科的學者而言,在其學術性著作中圖書相當重要,在非學術性之一般性報章雜誌中亦有文章出版,近年來網際網路中之學術活動亦蓬勃發展—然而,上述非傳統之資源在傳統的學術表現呈現方法中皆未包含,也使得人文社會學者的學術表現呈現,在現行之方法下並不完整。本研究以臺灣大學人文社會高等院之計畫參與學者為研究對象,旨在探討由人文社會學者之學科特色觀察,有哪些可用於呈現學術表現之非傳統指標,並配合傳統之著作與引文指標,以及得獎和計畫數兩項學術成就指標進行分析。結果顯示,非傳統指標有做為學術表現指標之潛力,且其所呈現之學術表現面向與傳統指標不完全相同,且對學術表現指標有一定影響力,可補足傳統指標未能包含之學術表現。此外,人文及社會學者兩學科間之分析結果亦存在顯著差異,因此於選用呈現學術表現之指標時,亦應考量各學科特色進行調整。同時選用傳統及非傳統指標,加以不同學科之學科特色考量,方能完整呈現一位人文社會學者之學術表現。

While presenting the scholarly performance, traditionally the number of publications and their citation counts are used as indicators, and journal-related indicators have long been de facto measures of performance. However, in social science and humanities, publications besides journal, for example books and articles in press and non-scholarly periodicals, are also important. The Web has also been a place where influences of scholarly activities manifest themselves. None of these aforementioned publication or resources is included in traditional scholarly performace indicators. This research aimed to explore non-traditional performance indicators that take into account the characteristics of social science and humanities in order to better reflect the scholarly performance. Data of scholars from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences in National Taiwan University were collected for analysis. Traditional and non-traditional performance inicators were collected and tested against two scholarly standing indicators. The results are that non-traditional indicators collected are able to reflect the scholarly performance, and the facets they reflected are different from traditional indicators. The results suggest the need to include non-traditional indicators to better reflect the scholar performance of social science and humanities. Furthermore, noticeable diffrerences were also found between social science and humanities. The analysis indicated that the inclusion of both traditional and non-traditional indicators will make the measure more comprehensive for social science and humanitie scholars.

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
目 次 iii
圖目次 v
表目次 vi
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 問題陳述 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 3
第二章 文獻分析 5
第一節 學科分類與學科特色 5
第二節 人文社會科學的學術成果呈現 9
第三節 網際網路中的學術指標研究 13
第三章 研究設計與實施 20
第一節 研究方法 20
第二節 研究對象 34
第三節 研究限制 35
第四節 研究步驟 36
第四章 研究結果 38
第一節 各項指標之敘述統計 38
第二節 相關分析 47
第三節 因素分析 54
第四節 迴歸分析 56
第五節 判別分析 66
第五章 結論 69
第一節 可運用之非傳統指標的探索 69
第二節 傳統指標與非傳統指標之分析 70
第三節 人文與社會學者間的差異 72
第四節 未來研究建議 73
參考文獻 74


王梅玲(民94年)。大學研究評鑑與引文分析應用。圖書館學與資訊科學,31(1), 5-13。
吳紹群(民99年)。臺灣地區人文學學術出版與學術傳播之研究。未出版之博士論文,國立臺灣大學圖書與資訊學研究所。
吳紹群、吳明德(民96年)。開放資訊取用期刊對學術傳播系統之影響。圖書資訊學研究,2,1,21-54。
吳紹群、陳雪華(民100年)。人文學專書出版問題對學術傳播之影響。大學圖書館,15(2),39-61。
邱炯友(民95年)學術傳播與期刊出版。臺北市:遠流。
邱皓政(民99年)量化研究法(二)統計原理與分析技術。臺北市:雙葉書廊。
袁大鈺、林奇秀(民97年)。資訊傳播科技與非正式學術傳播:社會取向的實證研究回顧。圖書與資訊學刊,69(1:2),52-77。
黃寬重(民100年12月)。建立適合人文社會學科學術發展之評鑑機制研究計劃初步報告。高等教育論壇-人文社會領域發展,國立臺灣大學。
曾元顯(民99年)。世界大學網路排名-分析與應用。評鑑雙月刊,25,42-46。
陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(民)。多變量分析方法—統計軟體應用(四版)。
張慧銖(民96年)。積極建立人文學門教師研究力評鑑指標。評鑑雙月刊,5,42-43。
黃慕萱、張郁蔚(民94年)。從研究產出探討人文社會學者學術評鑑之特性。圖書資訊學刊,2(3/4),1-19。
蔡明月(民93年)。論資訊計量學。圖書館學與資訊科學,30(2),83-91。
蔡明月(民94年)。引文索引與引文分析之探討。圖書館學與資訊科學,31(1),45-53。
Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91, 343-351.
Aguillo, I. F., Granadino, B., Ortega, J. L., & Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1296-1302.
Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., & Fernandez, M. (2008). Webometric ranking of world universities: Introduction, methodology, and future developments. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2-3), 233-244.
Archambault, E., Gagne, E.-T., Cote, G., Lariviere, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329-342.
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.
Bjorneborn, L., & Ingwersen, P. (2004). Toward a Basic Framework for Webometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science And Technology, 55(14), 1216-1227.
Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 36, pp. 3-72). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Carroll, J. S., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Weighted-additive model..In J. S. Carroll & E. J. Johnson, Decision research: a field guide (pp. 47-70). London: Sage.
Clemens, E. S., Powell, W. W., McIlwaine, K., & Okamoto, D. (1995). Careers in print: Books, journals, and scholarly reputations. American Journal of Sociology, 101(2), 433-494.
Finkenstaedt, T. (1990.) Measuring research performance in the humanities. Scientometrics, 19(5-6), 409-417.
Fry, J. (2004). Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic approach. Information Processing & Management, 42(1), 299-316.
Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2004). The cultural shaping of scholarly communication: explaining e-journal use within and across academic fields ASIST 2004: Proceedings of the 67th ASIST Annual Meeting (Vol. 41, pp. 20-30). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Gavel, Y., & Iselid, L. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32(1), 8–21.
Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193-215.
Hicks, D. (2005) The four literatures of social sciences. Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 1(1), 1-20.
Jepsen, E., Seiden, P., Ingwersen, P., Bjorneborn, L., & Borlund, P. (2004). Characteristics of scientificWeb publications: Preliminary data gathering and analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(14), 1239–1249.
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007a). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055-1065.
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007b). The Web impact of open-access social science research. Library and Information Science Research, 29, 495–507.
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of disciplinary research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2060-2069.
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google Book Search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1537-1549.
Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2010). Using the Web for research evaluation: The Integrated Online Impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 124-135.
Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2147-2164.
Mayr, P., & Walter, A. (2008). Studying Journal Coverage in Google Scholar. Journal of Library Administration, 47(1/2), 81-98.
Meho, L.I., & Sugimoto, C.R. (2009). Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases—Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2499-2508.
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.
Moed, H. F., Luwel, M., & Nederhof, A.J. (2002) Towards research performance in the Humanities. Library Trends, 50(3), 498-520.
Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. , Berlin:Springer.
Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Science and the Humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100.
Nederhof, A. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Van Raan, A. (2010). Highly cited non-journal publications in political science, economics and psychology: a first exploration. Scientometrics, 83, 363-374.
Nederhof, A. J., Zwaan, R. A., de Bruin, R. E., & Dekker, P. J. (1989). Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social sciences. Scientometrics, 15, 423–435.
Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H.(2008). Data sources for performing citation analysis: An overview. Journal of Documentation, 64(2), 193-210.
Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1 (2), 161-169.
Palmer, C. L. (2005). Scholarly Work and the Shaping of Digital Access. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(11), 1140-1153.
Priem, J., & Costello, K. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting.
Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7-5).
Priem, J., Parra, C., Piwowar, H., & Waagmeester, A. (2011). Uncovering impacts: CitedIn and total-impact, two new tools for gathering altmetrics Retrieved Dec 10, 2011, from http://jasonpriem.org/self-archived/two-altmetrics-tools.pdf
Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Hemminger, B. (2011). Altmetrics in the wild: An exploratory study of impact metrics based on social media. Paper presented at the Metrics 2011: Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (26 October 2010). Alt-metrics: A manifesto, (v.1.0), 2012, from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto
Sivertsen, G., & Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: an empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91(2), 567-575.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 605-621.
Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2004). Do the Web sites of higher rated scholars have significantly more online impact? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 149-159.
Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2008). Online presentations as a source of scientific Impact?:An analysis of powerpoint files citing academic journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 805-815.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2006) The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 66(1), 133-154.
Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2003). Bibliographic and Web citations: What is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(14), 1313–1324.
Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2005). Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1075-1087.
Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2008). A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics, 74(2), 317-330.
Vieira, E., & Gomes, J. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 82(2), 587-600.
Waworuntu, B., & Holsinger, D. B. (1989). The research productivity of Indonesian professors of higher education. Higher Education, 18, 167-187.
Weller, K., & Puschmann, C. (2011, June 14-17 2011). Twitter for scientific communication: How can citations/references be identified and measured? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM WebSci''11, Koblenz, Germany.
White, H. D., Boell, S. K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C. S., & et al. (2009). Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1083-1096.
Whitley, R. (2000). The Social and intellectual organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top