臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究以2001年至2013年諾貝爾物理學獎得主之著作為研究樣本，比較八個商業資料庫(Scopus和Web of Science)與開放取用系統(搜尋引擎：Google Scholar、Microsoft Academic；匯集式機構典藏系統：OpenDOAR、OAIster；學科性開放取用系統：arXiv.org和Astrophysics Data System)，於物理學文獻收錄之正確性、完整性、重複性(包含內部重複與外部重複性)和獨特性，並評析各資料庫與系統之檢索功能、資料呈現等面向。期望能對圖書館資料庫選購以及使用者檢索資料庫與系統提供建議，並為各資料庫與系統之未來發展提出建議。
研究結果顯示：(一)諾貝爾物理學獎得主之個人著作揭露情形尚未普遍；(二)商業資料庫檢索功能較為多元，搜尋引擎容錯機制較強；(三)開放取用系統Astrophysics Data System和Microsoft Academic改版上線後，檢索功能Google化，重視全文鏈結、圖像化資訊呈現與語意網連結資訊；(四)各資料庫與系統普遍出現書目著錄格式不統一之問題，影響書目品質與檢索效率；(五)一般而言搜尋引擎資料完整性高於商業資料庫，商業資料庫高於機構典藏系統，但學科性開放取用系統Astrophysics Data System之資料收錄完整性僅低於Google Scholar；(六) arXiv內部重複性最低，Google Scholar和OpenDOAR內部重複性最高；(七)開放取用系統彼此重複性高，且與搜尋引擎Google Scholar和Astrophysics Data System重複性達100%。由於各資料庫與系統之收錄範圍各不相同，不同資料庫與系統亦提供不同的功能，使用者應依個人資訊需求與目的選擇資料庫與系統使用，如欲檢索物理學文獻，使用搜尋引擎與開放取用系統Astrophysics Data System可獲得較完整之文獻：若使用者欲取得引文分析之相關資訊，則以選擇商業資料庫Scopus和Web of Science為佳，亦可選擇Astrophysics Data System。

In this study, scholarly communication system of commercial services and open access will be examined through comprehensiveness, overlap and database variation of coverage via field operations of commercial citation index databases (Web of Science and Scopus) and open access citation system (search engine: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic; disciplinary of physics: arXiv.org and Astrophysics Data System; prestigious institutional repository: OAIster and OpenDOAR). Retrievals will be conducted in the two commercial databases, two search engines, and four open access systems stated above to analyze and compare their retrieval interfaces, and evaluations of each system will be made as well according to presentation and output of retrieval results. Noble laureates in physics sciences from 2001 to 2013 are selected as samples in this study. Records of their publications over time will be retrieved and downloaded from each system, and a computer program will be developed to perform the analytical tasks of sorting, comparison, elimination, aggregation and statistics. Bibliographic records retrieved from the two databases and six systems will undertake quantitative analyses and cross references to determine the comprehensiveness and uniqueness of their system coverage. The results of the study may provide better references for libraries to acquire citation index databases, to build institutional repositories, or to create citation index systems on their own in the future. Suggestions on indices and tools for academic assessment will be presented based on the comprehensiveness assessment of each system as well.

圖目錄 ..............................................VIII
表目錄 ................................................XI
第一章 緒論 .........................................1
第一節 研究背景及動機 ...................................1
第二節 研究目的 .......................................3
第三節 研究問題 ......................................4
第四節 名詞解釋 ......................................5
第二章 文獻探討 ....................................7
第一節 網路計量學 .......................................7
一、網路計量學的意涵 .....................................7
二、網路計量學的興起背景 ..................................8
三、網路計量學的研究範疇 ................................9
第二節 學術傳播與商業資料庫及開放取用系統 .................10
一、學術傳播從傳統商業經營至開放取用 ......................10
二、商業資料庫之簡介 ....................................14
三、開放取用系統簡介 ....................................16
四、系統功能與介面評鑑 ..................................25
第三節 資料重複性及獨特性評鑑 ............................26
第三章 研究設計與實施 .................................33
第一節 研究設計 .......................................33
第二節 研究範圍與限制 ...................................36
一、研究範圍 ...........................................36
二、研究限制 ...........................................37
第三節 研究步驟與流程 ...................................39
第四章 研究結果分析與討論 .............................42
第一節 諾貝爾物理學獎得主概述 ............................42
一、諾貝爾物理學獎得主概述 ...............................43
二、諾貝爾物理學獎得主個人著作揭露情形分析 .................48
第二節 從檢索實作、系統功能介面分析各資料庫與系統之問題 .....55
一、檢索實作與介面說明 ..................................56
二、資料庫與系統功能之分析比較 ...........................81
三、 資料庫與系統之相關問題分析 ..........................90
第三節 諾貝爾獎物理學得主著作之資料庫完整性與重複性分析 ....113
一、完整性分析 ........................................113
二、重複性與獨特性分析 .................................114
第五章 結論與建議 ......................................124
第一節 結論 ...........................................124
第二節 建議 ...........................................128
第三節 未來研究建議 ....................................129
參考來源 .............................................130

CONCERT(2010)。Web of Science 中文使用手冊。取自http://ppt.cc/Px1Z。
Elsevier Taiwan(2013)。Scopus 操作說明書。取自http://taiwan.elsevier.com/htmlmailings/Scopus-QRG-2010.pdf。
Elsevier(2013)。SCOPUS資料庫簡介。取自http://ppt.cc/a~zv。
Google(2013)。Google簡介。取自http://www.google.com.tw/about/company/。
丁學東(1993)。文獻計量學基礎。北京：北京大學出版社。
毛慶禎譯(2008)。Open Acccess-開放取用機會及挑戰手冊。Library & Book，German頁5。
毛慶禎譯(2012)。布達佩斯公開取用倡議Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)，在圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678959/。
何光國(1994)。文獻計量學導論。臺北：三民。
何琳(2009)。OpenDOAR和機構知識庫發展現狀。圖書館工作與研究，2009(2)，30-33。
吳孟瑾(2013)。引用文獻索引資料庫-Google Scholar，在認識大學排名系列報導。取自http://www.lib.nctu.edu.tw/html/categoryid-34/id-165/
吳明德(1991)。館藏發展。臺北：漢美。
李治安、林懿萱(2007)。從傳統到開放的學術期刊出版：開放取用出版相關問題初探。圖書館學與資訊科學，33(1)，39-52。
邱均平(2010)。網絡計量學。北京：科學出版社。
邱炯友(2006)。學術傳播與其刊出版。臺北：遠流。
CONCERT(2016)，Web of Science 簡介。取自http://concert.stpi.narl.org.tw/database/31 。
財團法人國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心主編(2009)。開放取用的機會與展望。臺北市：財團法人國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心。
張洋(2009)。網絡信息計量學：理論與實證研究。北京：科學出版社。
陳光華(2009)。引文索引與臺灣學術期刊之經營。人文與社會科學簡訊，10(3)，68-81。
陳亞寧(民93)。開放式資訊取用之現況發展分析。圖書與資訊學刊，51,89-108。
陳薇竹(2007)。引用文獻索引資料庫之比較硏究。政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所，未出版碩士論文，臺北市。
馮玉(2007)。Scopus文摘數據庫及其檢索利用。情報科學，25(3)，401-403,413。
劉琼(2005)。美國25名諾貝爾獎得主致國會公開信支持學術論文的開放訪問。圖書館雜誌，24(6)，63-64。
蔡明月(2003)。資訊計量學與文獻特性。臺北：國立編譯館。
Almind, T.C., Ingwersen, P. (1997). Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: methodological approaches to “webometrics”. Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 404-426.
ArXive (2013). arXiv introduction. Retrieved form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv.
ArXiv (2013). arXiv.org Search. Retrieved form http://arXiv.org/find.
Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century — A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1-52.
Berkeley library (2013). Search engine criteria. Retrieved form http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/SrchEngCriteria.pdf.
Borgman, C. L. (1990). Editor’s introduction. Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics. Newbury Park, Sage, 13-16.
Bossy, M.J. (1995). The last of the litter: "Netometrics." Solaris, 2 (special issue on "Les sciences de ('information: Bibliometrie, scientomotrie, infometrie"). Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Retrieved from http://biblio-fr.info.unicaen.fr/bnum/jelec/Solaris/d02/2bossy.html.
Bourne, C. P. (1969). Characteristics of coverage by the bibliography of agriculture of the literature relating to agricultural research and development, In Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information(Va.22151). Springfield.
Budapest Open Access Initiative(2013). Budapest open Access initiative. Retrieved form http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/.
Budd, J. M. (2012). The communities of the academic library. In The changing academic library(2nd ed), Unite States: Association of College and Research Libraries(ACRL).
Calhoun, K. (2008).Online catalogs: what users and librarians want? An OCLC report. Retrieved form http://ppt.cc/cq4F.
Chu, H. (1996). Search engines for the world wide web: A comparative study and evaluation methodology. In ASIS 1996 Annual Conference proceedings.
Doszkocs, T. (1977). Estimating citation overlap in a milti-file retrieval system, In Information Management in the 1980’s: Proceedings of 40th ASIS Annual Meeting (Chicago, vol.14), White Plains, N. Y. :Knowledge Industry Publications for American Society for Information Science, x.
Esmaeil, S. M. & Kiaie, R. M. & Ketab, F. (2011). A comparison between search engines and Meta-Search engines in retrieving information related to physics and the extent of their overlap. Library and Information Studies, 22. 3, 130-140.
GetZ, M. (2009). Open access scholarship and publishing, In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences(Third Edition). Retrieved form http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044492#.UmDK0lBkObY.
Google (2013). Google scholar. Retrieved form http://scholar.google.com.tw/.
Hood, W. (1998). An informetric study of the distribution of bibliographic records in online databases: a case study using the literature of Fuzzy Set Theory (1965-1993). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales.
IDEAS (2013). IDEAS-Search. Retrieved form http://ideas.arXiv.org.org/search.html.
Ingwersen, P. (1998). The Calculation of Web Impact Factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(2), 236-243.
Jacsoó, P. (2005). Google scholar: The pros and cons. Online information review. 29(2): 208-214.
Julian, R. L. (1976). Comparison of printed bibliographic descriptions distributed by BIOSIS, CAS, EI. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27, 46-52.
LaBorie, T. (1985). Library and information science abstracting and index service: coverage, overlap, and context. Library and Information Science Research, 7(1), 183-195.
Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. ARL: A bimonthly report. 226, p.1-10. Retrieved form http://scholarship.utm.edu/21/1/Lynch,_IRs.pdf.
Martyn, J. (1967), Tests on abstracts journals: Coverage overlap and indexing. Journal of Documentation. 23, 45-70.
Nicholls, P. T. (1989). Bibliometrics of the laserdiscs applications literature. Laserdisk Professional, 2,106-109.
Notess, G. R. (2005). Scholarly web searching: Google Scholar and Scirus. Online. 29(4), 39-41.
O'Leary, M. (2005). Google Scholar: What's in it for You? Information Today, 22(7), 35‐39.
Okerson, A. (1989). Of making many books there is no end: Report on serial prices for the association of research Libraries, In Report of the ARL Serials Prices Project.
OpenDOAR (2010). The directory of open access repositories - OpenDOAR. Retrieved form http://www.opendoar.org/
Open Society Institute (OSI) (2009). Budapest Open Access Initiative: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm
Paisley, W. (1989). Bibliometrics, scholarly communication, and communication research. Communication Research, 16(5), 701-717.
Paisley, W. (1990). The future of bibliometrics. Borgman C.L. Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Newbury Park, CA. Sage, 281-299.
Poyer, P. K. (1984). Journal article overlap among index medicus, Science Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, and Chemical Abstracts. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 72(4), 353-357.
Rather, R. A. & Lone, F. A. & Shah, G. J. (2008). Overlap in web search tesults: A study of five search engines, library philosophy and practice.
Read, E. & Smith, C.(2000). Searching for library and information science literature: a comparison of coverage in three database. Library Computing, 19, 118-126.
Rousseau, R. (1997). Sitations: An Exploratory Study. Cybermetrics :International Journal of Scientometrics , Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 1(1), 1-9.
Science watch (2013). Successful predictions. Retrieved form http://ppt.cc/xA6s.
Scopus (2013). Scopus in detail: What does it cover? Retrieved form http://info.scopus.com/detail/what/.
Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal Of Information Science, 34(4), 605-621.
van Damme, D. (2001). Quality issues in the internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 41, 415-441.
Walters, W. H. & Wilder, E. I. (2003). Bibliographic index coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 54(14), 1305-1312.
Wang, L. & Wang, J. & Michael, L. & Yong, L. & Wang, Y. & Xu, D. (2012). Using internet search engines to obtain medical information: A comparative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(3).
Wood , J. L. & Flanagan, C. & Kennedy, H. E. (1972). Overlap in the List of Journals monitored by BIOSIS, CAS,Ei. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 23, 36-38.
Yerkey, N. & Glogowski, M.(1990). Scatter of library and information science topics among bibliographic data bases. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 41(4), 245-253.