請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/26314
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 黃慕萱(Mu-Hsuan Huang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Pei-Shan Chi | en |
dc.contributor.author | 紀佩姍 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T07:06:03Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2008-09-02 | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2008-08-26 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 2007 Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities. (2007). Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan Retrieved Feb 22, 2008, from http://www.heeact.edu.tw/ranking/index.htm
Academic Ranking of World Universities – 2007. (2007). Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Retrieved Feb 22, 2008, from http://www.arwu.org/rank/2007/ranking2007.htm Aksnes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33-41. America's Best Colleges 2008. (2008). U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved Feb 22, 2008, from http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankindex_brief.php Ball, P. (2005). Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature, 436(7053), 900-900. Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., & Martinez, A. S. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68(1), 179-189. Bonnet, X., Shine, R., & Lourdais, O. (2002). Taxonomic chauvinism. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(1), 1-3. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2005). Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics, 65(3), 391-392. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2006). Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review - A citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants. Scientometrics, 68(3), 427-440. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381-1385. Bourke, P., & Butler, L. (1996). Publication types, citation rates and evaluation. Scientometrics, 37(3), 473-494. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientist, 19(22), 8-8. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1), 169-173. Braun, T., Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1993). Scientometric indicators datafiles Scientometrics, 28(2), 137-150. Broadus, R. (1977). The application of citation analyses. Advances in Librarianship, 7, 299-335. Brown, E. R. (2000). The new UK quality framework. Higher Education Quarterly, 54(4), 323-342. Cano, V., & Lind, N. C. (1991). Citation life cycles of ten citation classics. Scientometrics, 22(2), 297-312. Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1971). Measuring the quality of sociological research: Problems with use of the science citation index. American Sociologist, 6(1), 23-&. Cole, S. (1989). Citations and the evaluation of individual scientists. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 14(1), 9-&. Cronin, B., & Meho, L. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1275-1278. Csajbok, E., Berhidi, A., Vasas, L., & Schubert, A. (2007). Hirsch-index for countries based on essential science indicators data. Scientometrics, 73(1), 91-117. Egghe, L. (2006a). How to improve the h-index. Scientist, 20(3), 15-15. Egghe, L. (2006b). An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(1), 8-9. Egghe, L. (2006c). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152. Egghe, L. (2007a). Dynamic h-index: The Hirsch index in function of time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(3), 452-454. Egghe, L. (2007b). Item-time-dependent Lotkaian informetrics and applications to the calculation of the time-dependent h-index and g-index. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 45(7-8), 864-872. Egghe, L. (2008a). Examples of simple transformations of the h-index: Qualitative and quantitative conclusions and consequences for other indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 136-148. Egghe, L. (2008b). The Influence of transformations on the h-index and the g-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8), 1304-1312. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2006). An informetric model for the Hirsch-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 121-129. Elkin, J. (2002). The UK research assessment exercise 2001. Libri, 52, 204-208. Folger, J. K., Astin, H. S., & Bayer, A. E. (1970). Human Resources and Higher Education; Staff Report of the Commission on Human Resources and Advance Education. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Frame, J. D. (1977). Mainstream research in Latin America and Caribbean. Interciencia, 2(3), 143-198. Frame, J. D. (1983). Quantitative indicators for evaluation of basic research programs/projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 30(3), 106-112. French, N. J., Massy, W. F., & Youth, K. (2001). Research assessment in Hong Kong. Higher Education 42, 37. Garfield, E. (1996). How can impact factors be improved? British Medical Journal, 313(7054), 411-413. Garfield, E. (1998). The Impact Factor and using it correctly. Unfallchirurg, 101(6), 413-414. Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: a brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979-980. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90-93. Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992). Citation data: their use as quantitative indicators for science and technology evaluation and policy-making. Science & Public Policy, 19(5), 321-327. Garg, K. C., & Padhi, P. (1998). Scientometric study of laser patent literature. Scientometrics, 43(3), 443-454. Geisler, E. (1992, April 24-29). Enaluation of R&D: Approaches, Methods, and Techniques. Paper presented at the TIMS/ORSA National Meeting, Orlando, FL. Geisler, E. (1994). Key output indicators in performance evaluation of research and development organizations Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 47(2), 189-203. Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277-304. Glänzel, W. (2006a). On the h-index - A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact. Scientometrics, 67(2), 315-321. Glänzel, W. (2006b). On the opportunities and limitations of the h-index. Science Focus, 1(1), 10-11. Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171-193. Guan, J. C., & Ma, N. (2004). A comparative study of research performance in computer science. Scientometrics, 61(3), 339-359. Harsanyi, M. A. (1993). Multiple authors, multiple problems - Bibliometrics and the study of scholarly collaboration: A literature review. Library and Information Science Research, 15(4), 325-354. He, T. W., Zhang, J. L., & Teng, L. R. (2005). Basic research in biochemistry and molecular biology in China: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 62(2), 249-259. Hecht, F., Hecht, B. K., & Sandberg, A. A. (1998). The journal 'impact factor': A misnamed, misleading, misused measure. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics, 104(2), 77-81. Hills, P. V., & Dale, A. J. (1995). Research and technology evaluation in the United Kingdom. Research Evaluation, 5(1), 35-44. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572. Hix, S. (2004). A Global Ranking of Political Science Departments [Electronic Version]. Retrieved Jan. 2008, from http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working%20Papers/Hix-Rankings-30Jan04.pdf Hodges, S., Hodges, B., Meadows, A. J., M., B., & Law, D. (1996). The use of an algorithmic approach for the assessment of research quality. Scientometrics, 35(1), 4. Iglesias, J. E., & Pecharroman, C. (2007). Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 73(3), 303-320. Ikpaahindi, L. (1985). An overview of bibliometerics: Its measurements ,law and their application. Libri, 35(2), 164-177. Imperial, J., & Rodriguez-Navarro, A. (2007). Usefulness of Hirsch's h-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain. Scientometrics, 71(2), 271-282. Jauch, L. R., & Glueck, W. F. (1975). Evaluation of university professors' research performance. Management Science, 22(1), 66-75. Jin, B. H. (2006). H-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus, 1(1), 8-9. Jin, B. H., Liang, L. M., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855-863. Karki, M. M. S., Garg, K. C., & Sharma, P. (2000). Activity and growth of organic chemistry research in India during 1971-1989. Scientometrics, 49(2), 279-288. Kelly, C. D., & Jennions, M. D. (2006). The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(4), 167-170. King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13(5), 261-276. Kokko, H., & Sutherland, W. J. (1999). What do impact factors tell us? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14, 382-384. Kostoff, R. N. (1995). Federal research impact assessment: Axioms, approaches, applications Scientometrics, 34(2), 163-206. Kostoff, R. N. (1996). Performance measures for government-sponsored research: Overview and background. Scientometrics, 36(3), 281-292. Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(1), 28-32. Lewison, G. (1998). New bibliometric techniques for the evaluation of medical schools. Scientometrics, 41(1-2), 5-16. Liang, L. M. (2006). h-index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 69(1), 153-159. Luwel, M., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, A. J., De Samblanx, V., Verbrugghen, K., & Van der Wurff, L. J. (1999). Towards indicators of research performance in the social sciences and humanities: an exploratoty study in the fields of law and linguistics ar flemish universities.: CWTS. Macharzina, K., & Oesterle, M. (1994). International comparative evaluation of North-American and German research output in bussiness and management. Management Internal Review, 34, 258. Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983a). Assessing basic research : Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12(2), 61-90. Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983b). Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12(2), 61-90. May, R. M. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science Education, 275, 793-796. Minasny, B., Hartemink, A. E., & McBratney, A. (2007). Soil science and the h index. Scientometrics, 73(3), 257-264. Moed, H. F. (1996). Differences in the construction of SCI based bibliometric indicators among various producers: A first overview. Scientometrics, 35(2), 177-191. Nagpaul, P. S. (1995). Contribution of Indian universities to the mainstream scientific literature: A bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics, 32(1), 11-36. Narin, F. (1994). Patent Bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 30(1), 147-155. Narin, F., & Frame, J. D. (1989). The growth of Japanese science and technology. Science, 245(4918), 600-605. Narin, F., & Hamilton, K. S. (1996). Bibliometric performance measures. Scientometrics, 36(3), 293-310. Narin, F., Olivastro, D., & Stevens, K. A. (1994). Bibliometrics theory, practice and problems. Evaluation Review, 18(1), 65-76. Nederhof, A. J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1993). A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups: a comparison with peer review. Research Policy, 22, 353-368. Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2003). Citation counts and the research assessment exercise V: archaeology and the 2001 RAE. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 709. Oppenheim, C. (2007). Using the h-index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 297-301. Opthof, T. (1997). Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovascular Research, 33(1), 1-7. Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications –theory, with application to literature of physics. Information Processing & Management, 12(5), 297-312. Popov, S. B. (2005). A parameter to quantify dynamics of a researcher's scientific activity [Electronic Version]. arXiv.org:physics/0508113 from accessible via http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508113. Pouris, A. (2003). South Africa's research publication record: the last ten years South African Journal of Science, 99, 425-428. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25, 348-349. Research Assessment Exercise 2001: Assessment Panels' Criteria and Working Methods. (December 1999). Retrieved Feb 22, 2008, from http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/5_99/ Roediger, H. L., III. (2006). The h-index in science: A new measure of scholarly contribution. Observer: The Academic Observer, 19(4). Rousseau, R. (2006a). A case study : evolution of JASIS' Hirsch index [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 17 January 2006, from http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00005430/ Rousseau, R. (2006b). New developments related to the Hirsch index [Electronic Version], from http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00006376/ Rousseau, R. (2006c). Simple models and the corresponding h- and g-index [Electronic Version], from http://hdl.handle.net/1942/944 Saad, G. (2006). Exploring the h-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively. Scientometrics, 69(1), 117-120. Schreiber, M. (2008). An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-Index, the A-index, and the R-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1513-1522. Schubert, A. (2007). Successive h-indices. Scientometrics, 70(1), 201-205. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5-6), 281-291. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1993). Reference standards for citation based assessments. Scientometrics, 26(1), 21-35. Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2007). Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72(2), 253-280. Sinha, D., & Macri, J. (2002). Ranking of Australian economics departments, 1988-2000. The Economic Record, 78, 136-146. Sizer, J. (1979). Assessing institutional performance: An overview. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 3(1), 49-75 Stufflebeam, D. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. In G. Madaus, M. Scriven & D. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation Models (pp. 117-141). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. THES-QS World University Rankings 2007. (2007). Times Higher Education Supplement. Retrieved Feb 22, 2008, from http://www.thes.co.uk/ Tol, R. S. J. (2008). A rational, successive g-index applied to economics departments in Ireland. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 149-155. The Top American Research Universities Report. (2007). The Center for Measuring University Performance. Retrieved Feb 22, 2008, from http://mup.asu.edu/. Towe, J. B., & Wright, D. J. (1995). Research published by Australian economics and econometrics departments. The Economic Record, 71, 8-17. Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., & Reedijk, J. (1999). Critical comments on institute for scientific information impact factors: a sample of inorganic molecular chemistry journals. Journal of Information Science, 25(6), 489-498. van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, T. J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2003). The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57(2), 257-280. van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133-143. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3), 491-502. Vanclay, J. K. (2007). On the robustness of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1547-1550. Vinkler, P. (2007). Eminence of scientists in the light of the h-index and other scientometric indicators. Journal of Information Science, 33(4), 481-491. Virgo, J. A. (1977). A statistical procedure for evaluating the importance of scientific papers. Library Quarterly, 47(4), 415-430. Webometrics Rankings of World Universities. (2008). Cybermetrics Lab of the Centro de Información y Documentación (CINDOC, CSIC). Retrieved Feb 22, 2008, from http://www.webometrics.info/ Wong, B. B. M., & Kokko, H. (2005). Is science as global as we think? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(9), 475-476. Zuckerman, H. A., & Merton, R. K. (1972). Age, aging and age structure in science. In The sociology of science. ed. norman storer. Chicago: University of Chicago. 呂美霓(2003)。大學競爭力指標之分析。暨南國際大學。 侯永琪(2007a)。突破大學排名困境的新思維─德國高等教育發展中心學門排名。評鑑,9,44-49。 侯永琪(2007b)。誰才是研究型大學?美國佛羅里達中心「全美頂尖研究大學」排名。評鑑,5,46-51。 侯永琪(2008)。大學學術評比發展與上海全球排名會議反思─如何建構世界一流大學。評鑑,11,22-27。 淡江大學學習教學中心教育評鑑發展組(2007)。2007年我國大學學術聲譽排名。台北市:淡江大學學習與教學中心。 教育部(2008a)。96學年度大專校院概況表。上網日期:2008,8月11日。檢自:http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/b0013/u.xls。 教育部(2008b)。一般大專校院名錄。上網日期:2008,8月11日。檢自:http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/b0013/96ue.xls。 教育部(2008c)。大專校院十年概況。上網日期:2008,8月11日。檢自:http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview01.xls。 陳儀綸(2005)。我國大學評鑑之研究。國立交通大學,新竹市。 黃慕萱(2005)。國內七所研究型大學論文發表概況分析。圖書與資訊學刊,44,9。 黃慕萱(2007a)。結果篇:擇優公布國內前20%大學名單。評鑑,7,9-22。 黃慕萱(2007b)。跨國比較篇:華人四地學術研究競爭誰出線?評鑑,5,10-1。 黃慕萱(2008)。華人四地大學研究競爭力分析。高教評鑑,2(1),77-105。 楊瑩(2006)。英國高等教育研究評鑑改革新趨勢。評鑑,3,47。 蔡明月(2003)。資訊計量學與文獻特性。臺北市:國立編譯館。 賴鼎銘(1995)。量化指標並非學術評鑑的萬靈丹:以國外幾種代表性的學術評鑑為例。圖書館學與資訊科學,31(1),14-33。 蘇錦麗(1997)。高等教育評鑑—理論與實際。臺北市:五南圖書出版公司。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/26314 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究以臺灣地區100所大學為例,將h-index應用於大學學術評估,藉由h-index同時評估質與量之特性,評估臺灣地區大學1998年至2007年間之研究成果,並進而了解h-index應用於不分領域及分領域之大學學術評估指標之實際特性。本研究主要目的為探討不分領域及分領域之h值表現、並比較不同領域h值之差異性,及探討不分領域之h值、g值與A值表現、並針對同h值學校修正h值,以及探討合適的h值統計時間長度、及各領域對不分領域h值之影響。
研究結果發現,於臺灣學校之不分領域h值表現中,各校h值同值現象顯著,且若以累積年份形式統計不分領域h值,較以單年度統計效果為好。至於各校分領域h值特性,可由h值為0數多寡看出社會科學、理學、工程科學為多數臺灣學校均有發展之基礎科學,且臺灣學校各領域間h值具有顯著差異,應分領域進行比較。再者,g-index之數值大小及名次與h-index較接近,卻仍具有容易同值之缺點;A-index反映出各校被引次數較高文章之表現,因可解決數值過小及同值問題,較適合作為評比臺灣學校論文表現指標之一;而本研究修正h值之公式維持原始h值大小,但其結果明顯受到論文數影響。在探討合適的h值統計時間長度上,六年累積年份為較合適的不分領域、農業科學、社會科學、理學、工程科學h值統計時間長度;臨床醫學則為四年,生命科學為五年。至於各領域對不分領域h值之影響力,臺灣學校不分領域h值乃受到所有領域之平均影響,並未由特定領域操控。 經由本研究之實證結果發現臺灣地區學校h值普遍較低且容易同值,相較之下A-index較適合應用於臺灣學校之論文成果比較;而不同領域間h值有顯著差異,應分領域進行評比,尤以理學領域最適合應用h值評比。若欲得知各校相對排名可使用各種時間長度統計h值,若希望了解臺灣學校h值於數值上之代表性,則建議取六年以上時間長度統計之。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T07:06:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-P95126009-1.pdf: 1340793 bytes, checksum: 5974935fc806cd67ac679616772b131d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要…………………………………….....………………..………..i
英文摘要……………………………………...………...……..………...ii 第一章 緒論………………………………………...…….…………..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…………………………….………….9 第四節 名詞解釋…………………………………….…..…….11 第二章 文獻分析………………………………..…………………..15 第一節 大學學術評估………………………..…………....…..15 第二節 書目計量指標在大學學術評估之應用.……………...40 第三節 H-index之相關研究………………..……...……..……54 第三章 研究設計與實施………………...………...………………..73 第一節 研究方法……………………………...………..……...73 第二節 研究工具與研究對象…………………………..……..77 第三節 研究步驟………………………………….…….……..80 第四節 資料處理…………………………….………….……..83 第四章 研究結果與分析……………………………………….…..87 第一節 各校不分領域之h值表現分析….…..…………..…..87 第二節 各校分領域之h值表現分析…..…………………….100 第三節 H-index之修正.………..…………………….………120 第四節 H值於時間長度及領域影響之綜合討論…. ……….129 第五章 結論與建議………………………….…….………………157 第一節 結論………………………….…….………………157 第二節 建議………………………….…….………………164 第三節 進一步研究建議………………………….…….…166 參考文獻……………………………………………………..……….169 附錄 附錄一 Current Contect六大領域與ESI資料庫22領域對照表...…………179 附錄二 不分領域之十年h值數據表………………….………..……….180 附錄三 不分領域之各年h值數據表………………………….. ……….183 附錄四 不分領域之各累積年份h值數據表…………………...………...186 附錄五 農業科學之各累積年份h值數據表…………………...………...189 附錄六 社會科學之各累積年份h值數據表…………………..………....192 附錄七 臨床醫學之各累積年份h值數據表…………………..…………195 附錄八 生命科學之各累積年份h值數據表…………………..…………198 附錄九 理學之各累積年份h值數據表………………………….. ……..201 附錄十 工程科學之各累積年份h值數據表…………………..…………204 附錄十一 不分領域之十年修正後h值數據表…………………..…………207 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | H-index應用於大學學術評估之探討:以臺灣地區大學為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Application of h-index for research evaluation at university level- a case study of universities in Taiwan | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 97-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 唐牧群(Muh-Chyun Tang),林奇秀(Chi-Shiou Lin),吳明德(Ming-Der Wu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | h指數,g指數,A指數,大學學術評估, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | h-index,g-index,A-index,research evaluation, | en |
dc.relation.page | 209 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2008-08-27 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 圖書資訊學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-97-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.31 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。