從學術評鑑角度探討JCR期刊領域分類問題：以「資訊科學與圖書館學」為例

Abstract

由於JCR（Journal Citation Reports）的期刊影響係數（Impact Factor, IF）排名與學術評鑑有關，IF排名又與JCR期刊領域分類有關，故本研究從學術評鑑角度，以書目計量法探討JCR的期刊領域分類問題，以2005至2014年JCR收錄的88種IS&LS（Information Science & Library Science）期刊為例，分析該領域中LS（Library Science）、IS（Information Science）、SM（Scientometrics）與MIS（Management Information System）四子領域與四種選刊（LISR、JASIST、SMs、MISQ）的IF排名、Q值（Quartile）論文引用文獻領域與作者隸屬機構領域的分布結果等。 有關引用文獻領域分析的結果，本研究發現IS&LS、LS、IS與SM引用領域最多的全部都是LIS（Library & Information Science）領域的期刊，唯獨MIS很少引用LIS領域的期刊。LS、IS與SM期刊同樣以引用「LIS、電腦科學、科學、醫學」等領域為最多；然而MIS期刊引用領域最多的是「電腦科學、MIS、管理學、商學」，LIS與MIS彼此之間互引的關係並不密切。選刊部分，LISR、JASIST與SMs最常引用的期刊領域全部都是LIS期刊、極少MIS期刊，MISQ最常引用的期刊主要是MIS和電腦科學等領域的期刊，幾乎沒有LIS領域的期刊，可見MIS選刊與LIS選刊之間的互引行為亦極為少見，可見從二者的引用領域分來看，並非同質。 有關作者隸屬機構的領域分析，IS&LS、LIS作者隸屬機構領域主要來自LIS領域，MIS作者隸屬機構領域主要來自商學與MIS領域，來自LIS領域者極少，可見MIS與LIS有各自的作者隸屬機構領域。選刊情形也相似，LIS選刊的作者隸屬機構領域同樣主要來自LIS領域，MISQ的作者隸屬機構主要來自「商學、MIS、管理」這3個領域，來自LIS領域者極少，同樣具有明顯的差異。 本研究指出無論從四子領域期刊或四種選刊的論文引用文獻領域與作者隸屬機構領域的統計與分布結果，均顯示MIS與LIS之間的領域異質性過高，而且MIS在跨領域的學科特性與成長幅度上，也與LIS大不相同。MIS與LIS之間的IF值亦有顯著性差異，MIS的Q值始終都以Q1取勝、LS大多落在Q4。LIS領域雖然在期刊種數、論文數量和作者數量上都占多大數，但平均引用文獻數遠遠不及MIS領域的期刊，可見LIS期刊與MIS期刊二者除了引用領域與作者領域的分布不同，引用行為也有明顯差異。 總之，根據本研究之引用分析結果，無論描述統計或推論統計均已證實十年來IS&LS與LIS領域中的LS、IS、SM三子領域之間，在引用文獻領域、作者隸屬機構領域與IF表現等各方面均極為相關、具同質性，但MIS與LIS兩個領域之間，無論是引用文獻領域、作者隸屬機構領域與IF表現等各方面的差異皆相當大、實屬異質，尤其排名居前25%之期刊由MIS期刊占大多數，對LIS期刊的IF排名和LIS論文作者的學術評鑑不利。LIS期刊並不經常引用MIS期刊，LIS的引用文獻領域大多與MIS領域無關，MIS更極少引用LIS期刊，而且MIS與LIS彼此的作者又來自不同的機構領域，可見MIS與LIS二者之間異質性過高，在JCR中卻將MIS與LIS一同納入IS&LS領域進行期刊排名，建議JCR應重新檢視IS&LS領域收錄期刊的範圍，讓IS&LS期刊處於同質領域的歸類結果，才能得出正確的期刊排名與相對公平的評鑑結果。

The Impact Factor (IF) ranking of journals in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) influences journal’s academic evaluation and the IF ranking is close related to its journal category. Therefore, I put this research into the perspective of academic evaluation to analyze the 88 “Information Science and Library Science” (IS&LS) journals that are included in JCR to explore the category problem of JCR through bibliometrics. I analyze the citations and author’s institutions of the four different sub-categories, “LS” (Library Science)、”IS” (Information Science)、”SM” (Scientometrics) and “MIS” (Management Information System), and four specific journals (LISR、JASIST、SMs、MISQ), also examine the Impact Factor and Quartile distribution of these journals. As for discipline of citation, my research shows that the articles in IS&LS、LS、IS and SM mostly cite the literature from the LIS, except articles in MIS. Articles in LS, IS and SM cite the literature in LIS, computer science, general science and medicine most, while the articles in MIS most cite the literature from computer science, MIS, management and business. It worth mentioned that the citation disciplines between LIS and MIS are not very close. As for citation in specific journal, LISR, JASIST and SMs are mostly citing and cited by journals in LIS and are least by journals in MIS. MISQ is mostly citing and cited by journals in computer science and business, has no cross citation with journals in LIS, which means the selected journal between MIS and LIS have few cross citations. As for the author’s institutions, authors in IS&LS, LIS journals are mostly based in LIS institutions; authors in MIS basically come from business school and MIS, few come from LIS. It is obvious that the authors in MIS and LIS journals do not come from the similar discipline institutions. The authors in selected journals also show the similar feature. The authors in my selected journal of LIS are from LIS; authors in MISQ are mostly from business school, MIS and management, very few come from LIS. My research finds that the citation discipline and author’s institution discipline of journals in four subcategories are with high heterogeneity in MIS and LIS (LS, IS, SM). MIS is inclined to transdisciplinary and has faster development than LIS. The IF is significantly different between MIS and LIS. The Q value of MIS falls in Q1, while the Q value of LS mostly falls in Q4. LIS though leads in numbers of journals, articles, and authors but the average numbers of citation per article are far behind the MIS, which means the difference between LIS and MIS falls not only in citation discipline and author background but also in citation behaviors. According to the citation analysis in this research, my finding shows that IS&LS and LIS are statically significant in citation discipline and author’s institutions. However, MIS and LIS have significant difference in citation discipline, author institutions and IF. As we can see, the top 25% in journal ranking are mostly occupied by MIS journals, which might have negative impact on the IF ranking and academic evaluation of the LIS journals and authors. Besides, LIS journals seldom cite the MIS journals, and articles in MIS almost don’t cite articles in LIS Journals. The authors in MIS and LIS journals mostly come from institutions in different disciplines. To conclude, the journals in MIS and LIS are heterogeneous.