請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51204
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 | Min-Jy Chiu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 邱敏之 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T13:27:25Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-03-08 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2016-03-08 | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2016-02-15 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 林巧敏(2009)。台灣地區資訊組織文獻書目計量分析。圖書資訊學刊,7
(1/2),101-123。 林利真(2007)。我國電機電子領域期刊文章合著之研究。未出版之碩士論文, 國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所,臺北市。 張郁蔚(2009)。以直接引用、書目耦合及共同作者探討圖書資訊跨學科之變 遷。未出版之博士論文,國立台灣大學圖書資訊學研究所,臺北市。 張郁蔚(2010)。臺灣與日本雙邊科學合作之探討:2000-2009 年合著論文之書 目計量研究。圖書資訊學刊,8(2),55-93。 傅雅秀(1999)。從圖書資訊學的觀點探討科學傳播。臺北市:漢美。 傳雅秀(2002)。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。 蔡明月(2003)。資訊計量學與文獻特性。臺北市:華泰文化總經銷。 Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957-983. Akhabue, E., & Lautenbach, E. (2010). “Equal” contributions and credit: An emerging trend in the characterization of authorship. Annals of Epidemiology, 20(11), 868-871. Avkiran, N. (1997). Scientific collaboration in finance does not lead to better quality research. Scientometrics, 39(2), 173-184. Bandyopadhyay, A. K. (2001). Authorship pattern in different disciplines. Annals of library and information studies, 48(4), 139-147. Beaver, D. B. (1986). Collaboration and teamwork in physics. Czechoslovak Journal 144 of Physics B, 36(1), 14-18. Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. McD. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15(3), 263-270. Birnholtz, J. P. (2006). What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1758-1770. Bordons, M., Gómez, I., Fernández, M., Zulueta, M., & Méndez, A. (1996). Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37(2), 279-295. Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 2-72. Braun, T., Gómez, I., Méndez, A., & Schubert, A. (1992). International co-authorship patterns in physics and its subfields, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 24(2), 181- 200. Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics, 12(5- 6), 373-379. Clarke, B. L. (1964). Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers. Science, 143(3608), 822-824. Constantian, M. B. (1999). The gordian knot of multiple authorship. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 103(7), 2064-2066. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2011). Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective. Scientometrics, 88(1), 145-161. Cronin, B. (1995). The scholar's courtesy: Role of acknowledgement in the primary communication process, Taylor Graham, London. 145 Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558-569. Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. (2001). Who dunnit? Metatags and hyperauthorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(9), 770-773. Drenth, J. H. (1998). Multiple authorship: The contribution of senior authors. JAMA, 280(3), 219-221. Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., Fontanarosa, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D., & Rennie, D. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA, 280(3), 222-224. Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540-553. Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2010). What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 608-617. Galison, P. L. (1997). Image and logic:a material culture of microphysics. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Garfield, E. (1986). Which medical journals have the greatest impact? Annals of Internal Medicine, 105(2), 313-320. Garg, K. C., & Padhi, P. (2002). Scientometrics of laser research in India during 1970- 1994. Scientometrics, 55(2), 215-241. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). Analysing scientific networks through coauthorship. In H. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (pp. 257-276):Springer Netherlands. 146 Glanzel, W. (2002). Coathorship patterns and trends in the Sciences (1980-1998):A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461. Goodman, N. W. (1994). Survey of fulfilment of criteria for authorship in published medical research. BMJ, 309(6967), 1482. Gordon, M. (1980). A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication. Scientometrics, 2(3), 193-201. Greene, M. (2007). The demise of the lone author. Nature, 450(7173), 1165-1165. Hagen, N. T. (2008). Harmonic allocation of authorship credit:source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE, 3(12), e4021. Havemann, F. (2001). Collaboration behaviour of Berlin life science researchers in the last two decades of the twentieth century as reflected in the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 52(3), 435-443. Hu, X. J. (2009). Loads of special authorship functions:linear growth in the percentage of “equal first authors” and corresponding authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2378-2381. Hu, X. J., Rousseau, R., & Chen, J. (2010). In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. Journal of Information Science, 36(1), 73-85. Iribarren-Maestro, I. , Lascurain-Sánchez, M., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2009). Are multiauthorship and visibility related? Study of ten research areas at Carlos III University of Madrid. Scientometrics, 79(1), 191-200. Kassirer, Jerome P., & Angell, Marcia. (1991). On authorship and acknowledgments. 147 New England Journal of Medicine, 325(21), 1510-1512. Katz, J. S. (1993). Bibliometric assessment of intranational university-university collaboration. University of Sussex. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18. Kennedy, D. (2003). Editorial:Multiple authors, multiple problems. Science, 301(5634), 733. King, C. (2012). Multiauthor papers:onward and upward. Retrieved April, 6, 2014, from http://archive.sciencewatch.com/newsletter/2012/201207/ multiauthor_papers/ Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time:field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1306-1320. Knudson, D. (2012). Twenty-year trends of authorship and sampling in Applied Biomechanics Research I. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 114(1), 16-20. Koehler, W. (2001). Information science as 'Little Science':the implications of a bibliometric analysis of theJournal of the American Society for Information Science. Scientometrics, 51(1), 117-132. Kretschmer, H., & Rousseau, R. (2001). Author inflation leads to a breakdown of Lotka's law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(8), 610-614. Kunst, F. et al. (1997). The complete genome sequence of the Gram-positive bacterium Bacillus Subtilis. Nature, 390(6657), 249–256. Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632-662. 148 Lariviére, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks:a comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519-533. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3-15. Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? BioScience, 55(5), 438-443. Leydesdorff, L. (2003). The mutual information of university-industry-government relations:an indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics. Scientometrics, 58(2), 445-467. Ma, N., & Guan, J. (2005). An exploratory study on collaboration profiles of Chinese publications in Molecular Biology. Scientometrics, 65(3), 343-355. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using coauthorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363-377. Milojević, S. (2010). Modes of collaboration in modern science:Beyond power laws and preferential attachment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1410-1423. Moody, J. (2004). The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network:Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213-238. Morris, S. A., & Goldstein, M. L. (2007). Manifestation of research teams in journal literature:A growth model of papers, authors, collaboration, coauthorship, weak ties, and Lotka's law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(12), 1764-1782. Mowatt, G., Shirran, L., Grimshaw, J. M., Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., Yank, V., Bero, L. 149 A. (2002). Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in cochrane reviews. JAMA, 287(21), 2769-2771. Nathan, S., Hermanson, D. R., & Hermanson, R. H. (1998). Co-authoring in refereed journals:views of accounting faculty and department chairs. Issues in Accounting Education, 13(1), 79-92. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks Complex networks (pp. 337-370): Springer. Osborne, J. W., & Holland, A. (2009). What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(15), 1-19. Park, H. W. & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of universityindustry-government relations in South Korea:the role of programmatic incentives. Research Policy, 39(2010), 640-649. Regalado, A. (1995). Multiauthor papers on the rise. Science, 268(5207), 25. Resnik, D. B, & Master, Z. (2011). Authorship policies of bioethics journals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(7), 424-428. Royle, J., Coles, L., Williams, D., & Evans, P. (2007). Publishing in international journals. Scientometrics, 71(1), 59-86. Salager-Meyer, F., Ariza, M. Á . A., & Berbesí, M. P. (2009). “Backstage solidarity” in Spanish- and English-written medical research papers:publication context and the acknowledgment paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 307-317. Sengupta, I. N. (1985). Bibliometrics: A bird's eye view. IASLIC Bulletin, 30(4), 167- 174. Smith, E., & Williams-Jones, B. (2012). Authorship and responsibility in Health 150 Sciences research:a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 199-212. Smith, J. (1994). Gift authorship:a poisoned chalice? BMJ, 309(6967), 1456-1457. Smith, M. (1958). The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American Psychologist, 13(10), 596-599. Stevens, R. E. (1983). Characteristics of subject literature. American College and Research Library Monograph Series, 7, 10-12. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration:a review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33-38. Sudhier Pillai, KG. (2007). Authorship patterns in physics literature:an informetric study on citations in doctoral theses of the Indian Institute of Science. Annals of library and information studies, 54(2), 90. Tarnow, E. (2002). Coauthorship in physics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 175-190. Thakur, D., Wang, J., & Cozzens, S. (2011). What does International Co-authorship Measure? Paper presented at the Science and Innovation Policy, 2011 Atlanta Conference on. Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423-428. Vinther, S., & Rosenberg, J. (2012). Authorship trends over the past fifty years in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association (Danish:Ugeskrift for Laeger). Danish Medical Journal, 59(3). Wager, E. (2007). Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? Medscape General Medicine, 9(3), 16. Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in 151 scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 700-711. Wang, F., Tang, L., Bo, L. L., Li, J. B., & Deng, X. M. (2012). Equal contributions and credit given to authors in critical care medicine journals during a 10-yr period. Critical Care Medicine, 40(3), 967-969. Weeks, W. B., Wallace, A. E., & Kimberly, B. C. S. (2004). Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals. Social Science & Medicine, 59(9), 1949-1954. West, J. D., Jensen, M. C., Dandrea, R. J., Gordon, G. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). Author-level Eigenfactor metrics:evaluating the influence of authors, institutions, and countries within the social science research network community. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4), 787-801. Wray, K. B. (2006). Scientific authorship in the age of collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(3), 505-514. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1039. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51204 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究以書目計量法與合著分析法分析 2004 年至 2013 年間收錄於 SCI 資料庫之遺傳學領域及高能物理領域期刊論文,以作者機構資訊等書目資料剖析兩領域中的超級作者現象與多機構作者現象。藉由分析十年間領域中期刊論文的數量、合著率、作者人數、機構數等基礎資訊,建立兩領域的期刊論文概況,接著進一步觀察超級作者現象和多機構作者現象在遺傳學領域、高能物理領域論文中的情形,同時也從國家層級去探討兩領域中的超級作者及多機構作者現象,以及與被引次數之間的關係,最後則對遺傳學領域、高能物理領域之超級作者現象與多機構作者現象進行比較。研究結果顯示,遺傳學領域合著率高達 97.16%,但合著規模小,其平均作者人數為 20.68,超級作者論文率低,僅 2.25%,但超級作者論文數量和作者人數規模皆呈現增加中趨勢;高能物理領域則是合著率偏低,為 65.16%,但合著規模較大且急遽擴張中,平均作者人數為 73.12,超級作者論文率較高,為8.95%,同時超級作者論文的數量跟作者人數規模亦顯示持續增加中。在超級作者論文的國家層次分析上則顯示美、英等國較常參與遺傳學領域的超大型研究,義、德等國較常參與高能物理領域的超大型研究,同時,兩領域皆呈現出跨國超大型研究趨於興盛、涉足參與的國家更多元化的傾向,且一國家投入同一超大型研究的機構數增加之情形。在被引次數上的分析結果則顯示兩領域皆有超級作者論文的平均被引次數顯著較高的情形。多機構作者論文在遺傳學領域較為普遍,其多機構作者論文率為 87.29%,而多機構作者隸屬機構類型以大專院校與大專院校為最多,並且多機構作者以來自美國為最多;多機構作者論文在高能物理領域中則較少見,其多機構作者論文率為 50.65%,高能物理領域的多機構作者隸屬的機構類型則以大專院校與其他(基金會、協會等)為最多,並且多機構作者以來自義大利為最多。在多機構作者的國家層次分析上則顯示,遺傳學領域多機構作者隸屬於大專院校與醫院的情形常見於美、英兩國,隸屬於大專院校與政府機構的形式則在中國占有一定比例,而高能物理領域多機構作者隸屬於私立研究機構與其他的情形常
見於美、德兩國,而政府機構的參與對義大利則十分重要。最後,被引次數的分析結果則顯示,遺傳學領域多機構作者論文的平均被引次數並未顯著較高,但高能物理領域多機構作者論文的平均被引次數確實顯著較高。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T13:27:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-105-R01126002-1.pdf: 2301571 bytes, checksum: 94b98f94732c148e04164108037bd778 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要…………………………………………………………………………………….i
目次………………………………………………………………………………........v 圖目次………………………………………………………………………………..vii 表目次………………………………………………………………………………...ix 第壹章 緒論 .................................................................................................................1 第一節 問題陳述................................................................................................................. 1 第二節 研究目的與問題..................................................................................................... 5 第三節 研究範圍與限制..................................................................................................... 6 第四節 名詞解釋................................................................................................................. 9 第貳章 文獻回顧 .......................................................................................................11 第一節 合著....................................................................................................................... 11 第二節 超級作者與多機構作者....................................................................................... 16 第三節 領域學術生態....................................................................................................... 29 第參章 研究設計與實施 ...........................................................................................41 第一節 研究方法與設計................................................................................................... 41 第二節 研究工具與對象................................................................................................... 49 第三節 研究步驟與流程................................................................................................... 52 第四節 資料處理與分析................................................................................................... 54 第肆章 研究結果 .......................................................................................................59 第一節 領域論文整體概況分析....................................................................................... 59 第二節 超級作者現象概況及其與被引次數間的關係 ................................................... 67 第三節 多機構作者現象概況及其與被引次數間的關係 ............................................... 86 第四節 兩領域之超級作者及多機構作者現象比較分析 ............................................. 108 第伍章 結論與建議................................................................................................131 第一節 結論..................................................................................................................... 131 第二節 建議..................................................................................................................... 136 第三節 進一步研究之建議............................................................................................. 140 參考書目....................................................................................................................143 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 遺傳學領域與高能物理領域之超級作者及多機構作者研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A Study of Hyperauthorship and Multi-institutional Authorship in Genetics and High Energy Physics | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 104-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 藍文欽(Wen-Chin Lan),張郁蔚(Yu-Wei Chang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 書目計量,合著,超級作者,多機構作者, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | bibliometrics,co-authorship,hyperauthorship,multi-institutional authorship, | en |
dc.relation.page | 151 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2016-02-16 | |
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-105-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.25 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。