請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/88058
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 黃慕萱 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Mu-Hsuan Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 劉杰 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Chieh Liu | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-08-08T16:06:14Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2023-08-08 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2023-05-25 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature, 415(6873), 726–729. https://doi.org/10.1038/415726a
Adie, E. (2014). The grey literature from an altmetrics perspective - opportunity and challenges. Research Trends(37), 23-25. Adie, E., & Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-leveldiscussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1087/20130103 Alhoori, H., & Furuta, R. (2014, September). Do altmetrics follow the crowd or does the crowd follow altmetrics? [Paper presentation]. ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, London, UK. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6970193 Alperin, J. P. (2013). Ask not what altmetrics can do for you, but what altmetrics can do for developing countries. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2013.1720390407 Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.). Wadsworths Publishing. Babbie, E. R. (2011). Introduction to social research. Wadsworth Cengage learning. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. In E. Archambault, Y. Gingras, & V. et Larivière (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 98-109). Science-Metrix et OST. http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5611 Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson. Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual review of information science and technology, 36(1), 2-72. Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of informetrics, 8(4), 895-903. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150 Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Adams, J. (2019). Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF). Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.01.008 Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.003 Bowman, T.D. (2015). Investigating the use of affordances and framing techniques by scholars to manage personal and professional impressions on Twitter. [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University]. http://www.tdbowman.com/pdf/2015_ 07_TDBowman_Dissertation.pdf Bradshaw, C. J. A., & Brook, B. W. (2016). How to rank journals. PLoS ONE, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149852 Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics.” Scientometrics, 12(5–6), 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016680 Carpenter, J. (2012). Researchers of Tomorrow: The research behaviour of Generation Y doctoral students. Information Services and Use, 32(1–2), 3–17. Castellano, C., & Radicchi, F. (2009). On the fairness of using relative indicators for comparing citation performance in different disciplines. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(2), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0014-0 Cave, R. (2012). Overview of the altmetrics landscape. In B. R. Bernhardt & L. H. Hinds (Eds.), Charleston Conference Proceedings 2012 (pp. 349-356). Purdue University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315124 Chen, C. (2012). Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 431–449. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21694 Chew, C., & Eysenbach, G. (2010). Pandemics in the age of Twitter: Content analysis of tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. PLoS ONE, 5(11), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014118 Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2014). Do Altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003-2019. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media: Large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 260–288. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM- 12-2014-0173 Cozzens, S. E. (1985). Comparing the Sciences: Citation Context Analysis of Papers from Neuropharmacology and the Sociology of Science. Social Studies of Science, 15(1), 127–153. Cronin, B. (2013). The evolving indicator space (iSpace). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(8), 1523-1525. Cronin, B., & Snyder, H. W. (1998). Invoked on the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(14), 1319–1328. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1998)49:14<1319::AID-ASI9>3.0.CO;2-W Darling, E. S., Shiffman, D., Côté, I. M., & Drew, J. A. (2013). The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 6(1), 32-43. https://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2013.6.6.f DeVoe, K. M. (2009). Bursts of Information: Microblogging. The Reference Librarian, 50(2), 212–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763870902762086 Didegah, F., Bowman, T. D., & Holmberg, K. (2018). On the Differences Between Citations and Altmetrics : An Investigation of Factors Driving Altmetrics Versus Citations for Finnish Articles. Journal of the Association for information Science and Technology, 69(6), 832–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23934 Didegah, F., Bowman, T. D., Bowman, S., & Hartley, J. (2016). Comparing the characteristics of highly cited titles and highly alted titles. In I. Rafols, J. Molas-Gallart, E. Castro-Martinez, & R. Woolley (Eds.), 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators-STI 2016 Book of Proceedings (pp. 14-16). Editorial Universitat Politecnica de Valencia http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:48050909 Dinsmore, A., Allen, L., & Dolby, K. (2014). Alternative Perspectives on Impact: The Potential of ALMs and Altmetrics to Inform Funders about Research Impact. PLoS Biology, 12(11), e1002003. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002003 Drongstrup, D., Malik, S., Aljohani, N. R., Alelyani, S., Safder, I., & Hassan, S. U. (2020). Can social media usage of scientific literature predict journal indices of AJG, SNIP and JCR? An altmetric study of economics. Scientometrics, 125(2), 1541–1558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03613-3 Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S. C. J., & Theng, Y. L. (2016). Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1117–1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2077-0 Evans, G., & Durant, J. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4(1), 57-74. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), 692–698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157 Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2012 Fenner, M. (2013). What can article-level metrics do for you?. PLoS biology, 11(10), e1001687. Figg, W. D., Dunn, L., Liewehr, D. J., Steinberg, S. M., Thurman, P. W., Barrett, J. C., et al. (2006). Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 26(6), 759–767. Flecha, R., Soler-Gallart, M., & Sordé, T. (2015). Europe must fund social sciences. Nature, 528(7581), 193-193. Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311-326. Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.003 Fraser, N., Momeni, F., Mayr, P., & Peters, I. (2020). The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 618-638. Fumani, M. R. F. Q., Goltaji, M., & Parto, P. (2015). The impact of title length and punctuation marks on article citations. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 62(3), 126–132. Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics Rethinking the way we measure. Serials review, 39(1), 56-61. Galloway, L. M., Pease, J. L., & Rauh, A. E. (2013). Introduction to altmetrics for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) librarians. Science and Technology Libraries, 32(4), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2013.829762 Garcovich, D., Ausina Marquez, V., & Adobes Martin, M. (2020). The online attention to research in periodontology: An Altmetric study on the most discussed articles on the web. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 47(3), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13221 Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019306 Gauch, S., & Blümel, C. (2018, September). Quantitative User Valuation Studies as means of scrutinization–The case of Altmetrics. Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018), Leiden, The Netherlands. Gay, Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2009). Educational research : competencies for analysis and applications / L.R. Gay, Geoffrey E. Mills, Peter Airasian. (9th ed.). Merrill/Pearson. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science, 21(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555159502100104 González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator. Journal of informetrics, 4(3), 379-391. Gunn, W. (2013). Social signals reflect academic impact: What it means when a scholar adds a paper to Mendeley. Information standards quarterly, 25(2), 33-39. Guo, F., Ma, C., Shi, Q., & Zong, Q. (2018). Succinct effect or informative effect: the relationship between title length and the number of citations. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1531–1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2805-8 Habibzadeh, F., & Yadollahie, M. (2010). Are shorter article titles more attractive for citations? Crosssectional study of 22 scientific journals. Croatian Medical Journal, 51(2), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2010.51.165 Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419–1430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1261-3 Hammond, T., Hannay, T., Lund, B., & Scott, J. (2005). Social bookmarking tools (I): A general review. D-Lib Magazine, 11(4), 1–21. Hank, C. F. (2011). Scholars and their blogs: Characteristics, preferences, and perceptions impacting digital preservation [Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]. https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/2r36tx94q Harley, D., Acord, S. K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & King, C. J. (2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. University of California Press. https://escholarship.org/content/qt15x7385g/qt15x7385g.pdf Hassan, S. U., Iqbal, S., Aljohani, N. R., Alelyani, S., & Zuccala, A. (2020). Introducing the'alt-index'for measuring the social visibility of scientific research. Scientometrics, 123(3), 1407-1419. Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9 Haustein, S. (2019). Scholarly twitter metrics. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, M. Thelwall (Eds.) Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 729-760). Springer. https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02201 Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2016). Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 232-238. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015a). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLOS ONE, 10(3): e0120495. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120495 Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015b). “Interpreting “altmetrics”:viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories,” in C. R. Sugimoto(Ed.) Theories of Informetrics: A Festschrift in Honor of Blaise Cronin (pp. 372-405). Berlin : De Gruyter. Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014a). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? IT-Information Technology, 56(5), 207-215. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014b). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3 Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014c). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 656-669. Herzog, C., Sorensen, A., & Taylor, M. (2016). Forward-looking analysis based on grants data and machine learning based research classifications as an analytical tool. https://www.oecd.org/sti/093 - OECDForward-lookinganalysisbasedongrantsdataandmachinelearningbasedresearchclassificationsasananalyticaltool (1).pdf Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1027–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3 Holmberg, K., & Vainio, J. (2018). Why do some research articles receive more online attention and higher altmetrics? Reasons for online success according to the authors. Scientometrics, 116(1), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2710-1 Ikpaahindi, L. (1985). An overview of bibliometrics: Its measurements, laws and their applications, Libri, 35(2), 163-177. Ioannidis, J. P., Boyack, K. W., & Baas, J. (2020). Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators. Plos Biology, 18(10), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000918 Jamali, H. R., & Nikzad, M. (2011). Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citations. Scientometrics, 88(2), 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0412-z Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In H. Zhang, B. Mobasher, L.Giles, A. McCallum, O. Nasraoui, M. Spiliopoulou, J. Srivastava, & J. Yen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (pp. 56-65). Association for Computing Machinery. Jeng, W., He, D., & Jiang, J. (2015). User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on Mendeley: User participation in an academic social networking service. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 890–904. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23225 Joly, P. B., Gaunand, A., Colinet, L., Larédo, P., Lemarié, S., & Matt, M. (2015). ASIRPA: A comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization. Research Evaluation, 24(4), 440–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv015 Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68. Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459299 Kelly, B., & Delasalle, J. (2012, July). Can LinkedIn and Academia. edu enhance access to open repositories? [Paper presentation]. OR2012: the 7th International Conference on Open Repositories, Edinburgh, Scotland. Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business horizons, 54(3), 241-251. Konkiel, S. (2013). Altmetrics: a 21st century solution to determining research quality, Online Searcher, 37(1). https://www.infotoday.com/OnlineSearcher/Articles/Features/Altmetrics-A-stCentury-Solution-to-Determining-Research-Quality-90551.shtml Kostoff, R. N. (2007). The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet. Scientometrics, 72(3), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1573-7 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20920 Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Abdoli, M. (2012). The role of online videos in research communication: A content analysis of YouTube videos cited in academic publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1710-1727. Krippendorff, K. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications. Kurtz, M. J., & Bollen, J. (2010). Usage Bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, 3-64. Lapinski, S., Piwowar, H., & Priem, J. (2013). Riding the crest of the altmetrics wave: How librarians can help prepare faculty for the next generation of research impact metrics. College and Research Libraries News, 74(6). https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.74.6.8960 Lawrence, S. (2001). Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature, 411(6837), 521. https://doi.org/10.1038/35079151 Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1993). On social research and its language. University of Chicago Press. Lee, S. Y., Lee, S., & Jun, S. H. (2010). Author and article characteristics, journal quality and citation in economic research. Applied Economics Letters, 17(17), 1697–1701. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850903120725 Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005a). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? BioScience, 55(5), 438–443. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0438:DSCITI]2.0.CO;2 Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005b). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20(1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010 Leonardi, P. M. (2014). Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: Toward a theory of communication visibility. Information systems research, 25(4), 796-816. Lewandowski, D., & Spree, U. (2011). Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited: Fair ranking for reasonable quality? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology, 62(1), 117-132. Lewison, G., & Hartley, J. (2005). What’s in a title? Numbers of words and the presence of colons. Scientometrics, 63(2), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0216-0 Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2019). The Relative Influences of Government Funding and International Collaboration on Citation Impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(2), 198–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24109 Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and Traditional Bibliometric Indicators. In E. Archambault, Y. Gingras, & V. et Larivière (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 541-551). Science-Metrix et OST. http://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Li_F1000_541.pdf Lin, J., & Fenner, M. (2013). Altmetrics in evolution: Defining and redefining the ontology of article-level metrics. Information standards quarterly, 25(2), 20-26. Liu, J., & Adie, E. (2013). Five challenges in altmetrics: a toolmaker's perspective. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 31-34. Liu, M. (1993). Progress in documentation the complexities of citation practice: A review of citation studies. Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 370–408. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026920 MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02129604 Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago press. Miller, D. (2016). Social Media in an English Village. S.L: UCL Press. Moed, H. F. (2017). Applied Evaluative Informetrics. Springer. Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 1988-2002. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2013a). Assessing the Mendeley readership of social science and humanities research. In J. Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberger, M. Ho¨rlesberger & H. Moed (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2013 Vienna: 14th International society of scientometrics and informetrics conference (pp. 200–214). Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2013b). Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics, 97(2), 383-395. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1832-1846. Mortensen, T., & Walker, J. (2002). Blogging thoughts: personal publication as an online research tool.In Morrison, A. (Ed.), Researching ICTs in context (pp. 249–479). InterMedia, University of Oslo. http://www.intermedia.uio.no/konferanser/skikt-02/docs/Researching_ICTs_in_context-Ch11-Mortensen-Walker.pdf Na, J. C., & Ye, Y. E. (2017). Content analysis of scholarly discussions of psychological academic articles on Facebook. Online Information Review, 41(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2016-0058 Nández, G., & Borrego, Á. (2013). Use of social networks for academic purposes: A case study. Electronic Library, 31(6), 781–791. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-03-2012-0031 National Information Standards Organization. (2016). Outputs of the NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics Project. http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/17091/NISO RP-25-2016 Outputs of the NISO Alternative Assessment Project.pdf Neylon, C., Willmers, M., & King, T. (2014). Rethinking Impact: Applying Altmetrics to Southern African Research. Scholarly Communication in Africa Programme. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/53461/IDL-53461.pdf Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Jamali, H. R. (2008). User diversity: As demonstrated by deep log analysis. Electronic Library, 26(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470810851716 Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Volentine, R., Allard, S., Levine, K., Tenopir, C., & Herman, E. (2014). Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition: Setting the scene for a major study. Learned Publishing, 27(2), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1087/20140206 Nielsen, F. Å. (2007). Scientific citations in Wikipedia. First Monday, 12(8), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i8.1997 Nuzzolese, A. G., Ciancarini, P., Gangemi, A., Peroni, S., Poggi, F., & Presutti, V. (2019). Do altmetrics work for assessing research quality?. Scientometrics, 118(2), 539-562. OECD. (2015). Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en Okoli, C., Mehdi, M., Mesgari, M., Nielsen, F. Å., & Lanamäki, A. (2014). Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(12), 2381-2403. Onodera, N., & Yoshikane, F. (2015). Factors affecting citation rates of research articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(4), 739–764. Ortega, J. L. (2015). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.004 Peng, T.-Q., & Zhu, J. J. H. (2012). Where you publish matters most: A multilevel analysis of factors affecting citations of internet studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1789–1803. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22649 Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000034384.35498.7d Peters, H. P. F., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1994). On determinants of citation scores: A case study in chemical engineering. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199401)45:1<39::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-Q Piwowar, H. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159. Prabhu, V., & Rosenkrantz, A. B. (2015). Enriched Audience Engagement Through Twitter: Should More Academic Radiology Departments Seize the Opportunity? Journal of the American College of Radiology, 12(7), 756–759. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.02.016 Price, D. J. S. (1986). Little science, big science ... and beyond. Columbia University Press. Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4039–4056. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0155 Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multi-dimensional indicators of performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Hemminger, B. (2011, October). Altmetrics in the wild: An exploratory study of impact metrics based on social media. [Paper presentation]. Metrics 2011: Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research, New Orleans, United States. http://jasonpriem.com/self-archived/PLoS-altmetrics-sigmetrics11-abstract.pdf Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of documentation, 25(4), 348-349. Pulido, C. M., Redondo-Sama, G., Sordé-Martí, T., & Flecha, R. (2018). Social impact in social media: A new method to evaluate the social impact of research. PLoS ONE, 13(8), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203117 Quesada, B. V., Bustos-González, A., & Anegón, F. de M. (2019). Scimago Institutions Rankings: The Most Comprehensive Ranking Approach to the World of Research Institutions. Research Analytics, (November), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315155890-9 Repiso, R., Castillo-Esparcia, A., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2019). Altmetrics, alternative indicators for Web of Science Communication studies journals. Scientometrics, 119(2), 941–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03070-7 Riffe, D., Lacy, S., Watson, B. R., & Fico, F. (2019). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Routledge Robinson-Garcia, N., Costas, R., Isett, K., Melkers, J., & Hicks, D. (2017). The unbearable emptiness of tweeting—About journal articles. PLoS ONE, 12(8), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183551 Robinson-Garcia, N., vanLeeuwen, T. N., & Ràfols, I. (2018). Using altmetrics for contextualised mapping of societal impact: From hits to networks. Science and Public Policy, 45(6), 815–826. https://doi.org/10.1093/SCIPOL/SCY024 Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2012). From bibliometrics to altmetrics: A changing scholarly landscape. College & Research Libraries News, 73(10), 596-600. Ross-Hellauer T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 Rostami, F., Mohammadpoorasl, A., & Hajizadeh, M. (2014). The effect of characteristics of title on citation rates of articles. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2007–2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1118-1 Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1087/20110306 SCImago. (n.d.). Ranking Methodology. https://www.scimagoir.com/methodology.php Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1018-1027. Siravuri, H. V., Akella, A. P., Bailey, C., & Alhoori, H. (2018, May). Using social media and scholarly text to predict public understanding of science. In J. Chen, M. A. Goncalves, & J. M. Allen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 385-386). Association for Computing. Slyder, J. B., Stein, B. R., Sams, B. S., Walker, D. M., Beale, B. J., Feldhaus, J. J., & Copenheaver, C. A. (2011). Citation pattern and lifespan: A comparison of discipline, institution, and individual. Scientometrics, 89(3), 955–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0467-x Small, H.. (2004). On the shoulders of Robert Merton: Towards a normative theory of citation. Scientometrics, 60(1), 71–79. Small, H. (2016). Referencing as cooperation or competition. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of Informetrics: A Festschrift in Honor of Blaise Cronin (pp. 49-71). Walter de Gruyter. Spaapen, J., & van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing “productive interactions” in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876742 Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications. Subotic, S., & Mukherjee, B. (2014). Short and amusing: The relationship between title characteristics, downloads, and citations in psychology articles. Journal of Information Science, 40(1), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513511393 Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 420–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.003 Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143. Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., Larivière, V., Tsou, A., Mongeon, P., & Macaluso, B. (2013). Scientists Popularizing Science: Characteristics and Impact of TED Talk Presenters. PLoS ONE, 8(4), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062403 Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062. Taylor, M. (2013). Towards a common model of citation: Some thoughts on merging altmetrics and bibliometrics. Research Trends, 35, 19-22. Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., & King, D. W. (2013). Social media and scholarly reading. Online Information Review, 37(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2012-0062 Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of information science, 34(4), 605-621. Thelwall, M. (2012). Journal impact evaluation: A webometric perspective. Scientometrics, 92(2), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0669-x Thelwall, M. (2016). Web indicators for research evaluation: A practical guide. Morgan & Claypool Publishers. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013a). Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), 1–7. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23236 Thelwall, M., Tsou, A., Weingart, S., Holmberg, K., & Haustein, S. (2013b). Tweeting links to academic articles. International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 17(1), 1-8. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2016). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(8), 1962–1972. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23501 Torres-Samuel, M., Vásquez, C. L., Viloria, A., Varela, N., Hernández-Fernandez, L., & Portillo-Medina, R. (2018, June). Analysis of patterns in the university world rankings webometrics, Shanghai, QS and SIR-SCimago: case Latin America. Paper presented at the International Conference on Data Mining and Big Data, Shanghai, China. Van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2005). Signals in science: On the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics, 64(2), 209–233. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129. Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results: Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations. Scientometrics, 42(3), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458380 Veletsianos, G. (2012). Higher education scholars' participation and practices on Twitter. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00449.x Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A technology for conversational knowledge management and group collaboration. Communications of the association for information systems, 13(1), 19. Walker, J. (2006). Blogging from Inside the Ivory Tower. In A. Bruns and J. Jacobs (Eds.) Uses of Blogs (pp. 1-11). Peter Lang Verlag. http://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/1846/?sequence=1 Wallace, D. P., & Van Fleet, C. (2005). From the editors: The democratization of information? Wikipedia as a reference resource. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 45(2), 100-103. Walters, G.D. (2006). Predicting subsequent citations to articles published in twelve crime-psychology journals: Author impact versus journal impact. Scientometrics, 69(3), 499–510. Waltman, L. & Costas, R. (2014). F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: a comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 433‒445. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23040 Wang, H., & Saxton, G. D. (2019). Social media fandom for health promotion ? Insights from East Los High, a transmedia edutainment initiative. SEARCH Journal of Media and Communication Research, 11(1), 1–16. Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94(3), 851–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9 White, H. (2004). Reward, persuasion, and the Sokal Hoax: A study in citation identities. Scientometrics, 60(1), 93-120. White, H. D., Wellman, B., & Nazer, N. (2004). Does citation reflect social structure?: Longitudinal evidence from the “Globenet” interdisciplinary research group. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 55(2), 111-126. Wilsdon, J. (2016). The metric tide: Independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Sage Publications. Xu, S. (2018). Issues in the Interpretation of “Altmetrics” Digital Traces: A Review. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3(October), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00029 Yu, H., Xu, S., Xiao, T., Hemminger, B. M., & Yang, S. (2017). Global science discussed in local altmetrics: Weibo and its comparison with Twitter. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 466–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.011 Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0 Zedda, M., & Barbaro, A. (2015). Adoption of Web 2.0 tools among STM publishers. How social are scientific journals. Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, 11(1), 9-12. Zhang, L., & Wang, J. (2018). Why highly cited articles are not highly tweeted? A biology case. Scientometrics, 117(1), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2876-6 Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. Libraries Unlimited Inc. | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/88058 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 當各種網路平台成為學術傳播的重要途徑之一,許多學者開始討論透過另類計量次數評鑑學術論文的可能性,或許可以藉此觀察論文在學術社群之外的擴散程度。然而網路平台具有多樣化特性,另類計量也尚無一致性標準,在充滿不確定性之下,造成另類計量次數在應用上的困難以及對其有效性的質疑。有鑒於此,本研究以十三種不同網路平台為對象,透過計量與內容分析並行之綜合方法,先比較不同學術領域論文在各種網路平台之另類計量次數差異及其對高被引次數論文的預測能力,再探討各種論文特徵對於另類計量次數之影響,接續分析形成另類計量次數的各種論文另類使用行為,並據此就不同類型的另類計量次數進行討論,最後綜合相關分析結果探究另類計量次數於學術評鑑之應用。
研究結果顯示,不同學術領域論文在各種網路平台之另類計量次數確實存在差異,而其中各學術領域論文在Mendeley平台的另類計量次數總和與論文出現率皆明顯優於其他平台,且其另類計量次數對於各學術領域高被引次數論文皆具有顯著正向的預測能力。而就可能影響另類計量次數的論文特徵來看,僅期刊影響力這項特徵,對於論文之另類計量次數具跨學術領域和網路平台的影響力。進一步分析形成另類計量次數的各種論文另類使用行為,共歸納出取得、轉載、提及、描述、要求、表達、評論與引註等八種類型,而其中只有取得和引註行為產生之另類計量次數對於高被引次數論文有顯著正向的預測能力。綜合相關分析結果,可將各種網路平台依據其在學術評鑑上之應用概分為兩種類型:1) 可應用於評估論文學術影響力之網路平台,包括Mendeley、Patent、Policy與Wikipedia;2) 可作為觀察論文在學術社群外資訊傳播效果之網路平台,包括Facebook、News與Twitter;其餘網路平台則較不適合應用於學術評鑑。 基於上述研究結果,欲將另類計量次數應用於學術評鑑時,建議可針對實務上的特定需求,選擇合適網路平台的另類計量次數,應用於相應的情境中,但應設立相關機制排除刻意操作的情形,以提高其參考價值,此為目前將另類計量次數應用於學術評鑑時的較佳作法。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | While online platforms have become one of the important ways in scholarly communication, many researchers have explored the possibility of evaluating academic papers through altmetric counts. However, due to its nature of diversity, there is no common standard for altmetric counts. These uncertainties have caused difficulties in the application of altmetric counts and raised doubts as well. Thus, this study is targeted at 13 different online platforms, combining both informetrics and content analysis methods to explore the applicability of altmetric counts in research evaluation through aspects as follows: firstly, to compare the differences in altmetric counts of different academic fields on various online platforms, and the relationship between altmetric counts and citations. Secondly, to discuss the influence of various characteristics of papers on altmetric counts. Thirdly, to classify the alternative usage behaviors and then identify the user engagement of each altmetric count according to the classification. Lastly, to explore the applicability of altmetric counts in research evaluation based on the above analysis.
The results show that there are indeed differences in altmetric counts of academic papers on various online platforms across different academic fields, and among them, the total sum of altmetric counts and coverage on Mendeley are both significantly better than other platforms. Besides, the positive predictive values of highly cited papers were found in the altmetric counts of Mendeley in all academic fields. In terms of the characteristics of papers, the impact of journals is the only factor that significantly associates with increased altmetric counts from almost all online platforms. Furthermore, through content analysis, we discovered eight types of alternative usage behaviors with different user engagement, including access, forward, mention, describe, request, express, comment, and refer. Among all, the positive predictive values of highly cited papers were found in the altmetric counts derived from the behaviors of access and refer only. Overall, the online platforms can be roughly divided into two types according to their applicability in research evaluation: 1) Platforms that are more suitable for evaluating the academic influence of papers, including Mendeley, Patent, Policy, and Wikipedia; 2) Platforms that are more suitable for observing the dissemination of papers outside the academic community, including Facebook, News, and Twitter. The other platforms are less suitable for academic evaluation. Based on the above research results, the following suggestions are made. When applying altmetric counts in research evaluation, it is recommended to select the appropriate platforms considering specific practical needs and situations. Still, it is recommended to exclude the altmetric counts derived from the manipulation by certain filtration mechanisms to improve the reference value of the indicators. This might be the current best practice for applying altmetric counts to research evaluation. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-08-08T16:06:14Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-08-08T16:06:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 i
謝辭 iii 摘要 v Abstract vii 目次 ix 圖次 xi 表次 xiii 第壹章 緒論 1 第一節 問題陳述 1 第二節 研究目的 7 第三節 研究範圍與限制 9 第四節 名詞解釋 11 第貳章 文獻分析 13 第一節 另類計量概述 13 第二節 論文特徵對於論文另類計量次數之影響 23 第三節 論文另類使用行為 33 第四節 另類計量次數在學術評鑑上的應用 41 第參章 研究設計與實施 51 第一節 研究方法 51 第二節 研究對象與資料來源 55 第三節 資料處理 65 第四節 研究步驟 69 第肆章 研究結果 71 第一節 不同學術領域論文在各種網路平台之另類計量次數分析 71 第二節 論文特徵對於論文另類計量次數之影響分析 93 第三節 論文另類使用行為之分析 129 第四節 各種另類計量次數之分析及其在學術評鑑的應用 151 第五節 綜合討論 161 第伍章 結論與建議 173 第一節 結論 173 第二節 建議 181 第三節 研究貢獻 185 第四節 未來研究建議 189 參考文獻 193 附錄 213 附錄一 不同學術領域論文在各種網路平台之另類計量次數差異分析結果 213 附錄二 高另類計量次數論文與高被引次數論文二元邏輯迴歸分析結果 215 附錄三 不同學術領域之高另類計量次數論文與高被引次數論文二元邏輯迴歸分析結果 217 附錄四 各種網路平台高另類計量次數論文之題名長度差異分析完整結果 219 附錄五 各種網路平台高另類計量次數論文之發表時間差異分析完整結果 221 附錄六 各種網路平台高另類計量次數論文之作者數差異分析完整結果 223 附錄七 各種網路平台高另類計量次數論文之機構數差異分析完整結果 225 附錄八 各種網路平台高另類計量次數論文之國家數差異分析完整結果 227 附錄九 論文特徵對各學術領域論文之另類計量次數影響分析結果 229 附錄十 各種另類計量次數排名前100論文之論文特徵差異分析結果 235 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 從論文特徵與論文另類使用行為探討另類計量次數在學術評鑑之應用 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Exploring the applicability of altmetric counts in research evaluation based upon the characteristic of papers and the alternative usage behaviors | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 111-2 | - |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張郁蔚;陳光華;陳達仁;陳昭珍 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Yu-Wei Chang;Kuang-Hua Chen;Dar-Zen Chen;Chao-Chen Chen | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 網路平台,另類計量次數,被引次數,論文特徵,論文另類使用行為,學術評鑑, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | online platforms,altmetric counts,citations,the characteristics of papers,alternative usage behaviors,research evaluation, | en |
dc.relation.page | 235 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202300856 | - |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2023-05-25 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學系 | - |
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-111-2.pdf | 5.39 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。