請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/99209完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張郁蔚 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Yu-Wei Chang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳沐迦 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Mu-Chia Chen | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-08-21T16:49:11Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-08-22 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2025-08-21 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2025-08-05 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 林雅詩、曾淑賢（2020）。學術期刊評鑑制度對我國圖書資訊學期刊編輯和投稿影響之研究。國家圖書館館刊，109（1），59–94。
邱皓政（2019）。統計原理與分析技術：SPSS中文視窗版操作實務詳析（第6版）。武南圖書。 Adjei, K. O. K., & Owusu-Ansah, C. M. (2016). Publishing preferences among academic researchers: Implications for academic quality and innovation. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2016(1), Article 1349. AD Scientific Index (2024). World 221 Country Rankings 2024. AD Scientific Index .https://www.adscientificindex.com/country-ranking/ Akca, S., & Senyurt, Ö. (2023). Geographical representation of editorial boards: A review in the field of library and information sciences. Scientometrics, 128(2), 1409–1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04614-0 Aman, V. (2018). Does the Scopus author ID suffice to track scientific international mobility? A case study based on Leibniz laureates. Scientometrics, 117(2), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2895-3 Anraku, A., Jin, Y. P., Trope, G. E., & Buys, Y. M. (2009). Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals. Ophthalmology, 116(6), 1093–1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.053 Armstrong, J. S. (1997). Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3 Baldwin, M. (2015). Credibility, peer review, and nature, 1945–1990. Notes and Records: the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science, 69(3), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2015.0029 Barnsteiner, J., Kennedy, M., Flanagin, A., & Sietmann, C. (2020). Nursing journal policies on disclosure and management of conflicts of interest. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 52(6), 680–687. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12605 Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman, H. H. (2009). Scientific achievement and editorial board membership. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107309312 Bergh, D. D. (2008). The developmental editor: Assessing and directing manuscript contribution. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the Black Box of Editorship (pp. 114–123). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590_12 Besancenot, D., Huynh, K. V., & Faria, J. R. (2012). Search and research: The influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality. Theory and Decision, 73(4), 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-012-9314-7 Biolková, M., Moore, T., Schindler, K., Swann, K., Vail, A., Flook, L., Dick, H., Fitzharris, G., Price, C. A., & Spears, N. (2023). Investigation of potential gender bias in the peer review system at reproduction. Learned Publishing, 36(1), 25–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1537 Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914–923. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001 Bornmann, L. (2011). Peer review and bibliometric: Potentials and problems. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education (pp. 145–164). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_8 Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012). What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality? Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.08.004 Bošnjak, L., Puljak, L., Vukojević, K., & Marušić, A. (2011). Analysis of a number and type of publications that editors publish in their own journals: Case study of scholarly journals in croatia. Scientometrics, 86(1), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0207-7 Bransch, F., & Kvasnicka, M. (2022). Male gatekeepers: Gender bias in the publishing process? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 202, 714–732. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.07.031 Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291 Brogaard, J., Engelberg, J., & Parsons, C. A. (2014). Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), 251–270. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.10.006 Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263(10), 1323–1329. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100023003 Burnham, J. C. (1992). How journal editors came to develop and critique peer review procedures. In Research Ethics, Manuscript Review, and Journal Quality (pp. 55–62). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2134/1992.researchethics.c5 Cascio, W. F. (2008). How editors are selected. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship (pp. 231–238). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590_23 Chang, Y.-W. (2022). Capability of non-english-speaking countries for securing a foothold in international journal publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 16(3), 101305. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101305 Clair, J. A. (2015). Procedural injustice in the system of peer review and scientific misconduct. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 159–172. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43697259 Clarivate (2021). About journal citation reports. Journal Citation Reports help. https://jcr.help.clarivate.com/Content/home.htm Clarivate (2024). Web of Science journal evaluation process and selection criteria. Clarivate. https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/webofscience-platform/web-of-science-core-collection/editorial-selection-process/editorial-selection-process/ Cochrane (2024). Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Cochrane Library. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/about-cdsr Colussi, T. (2018). Social ties in academia: A friend is a treasure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 100(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00666 Committee on Publication Ethics (2005). Editor as author in own journal. COPE. https://publicationethics.org/case/editor-author-own-journal Committee on Publication Ethics (2019). A short guide to ethical editing for new editors. COPE. https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/short-guide-ethical-editing-new-editors Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.). Become a member. https://publicationethics.org/join-cope Corley, K. G., & Schinoff, B. S. (2017). Who, me? An inductive study of novice experts in the context of how editors come to understand theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(1), 4–27. Council of Science Editor (2024). CSE’s recommendations for promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. Council of Science Editor. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/recommendations-for-promoting-integrity-in-scientific-journal-publications Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. The American Sociologist, 2(4), 195–201. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27701277 Csiszar, A. (2016). Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature, 532(7599), 306–308. https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a Davis, M. S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10(3), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/714906092 De Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. (2005). Publish or perish: Bane or boon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(4), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492605276850 Delacre, M., Lakens, D., & Leys, C. (2017). Why psychologists should by default use Welch’s t-test instead of student’s t-test? International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.82 Ductor, L., & Visser, B. (2022). When a coauthor joins an editorial board. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 200, 576–595. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.06.014 Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E., Decullier, E., Easterbrook, P. J., Von Elm, E., Gamble, C., Ghersi, D., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Simes, J., & Williamson, P. R. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. Plos One, 3(8), e3081. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003081 Ekmekci, P. E. (2017). An increasing problem in publication ethics: Publication bias and editors’ role in avoiding it. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 20(2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9767-0 Elango, B. (2025). Assigning different document types by Scopus for similar contents: An exploratory analysis. Scientometrics, 130(3), 1989–2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05270‑w Elsevier (2023a). Editorial boards. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/editor/editorial-boards Elsevier (2023b). Scopus Content. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/Content Emerald Publishing. (n.d.). Research publishing ethics: Conflicts of interest. https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/publish-with-us/ethics-integrity/research-publishing-ethics#conflicts-of-interest Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. Plos One, 4(5), Article e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. Plos One, 10(6), Article e0127556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127556 Feldman, D. C. (2008). Building and maintaining a strong editorial board and cadre of ad hoc reviewers. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the Black Box of Editorship (pp. 68–74). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590_7 Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (1997). Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0015-5 Fyfe, A., McDougall-Waters, J., & Moxham, N. (2015). 350 years of scientific periodicals. Notes and Records: the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science, 69(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2015.0036 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002 Gottlieb, J. D., & Bressler, N. M. (2017). How should journals handle the conflict of interest of their editors: Who watches the watchers? JAMA, 317(17), 1757–1758. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.2207 Goudra, B., Gouda, D., Gouda, G., Singh, A., Balu, A., & Gouda, P. (2018). Possible bias in the publication trends of high impact factor anesthesiology and gastroenterology journals: An analysis of 5 years' data. Anesthesia Essays and Researches, 12(3), 611–617. https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.AER_116_18 Green, L. S., & Johnston, M. P. (2022). A contextualization of editorial misconduct in the library and information science academic information ecosystem. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(7), 913–928. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24593 Gureyev, V. N., & Mazov, N. A. (2022). Bibliometrics as a promising tool for solving publication ethics issues. Heliyon, 8(3), Article e09123. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09123 Gyrffy, B., Csuka, G., Herman, P., & Török, Á. (2020). Is there a golden age in publication activity: An analysis of age‑related scholarly performance across all scientific disciplines. Scientometrics, 124(2), 1081–1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03501-w Hamilton, D. G., Fraser, H., Hoekstra, R., & Fidler, F. (2020). Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review. eLife, 9, Article e62529. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62529 Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952–965. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10291 Helgesson, G., Radun, I., Radun, J., & Nilsonne, G. (2022). Editors publishing in their own journals: A systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects. Learned Publishing, 35(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1449 Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5 Howard, L., & Wilkinson, G. (1998). Peer review and editorial decision-making. British Journal of Psychiatry, 173, 110–113. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.173.2.110 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2024). Disclosure of financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflicts of interest. ICMJE. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html Ioannou, P. (2018). Should a scientist be prevented from publishing in a journal for which he works? European Journal of Internal Medicine, 47, Article e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2017.07.023 Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W., & Bond, N. (2001). Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The australian experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 343–364. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594134 Kawashima, H., & Tomizawa, H. (2015). Accuracy evaluation of Scopus Author ID based on the largest funding database in Japan. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1580-z Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston New York. Kravitz, R. L., Franks, P., Feldman, M. D., Gerrity, M., Byrne, C., & Tierney, W. M. (2010). Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: Are they reliable and do editors care? Plos One, 5(4), Article e10072. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010072 Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (Fourth Edition ed.) https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781 Laband, D. N., & Piette, M. J. (1994). Favoritism versus search for good papers: Empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors. Journal of Political Economy, 102(1), 194–203. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138799 Lawani, S. M. (1981). Bibliometrics: Its theoretical foundations, methods and applications. Libri, 31, 294–315. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/libr.1981.31.1.294 Lee, C.-S., & Schrank, A. (2010). Incubating innovation or cultivating corruption? The developmental state and the life sciences in asia. Social Forces, 88(3), 1231–1255. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0282 Lee, C. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Social biases and solutions for procedural objectivity. Hypatia, 26(2), 352–373. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01178.x Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784 Lee, J., Yang, K., & Oh, D.-G. (2020). Factors influencing the choice of a publication venue in library and information science. Learned Publishing, 33(3), 323–332. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1300 Li, D., & Cornelis, G. (2021). Differing perceptions concerning research misconduct between china and flanders: A qualitative study. Accountability in Research, 28(2), 63–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1802586 Lindahl, J. (2018). Predicting research excellence at the individual level: The importance of publication rate, top journal publications, and top 10% publications in the case of early career mathematicians. Journal of Informetrics, 12(2), 518–533. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.04.002 Liu, F. Y., Holme, P., Chiesa, M., AlShebli, B., & Rahwan, T. (2023). Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(3), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01498-1 Luty, J., Arokiadass, S. M., Easow, J. M., & Anapreddy, J. R. (2009). Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(3), 200–202. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.026740 Mabe, M. A. (2009). Scholarly publishing. European Review, 17(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798709000532 Maggio, L., Dong, T., Driessen, E., & Artino, A. (2019). Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0501-x Mani, J., Makarevic, J., Juengel, E., Ackermann, H., Nelson, K., Bartsch, G., Haferkamp, A., & Blaheta, R. A. (2013). I publish in I edit? Do editorial board members of urologic journals preferentially publish their own scientific work? Plos One, 8(12), Article e83709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083709 Medoff, M. H. (2003). Editorial favoritism in economics? Southern Economic Journal, 70(2), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.2307/3648979 MDPI. (n.d.-a). Research and publication ethics. MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/ethics MDPI. (n.d.-b). Instructions for authors: Molecules. MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules/instructions Miller, C. C. (2006). From the editors: Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 425–431. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159774 Mizzaro, S. (2003). Quality control in scholarly publishing: A new proposal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(11), 989–1005. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10296 Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 2016(106), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 Mort, G. S., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Kiel, G., & Soutar, G. N. (2004). Perceptions of marketing journals by senior academics in Australia and New Zealand. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(2), 51–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3582(04)70097-X National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2024). Survey of earned doctorates: 2023 [Annual survey]. U.S. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/earned-doctorates/2023 Osareh, F. (1996). Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: A review of literature I. Libri, 46(3), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1515/libr.1996.46.3.149 Pacheco, R. L., Latorraca, C. O. C., Martimbianco, A. L. C., Miranda, E., Fontes, L. E. S., Nunan, D., & Riera, R. (2022). Adherence to conflicts of interest policy in cochrane reviews where authors are also editorial board members: A cross-sectional analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 13(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1507 Pagel, P. S., & Hudetz, J. A. (2011). Bibliometric analysis of anaesthesia journal editorial board members: Correlation between journal impact factor and the median h-index of its board members. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 107(3), 357–361. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer191 Piller, I. (2022). What exactly does an editor do? Multilingua, 41(6), 629–637. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/multi-2022-0125 Prasad, D. B. (2008). Content analysis: A method of social science research. In D. K. Lal Das (Ed.), Research Methods for Social Work (pp. 174–193). Rawat Publications. Rösing, C. K., Junges, R., & Haas, A. N. (2014). Publication rates of editorial board members in oral health journals. Brazilian Oral Research, 28(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2014.vol28.0042 Resnik, D. B. (2011). A troubled tradition it's time to rebuild trust among authors, editors and peer reviewers. American Scientist, 99(1), 24–27. Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2016). Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5 Resnik, D. B., Konecny, B., & Kissling, G. E. (2017). Conflict of interest and funding disclosure policies of environmental, occupational, and public health journals. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000000910 Rodrigues, F., Gupta, P., Khan, A. P., Chatterjee, T., Sandhu, N. K., & Gupta, L. (2023). The cultural context of plagiarism and research misconduct in the Asian region. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 38(12), Article e88. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e88 Rosenblum, S., St Clair, R. L., Isett, K. R., & Johnson, R. (2020). Publishing while editor: Transparency and behaviour in public administration journals. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(4), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12411 Rowley, J., Sbaffi, L., Sugden, M., & Gilbert, A. (2022). Factors influencing researchers’ journal selection decisions. Journal of Information Science, 48(3), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520958591 Royal Society of Chemistry. (n.d.). Reviewer responsibilities: Reviewing procedure. https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/journal-authors-reviewers/reviewer-responsibilities/#review-procedure Rubin, A., Rubin, E., & Segal, D. (2023). Editor home bias? Research Policy, 52(6), 104766. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104766 Rupp, D. E. (2011). Ethical issues faced by editors and reviewers. Management and Organization Review, 7(3), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00227.x Rynes, S. L. (2008). Communicating with authors. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the Black Box of Editorship (pp. 56–67). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590_6 SAGE Publications. (n.d.-b). Publication ethics and research integrity: Policy guidelines for authors. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/publication-ethics-and-research-integrity-policy-guidelines-for-authors Saad, G. (2010). Applying the h-index in exploring bibliometric properties of elite marketing scholars. Scientometrics, 83(2), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0069-z Safa, M. S. (2011). The journal editor: Manager of an academic publication. International Journal of Business and Management Science, 4(2), 93–103. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/journal-editor-manager-academic-publication/docview/1470892101/se-2?accountid=14229 Sarigöl, E., Garcia, D., Scholtes, I., & Schweitzer, F. (2017). Quantifying the effect of editor–author relations on manuscript handling times. Scientometrics, 113(1), 609–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2309-y Sen-Crowe, B., Sutherland, M., Shir, A., Kinslow, K., Boneva, D., McKenney, M., & Elkbuli, A. (2020). Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 60, 140–145. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.10.042 Shashok, K. (2005). Standardization vs diversity: How can we push peer review research forward? Medscape general medicine, 7(1), 11. Shaw, D., & Satalkar, P. (2018). Researchers’ interpretations of research integrity: A qualitative study. Accountability in Research, 25(2), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1413940 Springer (2023). Editorial boards. Springer. https://www.springer.com/us/authors-editors/editors/editorial-boards Springer. (n.d.-a). Editorial policies. Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies Springer. (n.d.-b). Submission guidelines: Journal of Water Chemistry and Technology. Springer. https://link.springer.com/journal/11962/submission-guidelines Springer. (n.b.-c). Journal editors' code of conduct. Springer Nature. https://www.springernature.com/gp/editors/code-of-conduct-journals Smith R. (2000). What is Research Misconduct? In Williamson A, White C (Eds.), The Cope Report 2000: Annual Report of the Committee on Publication Ethics (pp.7–11). BMJ Books. Taylor & Francis. (n.d.). Editorial policies. Taylor & Francis Author Services. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/editorial-policies/ . Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). Conflicts of interest arising from simultaneous service by editors of competing journals or publishers. Publications, 9(1), 6. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/9/1/6 Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Katavić, V., Dobránszki, J., Al-Khatib, A., & Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2019). Establishing rules for ethicists and ethics organizations in academic publishing to avoid conflicts of interest, favoritism, cronyism and nepotism: An international journal of pure communication inquiry. Kome, 7(1), 110–125. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17646/KOME.75698.87 Tutuncu, L. (2024). Gatekeepers or gatecrashers? The inside connection in editorial board publications of Turkish national journals. Scientometrics 129, 957–984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04905-0 Walters, W. H. (2015). Do editorial board members in library and information science publish disproportionately in the journals for which they serve as board members? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 46(4), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.46.4.03 Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Visser, M. S. (2013). Some modifications to the snip journal impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 272–285. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.011 WAME editorial policy and publication ethics committees. (2009). Conflict of interest in peer-reviewed medical journals. WAME. https://wame.org/conflict-ofinterest-in-peer-reviewed-medical-journals Weller, A. C. (2000). Editorial peer review for electronic journals: Current issues and emerging models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1328–1333. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID-ASI1049>3.0.CO;2-N White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0053 Wiley. (2024). Best practice guidelines on research integrity and publishing ethics. https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html Williams, L. J. (2008). Reflections on creating a new scholarly journal: Perspectives from a founding editor. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the Black Box of Editorship (pp. 188–196). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590_19 Winter, J. C. F. d. (2013). Using the Student's t-test with extremely small sample sizes. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18(1). https://openpublishing.library.umass.edu/pare/article/id/1434/ Xu, S., An, M., & An, X. (2021). Do scientific publications by editorial board members have shorter publication delays and then higher influence? Scientometrics, 126(8), 6697–6713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04067-x Yeung, A. W. K. (2019). Comparison between Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and publishers for mislabelled review papers. Current Science, 116(11), 1909–1914. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v116/i11/1905‑1909 Youk, S., & Park, H. S. (2019). Where and what do they publish? Editors’ and editorial board members’ affiliated institutions and the citation counts of their endogenous publications in the field of communication. Scientometrics, 120(3), 1237–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03169-x Zdeněk, R. (2018). Editorial board self-publishing rates in czech economic journals. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 669–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9922-2 Zdeněk, R., & Lososová, J. (2018). An analysis of editorial board members’ publication output in agricultural economics and policy journals. Scientometrics, 117(1), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2881-9 Zhu, M. M., Lu, X. Y., Chen, F. Y., Yang, L. Y., & Shen, Z. S. (2024). An explorative study on document type assignment of review articles in Web of Science, Scopus and journals’ websites. Journal of Data and Information Science, 9(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis‑2024‑0003 Zsindely, S., Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1982). Citation patterns of editorial gatekeepers in international chemistry journals. Scientometrics, 4(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02098007 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/99209 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在學術領域中，學術出版是促進知識流通的主要管道，學術期刊的主編和編輯負責管理學術出版過程，因而被視為學術研究品質和學術交流過程的守門人，然而編輯同時亦具研究者身分，有發表需求，遂引發對於編輯能否在自身期刊發表著作之討論。本研究欲了解編輯自我發表（self-publishing）之行為，並以期刊最高權力之編輯—主編作為研究對象，基於領域期刊數及國家分佈考量，選定化學領域423種JCR期刊之472位主編，利用書目計量法及內容分析法探究主編自我發表情形，期望了解主編內稿比例（self-publication percentage）分佈，從國家、期刊、個人三種層次探討主編自我發表，並且調查期刊針對自我發表政策之制定。
研究結果發現，多數化學期刊主編有自我發表情形，並且內稿比例具高度變化，未曾在該期刊發表著作之主編，任職後內稿比例顯著提升。不同洲之期刊主編在內稿比例上未達顯著差異，各國期刊以韓國、波蘭及俄羅斯期刊之主編內稿比例最高，中國及阿拉伯聯合大公國期刊之主編最低；在學術引文表現相近之美國、英國及中國當中，發現中國期刊之主編之內稿比例顯著低於英美期刊。就期刊層次而言，內稿情形在期刊等級較低之期刊更為常見，主編內稿比例和其任職期刊之期刊排名百分比和SNIP係數呈負相關。就主編之個人特徵而言，發現主編任期長度越長、任內年均著作量越高，主編任內年均內稿數越高，又以任內年均著作量為影響內稿數最重要因素。最後，本研究調查25種化學期刊之政策，發現所有期刊皆同意主編或編輯自我發表，僅規定發表時需迴避或揭露利益衝突。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | In the academic community, scholarly publishing serves as the primary channel for disseminating knowledge. Journal editors, particularly editors-in-chief, play a vital role in managing the scholarly publishing process and are widely regarded as gatekeepers of research quality and scholarly communication. However, editors are also active researchers with publication needs, raising concerns about the appropriateness of publishing in their own journals. This study investigates the self-publishing behavior of editors-in-chief in the field of chemistry. Based on the number and geographical distribution of journals, a total of 472 editors-in-chief from 423 JCR-indexed chemistry journals were selected. Employing bibliometric analysis and content analysis, the study examines the distribution of self-publication ratios and explores this phenomenon at national, journal, and individual levels. In addition, editorial policies regarding self-publishing behavior were reviewed.
The findings reveal that most editors-in-chief have published in their own journals, with considerable variation in self-publication percentage. Editors who had no prior publications in the journal showed significantly increased self-publication after assuming the position. No significant differences were found across continents; however, editors-in-chief of journals from Korea, Poland, and Russia had the highest self-publication ratios, while those from China and the United Arab Emirates had the lowest. Despite similar levels of national citation performance, editors of Chinese journals published a significantly lower self-publication percentage compared to editors of journals based in the UK and the US. At the journal level, self-publication was more prevalent in lower-ranked journals, and the self-publication percentage was negatively correlated with journal ranking percentiles and SNIP. At the individual level, editors with longer tenures and higher annual publication output were associated with greater levels of self-publication, with annual publication output being the strongest factor. Finally, an analysis of 25 journal policies showed that all permitted self-publication by editors, provided that conflicts of interest were disclosed or editorial involvement was avoided. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2025-08-21T16:49:11Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2025-08-21T16:49:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 i
中文摘要 ii 中文摘要 iii 目次 v 圖次 vii 表次 viii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 6 第三節 研究範圍與限制 7 第四節 名詞解釋 9 第二章 文獻分析 11 第一節 期刊編輯之學術出版角色 11 第二節 期刊編輯之出版決策偏見 17 第三節 期刊編輯之雙重身份與自我發表 24 第四節 期刊編輯自我發表與學術倫理 27 第五節 期刊編輯自我發表與利益衝突政策 30 第三章 研究設計與實施 36 第一節 研究方法 36 第二節 研究步驟 38 第三節 資料蒐集 39 第四節 資料處理與分析 50 第四章 研究結果 56 第一節 樣本描述 56 第二節 主編發表狀況 62 第三節 自我發表概況 68 第四節 國家、期刊及主編個人層次之自我發表情形 73 第五節 期刊編輯自我發表政策 86 第五章 結論與建議 90 第一節 結論 90 第二節 建議 95 第三節 研究貢獻 97 參考文獻 98 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 學術出版 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 自我發表 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 期刊主編 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 學術出版倫理 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 期刊政策 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | editor-in-chief | en |
| dc.subject | scholarly publishing | en |
| dc.subject | journal policy | en |
| dc.subject | publication ethics | en |
| dc.subject | self-publishing | en |
| dc.title | 化學期刊主編之自我發表研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Examining Self-publishing Among Editors-in-chief of Chemistry Journals | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 113-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林奇秀;林雯瑤 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chi-Shiou Lin;Wen-Yau Lin | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 學術出版,自我發表,期刊主編,學術出版倫理,期刊政策, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | scholarly publishing,self-publishing,editor-in-chief,publication ethics,journal policy, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 110 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202503903 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2025-08-07 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2025-08-22 | - |
| 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-113-2.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用（校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務） | 2 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。