請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/48625
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 黃慕萱 | |
dc.contributor.author | Han-Wen Chang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 張瀚文 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T07:05:16Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-12-17 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2010-12-17 | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2010-12-09 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University-industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29(6-7), 498-507.
Abt, H. A. (1981). Some trends in American astronomical publications. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 93(553), 269-272. Abt, H. A. (1984). Citations to single and multiauthored papers. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 96(583), 746-749. Abt, H. A. (1988). What happens to rejected astronomical papers? Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 100(626), 506-508. Abt, H. A. (1990a). Publication characteristics of members of the American Astronomical Society. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 102(656), 1161-1166. Abt, H. A. (1990b). Trends toward internationalization in astronomical literature. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 102(649), 368-372. Abt, H. A. (1992). Publication practices in various sciences. Scientometrics, 24(3), 441-447. Abt, H. A. (1993). The growth of multiwavelength astrophysics. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 105(686), 437-439. Abt, H. A. (1994). The current burst in astronomical publications. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 106(703), 1015-1017. Abt, H. A. (1995). Changing sources of published information. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 107(710), 401-403. Abt, H. A. (1996). How long are astronomical papers remembered? Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 108(729), 1059-1061. Abt, H. A. (1998). Is the astronomical literature still expanding exponentially? Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 110(744), 210-213. Abt, H. A. (2000a). Astronomical publication in the near future. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 112(777), 1417-1420. Abt, H. A. (2000b). What can we learn from publication studies. In A. Heck (Ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy (pp. 77-90). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Abt, H. A. (2007). The frequencies of multinational papers in various sciences. Scientometrics, 72(1), 105-115. Adams, J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., & Stephan, P. E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from US universities, 1981-1999. Research Policy, 34(3), 259-285. Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159-170. Andersson, Å. E., & Persson, O. (1993). Networking scientists. Annals of Regional Science, 27(1), 11-21. Arunachalam, S., & Jinandra Doss, M. (2000a). Mapping international collaboration in science in Asia through coauthorship analysis. Current Science, 79(5), 621-628. Arunachalam, S., & Jinandra Doss, M. (2000b). Science in a small country at a time of globalisation: Domestic and international collaboration in new biology research in Israel. Journal of Information Science, 26(1), 39-49. Arunachalam, S., Srinivasan, R., & Raman, V. (1994). International collaboration in science: Participation by the Asian giants. Scientometrics, 30(1), 7-22. Avkiran, N. K. (1997). Scientific collaboration in finance does not lead to better quality research. Scientometrics, 39(2), 173-184. Barjak, F., & Robinson, S. (2007). International collaboration, mobility and team diversity in the life sciences: Impact on research performance. Social Geography Discussions, 3, 121-157. Basu, A., & Aggarwal, R. (2001). International collaboration in science in India and its impact on institutional performance. Scientometrics, 52(3), 379-394. Basu, A., & Kumar, B. S. V. (2000). International collaboration in Indian scientific papers. Scientometrics, 48(3), 381-402. Beaver, D. d. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration, (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365-377. Beaver, D. d. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics, 60(3), 399-408. Beaver, D. d., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration. Part I. Professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65-84. Beckmann, M. (1993). Knowledge networks: The case of scientific interaction at a distance. Annals of Regional Science, 27(1), 5-9. Belkhodja, O., & Landry, R. (2007). The Triple-Helix collaboration: Why do researchers collaborate with industry and the government? What are the factors that influence the perceived barriers? Scientometrics, 70(2), 301-332. Bettencourt, L. M. A., Kaiser, D. I., & Kaur, J. (2009). Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 210-221. Birnholtz, J. P. (2007). When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2226-2239. Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2000). Collaboration networks in science. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: a festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 197-213). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. & ASIS. Bordons, M., Gómez, I., Fernández, M. T., Zulueta, M. A., & Mendez, A. (1996). Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37(2), 279-295. Bordons, M., García Jover, F., & Barrigón, S. (1993). Is collaboration improving research visibility? Research Evaluation, 3(1), 19-24. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists' collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599-616. Bozeman, D. P., Street, M. D., & Fiorito, J. (1999). Positive and negative coauthor behaviors in the process of research collaboration. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14(2), 159-176. Braun, T., Gómez, I., Mendez, A., & Schubert, A. (1992). International co-authorship patterns in physics and its subfields, 1981-1985. Scientometrics, 24(2), 181-200. Braun, T., & Glänzel, W. (1996). International collaboration: will it be keeping alive East European research? Scientometrics, 36(2), 247-254. Butcher, J., & Jeffrey, P. (2005). The use of bibliometric indicators to explore industry-academia collaboration trends over time in the field of membrane use for water treatment. Technovation, 25(11), 1273-1280. Carayannis, E. G., & Laget, P. (2004). Transatlantic innovation infrastructure networks: public-private, EU-US R&D partnerships. R & D Management, 34(1), 17-31. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal Of The American Society For Information Science And Technology, 54(9), 855-871. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2003, Dec. 2003). KDI initiative: Multidisciplinary scientific collaborations. Retrieved Aug. 2, 2006, from http://www.provost.wisc.edu/interdisciplinarity/pdf/NSF_KDI_report.pdf Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703-722. Dastidar, P. G. (2004). Ocean Science & Technology research across the countries: A global scenario. Scientometrics, 59(1), 15-27. Duque, R. B., Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D. B. S., & Shrum, W. (2005). Collaboration paradox: Scientific productivity, the Internet, and problems of research in developing areas. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 755-785. Engels, A., Ruschenburg, T., & Weingart, P. (2005). Recent internationalization of global environmental change research in Germany and the US. Scientometrics, 62(1), 67-85. Esterle, L., & Zitt, M. (2000). Observation of scientific publications in astronomy/astrophysics. In A. Heck (Ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy (pp. 91-109). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1996a). Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23, 279-286. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1996b). A triple helix of academic-industry-government relations: Development models beyond 'capitalism versus socialism'. Current Science, 70(8), 690-693. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and 'mode 2' to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123. Fernández, J. A. (1998). The transition from an individual science to a collective one: The case of astronomy. Scientometrics, 42(1), 61-74. Fernández, M. T., Agis, A., Martin, A., Cabrero, A., & Gómez, I. (1992). Cooperative research projects between the Spanish National Research Council and Latin-American institutions. Scientometrics, 23(1), 137-148. 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, 26(6), 759-767. Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9(4), 481-497. Frenken, K., Holzl, W., & de Vor, F. (2005). The citation impact of research collaborations: The case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988-2002). Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(1-2), 9-30. Gómez, I., Fernández, M. T., & Sebastián, J. (1999). Analysis of the structure of international scientific cooperation networks through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 44(3), 441-457. Geuna, A. (1998). Determinants of university participation in EU-funded R & D cooperative projects. Research Policy, 26(6), 677-687. Glänzel, W. (2000). Science in Scandinavia: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 48(2), 121-150. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69-115. Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461-473. Glänzel, W., & de Lange, C. (1997). Modelling and measuring multilateral co-authorship in international scientific collaboration. Part II. A comparative study on the extent and change of international scientific collaboration links. Scientometrics, 40(3), 605-626. Glänzel, W., & de Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54(1), 75-89. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort = Double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199-214. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 257-276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., & Czerwon, H. J. (1999). A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985-1995). Scientometrics, 45(2), 185-202. Glänzel, W., & Winterhager, M. (1992). International collaboration of three East European countries with Germany in the sciences, 1980-1989. Scientometrics, 25(2), 219-227. Goktepe, D. (2003). The Triple Helix as a model to analyze Israeli Magnet Program and lessons for late-developing countries like Turkey. Scientometrics, 58(2), 219-239. Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & DeRouen, K. (2003). Science from the periphery: Collaboration, networks and 'Periphery Effects' in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1995-2000. Scientometrics, 57(3), 321-337. Gordon, M. D. (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. Gossart, C., & Ozman, M. (2009). Co-authorship networks in social sciences: The case of Turkey. Scientometrics, 78(2), 323-345. Gupta, B. M., & Karisiddappa, C. R. (1998). Collaboration in theoretical population genetics speciality. Scientometrics, 42(3), 349-376. Gupta, B. M., Kumar, S., & Karisiddappa, C. R. (1997). Collaboration profile of theoretical population genetics speciality. Scientometrics, 39(3), 293-314. Gupta, B. M., Munshi, U. M., & Mishra, P. K. (2002). S&T collaboration of India with other South Asian countries. Current Science, 83(10), 1201-1209. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods Available from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/ 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. 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. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. Information Society, 18(5), 385-401. Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 125-147. Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Learning and knowledge networks in interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1079-1092. Hearnshaw, J. (2007). A survey of published astronomical outputs of countries from 1976 to 2005 and the dependence of output on population, number of IAU members and gross domestic product. In J. Hearnshaw & P. Martinez (Eds.), Astronomy for the developing world (pp. 9-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Heck, A. (2000). Astronomy-related organizations: Geographical distributions, ages and sizes. In A. Heck (Ed.), Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy (pp. 7-66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Heck, A. (Ed.). (2004). StarGuides plus: A world-wide directory of organizations in astronomy and related space sciences. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Heck, A. (Ed.). (2006). Organizations and strategies in astronomy. Volume 6. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Heffner, A. G. (1981). Funded research, multiple authorship, and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics, 3(1), 5-12. Heimeriks, G., Horlesberger, M., & Van den Besselaara, P. (2003). Mapping communication and collaboration in heterogeneous research networks. Scientometrics, 58(2), 391-413. Heinze, T., & Kuhlmann, S. (2008). Across institutional boundaries? Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience. Research Policy, 37(5), 888-899. Hicks, D. M., & Katz, J. S. (1996). Where is science going? Science Technology & Human Values, 21(4), 379-406. HLM - Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling (HLM). (n.d.). Scientific Software International, Inc. Retrieved February, 7, 2008, from http://www.ssicentral.com/hlm/index.html Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., & Liu, Z. (2008). The structure of scientific collaboration networks in Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 189-202. Hsieh, Y. S. (January 11, 2007a). The fundamental concepts of multilevel analysis (AGEX 630 M1990 Class notes ed.). Taipei: National Taiwan University. Hsieh, Y. S. (January 11, 2007b). Multilevel analysis: hierarchical linear model (AGEX 630 M1990 Class notes ed.). Taipei: National Taiwan University. Inzelt, A., Schubert, A., & Schubertc, M. (2009). Incremental citation impact due to international co-authorship in Hungarian higher education institutions. Scientometrics, 78(1), 37-43. Iribarren-Maestro, I., Lascurain-Sanchez, M., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2009). Are multi-authorship and visibility related? Study of ten research areas at Carlos III University of Madrid. Scientometrics, 79(1), 191-200. Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31-43. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18. Kim, K. W. (2006). Measuring international research collaboration of peripheral countries: taking the context into consideration. Scientometrics, 66(2), 231-240. Kim, M. J. (1999). Korean international co-authorship in science 1994 -1996. Journal of Information Science, 25(5), 403-412. Kim, M. J. (2005). Korean science and international collaboration, 1995-2000. Scientometrics, 63(2), 321-339. Kretschmer, H. (1985). Cooperation structure, group size and productivity in research groups. Scientometrics, 7(1-2), 39-53. Kretschmer, H. (1994). Coauthorship networks of invisible colleges and institutionalized communities. Scientometrics, 30, 363-369. Kretschmer, H. (1997). Patterns of behaviour in coauthorship networks of invisible colleges. Scientometrics, 40(3), 579-591. Kretschmer, H. (1999). A new model of scientific collaboration. Part 1. Theoretical approach. Scientometrics, 46(3), 501-518. Kretschmer, H. (2002). Similarities and dissimilarities in coauthorship for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature. Library Trends, 50(3), 474-497. Kretschmer, H., Hoffmann, U., & Kretschmer, T. (2006). Collaboration structures between German immunology institutions, and gender visibility, as reflected in the Web. Research Evaluation, 15(2), 117-126. Kundra, R., & Kretschmer, H. (1999). A new model of scientific collaboration. Part 2. Collaboration patterns in Indian medicine. Scientometrics, 46(3), 519-528. Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C., Demleitner, M., & Murray, S. S. (2005). Worldwide use and impact of the NASA astrophysics data system digital library. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 36-45. Landry, R., Traore, N., & Godin, B. (1996). An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. Higher Education, 32(3), 283-301. Larsen, K. (2008). Knowledge network hubs and measures of research impact, science structure, and publication output in nanostructured solar cell research. Scientometrics, 74(1), 123-142. Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: Why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7-8), 762-781. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3-15. Lazega, E., Mounier, L., Jourda, M. T., & Stofer, R. L. (2006). Organizational vs. personal social capital in scientists' performance: A multi-level network study of elite French cancer researchers (1996-1998). Scientometrics, 67(1), 27-44. Leclerc, M., & Gagne, J. (1994). International scientific cooperation: The continentalization of science. Scientometrics, 31(3), 261-292. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673-702. Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? Bioscience, 55(5), 438-443. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2004). Collaboration: The social context of theory development. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 164-172. Leydesdorff, L. (2000). Is the European Union becoming a single publication system? Scientometrics, 47(2), 265-280. Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Mapping interdisciplinarity at the interfaces between the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 71(3), 391-405. Leydesdorff, L., & Sun, Y. (2009). National and International Dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University-Industry-Government Versus International Coauthorship Relations. Journal Of The American Society For Information Science And Technology, 60(4), 778-788. Liang, L. M., Kretschmer, H., Guo, Y. Z., & Beaver, D. d. (2001). Age structures of scientific collaboration in Chinese computer science. Scientometrics, 52(3), 471-486. Lorigo, L., & Pellacini, F. (2007). Frequency and structure of long distance scholarly collaborations in a physics community. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1497-1502. Luukkonen, T. (1992). IS SCIENTISTS PUBLISHING BEHAVIOR REWARD-SEEKING. Scientometrics, 24(2), 297-319. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science Technology & Human Values, 17(1), 101-126. Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R. J. W., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15-36. Marion, L. S., Garfield, E., Hargens, L. L., Lievrouw, L. A., White, H. D., & Wilson, C. S. (2003). Social network analysis and citation network analysis: Complementary approaches to the study of scientific communication ASIST 2003: Proceedings of the 66th ASIST Annual Meeting (Vol. 40, pp. 486-487). Medford: Information Today Inc. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I. (2006). Scientific collaboration of new 10 EU countries in the field of social sciences. Information Processing & Management, 42(6), 1592-1598. Martinez, P. (1998). International cooperation in ground-based astronomy. Astrophysics and Space Science, 258(1-2), 367-382. Meadows, A. J., & O'Connor, J. G. (1971). Bibliographical statistics as a guide to growth points in science. Science Studies, 1(1), 95-99. Melin, G. (1996). The networking university: A study of a Swedish university using institutional co-authorships as an indicator. Scientometrics, 35(1), 15-31. Melin, G. (1999). Impact of national size on research collaboration: A comparison between Northern European and American universities. Scientometrics, 46(1), 161-170. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31-40. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363-377. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1998). Hotel cosmopolitan: A bibliometric study of collaboration at some European universities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(1), 43-48. Miquel, J. F., Ojasoo, T., Okubo, Y., Paul, A., & Dore, J. C. (1995). World science in 18 disciplinary areas: Comparative evaluation of the publication patterns of 48 countries over the period 1981-1992. Scientometrics, 33(2), 149-167. Miquel, J. F., & Okubo, Y. (1994). Structure of international collaboration in science. Part II. Comparisons of profiles in countries using a link indicator. Scientometrics, 29(2), 271-297. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213-238. Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 103-127. Nagpaul, P. S. (1999). Transnational linkages of Indian science: A structural analysis. Scientometrics, 46(1), 109-140. Nagpaul, P. S. (2002). Visualizing cooperation networks of elite institutions in India. Scientometrics, 54(2), 213-228. Nagpaul, P. S. (2003). Exploring a pseudo-regression model of transnational cooperation in science. Scientometrics, 56(3), 403-416. Nagpaul, P. S., & Sharma, L. (1994). Research output and transnational cooperation in physics subfields: a multidimensional analysis. Scientometrics, 31(1), 97-122. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers Scientometrics, 21(3), 313-323. Narvaez-Berthelemot, N. (1995). An index to measure the international collaboration of developing countries based on the participation of national institutions: The case of Latin America Scientometrics, 34(1), 37-44. Narvaez-Berthelemot, N., Frigoletto, L. P., & Miquel, J. F. (1992). International scientific collaboration in Latin America. Scientometrics, 24(3), 373-392. Newman, M. E. J. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016131. Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016132. Newman, M. E. J. (2001c). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404-409. Newman, M. E. J. (2003). Ego-centered networks and the ripple effect. Social Networks, 25(1), 83-95. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(suppl. 1), 5200–5205. Odenwald, S. (1997). What is the difference between astronomy and astrophysics? Ask the Astronomer at The Astronomy Cafe. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q449.html Okubo, Y., Miquel, J. F., Frigoletto, L., & Dore, J. C. (1992). Structure of international collaboration in science: Typology of countries through multivariate techniques using a link indicator. Scientometrics, 25(2), 321-351. Olmeda-Gomez, C., Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Ovalle-Perandones, M. A., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Anegon, F. D. (2009). Visualization of scientific co-authorship in Spanish universities From regionalization to internationalization. Aslib Proceedings, 61(1), 83-100. Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441-453. Pao, M. L. (1982). Collaboration in computational musicology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 33(1), 38-43. Pao, M. L. (1992). Global and local collaborators: A study of scientific collaboration. Information Processing & Management, 28(1), 99-109. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of university-industry-government relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives. Research Policy, 39(5), 640-649. 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. Persson, O., Melin, G., Danell, R., & Kaloudis, A. (1997). Research collaboration at Nordic universities. Scientometrics, 39(2), 209-223. Ponds, R. (2009). The limits to internationalization of scientific research collaboration. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(1), 76-94. Ponds, R., Van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423-443. Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1132-1205. Qin, J., Lancaster, F. W., & Allen, B. (1997). Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 893-916. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Rey-Mocha, J., Garzón-García, B., & Martin-Sempere, M. J. (2006). Scientists' performance and consolidation of research teams in Biology and Biomedicine at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research. Scientometrics, 69(2), 183-212. Rey-Mocha, J., Garzón-García, B., & Martin-Sempere, M. J. (2007). Exploring social integration as a determinant of research activity, performance and prestige of scientists. Empirical evidence in the Biology and Biomedicine field. Scientometrics, 72(1), 59-80. Rivellini, G., Rizzi, E., & Zaccarin, S. (2006). The science network in Italian population research: An analysis according to the social network perspective. Scientometrics, 67(3), 407-418. Russell, J. M., & Almada de Ascencio, M. (1997). Patterns of Collaboration of Scientists at the National University of Mexico (UNAM). International Scientific Migrations. Retrieved from http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers4/010022327-10.pdf The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System. (n.d.). Retrieved September 13, 2008, from http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/ Scharringhausen, B. (2002, January). What's the difference between astronomy and astrophysics? Curions About Astronomy: Ask an Astronomer. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=30 Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1990). International collaboration in the sciences, 1981-1985. Scientometrics, 19(1-2), 3-10. Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (2006). Cross-national preference in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics, 69(2), 409-428. Shirabe, M., & Tomizawa, H. (2002). Likelihood of overseas access to international co-authorships. Scientometrics, 53(1), 123-129. Shirabe, M., & Tomizawa, H. (2004). Likelihood of inbound/outbound access to co-authorship. Scientometrics, 59(3), 337-344. Small, H. (1995). Navigating the citation network Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting (Vol. 32, pp. 118-126). Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review Of Information Science And Technology, 41, 643-681. Storer, N. W. (1970). The internationality of science and the nationality of scientists. International Social Science Journal, 22(1), 80-93. Suárez-Balseiro, C., Sanz-Casado, E., & Ortiz-Rivera, L. (2006). Patterns of international scientific co-operation in Puerto Rico. Scientometrics, 67(3), 335-350. Suarez-Balseiro, C., Garcia-Zorita, C., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2009). Multi-authorship and its impact on the visibility of research from Puerto Rico. Information Processing & Management, 45(4), 469-476. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33-38. Trimble, V. (1995). Papers and citations resulting from data collected at large, American optical telescopes. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 107(716), 977-980. Trimble, V., & Ceja, J. A. (2007). Productivity and impact of astronomical facilities: A statistical study of publications and citations. Astronomische Nachrichten, 328(9), 983-994. Trimble, V., & Zaich, P. (2006). Productivity and impact of radio telescopes. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118(844), 933-938. Trimble, V., Zaich, P., & Bosler, T. (2005). Productivity and impact of optical telescopes. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 117(827), 111-118. Trimble, V., Zaich, P., & Bosler, T. (2006). Productivity and impact of space-based astronomical facilities. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118(842), 651-655. UNESCO. (2008, January 21). UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved February | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/48625 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究探討天文學與天文物理學國際合著網絡之特性、變遷以及影響因素。研究首先利用社會網絡分析指標分析2001至2009年天文學與天文物理學之國際合著網絡特性,藉由觀察天文學機構於網絡的定位與互動關係,找出最中心以及最邊緣的機構,並調查較強連結之機構配對與凝聚子群;其次探討國際合著網絡動態,比較不同時期的網絡特性,以了解機構的網絡中心性與合著關係之變遷;最末檢驗影響國際合著的因素,從機構研究資源觀點,討論專業儀器與研究人力是否影響機構之網絡中心性及其對外國合著對象的偏好,同時分析研究資源是否對這些特性的變化造成影響。
本研究收集六種天文學與天文物理學國際專業期刊於2001至2009年出版之期刊論文,共57,934篇。經過分析彙整,以606所來自世界各國的天文學機構為研究對象,分析其國際合著網絡。研究結果發現,天文學與天文物理學國際合著情形相當普遍,九年間約有半數以上的期刊文獻屬國際合著研究,且比例仍持續上升。有越來越多機構傾向與不同國家、不同外國機構合著。雖然天文學與天文物理學之國際合著十分常見,但仍存在機構差異,顯示國際合著研究應考量機構層次。在分析的國際合著網絡中,以義大利國家天文物理學院 (Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica,簡稱INAF) 與歐洲南天文台 (European Southern Observatory,簡稱ESO)的網絡中心性最高,而日本氣象廳 (Japan Meteorological Agency,簡稱JMA) 位於最邊緣位置。 在動態網絡部份, 2001至2009年之間天文學與天文物理學國際合著網絡的規模雖不斷擴張,但整體而言無太多劇烈變化。各機構網絡中心性排名雖有起伏,但變動有限。雖然連結強度、機構配對與凝聚子群等特性隨著時間改變,但沒有太大變動,若干機構甚至傾向與合作夥伴維持穩定的關係。 在影響因素部份,本研究顯示天文學機構的研究資源確實會影響其國際合著網絡的中心性—資源條件愈好的機構,往往有較多國際合著的對象,且合著對象越來越多。資源條件好的機構也有較大的中介影響力,但該影響力未隨時間快速成長,對擁有專業儀器的機構而言,其網絡中介影響力反有減緩的趨勢,可能與儀器或觀測資源日漸普及有關。而資源的優勢並未對機構的接近中心性帶來正向影響;當人力增加時,機構在網絡上與各外國機構的平均距離甚至愈來愈遠,這可能與其研究獨立性增加有關。至於研究資源對機構合著對象偏好的影響則未如預期—結果顯示,天文學機構在進行國際合著時,不會偏好資源較優勢的對象。相較之下,「同性相吸」在天文學與天文物理學國際合著網絡更為普遍。關係較強的連結多存在於中心性相近的機構,尤其是位於相對邊緣者之間。該現象亦反應在地理位置接近的機構間—天文學機構明顯偏好與鄰近機構進行跨國合著,顯示地理因素對國際合著活動的影響效果極大。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This study is undertaken to explore international collaboration network in astronomy and astrophysics. It aims (1) to illustrate general characteristics of international collaboration network among astronomical institutions, (2) to demonstrate the dynamics of these properties of the network, and (3) to examine whether an institution’s research resources affect its centrality and relationships in the network. The study compiled 57,934 papers in six astronomical journals from 2001 to 2009. The sample consists of 606 astronomical institutions worldwide.
The results show that international collaboration is prevalent in modern astronomical community. Almost all countries and institutions have experienced international collaborations over the nine years. Yet there are significant individual differences in the extent of international collaboration among astronomical institutions. In the network, the Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF) and European Southern Observatory (ESO) are the most notable actors with the highest values of centrality, while Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) is the only institution that separated completely from others. The international collaboration network gradually grew and expanded during the nine-year span analyzed; however, most institutions have undergone some but not radical changes in their positions and relationships in the network. Some organizations even maintain stable relationships with every foreign counterpart. Overall, there is no significant change in an institution’s preference for each of partners in the international collaboration network. Moreover, the results show that astronomical institutions with advantaged resources are more likely to have more foreign partners and play an influential role in the international collaboration network. An institution with advantages of research manpower has faster growth rate of degree and betweenness centrality. Yet research resources do not positively affect an organization’s closeness centrality. The results show that an institution does not tend to shorten its access paths to others as it has more adequate research manpower. In terms of relationships, the influence of research resources on the co-authorship preference is not as significant as it is expected. It is indicated that astronomical institutions do not prefer counterparts with higher levels of research resources in international collaborations. In general, “birds of a feather flock together” or “homophily” appears more often than “opposite attract” in the international collaboration network. Sturdy links are usually built by two peripheral institutions. Another indication is the significant effect of geographic closeness on the preference. Institutions apparently prefer foreign counterparts in neighbor countries to those in different regions. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T07:05:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-D91126002-1.pdf: 2099217 bytes, checksum: 7ec578056f41b8e17fbf64a281e7c967 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Problem Statement 1 1.2 Research Objectives and Questions 6 1.3 Significance of the Study 8 1.4 Limitations of the Study 9 1.5 Definition of Terms 11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 15 2.1 Studies on Research Collaboration 15 2.2 Measurements of International Collaboration 24 2.3 Factors in International Collaboration 29 2.4 Research Features in Astronomy and Astrophysics 42 CHAPTER 3 METHODS 48 3.1 Research Design 48 3.2 Research Method 63 3.3 Research Instruments 67 3.4 Data Collection 69 3.5 Procedures 70 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 73 4.1 Properties of the International Collaboration Network 73 4.2 Dynamics of the International Collaboration Network 91 4.3 Effects of Research Resources on International Collaboration Networking 114 4.4 Discussion 130 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 138 5.1 Research Findings 138 5.2 Implications and Recommendations 144 5.3 Further Research 150 REFERENCES 153 APPENDIX A Astronomical institutions name table 167 APPENDIX B Top 50 central astronomical institutions, 2001-2009 170 APPENDIX C Top 50 central astronomical institutions, by period 171 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 天文學與天文物理學國際合著網絡之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | An Analysis of International Collaboration Network in Astronomy and Astrophysics through Co-authored Publications | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 99-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 朱則剛,吳明德,卜小蝶,吳美美 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 天文學與天文物理學,合作研究,國際合作,合著網絡,網絡中心性,合著關係,合作偏好, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Astronomy and Astrophysics,Scientific Collaboration,International Collaboration,Co-authorship Network,Network Centrality,Collaborative Relationships,Co-authorship Preference, | en |
dc.relation.page | 173 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2010-12-09 | |
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-99-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.05 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。