請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/69847
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳光華 | |
dc.contributor.author | Su-Shuan Wu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 吳舒軒 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T03:30:39Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-03-01 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-03-01 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-02-22 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 吳紹群、陳雪華(2011)。人文學專書出版問題對學術傳播之影響。大學圖書館,15(2),39-61。
吳鵬森、房列曙(2000)。人文社會科學基礎。上海:上海人民。 周祝瑛(2014)。臺灣人文及社會科學領域學術研究評鑑指標問題。市北教育學刊,(47),1-19。 邵婉卿(2010)。期刊評鑑及期刊影響係數之研究。臺灣圖書館管理季刊,6(3),75-94。 陳光華、陳雅琦(2014)。探索人文學社會學者研究產出之總合軌跡:以臺灣大學人文社會高等研究院為例。圖書資訊學刊,12(2),81-116。 陳伯璋(2005)。學術資本主義下台灣教育學門學術評鑑制度的省思。載於反思會議工作小組(主編)全球化與知識生產:反思台灣學術評鑑(頁 205-234)。台北:台灣社會學研究季刊。 黃厚銘(2004)。省思台灣社會科學學術評鑑制度。當代,203,38-45。 黃慕萱、張郁蔚(2005)。從研究產出探討人文社會學者學術評鑑之特性。圖書資訊學刊,2(3/4),1-19。 黃慕萱、楊曉雯(2012)。經濟學者及社會學者引用文獻特性及學術表現之研究。圖書與資訊學刊,(80),59-75。 黃慕萱、嚴竹蓮(2016)。同儕審查的起源、研究現況與展望。圖書資訊學刊,14(1),41-85。 劉春麗、何欽成(2013)。不同類型選擇性計量指標評價論文相關性研究:基於Mendeley、F1000和Google Scholar三種學術社交網絡工具。情報學報,32(2),206-212。 蔡明月(2004)。論資訊計量學。圖書館學與資訊科學,30(2),83-91。 蔡明月、李旻嬑(2013)。臺灣社會科學引用文獻分析研究。教育資料與圖書館學,50(3),293–317。 蔡明月、邱琦茹(2013)。人文學引用文獻分析研究。國家圖書館館刊,19(2),111–138。 蔡明月、曾苓莉(2014)。網路計量學新指標 Altmetrics。教育資料與圖書館學,51, 91-120。 關於Google 圖書搜尋(2016)。取自https://books.google.com/intl/zh-TW/googlebooks/facts.html 蘇國賢等(2013)。學術自主與控管之間:臺灣人文與社會科學的學術專業化。臺北市:臺大出版中心。 About Google Scholar. (2016). Retrieved July 23, 2016, from https://scholar.google.com.tw/intl/zh-TW/scholar/about.html Aguillo, I. F. (2011). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343–351. Almind, T. C., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: Methodological approaches to ‘webometrics’. Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 404–426. Archambault, E., & Larivière, V. (2010). The limits of bibliometrics for the analysis of the social sciences and humanities literature. World Social Science Report, 251–254. Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2005). Welcome to the linguistic warp zone: Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities. In Proceedings of the ISSI 2005 Conference (pp. 24–28). Stockholm. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1–52. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1205.5611. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5611 Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes: SRHE and Open University Press. Bik, H. M., & Goldstein, M. C. (2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biol, 11(4). Björneborn, L., & Ingwersen, P. (2004). Toward a basic framework for webometrics. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 55(14), 1216-1227. Budd, J. M., & Harloe, B. (1997). Collection development and scholarly communication in 21st century: From collection management to content management. In G.E. Gorman & R. H. Miller (Eds.), Collections Management for the 21st Century: A handbook for ibrarians. (pp. 10-22). Westport: Greenwood. Chamberlain, S. (2013). Consuming article-level metrics: Observations and lessons. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 4-13. Chen, K. H., Tang, M. C., Wang, C. M., & Hsiang, J. (2015). Exploring alternative metrics of scholarly performance in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan. Scientometrics, 102(1), 97-112. Coleman, R. (1999). Impact factors: use and abuse in biomedical research. The Anatomical Record, 257(2), 54–57. 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. De Winter, J. C., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547–1565. Engels, T. C., Ossenblok, T. L., & Spruyt, E. H. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics,93(2), 373-390. Evans, P., & Krauthammer, M. (2011). Exploring the use of social media to measure journal article impact. In AMIA Annu Symp Proc (Vol. 2011, pp. 374–381). 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). Finkenstaedt, T. (1990). Measuring research performance in the humanities. Scientometrics, 19(5–6), 409–417. Fry, J. (2006). Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic approach. Information processing & management, 42(1), 299-316. Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2004). The cultural shaping of scholarly communication: Explaining e-journal use within and across academic fields. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 20–30. Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: Rething the Way We Measure. Serials Review, 39, 56-61. Garfield, E. (1980). Is Information Retrieval in the Arts and Humanities Inherently Different from That in Science? The Effect That ISI's Citation Index for the Arts and Humanities Is Expected to Have on Future Scholarship. Library Quarterly, 50(1), 40-57. Garfield, E. (1995). New international professional society signals the maturing of scientometrics and informetrics. The Scientist, 9(16), 11. Georgas, H., & Cullars, J. (2005). A citation study of the characteristics of the linguistics literature. College & Research Libraries, 66(6), 496–516. Given, L. M., Kelly, W., & Willson, R. (2015). Bracing for impact: The role of information science in supporting societal research impact. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1–10. Hammarfelt, B. (2013). An examination of the possibilities that altmetric methods offer in the case of the humanities (RIP). In Proceedings of ISSI. Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419-1430. Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Beyond Coverage: Toward a Bibliometrics for the Humanities. In Research Assessment in the Humanities (pp. 115–131). Springer. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446–457. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PloS One, 10(3), e0120495–21. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–1163. Hicks, D. (2005). The Four Literatures of Social Science. 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. 473–496). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Holmberg, K. J. (2015). Altmetrics for Information Professionals: Past, Present and Future. Chandos Publishing. Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1027-1042. Huang, M. H., & Chang, Y. W. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819-1828. Ingwersen, P. (1998). The calculation of web impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54(2), 236–243. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi‐discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055-1065. 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. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1537–1549. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2010). Using the web for research evaluation: The integrated online impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 124–135. Kurtz, M. J., & Bollen, J. (2010). Usage bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 1–64. Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980-2000. Scientometrics, 58(1), 35–48. Larivière, V., Archambault, É., Gingras, Y., & Vignola‐Gagné, É. (2006). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 997-1004. Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (Vol. 2, pp. 451–551). Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471. Maflahi, N., & Thelwall, M. (2015). When are readers as good as citers for bibliometrics? Scopus vs. Mendeley for LIS journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627–1638. National Information Standards Organization (NISO) (2016). Altmetrics Definitions and Use Cases. Retrieved form: http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/ document.php?document_id=16268&wg_abbrev=altmetrics-definitions Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100. Nederhof, A. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (1990) Trends in Publication and International Co-Publication Activity in the Social and Behavioral Sciences and the Humanities (1984–1989). Leiden: report CWTS-90-05. Nederhof, A. J., & Van Raan, A. F. (1993). A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups: A comparison with peer review. Research Policy, 22(4), 353–368. Nederhof, A. J., Zwaan, R. A., De Bruin, R. E., & Dekker, P. J. (1989). Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and beha vioural sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics, 15(5–6), 423–435. Nentwich, M., & König, R. (2014). Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In Opening science (pp. 107–124). Springer. Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biol, 7(11), e1000242. Oh, J. S., & Jeng, W. (2011). Groups in Academic Social Networking Services–An Exploration of Their Potential as a Platform for Multi-disciplinary Collaboration. In Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT) and 2011 IEEE Third Inernational Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on (pp. 545–548). IEEE. Ortega, J. L. (2015). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 39(4), 520-536. Piwowar, H., & Priem, J. (2013). The power of altmetrics on a CV. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 10-13. Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multi-dimensional Indicators of Performance (pp. 263–288). Cambridge: MIT Press. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7). Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1203.4745. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745 Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://www.citeulike.org/group/17557/article/11877310 Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences, 25 (34), 348-349. Rodgers, E. P., & Barbrow, S. (2013). A look at altmetrics and its growing significance to research libraries. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: The University of Michigan University Library. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183–195. Samoilenko, A., & Yasseri, T. (2014). The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics. EPJ Data Science, 3(1), 1. Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498. 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. Shuai, X., Jiang, Z., Liu, X., & Bollen, J. (2013). A comparative study of academic and Wikipedia ranking. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 25–28). ACM. Sivertsen, G., & Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: an empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91(2), 567-575. Snyder, H., & Bonzi, S. (1998). Patterns of self-citation across disciplines (1980-1989). Journal of Information Science, 24(6), 431–435. Taraborelli, D. (2008). Soft peer review: Social software and distributed scientific evaluation. Paper presented at the the 8 th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Carry-Le-Rouet. Taylor, M. (2013). Towards a common model of citation: Some thoughts on merging altmetrics and bibliometrics. Research Trends, 35, 19-22. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2008). Online presentations as a source of scientific impact? An analysis of PowerPoint files citing academic journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 805-815. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services. PLoS One, 8(5). Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2007). A new look at evidence of scholarly citation in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics, 74(2), 317–330. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. SURFfoundation Utrecht. Retrieved from http://sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Wouters_Users_84 7.pdf 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. Zuccala, A. A., Verleysen, F. T., Cornacchia, R., & Engels, T. C. (2015). Altmetrics for the humanities: Comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 320-336. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/69847 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 鑒於傳統引文分析法無法有效評估人文學與社會科學領域的學術影響力,加上以網際網路進行學術傳播的方式蓬勃發展,學術影響力的意義不再侷限於期刊文章被引,新興學術評估指標Altmetrics以網際網路社群媒體分析學術影響力的方式,則能夠補足引文分析的不足,本研究以非傳統學術指標全面分析人文學與社會科學學者在Altmetrics研究產出的特性及差異。
研究對象為臺灣大學文學院243位學者,包含37位教授、14位副教授、6位助理教授,透過網際網路蒐集報章雜誌被引數、線上課程大綱被引數、維基百科被引數、Google學術搜尋被引數、Google學術搜尋著作數、社群媒體被引數、指導論文數、博碩士論文中被引數、Mendeley著作數、Mendeley被關注數 10項學術表現資料來源,及學者獲獎數及計畫數2項學術成就資料來源,蒐集時間從2014年10月至2015年11月。以無母數統計檢定、集群分析、相關分析、零膨脹負二項迴歸模型等統計分析方法,探討變項間之關係。 研究結果顯示:(1)多數資料來源彼此間具有顯著相關,能過作為Altmetrics指標的潛力,尤其是Google學術搜尋資料來源。(2)人文學科、社會科學學科與藝術科學學科在不同Altmetrics資料來源的表現上有顯著差異,人文學者較容易出現在雜誌上,藝術學者於報章雜誌及社群媒體資料來源學術表現上佳,社會科學學者於學術社群媒體平台活躍程度較人文及藝術學者高。(3)通常研究與教學影響力指標較高的學者,社會大眾能見度的指標也會獲得較高的影響力(4)本研究所蒐集資料來源對學術成就解釋力不佳,但指導論文數、博碩士論文中被引數、報章雜誌被引數能夠解釋學術成就。 目前進行學術評估時,時常將人文學、社會科學、藝術領域納入一起評估,但透過本研究結果,三者之間具有差異,因此進行學術評鑑時,不應以相同標準進行評估。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Given that traditional citation analysis cannot monitor the research productivity of scholars in the social sciences and humanities effectively, and with the development of the internet, the use of social media and the internet in research communication has become more and more popular. As a result, the meaning of a scholar’s academic influence is not confined to the citation counts for the papers in journals anymore. Altmetrics, a new proposed method for evaluating academic performance, can access not only the research impact but also social impact of scholars, and can resolve the limitation of citation analysis. The purpose of this study is using altmetrics to analyze and compare the differences and characteristics of research outputs in the social sciences and humanities.
A total of 243 researchers in the College of Liberal Arts, National Taiwan University, were studied, including 37 professors, 14 associate professors and 6 assistant professors. Ten data sources of academic performance, including newspaper and magazine citations, syllabus citations, Wikipedia citations, Google Scholar citations, the numbers of papers in Google Scholar, social media citations, the number of advised theses and dissertations, theses and dissertations citations, Mendeley reader counts, the numbers of papers in Mendeley, and 2 data source of academic achievement, including prize counts and project counts were collected through the internet. The time of data collection was from October 2014 to December 2015. Nonparametric statistics, cluster analysis, correlation analysis and zero-inflated negative binomial regression were used for statistical analysis. The major results are summarized as follows. First, there are weak or moderate, but the significant correlation between data sources, which suggest that these data sources have potential to be used as altmetric indicators, especially Google Scholar. Second, there are significant differences between scholars in the social sciences, humanities and fine arts in terms of performance in different altmetric data sources. Humanities scholars are more likely to appear in magazines than social science scholars. Fine arts scholars have better performance in newspapers, magazines and social media. Social science scholars are more active in academic social networking platforms. Third, the higher the performance of scholars as measured by the indicator of influence on research and teaching, the higher the performance of scholars in terms of the indicator of social visibility. Fourth, some data sources, including newspaper and magazine citations, the number of advised theses and dissertations, as well as theses and dissertations citation, has some explanatory power for the academic achievement of scholars. Finally, the results suggest that we should not put scholars in the humanities, social sciences and fine arts together in research evaluations because of their differences in citation behavior. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T03:30:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R03126002-1.pdf: 2163472 bytes, checksum: d842686983b495d8091c86b69c1ce4ad (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘 要 ii
Abstract iii 目次 v 表目次 vii 圖目次 viii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與背景 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 3 第三節 研究範圍與限制 5 第四節 名詞解釋 6 第二章 文獻回顧 7 第一節 人文學與社會科學之特性 7 第二節 人文與社會科學之學術成果研究產出特性 11 第三節 傳統學術評估方法的困境 15 第四節 非傳統計量學 18 第三章 研究方法與實施 33 第一節 研究對象 33 第二節 研究方法 35 第四章 研究結果與分析 43 第一節 文學院學者在Altmetrics上的表現 43 第二節 文學院學者群內及對人社院學者群產出差異分析 52 第三節 集群分析 58 第四節 相關分析 66 第五節 零膨脹負二項迴歸分析 71 第五章 討論與結論 76 第一節 Altmetrics資料來源能做為評估學者之學術表現 76 第二節 不同學科間在Altmetrics上的資料來源之差異 78 第三節 不同科系之專任教師不同的指標表現情況 80 第四節 學術成果對學術成就之解釋能力 80 第五節 未來研究建議 81 參考文獻 82 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 非傳統學術指標的比較研究:以國立臺灣大學文學院的研究產出為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A Comparative Study of Alternative Metrics for Research Outputs of The College of Liberal Arts, National Taiwan University | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 唐牧群,楊東謀 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 替代性計量學,引用行為,學術表現,學術評估, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Altmetrics,citation behavior,research performance,research evaluation, | en |
dc.relation.page | 90 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201800633 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-02-22 | |
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-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.11 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。