(第 8 期)   第四卷第二期   2010 年 6 月 1 日出刊

臺灣圖書資訊學學術期刊評鑑之比較研究

本文關鍵字:圖書資訊學期刊評鑑THCI Core Library and information scienceJournal assessmentTHCI Core

本文摘要

本研究以次級資料分析法、問卷調查法、與書目計量法,統計分析比較過去三項臺灣圖書資訊學期刊評鑑研究,以及本研究自行進行的二項期刊評鑑。各項評鑑工作使用的評鑑方法不外於「專家評鑑法」、「引用分析法」、「形式審查法」、或前述方法的組合。統計檢定的結果顯示,各項期刊評鑑的結果不完全一致。進一步分析前述評鑑方法的一致性發現:「專家評鑑法」在各項評鑑之排序結果具有一致性,與各自的整體排序亦具顯著一致性;「引用分析法」在各項評鑑之排序結果與各自的整體排序結果一致,但各項評鑑之引用分析法的排序結果不一致;「形式審查法」在各項評鑑之排序結果亦不完全一致,但與各自的整體排序結果一致。研究結果亦顯示常用的權重配置對於期刊排序結 果沒有影響。整體而言,圖書資訊學學者主觀認知的期刊排序與各項臺灣圖書資訊學學術期刊的評鑑排序一致。
In this study, questionnaire survey and bibliometric method were
used respectively to assess the library and information science (LIS)
journals in Taiwan. The researchers also conducted secondary analysis
on the results of three previous LIS journal assessment projects, which
had employed expert assessment, citation analysis, format review, or
combinations of these methods. Statistical tests of the results from the
five assessments showed inconsistency. Journal rankings based on
expert assessment showed consistency among and within each of the
five assessments. Rankings based on citation analysis or format review
were consistent to other rankings within each assessment, but were
inconsistent between assessments. Statistical tests also revealed that
the reasonable settings of weights in different assessment projects had
no significant influence on rankings. In conclusion, expert assessment
is currently the method yielding most consistent results in existing LIS
journal assessments in Taiwan.

全文下載網址:http://lac3.glis.ntnu.edu.tw/vj-attachment/2010/07/attach59.pdf

本文附件:

本刊著作權屬於「中華民國圖書館學會」所有。
Powered By Vanilla Journal - 香草期刊系統 0.256 / 2006 - 2007 © Weizhong Yang