1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Liberal Arts
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 替代計量Altmetrics在大學圖書館應用之研究
A Study of Altmetrics Applications in Academic Libraries
作者 曾苓莉
Tseng, Ling-Li
貢獻者 蔡明月
Tsay, Ming-Yueh
曾苓莉
Tseng, Ling-Li
關鍵詞 替代計量
大學圖書館
學術傳播
學術研究評估
資訊服務
Altmetrics
Academic library
Scholarly communication
Research assessment
Information service
日期 2022
上傳時間 2-Sep-2022 14:58:16 (UTC+8)
摘要 替代計量Altmetrics為建立在社群媒體與開放近用平臺，分析與公告科學交流活動與科學研究成果的新興計量學，近年來引起學術社群廣泛重視並密切關注未來發展。本研究主要由資訊服務提供者的觀點，探討Altmetrics在大學圖書館之應用，了解Altmetrics資訊服務面臨的困難與挑戰，並提出相關改善方案與發展方向，以提供國內大學圖書館發展Altmetrics資訊服務相關建議，希望能促進大學圖書館工作人員對於Altmetrics在圖書資訊服務實務應用方面有更進一步的認識與了解。
     
     本研究之研究目的包含：1.探索Altmetrics發展歷史，以及Altmetrics工具、指標類型，與數據品質標準規範相關議題。2.了解大學圖書館與大學圖書館館員在Altmetrics資訊傳播過程的定位與角色，以及大學圖書館提供Altmetrics資訊服務的重要性。3.分析大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務的要項與服務內容。4.探討Altmetrics在國內外大學圖書館的應用發展現況，比較二者差異之處，並解析差異生成主要原因。5.以資訊服務提供者觀點，探討國內大學圖書館提供學者與研究人員Altmetrics資訊服務應考量之問題，以及分析目前遭遇到的困難與挑戰，並提出相關建議與解決方案。
     
     本研究運用四種研究方法：首先，以文獻分析法探討Altmetrics主題文獻資料；再者，使用內容分析法解析美國《卡內基高等教育機構分類表》之博士型研究第一級（R1VH）131所大學圖書館網站Altmetrics資訊服務項目與服務內容；繼以，利用歷史研究法分析Altmetrics在臺灣發展的文獻史料與事實性資訊；最終，運用深度訪談法訪談17位涉入國內大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務相關專業人士，包含大學圖書館館長與館員、圖書資訊學領域學者專家、學術內容出版商，以及Altmetrics集成商。
     
     本研究之研究結果與發現，包含：1. 美國大學圖書館重視且普遍落實Altmetrics資訊服務，並且提供多樣性服務內容。在131所研究對象圖書館中，總計有120所提供Altmetrics資訊服務，比例高達九成一。2. 美國大學圖書館提供之Altmetrics資訊服務類型，最多為「舉辦或提供Altmetrics相關活動」有將近七成，其次是「Altmetrics主題資源指引提供」與「機構典藏或Academic Hub應用Altmetrics」約近六成，「圖書館研究影響力服務內容包含Altmetrics」則僅有三成七。3. 美國大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務成功實踐之關鍵因素為：（1）大學教師與研究人員使用社群媒體進行學術交流活動的比例增加。（2）美國國家科學基金會（National Science Foundation, NSF）已正式將Altmetrics列為申請研究計畫獎勵與補助之附件資料。（3）各大學圖書館在推動Altmetrics資訊服務的分享與協作。（4）Altmetrics集成商提供豐富的推廣素材。（5）多數商業性機構典藏系統與學術內容出版商已提供Altmetrics數據。4. Altmetrics資訊服務在國內大學圖書館未獲廣泛運用，投入Altmetrics資訊服務之圖書館大多致力於機構典藏系統功能的Altmetrics介接，後續卻缺乏實施讀者的推廣與利用教育，造成一種「重系統，輕服務」之現象。5.國內大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務面臨的困境與挑戰主要有「Altmetrics自身的缺點與限制」、「Altmetrics未被列為正式學術評鑑指標」，以及「大學圖書館館長與館員欠缺Altmetrics專業知識，且受限於人力與經費」。6.國內大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務困境改善方案為「爭取教育部與學校上級的重視與支持」、「開展多元化策略聯盟，加強彼此合作」、以及「強化大學圖書館館員Altmetrics教育訓練」。6.影響美國與國內大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務發展差異之原因，主要有：（1）研究計畫獎勵與補助機構對於Altmetrics之政策：是否將Altmetrics列入申請補充資料。（2）Altmetrics工具收錄資訊源：現行Altmetrics工具資訊來源為西方主流社群媒體，內容多以西方世界為視角，缺乏臺灣在地化資料。（3）學者與研究人員資訊行為：與美國相較，國內大學教師與研究人員，較少利用網路學術社群，分享學術研發成果。
     
     本研究根據研究結果與研究發現，提出「組成Altmetrics研究興趣小組」、「發展本土化Altmetrics工具」、「製作Altmetrics資訊服務最佳實踐指引」、「持續提供館員教育訓練」，以及「積極申請國家級整合型發展計畫」等相關建議。若干Altmetrics相關議題仍有待探索，本研究提出後續研究者可針對「Altmetrics資訊使用者研究」、「Altmetrics在圖書館技術服務之應用」、「Altmetrics集成商相關研究」、「Altmetrics資訊源類型與指標權重探析」、與「Altmetrics在數位策展與研究資料管理系統之運用」進行更為深入的研究探析。
Altmetrics is an emerging metric built on social media and open access platforms to analyze and announce scientific communication activities and scientific research results, which has attracted much attention from the scholarly community in recent years and has been closely monitored for future development. This study focuses on the application of Altmetrics in academic libraries from the viewpoint of information service providers to understand the difficulties and challenges faced by Altmetrics information services. Relevant improvement solutions and development directions are proposed to provide suggestions for the development of Altmetrics information services in academic libraries in Taiwan. It is expected that this will help academic library staff to have a better understanding of the practical application of Altmetrics in library information services.
     
     The research purposes of this study included: (1) to explore the development history of Altmetrics and Altmetrics tools, types of indicators, and the issues related to data quality standards and specifications; (2) to understand the positioning and roles of academic libraries and academic librarians in the process of Altmetrics information dissemination, and the importance of the provision of Altmetrics information services in academic libraries; (3) to analyze the essentials and contents of Altmetrics information services in academic libraries; (4) to discuss the present situation of the application and development of Altmetrics in academic libraries at home and abroad, compare the differences between them, and analyze the main reasons for the differences; (5) to discuss the problems that should be considered by the academic libraries in Taiwan in providing Altmetrics information services to scholars and researchers from the point of information service providers, analyze the difficulties and challenges encountered at present, and propose relevant suggestions and solutions.
     
     This study employed four research methods. First, a literature review was used to explore the literature data on the topic of Altmetrics. Second, content analysis was used to analyze the service items and contents of Altmetrics information services at the websites of the libraries of 131 universities (R1VH) in the Carnegie Classification of Institute of Higher Education in the United States. Then, historical research was used to analyze the documentary history and information about the development of Altmetrics in Taiwan. Finally, in-depth interviews were conducted with 17 professionals involved in Altmetrics information services at academic libraries in Taiwan, including university chief librarians and librarians, library information specialists, scholarly publishers, and Altmetrics aggregators.
     
     The research results and findings of this study include the following. 1) U.S. academic libraries value and generally implement Altmetrics information services, and provide a variety of services. Among the research subjects of the 131 libraries in this study, 120 of them provided Altmetrics information services, accounting for 91% of the total. 2) The most common type of Altmetrics information service provided by U.S. academic libraries was "organizing or providing Altmetrics-related events", which was provided by nearly 70% of all of them, followed by "providing research guides to Altmetrics subject resources" and "application of Altmetrics in institutional repositories or Academic Hubs" by nearly 60%, while only 37% of them had "Altmetrics incorporated in library research impact services". 3) The key factors for the successful practice of Altmetrics information services in U.S. academic libraries are: (1) the increased use of social media by university faculty and researchers for scholarly communication activities. (2) The National Science Foundation (NSF) has officially included Altmetrics as the data in the attachment to research awards and grants. (3) Academic libraries are promoting the sharing and collaboration of Altmetrics information services. (4) Altmetrics aggregators provide a wealth of promotional materials. (5) Most commercial repositories systems and scholarly publishers already provide Altmetrics data. 4) Altmetrics information services are not widely used in academic libraries in Taiwan, most of the libraries that have invested in Altmetrics information services are dedicated to Altmetrics tools of institutional repositories, but subsequently lack the implementation of reader promotion and utilization education, resulting in a phenomenon of "emphasis on systems while neglecting services". 5) The difficulties and challenges facing Altmetrics information services in academic libraries in Taiwan include "the shortcomings and limitations of Altmetrics ", "Altmetrics is not included as an official research assessment indicator", and "university chief librarians and librarians lack Altmetrics expertise and are limited by manpower and funding". 6) The solutions to improve the Altmetrics information service dilemma in university libraries in Taiwan are "to seek the attention and support of the Ministry of Education and the higher authorities of the university", "to develop diversified strategic alliances and strengthen the mutual cooperation", and "to strengthen the education and training on Altmetrics for academic librarians". 7) The main reasons affecting the difference in the development of Altmetrics information services between academic libraries in the United States and Taiwan are the following. (1) The policy of research program awarding and granting agencies on Altmetrics: whether to include Altmetrics in the supplementary information of the application. (2) Information sources of Altmetrics tools: the current Altmetrics tools are based on Western mainstream social media, and the contents are mostly from the Western world perspective, and lack of localized information in Taiwan. (3) Information behavior of scholars and researchers: compared with the United States, university faculty and researchers in Taiwan are less likely to use online academic communities to share academic research results.
     
     Based on the research results and findings, this study proposed to "form Altmetrics research interest groups", "develop localized Altmetrics tools", "produce best practice guidelines for Altmetrics information services", "provide continuous librarian education and training", and "actively apply for national integrated development programs". Several Altmetrics-related topics remain to be explored, and this study suggests that subsequent researchers could conduct more in-depth research and analysis on "research on Altmetrics information users", "application of Altmetrics in library technology services", "Altmetrics aggregator-related research", "exploration on Altmetrics information source types and indicator weights", and "application of Altmetrics in digital exhibition planning and research data management systems".
參考文獻 參考文獻
     
     Kumar, R.（2000）。研究方法：步驟化學習指南（胡龍騰、黃瑋瑩、潘中道譯）。台北市：學富文化。（原著出版於1999年）
     
     Kumar, R.（2016）。研究方法：入門與實務（二版；黃國光譯，謝雨生審閱）。台北市：雙葉書廊。（原著出版於2015年）
     
     Strauss, A.、Corbin, J.（1997）。質性研究概論（徐宗國譯）。台北市：巨流。（原著出版於1990年）
     
     丁學東（1993）。文獻計量學基礎。北京:北京大學出版社。
     
     王文科（2000）。教育研究法。台北市：五南。
     
     王妍、顧立平（2016）。Altmetrics在圖書館服務中的應用研究。圖書館管理與實踐。2016（2），38-42。10.3969/j.issn.1005-8214.2016.02.010
     
     田文燦、胡志剛、王賢文（2019）。科學計量學視角下的Altmetrics發展歷程分析。圖書情報知識，188，5-11。
     
     江玲（2010）。引用鏈接技術CrossRef研究。武漢理工大學學報，32（8），156-159。
     
     余厚強、邱均平（2014）。論替代計量學在圖書館文獻服務中的應用。情報雜誌，33（9），163-174。
     
     吳舒軒（2018）。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（碩士論文）。檢索自https://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/69847
     
     宋冰（2016）。基於Altmetric視覺的圖書館服務新樣態及其優化研究。河南圖書館學刊，36（7），120-121，127。
     
     周甘逢（1995）。歷史研究法。教育研究，4，79-94。
     
     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。
     
     林泰宏（2015年4月7日）。對於Altmetrics終於有了初淺的認識〔部落格文章〕。檢索自https://libraryview.me/2015/04/07/9805/
     
     邱均平（2001）。文獻信息引證規律和引文分析法。情報理論與實踐。24（3），236-240。
     
     邱均平、余厚強（2013）。替代計量學的提出過程與研究進展。圖書情報工作，57（19），5-12。
     
     邱均平、余厚強（2015）。論推動替代計量學發展的若干基本問題。中國圖書館學報。41（1），4-15。
     
     邱均平、趙蓉英、馬瑞敏等（2010）。網絡計量學。北京：科學出版社。
     
     邱均平、趙蓉英、董克等（編著）（2017）。科學計量學。北京：科學出版社。
     
     邱炯友（2014）。國際標準期刊號（ISSN）與數位物件識別碼（DOI）之數位化時代發展。人文與社會科學簡訊。15（3），123-131。
     
     侯永琪（2006）。2005年及2006年美國新版卡內基高等教育機構分類表對我國大學分類發展影響之調查研究。高教評鑑，2（1），107-141。
     
     柯皓仁（2015）。ORCID發展與應用。國立成功大學圖書館館刊，24，1-11。
     
     國立成功大學圖書館（無日期）。學術指標。檢索自https://www.lib.ncku.edu.tw/using/activities/research/article_assess.php
     
     國立臺灣大學圖書館（2015年12月24日）。邁向頂尖：臺大學術庫（Academic Hub）全面推展〔部落格文章〕。檢索自http://tul.blog.ntu.edu.tw/archives/16261
     
     張家成、游宗霖（2016）。政興學術：政大學術集成開發經驗分享。圖書與檔案學刊，11（2），146-159。
     
     張揚、王海明（2016）。Altmetric的出現對圖書館學科服務的影響。圖書情報導刊，1（1），10-12。
     
     陳光華、陳雅琦（2014）。探索人文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。檢索自https://jlis.lis.ntu.edu.tw/files/journal/j39-4.pdf
     
     陳光華（2012）。機構典藏。在圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。檢索自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678958/
     
     陳光華（2019）。學術圖書館的創新服務。國立成功大學圖書館館刊，28，1-13。
     
     陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。台北市：五南。
     
     陳雅琦（2014）。探索臺灣大學人文社會高等研究院學者研究產出之總合軌跡（碩士論文）。檢索自https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/24739
     
     陳銘（2014）。期刊利用統計與Altmetric的興起。圖書與情報，1，12-17。
     
     黃元鶴（2019）。社會企業文獻計量統合分析與替代計量探索研究。圖書與檔案學刊，11（2），37-77。
     
     楊思洛等（編著）（2019）。替代計量學理論、方法與應用。北京：科學出版社。
     
     葉至誠、葉立誠（2011）。研究方法與論文寫作（三版）。台北市：商鼎。
     
     董冠伯（2016）。任務佇列模式設計整合替代計量分析系統（碩士論文）。檢索自https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/24759
     
     董冠麟（2021）。傳統引文指標與Altmetrics指標之比較研究：以諾貝爾生理學或醫學獎得主之研究著作為例（碩士論文）。檢索自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4jg6xb
     
     熊庭（2020）。利用傳統和非傳統文獻計量指標的組合,預測學術期刊論文影響力（碩士論文）。檢索自https://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/51598
     
     臺大圖書館學科服務組（2020年4月15日）。讓你的文章被看見—介紹學術社群 [臺大圖書館Master講堂20200415]〔影片〕。檢索自https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq3uzpPvnIA
     
     臺大機構典藏小組（2016年12月30日）。IR RC7。檢索自http://ir.org.tw/node/171
     
     趙蓉英、馮雪峰、董克（2016）。國內外Altmetrics研究進展對比分析。數字圖書館論壇，145，40-48。
     
     劉春麗（2012）。Web2.0環境下的科學計量學：選擇性計量學。圖書情報工作，56（14），52-56。
     
     劉春麗（2015）。Altmetrics工具與機構知識庫的整合與效果——以PlumX為例。圖書情報工作，59（24），39-46。
     
     劉穎（2015）。Altmetrics視角下圖書館的角色定位與服務策略研究。圖書館雜誌，34（10），44-49。
     
     潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理論與應用。台北市：心理。
     
     蔡明月（1997）。書目計量學、科學計量學與資訊計量學。教育資料與圖書館學。34（3），268-284。
     
     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（2005）。引文索引與引文分析之探討。圖書館與資訊科學，31（1），45-53。
     
     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（特刊），91-120。doi:10.6120/JoEMLS.2014.51S/0655.OR.AM
     
     謝寶煖（1999）。歷史研究法及其在圖書資訊學之應用。中國圖書館學會會報，62，35-55。
     
     顧力仁（1998）。歷史法及其圖書館學研究上的應用。書府，18/19，48-62。
     
     顧立平（2013）。開放數據計量研究綜述：計算網路用戶行為和科學社群影響力的Altmetrics計量。現代圖書情報技術，6，1-8。
     
     ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. (2014). Top trends in academic libraries: A review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education. College & Research Libraries News, 75(6), 294-302. doi:10.5860/crln.75.6.9137
     
     ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. (2016). 2016 top trends in academic libraries: A review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education. College & Research Libraries News, 77(6), 274-281. doi:10.5860/crln.77.6.9505
     
     ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. (2019). Research evaluation and metrics In Environmental scan 2019 (pp. 25-28). Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries.
     
     Almind, T. C., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). Informetric analyses on the world wide web: Methodological approaches to ‘webometrics’. Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 404-426.
     
     Altmetric. (2016). Altmetrics for librarians: 100+tips.tricks, and examples. London: Altmetric. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/libraries-ebook/
     
     Altmetric. (n.d.-a). About us. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/about-us/
     
     Altmetric. (n.d.-b). Altmetric badges. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/products/altmetric-badges/
     
     Altmetric. (n.d.-c). How is the Altmetric attention score calculated? Retrieved from
     https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000233311-how-is-the-altmetric-attention-score-calculated-
     
     Altmetric. (n.d.-d). The donut and altmetric attention score. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/about-our-data/the-donut-and-score/
     
     Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingrasb, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329-342.
     
     Baskaran, C. (2020). Altmetrics research: An impact and tools. In Measuring and implementing altmetrics in library and information science research (pp. 1-10). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
     
     Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
     
     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. doi:10.1002/asi.20077
     
     Bornmann, L. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80. doi:10.1108/00220410810844150.
     
     Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895-903. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005
     
     Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
     
     Brophy, E. (2018). How journal editors can use altmetric for reporting and strategizing? Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2018/06/19/how-journal-editors-can-use-altmetric-for-reporting-and-strategizing?elq_mid=9422&elq_cid=8444199
     
     Burgess, R. G. (2002). In the field: An introduction to field research. London, UK: Routledge.
     
     CINDOC-CSIC. (2022). Methodology. Retrieved from https://www.webometrics.info/en/Methodology
     
     Cave, R. (2012). Overview of the altmetrics landscape. In Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference (pp.349-356.) West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. doi:10.5703/1288284315124
     
     Cole, F. J., & Eales, N. B. (1917). The history of comparative anatomy: Part I.—A statistical analysis of the literature. Science Progress (1916-1919), 11(44), 578-596.
     
     Collister, L., & Taylor, A. (2019). Informing the digital archive with altmetrics. Scholarly and Research Communication, 10(1), 12-24. doi:10.22230/src.2019v10n1a32
     
     Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     
     Dobrov, G (1978). Editorial statement. Scientometrics, 1(1), 2-3.
     
     Dobrov, G., & Karennoi, A. (1969). The informational basis of scientometrics. In A. I. Mikhaĭlov (Ed.), On theoretical problems of informatics (pp. 165-191). Moscou, Russia: VINITI./FID.
     
     Fenner, M. (2013). What can article-level metrics do for you? PLoS Biology, 11(10), e1001687. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001687
     
     Fidel, R. (2008). Are we there yet? Mixed methods research in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 30(4), 265-272.
     
     Galloway, L. M., Pease, J. L., & Rauh, A. E.(2013). Introduction to altmetrics for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) librarians. Science & Technology Libraries, 32(4), 335-345. doi:10.1080/0194262X.2013.829762
     
     Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York, NY: Wiley.
     
     González-Fernández-Villavicencio, N., Dominguez-Aroca, M.-I., Calderón-Rehecho, A., & García-Hernández, P. (2015). What role do librarians play in altmetrics? .Anales de Documentación, 18(2) doi:10.6018/analesdoc.18.2.222641
     
     Green, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
     
     Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 259-264. doi:10.1087/20120404
     
     Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Beyond coverage: Toward a bibliometrics for the humanities. In Research assessment in the humanities (pp. 115-131): Springer.
     
     Harseim, T., & Goodey, G. (2017). How do researchers use social media and scholarly collaboration networks (SCNs). Nature Blog, 15.
     
     Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance: Governance of research organizations (pp. 121-139). Cham, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_8
     
     Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., & Costas, R. (2016). Interpreting "altmetrics": Viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication (pp. 372-405). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110308464
     
     Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431. doi:10.1038/520429a
     
     Holmberg, K. J. (2016). Altmetrics for information professionals: Past, present and future. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Chandos.
     
     Ingwersen, P., & Ingwerson, P. (2012). Scientometric indicators and webometrics and the polyrepresentation principle information retrieval. New Delhi, India: Ess Ess.
     
     Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
     
     Kirchner, M. (2019). Profiles of academic library efforts in bibliometrics & altmetrics. New York, NY: Primary Research Group.
     
     Konkiel, S. (2013). Altmetrics in institutional repositories. Panel presented at ASIS&T 2013, Montreal, Canada.
     
     Konkiel, S., & Scherer, D. (2013). New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 22-26. doi:10.1002/bult.2013.1720390408
     
     Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     
     Lagace, N. (2013). NISO awarded Sloan Foundation grant to develop standards or recommended practices for altmetrics. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 40. doi:10.3789/isqv25no2.2013.07
     
     Lapinski, S., Piwowar, H., & Priem, J. (2013). Riding the crest of the altmetrics wave: How librarians can help prepare faculty for the next generation of research impact metrics. College & Research Libraries News, 74(6), 292-300.
     
     Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PloS one, 10(6), e0127502.
     
     Leibiger, A., & Aldrich, W. (2013, April 10-13). ‘The mother of all LibGuides’: Applying principles of communication and network theory in LibGuide design. Paper presented at the Imagine, Innovate, Inspire: Proceedings of the ACRL 2013 Conference, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/LeibigerAldrich_Mother.pdf
     
     Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2014). From webometrics to altmetrics: One and a half decades of digital research at Wolverhampton. Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA) Proceedings, 13.
     
     LibGuides Community. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://community.libguides.com
     
     Liu, J. (2015). ORCID functionality now available in the altmetric explorer! Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/blog/orcid-functionality-now-available-in-the-altmetric-explorer/
     
     Lupia, A. (2021). Dear colleague letter: A broader impacts framework for proposals submitted to NSF`s social, behavioral, and economic sciences directorate. National Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2021/nsf21059/nsf21059.jsp
     
     MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435-444. doi:10.1007/bf02129604
     
     Malone, T., & Burke, S. (2016). Academic librarians’ knowledge of bibliometrics and altmetrics. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11(3), 34-49.
     
     Mikhailov, A. I., Chernyi, A. I., & Giliarevskii, R. S. (1984). Scientific communications and informatics. Arlington, TX: Information Resources Press.
     
     Moed, H. F. (2009). New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 13-18.
     
     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. doi:10.1002/asi.23071
     
     Morales, M. (1985). Informetrics and its importance. International Forum on Information and Documentation, 10(2), 15-21.
     
     Nacke, O. (1979). Informetrie: Ein neuer name für eine neue disziplin. Nachrichten für Dokumentation, 30(6), 219-226.
     
     National Science Foundation. (2013). NSF grant proposal guide: Chapter III - NSF proposal processing and review. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_3.jsp
     
     Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2
     
     
     Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS biology, 7(11), e1000242. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.100024
     
     NISO. (2016). NISO RP-25-2016 outputs of the NISO alternative assessment metrics project. Retrieved from https://www.niso.org/publications/rp-25-2016-altmetrics
     
     Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. D. (2019). Demography of altmetrics under the light of dimensions: Locations, institutions, journals, disciplines and funding bodies in the global research framework. Journal of Altmetrics, 2(1). doi:10.29024/joa.13
     
     Piwowar, H. (2013a). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159. doi:10.1038/493159a
     
     Piwowar, H. (2013b). Introduction altmetrics: What, why and where? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 8-9. doi:10.1002/bult.2013.1720390404
     
     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. doi:10.1002/bult.2013.1720390405
     
     PLOS. (n.d.). Assessment of impact with article-level metrics (ALMs). Retrieved from https://plos.org/publish/metrics/
     
     PLUM Analytic. (n.d.-a). Leadership. Retrieved from https://plumanalytics.com/about/leadership/
     
     PLUM Analytic. (n.d.-b). About PlumX metrics. Retrieved from https://plumanalytics.com/learn/about-metrics/
     
     PLUM Analytic. (n.d.-c). PlumX widgets. Retrieved from https://plu.mx/plum/developers/widgets#
     
     Plum Analytics. (2020, September 3). EBSCO metrics in PlumX to be discontinued. Retrieved from https://plumanalytics.com/ebsco-metrics-in-plumx-to-be-discontinued/?fbclid=IwAR0G40KUx9VlV8oVGzCGGe2MCAHT5G_ArFTgZFZVzaXfPILD6-ycQ_aSaIk
     
     Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     
     Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7). doi:10.5210/fm.v15i7.2874
     
     Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto
     
     Primary Research Group Inc. (2016). International benchmarks for academic library use of bibliometrics & altmetrics. New York, NY: Primary Research Group Inc.
     
     Primary Research Group Inc. (2019). Profiles of academic library efforts in bibliometrics & altmetrics. New York, NY: Primary Research Group Inc.
     
     Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348-349.
     
     Rajan, T. (1985). Informatics: The concept and its ramifications. Newsletter of the International Federation for Documentation, Committee for Informetrics, 1, 1.
     
     Rehemtula, S., Rosa, M. D. L., Leitão, P., & Avilés, R. A. (2014, June 16-20). Altmetrics in institutional repositories: New perspectives for assessing research impact. Poster presented at the 13th International Conference “Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA 2014)”, Zadar, Croatia.
     
     Rodgers, E., & Barbrow, S. (2013). A look at altmetrics and its growing significance to research libraries. Retrieved from https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/99709
     
     Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2013). Institutional altmetrics & academic libraries. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 14-19. doi:10.3789/isqv25no2.2013.03
     
     Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2015a). Altmetrics and the role of librarians. Library Technology Reports, 51(5), 31-37.
     
     Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2015b). Meaningful metrics: a 21st-century librarian`s guide to bibliometrics, altmetrics, and research impact. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
     
     Saravanan, S. (2020). Altmetric: An overview of its advantages and limitations in evaluating scholarly communication in social media. In C. Baskaran (Ed.), Measuring and implementing altmetrics in library and information science research (pp. 11-17). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1309-5.ch002
     
     Sengupta, I. (1985). Bibliometrics: A bird`s eye view. IASLIC Bulletin, 30(4), 167-174.
     
     Senthilkumar, P. (2020). Research pattern of the altmetrics during 2014-2018: A scientometric analysis on SCOPUS. In C. Baskaran (Ed.), Measuring and implementing altmetrics in library and information science research (pp. 19-27): Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1309-5.ch002
     
     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. doi:10.1002/asi.23037
     
     Showers, B. (2016). The evolution of library metric. In A. Tattersall (Eds.), Altmetrics: A practical guide for librarians, researchers and academics (pp. 49-65). London, UK: Facet.
     
     Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library trends, 30(1), 83-106.
     
     Steinfield, C., Adelaar, T., & Liu, F. (2005). Click and mortar strategies viewed from the web: A content analysis of features illustrating integration between retailers` online and offline presence. Electronic Markets, 15(3), 199-212.
     
     Strauss, A & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     
     Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037-2062. doi:10.1002/asi.23833
     
     Suiter, A. M., & Moulaison, H. L. (2015). Supporting scholars: An analysis of academic library websites` documentation on metrics and impact. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(6), 814-820. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.09.004
     
     Sutton, S. W. (2014). Altmetrics: What good are they to academic libraries? Kansas Library Association College and University Libraries Section Proceedings, 4(2), Article 1. Retrieved from https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com.tw/&httpsredir=1&article=1041&context=culsproceedings
     
     Sutton, S., Miles, R., & Konkiel, S. (2019). The future of impact metric use among collection development librarians. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 6(1), 13-21.
     
     Tague-Sutcliffe, J. (1992). An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing & Management, 28(1), 1-3. doi:10.1016/0306-4573(92)90087-G
     
     Tananbaum, G. (2013). Article-level metrics: A SPARC primer. Retrieved from http://www.sparc.arl.org/resource/sparc-article-level-metrics-primer
     
     Taraborelli, D. (2008). Soft peer review. Social software and distributed scientific evaluation. In COOP 2008: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Designing Cooperative Systems (pp. 99-110). Carry-le-Rouet, France: ACM Press.
     
     Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     
     Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     
     Tattersall, A. (2016). Open peer review. In A. Tattersall (Eds.), Altmetrics: A practical guide for librarians, researchers and academics (pp. 183-204). London, UK: Facet.
     
     The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2022). Basic classification description. Retrieved from
     https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php
     
     Thelwall, M. (2003). Web use and peer interconnectivity metrics for academic Web sites. Journal of information science, 29(1), 1-10. doi:10.1177/016555103762202023
     
     Thelwall, M. (2012). A history of webometrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 38(6), 18-23. doi:10.1002/bult.2012.1720380606
     
     Thelwall, M. (2020) The pros and cons of the use of altmetrics in research assessment. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), 2. doi:10.29024/sar.10
     
     Thelwall, M. & Wouters, P. (2005). What’s the deal with the web/blogs/the next big technology: A key role for information science in e-social science research? Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3507, 187-199. doi:10.1007/11495222_15
     
     Thomson, W. (1889). Electrical units of measurement. In Popular lectures and addresses (Vol. 1, pp. 73-136). London, UK: Macmillan. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/popularlecturesa01kelvuoft/page/72
     
     Tsay, M.-Y, & Chen, C.-M. (2017, August, 19-25). Developing an academic hub with data synchronization, altmetrics display and added value information for promoting scholarly communication performance. Paper presented at the 83th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, Wrocław, Poland.
     
     University of Illinois Board of Trustees. (n.d.). Altmetrics. Retrieved from http://guides.library.illinois.edu/c.php?g=621441&p=4328609
     
     Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 66(1), 133-154. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0010-7
     
     Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126-129. doi:10.1038/512126a
     
     Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
描述 博士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊與檔案學研究所
102155501
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102155501
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 蔡明月zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Tsay, Ming-Yuehen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 曾苓莉zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Tseng, Ling-Lien_US
dc.creator (作者) 曾苓莉zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Tseng, Ling-Lien_US
dc.date (日期) 2022en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2022 14:58:16 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Sep-2022 14:58:16 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2022 14:58:16 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0102155501en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141608-
dc.description (描述) 博士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 圖書資訊與檔案學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 102155501zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 替代計量Altmetrics為建立在社群媒體與開放近用平臺，分析與公告科學交流活動與科學研究成果的新興計量學，近年來引起學術社群廣泛重視並密切關注未來發展。本研究主要由資訊服務提供者的觀點，探討Altmetrics在大學圖書館之應用，了解Altmetrics資訊服務面臨的困難與挑戰，並提出相關改善方案與發展方向，以提供國內大學圖書館發展Altmetrics資訊服務相關建議，希望能促進大學圖書館工作人員對於Altmetrics在圖書資訊服務實務應用方面有更進一步的認識與了解。
     
     本研究之研究目的包含：1.探索Altmetrics發展歷史，以及Altmetrics工具、指標類型，與數據品質標準規範相關議題。2.了解大學圖書館與大學圖書館館員在Altmetrics資訊傳播過程的定位與角色，以及大學圖書館提供Altmetrics資訊服務的重要性。3.分析大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務的要項與服務內容。4.探討Altmetrics在國內外大學圖書館的應用發展現況，比較二者差異之處，並解析差異生成主要原因。5.以資訊服務提供者觀點，探討國內大學圖書館提供學者與研究人員Altmetrics資訊服務應考量之問題，以及分析目前遭遇到的困難與挑戰，並提出相關建議與解決方案。
     
     本研究運用四種研究方法：首先，以文獻分析法探討Altmetrics主題文獻資料；再者，使用內容分析法解析美國《卡內基高等教育機構分類表》之博士型研究第一級（R1VH）131所大學圖書館網站Altmetrics資訊服務項目與服務內容；繼以，利用歷史研究法分析Altmetrics在臺灣發展的文獻史料與事實性資訊；最終，運用深度訪談法訪談17位涉入國內大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務相關專業人士，包含大學圖書館館長與館員、圖書資訊學領域學者專家、學術內容出版商，以及Altmetrics集成商。
     
     本研究之研究結果與發現，包含：1. 美國大學圖書館重視且普遍落實Altmetrics資訊服務，並且提供多樣性服務內容。在131所研究對象圖書館中，總計有120所提供Altmetrics資訊服務，比例高達九成一。2. 美國大學圖書館提供之Altmetrics資訊服務類型，最多為「舉辦或提供Altmetrics相關活動」有將近七成，其次是「Altmetrics主題資源指引提供」與「機構典藏或Academic Hub應用Altmetrics」約近六成，「圖書館研究影響力服務內容包含Altmetrics」則僅有三成七。3. 美國大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務成功實踐之關鍵因素為：（1）大學教師與研究人員使用社群媒體進行學術交流活動的比例增加。（2）美國國家科學基金會（National Science Foundation, NSF）已正式將Altmetrics列為申請研究計畫獎勵與補助之附件資料。（3）各大學圖書館在推動Altmetrics資訊服務的分享與協作。（4）Altmetrics集成商提供豐富的推廣素材。（5）多數商業性機構典藏系統與學術內容出版商已提供Altmetrics數據。4. Altmetrics資訊服務在國內大學圖書館未獲廣泛運用，投入Altmetrics資訊服務之圖書館大多致力於機構典藏系統功能的Altmetrics介接，後續卻缺乏實施讀者的推廣與利用教育，造成一種「重系統，輕服務」之現象。5.國內大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務面臨的困境與挑戰主要有「Altmetrics自身的缺點與限制」、「Altmetrics未被列為正式學術評鑑指標」，以及「大學圖書館館長與館員欠缺Altmetrics專業知識，且受限於人力與經費」。6.國內大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務困境改善方案為「爭取教育部與學校上級的重視與支持」、「開展多元化策略聯盟，加強彼此合作」、以及「強化大學圖書館館員Altmetrics教育訓練」。6.影響美國與國內大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務發展差異之原因，主要有：（1）研究計畫獎勵與補助機構對於Altmetrics之政策：是否將Altmetrics列入申請補充資料。（2）Altmetrics工具收錄資訊源：現行Altmetrics工具資訊來源為西方主流社群媒體，內容多以西方世界為視角，缺乏臺灣在地化資料。（3）學者與研究人員資訊行為：與美國相較，國內大學教師與研究人員，較少利用網路學術社群，分享學術研發成果。
     
     本研究根據研究結果與研究發現，提出「組成Altmetrics研究興趣小組」、「發展本土化Altmetrics工具」、「製作Altmetrics資訊服務最佳實踐指引」、「持續提供館員教育訓練」，以及「積極申請國家級整合型發展計畫」等相關建議。若干Altmetrics相關議題仍有待探索，本研究提出後續研究者可針對「Altmetrics資訊使用者研究」、「Altmetrics在圖書館技術服務之應用」、「Altmetrics集成商相關研究」、「Altmetrics資訊源類型與指標權重探析」、與「Altmetrics在數位策展與研究資料管理系統之運用」進行更為深入的研究探析。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Altmetrics is an emerging metric built on social media and open access platforms to analyze and announce scientific communication activities and scientific research results, which has attracted much attention from the scholarly community in recent years and has been closely monitored for future development. This study focuses on the application of Altmetrics in academic libraries from the viewpoint of information service providers to understand the difficulties and challenges faced by Altmetrics information services. Relevant improvement solutions and development directions are proposed to provide suggestions for the development of Altmetrics information services in academic libraries in Taiwan. It is expected that this will help academic library staff to have a better understanding of the practical application of Altmetrics in library information services.
     
     The research purposes of this study included: (1) to explore the development history of Altmetrics and Altmetrics tools, types of indicators, and the issues related to data quality standards and specifications; (2) to understand the positioning and roles of academic libraries and academic librarians in the process of Altmetrics information dissemination, and the importance of the provision of Altmetrics information services in academic libraries; (3) to analyze the essentials and contents of Altmetrics information services in academic libraries; (4) to discuss the present situation of the application and development of Altmetrics in academic libraries at home and abroad, compare the differences between them, and analyze the main reasons for the differences; (5) to discuss the problems that should be considered by the academic libraries in Taiwan in providing Altmetrics information services to scholars and researchers from the point of information service providers, analyze the difficulties and challenges encountered at present, and propose relevant suggestions and solutions.
     
     This study employed four research methods. First, a literature review was used to explore the literature data on the topic of Altmetrics. Second, content analysis was used to analyze the service items and contents of Altmetrics information services at the websites of the libraries of 131 universities (R1VH) in the Carnegie Classification of Institute of Higher Education in the United States. Then, historical research was used to analyze the documentary history and information about the development of Altmetrics in Taiwan. Finally, in-depth interviews were conducted with 17 professionals involved in Altmetrics information services at academic libraries in Taiwan, including university chief librarians and librarians, library information specialists, scholarly publishers, and Altmetrics aggregators.
     
     The research results and findings of this study include the following. 1) U.S. academic libraries value and generally implement Altmetrics information services, and provide a variety of services. Among the research subjects of the 131 libraries in this study, 120 of them provided Altmetrics information services, accounting for 91% of the total. 2) The most common type of Altmetrics information service provided by U.S. academic libraries was "organizing or providing Altmetrics-related events", which was provided by nearly 70% of all of them, followed by "providing research guides to Altmetrics subject resources" and "application of Altmetrics in institutional repositories or Academic Hubs" by nearly 60%, while only 37% of them had "Altmetrics incorporated in library research impact services". 3) The key factors for the successful practice of Altmetrics information services in U.S. academic libraries are: (1) the increased use of social media by university faculty and researchers for scholarly communication activities. (2) The National Science Foundation (NSF) has officially included Altmetrics as the data in the attachment to research awards and grants. (3) Academic libraries are promoting the sharing and collaboration of Altmetrics information services. (4) Altmetrics aggregators provide a wealth of promotional materials. (5) Most commercial repositories systems and scholarly publishers already provide Altmetrics data. 4) Altmetrics information services are not widely used in academic libraries in Taiwan, most of the libraries that have invested in Altmetrics information services are dedicated to Altmetrics tools of institutional repositories, but subsequently lack the implementation of reader promotion and utilization education, resulting in a phenomenon of "emphasis on systems while neglecting services". 5) The difficulties and challenges facing Altmetrics information services in academic libraries in Taiwan include "the shortcomings and limitations of Altmetrics ", "Altmetrics is not included as an official research assessment indicator", and "university chief librarians and librarians lack Altmetrics expertise and are limited by manpower and funding". 6) The solutions to improve the Altmetrics information service dilemma in university libraries in Taiwan are "to seek the attention and support of the Ministry of Education and the higher authorities of the university", "to develop diversified strategic alliances and strengthen the mutual cooperation", and "to strengthen the education and training on Altmetrics for academic librarians". 7) The main reasons affecting the difference in the development of Altmetrics information services between academic libraries in the United States and Taiwan are the following. (1) The policy of research program awarding and granting agencies on Altmetrics: whether to include Altmetrics in the supplementary information of the application. (2) Information sources of Altmetrics tools: the current Altmetrics tools are based on Western mainstream social media, and the contents are mostly from the Western world perspective, and lack of localized information in Taiwan. (3) Information behavior of scholars and researchers: compared with the United States, university faculty and researchers in Taiwan are less likely to use online academic communities to share academic research results.
     
     Based on the research results and findings, this study proposed to "form Altmetrics research interest groups", "develop localized Altmetrics tools", "produce best practice guidelines for Altmetrics information services", "provide continuous librarian education and training", and "actively apply for national integrated development programs". Several Altmetrics-related topics remain to be explored, and this study suggests that subsequent researchers could conduct more in-depth research and analysis on "research on Altmetrics information users", "application of Altmetrics in library technology services", "Altmetrics aggregator-related research", "exploration on Altmetrics information source types and indicator weights", and "application of Altmetrics in digital exhibition planning and research data management systems".		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 目次
     
     第一章 緒論 1
     第一節 研究背景與動機 2
     第二節 研究目的與研究問題 7
     第三節 名詞解釋 9
     
     第二章 文獻探討 13
     第一節 回顧計量科學在學術傳播交流與學術研究評估之應用 13
     第二節 Altmetrics理論基礎與發展歷程 23
     第三節 Altmetrics工具、指標類型與數據品質規範 45
     第四節 Altmetrics在圖書館之應用 66
     
     第三章 研究設計與實施 81
     第一節 研究設計 81
     第二節 研究方法與研究對象 85
     第三節 研究工具 92
     第四節 研究範圍與限制 96
     第五節 研究步驟與流程 98
     第六節 資料處理與分析 102
     
     第四章 美國大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務網頁內容分析 105
     第一節 Altmetrics主題資源指引 107
     第二節 Altmetrics與圖書館研究影響力服務 132
     第三節 Altmetrics應用於機構典藏與Academic Hub系統 144
     第四節 Altmetrics相關活動 155
     第五節 綜合討論 163
     
     第五章 國內大學圖書館ALTMETRICS應用之探討 171
     第一節 臺灣圖書館界Altmetircs應用發展史 171
     第二節 Altmetrics在國內大學圖書館發展之探析 191
     
     第六章 研究結論與建議 267
     第一節 研究結果與發現 267
     第二節 建議 278
     第三節 進一步研究建議 280
     
     參考文獻 283
     
     附錄1 NISO制定Altmetrics數據集成商自我評估表範例 299
     附錄2 美國博士型研究第一級（R1VH）大學名單與圖書館網站連結網址304
     附錄3 訪談大綱 308
     附錄4 研究參與者知情同意書 312
     附錄5 美國博士型研究第一級（R1VH）大學圖書館主題資源指引網址 315
     附錄6 美國博士型研究第一級（R1VH）大學圖書館機構典藏系統／AH網址 320
     附錄7 美國博士型研究第一級（R1VH）大學圖書館機構典藏系統／Academic Hub系統應用Altmetrics概況分析 326
     附錄8 美國博士型研究第一級（R1VH）大學圖書館Altmetrics其他活動分
     布概況 335
     附錄9 美國博士型研究第一級（R1VH）大學圖書館Altmetrics資訊服務提
     供概況 342		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102155501en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 替代計量zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 大學圖書館zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 學術傳播zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 學術研究評估zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊服務zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Altmetricsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Academic libraryen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Scholarly communicationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Research assessmenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Information serviceen_US
dc.title (題名) 替代計量Altmetrics在大學圖書館應用之研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A Study of Altmetrics Applications in Academic Librariesen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 參考文獻
     
     Kumar, R.（2000）。研究方法：步驟化學習指南（胡龍騰、黃瑋瑩、潘中道譯）。台北市：學富文化。（原著出版於1999年）
     
     Kumar, R.（2016）。研究方法：入門與實務（二版；黃國光譯，謝雨生審閱）。台北市：雙葉書廊。（原著出版於2015年）
     
     Strauss, A.、Corbin, J.（1997）。質性研究概論（徐宗國譯）。台北市：巨流。（原著出版於1990年）
     
     丁學東（1993）。文獻計量學基礎。北京:北京大學出版社。
     
     王文科（2000）。教育研究法。台北市：五南。
     
     王妍、顧立平（2016）。Altmetrics在圖書館服務中的應用研究。圖書館管理與實踐。2016（2），38-42。10.3969/j.issn.1005-8214.2016.02.010
     
     田文燦、胡志剛、王賢文（2019）。科學計量學視角下的Altmetrics發展歷程分析。圖書情報知識，188，5-11。
     
     江玲（2010）。引用鏈接技術CrossRef研究。武漢理工大學學報，32（8），156-159。
     
     余厚強、邱均平（2014）。論替代計量學在圖書館文獻服務中的應用。情報雜誌，33（9），163-174。
     
     吳舒軒（2018）。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（碩士論文）。檢索自https://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/69847
     
     宋冰（2016）。基於Altmetric視覺的圖書館服務新樣態及其優化研究。河南圖書館學刊，36（7），120-121，127。
     
     周甘逢（1995）。歷史研究法。教育研究，4，79-94。
     
     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。
     
     林泰宏（2015年4月7日）。對於Altmetrics終於有了初淺的認識〔部落格文章〕。檢索自https://libraryview.me/2015/04/07/9805/
     
     邱均平（2001）。文獻信息引證規律和引文分析法。情報理論與實踐。24（3），236-240。
     
     邱均平、余厚強（2013）。替代計量學的提出過程與研究進展。圖書情報工作，57（19），5-12。
     
     邱均平、余厚強（2015）。論推動替代計量學發展的若干基本問題。中國圖書館學報。41（1），4-15。
     
     邱均平、趙蓉英、馬瑞敏等（2010）。網絡計量學。北京：科學出版社。
     
     邱均平、趙蓉英、董克等（編著）（2017）。科學計量學。北京：科學出版社。
     
     邱炯友（2014）。國際標準期刊號（ISSN）與數位物件識別碼（DOI）之數位化時代發展。人文與社會科學簡訊。15（3），123-131。
     
     侯永琪（2006）。2005年及2006年美國新版卡內基高等教育機構分類表對我國大學分類發展影響之調查研究。高教評鑑，2（1），107-141。
     
     柯皓仁（2015）。ORCID發展與應用。國立成功大學圖書館館刊，24，1-11。
     
     國立成功大學圖書館（無日期）。學術指標。檢索自https://www.lib.ncku.edu.tw/using/activities/research/article_assess.php
     
     國立臺灣大學圖書館（2015年12月24日）。邁向頂尖：臺大學術庫（Academic Hub）全面推展〔部落格文章〕。檢索自http://tul.blog.ntu.edu.tw/archives/16261
     
     張家成、游宗霖（2016）。政興學術：政大學術集成開發經驗分享。圖書與檔案學刊，11（2），146-159。
     
     張揚、王海明（2016）。Altmetric的出現對圖書館學科服務的影響。圖書情報導刊，1（1），10-12。
     
     陳光華、陳雅琦（2014）。探索人文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。檢索自https://jlis.lis.ntu.edu.tw/files/journal/j39-4.pdf
     
     陳光華（2012）。機構典藏。在圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。檢索自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678958/
     
     陳光華（2019）。學術圖書館的創新服務。國立成功大學圖書館館刊，28，1-13。
     
     陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。台北市：五南。
     
     陳雅琦（2014）。探索臺灣大學人文社會高等研究院學者研究產出之總合軌跡（碩士論文）。檢索自https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/24739
     
     陳銘（2014）。期刊利用統計與Altmetric的興起。圖書與情報，1，12-17。
     
     黃元鶴（2019）。社會企業文獻計量統合分析與替代計量探索研究。圖書與檔案學刊，11（2），37-77。
     
     楊思洛等（編著）（2019）。替代計量學理論、方法與應用。北京：科學出版社。
     
     葉至誠、葉立誠（2011）。研究方法與論文寫作（三版）。台北市：商鼎。
     
     董冠伯（2016）。任務佇列模式設計整合替代計量分析系統（碩士論文）。檢索自https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/24759
     
     董冠麟（2021）。傳統引文指標與Altmetrics指標之比較研究：以諾貝爾生理學或醫學獎得主之研究著作為例（碩士論文）。檢索自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4jg6xb
     
     熊庭（2020）。利用傳統和非傳統文獻計量指標的組合,預測學術期刊論文影響力（碩士論文）。檢索自https://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/51598
     
     臺大圖書館學科服務組（2020年4月15日）。讓你的文章被看見—介紹學術社群 [臺大圖書館Master講堂20200415]〔影片〕。檢索自https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq3uzpPvnIA
     
     臺大機構典藏小組（2016年12月30日）。IR RC7。檢索自http://ir.org.tw/node/171
     
     趙蓉英、馮雪峰、董克（2016）。國內外Altmetrics研究進展對比分析。數字圖書館論壇，145，40-48。
     
     劉春麗（2012）。Web2.0環境下的科學計量學：選擇性計量學。圖書情報工作，56（14），52-56。
     
     劉春麗（2015）。Altmetrics工具與機構知識庫的整合與效果——以PlumX為例。圖書情報工作，59（24），39-46。
     
     劉穎（2015）。Altmetrics視角下圖書館的角色定位與服務策略研究。圖書館雜誌，34（10），44-49。
     
     潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理論與應用。台北市：心理。
     
     蔡明月（1997）。書目計量學、科學計量學與資訊計量學。教育資料與圖書館學。34（3），268-284。
     
     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（2005）。引文索引與引文分析之探討。圖書館與資訊科學，31（1），45-53。
     
     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（特刊），91-120。doi:10.6120/JoEMLS.2014.51S/0655.OR.AM
     
     謝寶煖（1999）。歷史研究法及其在圖書資訊學之應用。中國圖書館學會會報，62，35-55。
     
     顧力仁（1998）。歷史法及其圖書館學研究上的應用。書府，18/19，48-62。
     
     顧立平（2013）。開放數據計量研究綜述：計算網路用戶行為和科學社群影響力的Altmetrics計量。現代圖書情報技術，6，1-8。
     
     ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. (2014). Top trends in academic libraries: A review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education. College & Research Libraries News, 75(6), 294-302. doi:10.5860/crln.75.6.9137
     
     ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. (2016). 2016 top trends in academic libraries: A review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education. College & Research Libraries News, 77(6), 274-281. doi:10.5860/crln.77.6.9505
     
     ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. (2019). Research evaluation and metrics In Environmental scan 2019 (pp. 25-28). Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries.
     
     Almind, T. C., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). Informetric analyses on the world wide web: Methodological approaches to ‘webometrics’. Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 404-426.
     
     Altmetric. (2016). Altmetrics for librarians: 100+tips.tricks, and examples. London: Altmetric. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/libraries-ebook/
     
     Altmetric. (n.d.-a). About us. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/about-us/
     
     Altmetric. (n.d.-b). Altmetric badges. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/products/altmetric-badges/
     
     Altmetric. (n.d.-c). How is the Altmetric attention score calculated? Retrieved from
     https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000233311-how-is-the-altmetric-attention-score-calculated-
     
     Altmetric. (n.d.-d). The donut and altmetric attention score. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/about-our-data/the-donut-and-score/
     
     Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingrasb, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329-342.
     
     Baskaran, C. (2020). Altmetrics research: An impact and tools. In Measuring and implementing altmetrics in library and information science research (pp. 1-10). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
     
     Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
     
     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. doi:10.1002/asi.20077
     
     Bornmann, L. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80. doi:10.1108/00220410810844150.
     
     Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895-903. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005
     
     Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
     
     Brophy, E. (2018). How journal editors can use altmetric for reporting and strategizing? Retrieved from https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2018/06/19/how-journal-editors-can-use-altmetric-for-reporting-and-strategizing?elq_mid=9422&elq_cid=8444199
     
     Burgess, R. G. (2002). In the field: An introduction to field research. London, UK: Routledge.
     
     CINDOC-CSIC. (2022). Methodology. Retrieved from https://www.webometrics.info/en/Methodology
     
     Cave, R. (2012). Overview of the altmetrics landscape. In Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference (pp.349-356.) West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. doi:10.5703/1288284315124
     
     Cole, F. J., & Eales, N. B. (1917). The history of comparative anatomy: Part I.—A statistical analysis of the literature. Science Progress (1916-1919), 11(44), 578-596.
     
     Collister, L., & Taylor, A. (2019). Informing the digital archive with altmetrics. Scholarly and Research Communication, 10(1), 12-24. doi:10.22230/src.2019v10n1a32
     
     Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     
     Dobrov, G (1978). Editorial statement. Scientometrics, 1(1), 2-3.
     
     Dobrov, G., & Karennoi, A. (1969). The informational basis of scientometrics. In A. I. Mikhaĭlov (Ed.), On theoretical problems of informatics (pp. 165-191). Moscou, Russia: VINITI./FID.
     
     Fenner, M. (2013). What can article-level metrics do for you? PLoS Biology, 11(10), e1001687. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001687
     
     Fidel, R. (2008). Are we there yet? Mixed methods research in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 30(4), 265-272.
     
     Galloway, L. M., Pease, J. L., & Rauh, A. E.(2013). Introduction to altmetrics for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) librarians. Science & Technology Libraries, 32(4), 335-345. doi:10.1080/0194262X.2013.829762
     
     Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York, NY: Wiley.
     
     González-Fernández-Villavicencio, N., Dominguez-Aroca, M.-I., Calderón-Rehecho, A., & García-Hernández, P. (2015). What role do librarians play in altmetrics? .Anales de Documentación, 18(2) doi:10.6018/analesdoc.18.2.222641
     
     Green, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
     
     Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 259-264. doi:10.1087/20120404
     
     Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Beyond coverage: Toward a bibliometrics for the humanities. In Research assessment in the humanities (pp. 115-131): Springer.
     
     Harseim, T., & Goodey, G. (2017). How do researchers use social media and scholarly collaboration networks (SCNs). Nature Blog, 15.
     
     Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance: Governance of research organizations (pp. 121-139). Cham, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_8
     
     Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., & Costas, R. (2016). Interpreting "altmetrics": Viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication (pp. 372-405). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110308464
     
     Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431. doi:10.1038/520429a
     
     Holmberg, K. J. (2016). Altmetrics for information professionals: Past, present and future. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Chandos.
     
     Ingwersen, P., & Ingwerson, P. (2012). Scientometric indicators and webometrics and the polyrepresentation principle information retrieval. New Delhi, India: Ess Ess.
     
     Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
     
     Kirchner, M. (2019). Profiles of academic library efforts in bibliometrics & altmetrics. New York, NY: Primary Research Group.
     
     Konkiel, S. (2013). Altmetrics in institutional repositories. Panel presented at ASIS&T 2013, Montreal, Canada.
     
     Konkiel, S., & Scherer, D. (2013). New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 22-26. doi:10.1002/bult.2013.1720390408
     
     Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     
     Lagace, N. (2013). NISO awarded Sloan Foundation grant to develop standards or recommended practices for altmetrics. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 40. doi:10.3789/isqv25no2.2013.07
     
     Lapinski, S., Piwowar, H., & Priem, J. (2013). Riding the crest of the altmetrics wave: How librarians can help prepare faculty for the next generation of research impact metrics. College & Research Libraries News, 74(6), 292-300.
     
     Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PloS one, 10(6), e0127502.
     
     Leibiger, A., & Aldrich, W. (2013, April 10-13). ‘The mother of all LibGuides’: Applying principles of communication and network theory in LibGuide design. Paper presented at the Imagine, Innovate, Inspire: Proceedings of the ACRL 2013 Conference, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/LeibigerAldrich_Mother.pdf
     
     Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2014). From webometrics to altmetrics: One and a half decades of digital research at Wolverhampton. Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA) Proceedings, 13.
     
     LibGuides Community. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://community.libguides.com
     
     Liu, J. (2015). ORCID functionality now available in the altmetric explorer! Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/blog/orcid-functionality-now-available-in-the-altmetric-explorer/
     
     Lupia, A. (2021). Dear colleague letter: A broader impacts framework for proposals submitted to NSF`s social, behavioral, and economic sciences directorate. National Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2021/nsf21059/nsf21059.jsp
     
     MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435-444. doi:10.1007/bf02129604
     
     Malone, T., & Burke, S. (2016). Academic librarians’ knowledge of bibliometrics and altmetrics. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11(3), 34-49.
     
     Mikhailov, A. I., Chernyi, A. I., & Giliarevskii, R. S. (1984). Scientific communications and informatics. Arlington, TX: Information Resources Press.
     
     Moed, H. F. (2009). New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 13-18.
     
     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. doi:10.1002/asi.23071
     
     Morales, M. (1985). Informetrics and its importance. International Forum on Information and Documentation, 10(2), 15-21.
     
     Nacke, O. (1979). Informetrie: Ein neuer name für eine neue disziplin. Nachrichten für Dokumentation, 30(6), 219-226.
     
     National Science Foundation. (2013). NSF grant proposal guide: Chapter III - NSF proposal processing and review. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_3.jsp
     
     Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2
     
     
     Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS biology, 7(11), e1000242. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.100024
     
     NISO. (2016). NISO RP-25-2016 outputs of the NISO alternative assessment metrics project. Retrieved from https://www.niso.org/publications/rp-25-2016-altmetrics
     
     Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. D. (2019). Demography of altmetrics under the light of dimensions: Locations, institutions, journals, disciplines and funding bodies in the global research framework. Journal of Altmetrics, 2(1). doi:10.29024/joa.13
     
     Piwowar, H. (2013a). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159. doi:10.1038/493159a
     
     Piwowar, H. (2013b). Introduction altmetrics: What, why and where? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 8-9. doi:10.1002/bult.2013.1720390404
     
     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. doi:10.1002/bult.2013.1720390405
     
     PLOS. (n.d.). Assessment of impact with article-level metrics (ALMs). Retrieved from https://plos.org/publish/metrics/
     
     PLUM Analytic. (n.d.-a). Leadership. Retrieved from https://plumanalytics.com/about/leadership/
     
     PLUM Analytic. (n.d.-b). About PlumX metrics. Retrieved from https://plumanalytics.com/learn/about-metrics/
     
     PLUM Analytic. (n.d.-c). PlumX widgets. Retrieved from https://plu.mx/plum/developers/widgets#
     
     Plum Analytics. (2020, September 3). EBSCO metrics in PlumX to be discontinued. Retrieved from https://plumanalytics.com/ebsco-metrics-in-plumx-to-be-discontinued/?fbclid=IwAR0G40KUx9VlV8oVGzCGGe2MCAHT5G_ArFTgZFZVzaXfPILD6-ycQ_aSaIk
     
     Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     
     Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7). doi:10.5210/fm.v15i7.2874
     
     Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto
     
     Primary Research Group Inc. (2016). International benchmarks for academic library use of bibliometrics & altmetrics. New York, NY: Primary Research Group Inc.
     
     Primary Research Group Inc. (2019). Profiles of academic library efforts in bibliometrics & altmetrics. New York, NY: Primary Research Group Inc.
     
     Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348-349.
     
     Rajan, T. (1985). Informatics: The concept and its ramifications. Newsletter of the International Federation for Documentation, Committee for Informetrics, 1, 1.
     
     Rehemtula, S., Rosa, M. D. L., Leitão, P., & Avilés, R. A. (2014, June 16-20). Altmetrics in institutional repositories: New perspectives for assessing research impact. Poster presented at the 13th International Conference “Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA 2014)”, Zadar, Croatia.
     
     Rodgers, E., & Barbrow, S. (2013). A look at altmetrics and its growing significance to research libraries. Retrieved from https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/99709
     
     Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2013). Institutional altmetrics & academic libraries. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 14-19. doi:10.3789/isqv25no2.2013.03
     
     Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2015a). Altmetrics and the role of librarians. Library Technology Reports, 51(5), 31-37.
     
     Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2015b). Meaningful metrics: a 21st-century librarian`s guide to bibliometrics, altmetrics, and research impact. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
     
     Saravanan, S. (2020). Altmetric: An overview of its advantages and limitations in evaluating scholarly communication in social media. In C. Baskaran (Ed.), Measuring and implementing altmetrics in library and information science research (pp. 11-17). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1309-5.ch002
     
     Sengupta, I. (1985). Bibliometrics: A bird`s eye view. IASLIC Bulletin, 30(4), 167-174.
     
     Senthilkumar, P. (2020). Research pattern of the altmetrics during 2014-2018: A scientometric analysis on SCOPUS. In C. Baskaran (Ed.), Measuring and implementing altmetrics in library and information science research (pp. 19-27): Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1309-5.ch002
     
     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. doi:10.1002/asi.23037
     
     Showers, B. (2016). The evolution of library metric. In A. Tattersall (Eds.), Altmetrics: A practical guide for librarians, researchers and academics (pp. 49-65). London, UK: Facet.
     
     Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library trends, 30(1), 83-106.
     
     Steinfield, C., Adelaar, T., & Liu, F. (2005). Click and mortar strategies viewed from the web: A content analysis of features illustrating integration between retailers` online and offline presence. Electronic Markets, 15(3), 199-212.
     
     Strauss, A & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     
     Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037-2062. doi:10.1002/asi.23833
     
     Suiter, A. M., & Moulaison, H. L. (2015). Supporting scholars: An analysis of academic library websites` documentation on metrics and impact. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(6), 814-820. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.09.004
     
     Sutton, S. W. (2014). Altmetrics: What good are they to academic libraries? Kansas Library Association College and University Libraries Section Proceedings, 4(2), Article 1. Retrieved from https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com.tw/&httpsredir=1&article=1041&context=culsproceedings
     
     Sutton, S., Miles, R., & Konkiel, S. (2019). The future of impact metric use among collection development librarians. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 6(1), 13-21.
     
     Tague-Sutcliffe, J. (1992). An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing & Management, 28(1), 1-3. doi:10.1016/0306-4573(92)90087-G
     
     Tananbaum, G. (2013). Article-level metrics: A SPARC primer. Retrieved from http://www.sparc.arl.org/resource/sparc-article-level-metrics-primer
     
     Taraborelli, D. (2008). Soft peer review. Social software and distributed scientific evaluation. In COOP 2008: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Designing Cooperative Systems (pp. 99-110). Carry-le-Rouet, France: ACM Press.
     
     Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     
     Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     
     Tattersall, A. (2016). Open peer review. In A. Tattersall (Eds.), Altmetrics: A practical guide for librarians, researchers and academics (pp. 183-204). London, UK: Facet.
     
     The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2022). Basic classification description. Retrieved from
     https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php
     
     Thelwall, M. (2003). Web use and peer interconnectivity metrics for academic Web sites. Journal of information science, 29(1), 1-10. doi:10.1177/016555103762202023
     
     Thelwall, M. (2012). A history of webometrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 38(6), 18-23. doi:10.1002/bult.2012.1720380606
     
     Thelwall, M. (2020) The pros and cons of the use of altmetrics in research assessment. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), 2. doi:10.29024/sar.10
     
     Thelwall, M. & Wouters, P. (2005). What’s the deal with the web/blogs/the next big technology: A key role for information science in e-social science research? Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3507, 187-199. doi:10.1007/11495222_15
     
     Thomson, W. (1889). Electrical units of measurement. In Popular lectures and addresses (Vol. 1, pp. 73-136). London, UK: Macmillan. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/popularlecturesa01kelvuoft/page/72
     
     Tsay, M.-Y, & Chen, C.-M. (2017, August, 19-25). Developing an academic hub with data synchronization, altmetrics display and added value information for promoting scholarly communication performance. Paper presented at the 83th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, Wrocław, Poland.
     
     University of Illinois Board of Trustees. (n.d.). Altmetrics. Retrieved from http://guides.library.illinois.edu/c.php?g=621441&p=4328609
     
     Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 66(1), 133-154. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0010-7
     
     Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126-129. doi:10.1038/512126a
     
     Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201411en_US