學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 議題導向之書目計量分析與比較
A Bibliometric Analysis and Comparison of Literature on Issue-oriented作者 鄭如庭
Cheng, Ru–Ting貢獻者 李沛錞
Lee, Pei–Chun
鄭如庭
Cheng, Ru–Ting關鍵詞 書目計量學
議題導向
數位閱讀
圖書資訊學
Bibliometrics
Issue-oriented
Digital Reading
Library and information science日期 2023 上傳時間 1-九月-2023 16:17:44 (UTC+8) 摘要 隨著數位資源與知識產出的快速增加,議題導向研究逐漸受到學術界重視。在書目計量學分析方法和技術不斷演進之情境下,為了更好的應用書目計量學來分析學術成果和學者貢獻。本研究旨在探討議題導向的書目計量分析在數位閱讀主題文獻中的特性,並將其與領域導向的圖書資訊學進行比較,探討兩者間之異同。本研究以書目計量方法有系統地分析文獻,選擇議題型及領域型研究對象,分別聚焦於數位閱讀主題和圖書資訊學領域,就文獻特性、期刊分佈,以及作者生產力三種層面進行討論。研究樣本取自Scopus引文索引資料庫蒐集自1970年至2022年間,數位閱讀文獻1,203篇與圖書資訊學文獻14,300篇,研究結果歸納如下:一、議題導向書目計量分析在文獻特性、期刊分布與作者生產力之特點(一)數位閱讀研究領域正處於蓬勃發展階段,文獻具多語言涵蓋,其中以英文為主,顯示其國際影響力。(二)數位閱讀研究領域主要聚焦於社會、科學及文化層面,具跨學科之特性。(三)布萊德福定律及布萊德福-齊夫定律不適用本研究。(四)作者生產力以兩位作者合著居多,發表次數與作者人數呈反比且與洛卡定律相符。二、議題導向與領域導向書目計量分析之異同(一)議題導向聚焦於特定主題領域;領域導向則著重於特定學科研究。(二)議題導向適用於不同主題領域的研究;能全面瞭解研究動態與學術影響力;領域導向則專注於學科內容,有助於深入探討特定學科的學術發展趨勢。
This study aims to explore the characteristics of issue-oriented bibliometric analysis in the literature on digital reading themes and compare it with domain-oriented library and information science, investigating their similarities and differences.The study systematically analyzes the literature using bibliometric methods, selecting issue-oriented and domain-oriented research subjects. These subjects focus on the themes of digital reading and the field of library and information science, respectively, discussing three aspects: document characteristics, journal distribution, and author productivity. The research samples are drawn from the Scopus citation index database, collected from 1970 to 2022, comprising 1,203 documents in the digital reading field and 14,300 documents in library and information science. The research findings are summarized as follows:I.Characteristics of issue-oriented bibliometric analysis in terms of document characteristics, journal distribution, and author productivity:A.The field of digital reading research is in a flourishing stage, with literature covering multiple languages, mainly in English, indicating its international impact.B.Digital reading research primarily focuses on social, scientific, and cultural aspects, showing interdisciplinary characteristics.C.Bradford`s Law and Bradford-Zipf`s Law are not applicable in this study.D.Author productivity is dominated by collaborative works of two authors, with the frequency of publication inversely proportional to the number of authors, in accordance with Lotka`s Law.II.Similarities and differences between issue-oriented and domain-oriented bibliometric analysis:A.Issue-oriented analysis concentrates on specific thematic areas, while domain-oriented analysis emphasizes research within specific disciplines.B.Issue-oriented analysis is suitable for research in different thematic areas, providing a comprehensive understanding of research dynamics and academic impact. Domain-oriented analysis, on the other hand, focuses on disciplinary content and aids in exploring the academic development trends within specific disciplines.參考文獻 文化部(2019)。2018 臺灣民眾閱讀及消費行為調查報告。王婉人(2019)。臺灣「英語教學研究」文獻之資訊計量分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。王梅玲(2013)。從電子書數位閱讀探討圖書館推廣策略。臺北市立圖書館館訊,30(4),9-24。王梅玲、謝寶煖(2014)。圖書資訊學導論(二版)。五南。朱則剛、王國聰(2002)。我國1990至1999教學科技期刊論文及引述文獻分析之研究。大學圖書館,6(2),2-30。何光國(1992)。文獻計量學論著樣本之計量分析。圖書館學與資訊科學,18(1),48-82。何光國(1994)。文獻計量學導論。三民。李家寧(2013)。「女性研究」文獻之書目計量學研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。周暐達(2008)。數位閱讀及其版權管理之探討。研考雙月刊,32(3),44-52。https://doi.org/10.6978/yksyk.200806.0044林巧敏(2011)。臺灣國小學童數位閱讀興趣與行為之調查分析。國家圖書館館刊,(2),30-59。林巧敏、范蔚敏(2010)。臺灣地區檔案學文獻計量分析。圖書與資訊學刊,(72),16-38. https://doi.org/10.6575/JoLIS.2010.72.02林怡甄(2007)。「輸送現象」之文獻特性分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。林維真(2021)。電子書與數位閱讀發展趨勢(2010-2019)。載於吳美美(主編),圖書資訊學研究回顧與前瞻2.0(366-380頁)。元華文創。邱婉真(2010)。數位閱讀產業分工剖析。MIC產業情報研究報告。邱銘心、蔡妍芳(2011)。大學圖書館學科服務之經營與管理研究。圖書館與資訊科學,37(2),73-93。柯皓仁、謝順宏(2019)。探索2006-2015年圖書資訊學領域研究議題。圖書館與資訊科學,45(1),65-96。https://doi.org/10.6245/jlis.201904_45(1).0003洪春暉(2010)。數位閱讀產品與服務機會探討。資策會產情所。胡述兆、吳祖善(1989)。圖書館學導論。台北市:漢美。徐柔瑾(2018)。1998-2017年圖書資訊學遠距教育研究及發展演變〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。財團法人台灣網路資訊中心(2021)。2022年台灣網路報告。https://www.twnic.tw/doc/twrp/202207e.pdf國家圖書館(2021)。110年臺灣閱讀風貌及全民閱讀力年度報告。許蓀咪(2016)。國際檔案學文獻之書目計量分析(1976-2015)〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。陳世娟、邵婉卿(2015)。臺灣成年民眾數位閱讀載具與閱讀行為之現況調查。大學圖書館,19(1),41-69。https://doi.org/10.6146/univj.19-1.03傅瑋瓊(2022年9月14日)。數位化潮流下的學習新趨勢,台灣閱讀文化基金會創會廖祿立董事長堅持為孩子點亮一盞書香的燈。天下文化。https://bookzone.cwgv.com.tw/article/25536彭慰(1995)。書目計量法。載於胡述兆(主編),圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典(1209-1210頁)。漢美。曾淑賢(2006)。臺北市立圖書館電子書館藏使用分析及館藏發展探討。臺北市立圖書館館訊,23(3),87-105。曾淑賢(2014)。轉型時代的圖書館-新觀念.新空間.新服務.新體驗。國家圖書館館刊,103(2),1-47。童秀華(2018)。臺灣地區閱讀主題之書目計量分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。黃郁婷、徐顤倩(2016)。閱讀與數位科技的結合:淺談數位閱讀。臺灣教育評論月刊,5(5),105-107。黃聖芬(2018)。1916-2017書目療法期刊文獻資訊計量研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。楊彥緒(2003)。隨機對照試驗醫學文獻之書目計量學研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。淡江大學。董蕙茹(2007)。台灣地區的世界文學翻譯作品:書目計量分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。蔡明月(1997a)。文獻成長現象。中國圖書館學會會報,59,135-153。蔡明月(1997b)。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(1998)。布萊德福定律=Bradford`s Law。資訊傳播與圖書館學,5(2),25-49。蔡明月(1999)。洛卡定律(Lotka’s Law)與作者生產力。中國圖書館學會會報,62,57-75。蔡明月(2003)。資訊計量學與文獻特性。國立編譯館。蔡明月、方碧玲(2006)。資訊素養文獻之書目計量研究。教育資料與圖書館學,44(2),133-152。蔡明月、古育詩(2005)。光觸媒文獻之書目計量學研究。教育資料與圖書館學,43(2),153-172。蔡明月、洪世芳(2002)。OPAC文獻之書目計量學研究。大學圖書館,6(1),15-38。蔡明月、張淑娟(2015)。電子書閱讀器借閱服務之使用研究:以交通大學圖書館為例。大學圖書館,19(2),1-21。https://doi.org/10.6146/univj.19-2.01蔡明月、劉瓊芳(2007)。1992-2005 資訊計量學研究及其發展演變。圖書與資訊學刊,(61),42-56。https://doi.org/10.6575/JoLIS.2007.61.04羅思嘉(2021)。圖書資訊計量研究趨勢分析:領域研究分析發展。載於吳美美(主編),圖書資訊學研究回顧與前瞻2.0(頁118-129)。元華文創。Anonymous. (2011). Business: Great digital expectations; The books business. The Economist, 400(8750), 69-70.Bates, M. J. (1999). The Invisible Substrate of Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1043-1050. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:12<1043::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-XBradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137, 85-86.Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics, 12(5-6), 373-379. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02016680Çeli̇ktürk Sezgi̇n, Z. (2022). Systematic analysis of digital reading studies in the digital age. Participatory Educational Research, 9(1), 233-250. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.13.9.1Cole, 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. http://www.jstor.org.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/stable/43426882Darnton, R. (1989). Toward a History Of Reading. Wilson Quarterly, 13(4), 87-102.Doulani, A. (2021). A bibliometric analysis and science mapping of scientific publications of Alzahra University during 1986–2019. Library Hi Tech, 39(4), 915-935. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2020-0131ELSEVIER(2021)。Scopus專業策劃的摘要與引用資料庫。https://www.elsevier.com/zh-tw/solutions/scopusFairthorne, R. A. (1969). Empirical Hyperbolic Distributions (Bradford‐Zipf‐Mandelbrot) for Bibliometric Description and Prediction. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026481Faverio, M., & Perrin, A. (2022). Three-in-ten Americans now read e-books. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/01/06/three-in-ten-americans-now-read-e-books/Garfield, E. (1980). Bradford’s law and related statistical patterns. In E. Garfield (Ed.), Essays of an Information Scientist (Vol. 4, pp. 476-483). ISI Press.Hertzel, D. H. (2018). Bibliometric Research: History [ELIS Classic]. In M. L.-C. John D. McDonald (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (4th ed., pp. 492-530). Boca Raton.Keathley-Herring, H., Van Aken, E., Gonzalez-Aleu, F., Deschamps, F., Letens, G., & Orlandini, P. C. (2016). Assessing the maturity of a research area: bibliometric review and proposed framework. Scientometrics, 109(2), 927-951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2096-xLebert, M. (2008). Project Gutenberg (1971-2008). https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27045Liao, C. H., & Chen, M.-Y. (2018). Exploring knowledge patterns of library and information science journals within the field: a citation analysis from 2009 to 2016. Scientometrics, 117(3), 1991-2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2925-1Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700-712. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510632040Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-323.http://www.jstor.org/stable/24529203Magyar, G. (1974). BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF A NEW RESEARCH SUB‐FIELD. Journal of Documentation, 30(1), 32-40.https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026568Markoff, J., & Wyatt, E. (2004,December 1). Google Is Adding Major Libraries to Its Database. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/technology/google-is-adding-major-libraries-to-its-database.htmlPeritz, B. C. (1984). On the Careers of Terminologies; the Case of Bibliometrics. Libri, 34(Jahresband), 233-242. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/libr.1984.34.1.233Potter, W. G. (1981). Introduction to Bibliometrics. Library Trends, 30(1), 5-7.Price, D. J. d. S. (1963). Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press.Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4).Pritchard, A. (1972). Bibliometrics and information transfer. Research in Librarianship, 4, 37-46.Proulx, A. (1994,May 26). Books On Top. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/26/opinion/books-on-top.htmlRaisig, L. M. (1962). Statistical bibliography in the health sciences. Bull Med Libr Assoc, 50(3), 450-461.Ranganathan, S. R. (1931). The five laws of library science. Madras Library Association (Madras, India) and Edward Goldston (London, UK).Roldan-Valadez, E., Salazar-Ruiz, S. Y., Ibarra-Contreras, R., & Rios, C. (2019). Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics. Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -), 188(3), 939-951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5Sengupta, I. (1985). Bibliometrics: A bird’s eye view. Iaslic Bulletin, 30(4), 167-174.Thomson, R., Mosier, R., & Worosz, M. (2023). COVID research across the social sciences in 2020: a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 128(6), 3377-3399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04714-5Tsay, M.-Y., Jou, S.-J., & Ma, S.-S. (2000). A Bibliometric Study of Semiconductor Literature, 1978–1997. Scientometrics, 49(3), 491-509. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010593824716Vickery, B. C. (1948). BRADFORD`S LAW OF SCATTERING. Journal of Documentation, 4(3), 198-203. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026133Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., Purcell, K., Madden, M., Brenner, J., Pew, I., & American Life, P. (2012). Younger Americans` Reading and Library Habits. In: Pew Internet & American Life Project. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班
110913006資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110913006 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 李沛錞 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lee, Pei–Chun en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 鄭如庭 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Cheng, Ru–Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 鄭如庭 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Cheng, Ru–Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-九月-2023 16:17:44 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-九月-2023 16:17:44 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-九月-2023 16:17:44 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0110913006 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147254 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 110913006 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著數位資源與知識產出的快速增加,議題導向研究逐漸受到學術界重視。在書目計量學分析方法和技術不斷演進之情境下,為了更好的應用書目計量學來分析學術成果和學者貢獻。本研究旨在探討議題導向的書目計量分析在數位閱讀主題文獻中的特性,並將其與領域導向的圖書資訊學進行比較,探討兩者間之異同。本研究以書目計量方法有系統地分析文獻,選擇議題型及領域型研究對象,分別聚焦於數位閱讀主題和圖書資訊學領域,就文獻特性、期刊分佈,以及作者生產力三種層面進行討論。研究樣本取自Scopus引文索引資料庫蒐集自1970年至2022年間,數位閱讀文獻1,203篇與圖書資訊學文獻14,300篇,研究結果歸納如下:一、議題導向書目計量分析在文獻特性、期刊分布與作者生產力之特點(一)數位閱讀研究領域正處於蓬勃發展階段,文獻具多語言涵蓋,其中以英文為主,顯示其國際影響力。(二)數位閱讀研究領域主要聚焦於社會、科學及文化層面,具跨學科之特性。(三)布萊德福定律及布萊德福-齊夫定律不適用本研究。(四)作者生產力以兩位作者合著居多,發表次數與作者人數呈反比且與洛卡定律相符。二、議題導向與領域導向書目計量分析之異同(一)議題導向聚焦於特定主題領域;領域導向則著重於特定學科研究。(二)議題導向適用於不同主題領域的研究;能全面瞭解研究動態與學術影響力;領域導向則專注於學科內容,有助於深入探討特定學科的學術發展趨勢。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study aims to explore the characteristics of issue-oriented bibliometric analysis in the literature on digital reading themes and compare it with domain-oriented library and information science, investigating their similarities and differences.The study systematically analyzes the literature using bibliometric methods, selecting issue-oriented and domain-oriented research subjects. These subjects focus on the themes of digital reading and the field of library and information science, respectively, discussing three aspects: document characteristics, journal distribution, and author productivity. The research samples are drawn from the Scopus citation index database, collected from 1970 to 2022, comprising 1,203 documents in the digital reading field and 14,300 documents in library and information science. The research findings are summarized as follows:I.Characteristics of issue-oriented bibliometric analysis in terms of document characteristics, journal distribution, and author productivity:A.The field of digital reading research is in a flourishing stage, with literature covering multiple languages, mainly in English, indicating its international impact.B.Digital reading research primarily focuses on social, scientific, and cultural aspects, showing interdisciplinary characteristics.C.Bradford`s Law and Bradford-Zipf`s Law are not applicable in this study.D.Author productivity is dominated by collaborative works of two authors, with the frequency of publication inversely proportional to the number of authors, in accordance with Lotka`s Law.II.Similarities and differences between issue-oriented and domain-oriented bibliometric analysis:A.Issue-oriented analysis concentrates on specific thematic areas, while domain-oriented analysis emphasizes research within specific disciplines.B.Issue-oriented analysis is suitable for research in different thematic areas, providing a comprehensive understanding of research dynamics and academic impact. Domain-oriented analysis, on the other hand, focuses on disciplinary content and aids in exploring the academic development trends within specific disciplines. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 目次 IV圖次 VI表次 VII第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 研究目的 4第三節 研究問題 4第四節 研究範圍與限制 5第五節 名詞解釋 7第六節 本研究價值與重要性 8第二章 文獻探討 10第一節 書目計量學概述及相關研究 10第二節 議題導向與領域導向書目計量分析之相關研究 25第三章 研究設計與實施 28第一節 研究架構 28第二節 研究方法 29第三節 研究對象 31第四節 資料來源 33第五節 研究步驟與流程 33第四章 研究結果與分析 38第一節 議題導向文獻分析之研究結果 38第二節 領域導向文獻分析之研究結果 69第五章 結論與建議 97第一節 結論 97第二節 建議 100第三節 未來研究建議 101參考文獻 102 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2442785 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110913006 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 書目計量學 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 議題導向 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 數位閱讀 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 圖書資訊學 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Bibliometrics en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Issue-oriented en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Digital Reading en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Library and information science en_US dc.title (題名) 議題導向之書目計量分析與比較 zh_TW dc.title (題名) A Bibliometric Analysis and Comparison of Literature on Issue-oriented en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 文化部(2019)。2018 臺灣民眾閱讀及消費行為調查報告。王婉人(2019)。臺灣「英語教學研究」文獻之資訊計量分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。王梅玲(2013)。從電子書數位閱讀探討圖書館推廣策略。臺北市立圖書館館訊,30(4),9-24。王梅玲、謝寶煖(2014)。圖書資訊學導論(二版)。五南。朱則剛、王國聰(2002)。我國1990至1999教學科技期刊論文及引述文獻分析之研究。大學圖書館,6(2),2-30。何光國(1992)。文獻計量學論著樣本之計量分析。圖書館學與資訊科學,18(1),48-82。何光國(1994)。文獻計量學導論。三民。李家寧(2013)。「女性研究」文獻之書目計量學研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。周暐達(2008)。數位閱讀及其版權管理之探討。研考雙月刊,32(3),44-52。https://doi.org/10.6978/yksyk.200806.0044林巧敏(2011)。臺灣國小學童數位閱讀興趣與行為之調查分析。國家圖書館館刊,(2),30-59。林巧敏、范蔚敏(2010)。臺灣地區檔案學文獻計量分析。圖書與資訊學刊,(72),16-38. https://doi.org/10.6575/JoLIS.2010.72.02林怡甄(2007)。「輸送現象」之文獻特性分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。林維真(2021)。電子書與數位閱讀發展趨勢(2010-2019)。載於吳美美(主編),圖書資訊學研究回顧與前瞻2.0(366-380頁)。元華文創。邱婉真(2010)。數位閱讀產業分工剖析。MIC產業情報研究報告。邱銘心、蔡妍芳(2011)。大學圖書館學科服務之經營與管理研究。圖書館與資訊科學,37(2),73-93。柯皓仁、謝順宏(2019)。探索2006-2015年圖書資訊學領域研究議題。圖書館與資訊科學,45(1),65-96。https://doi.org/10.6245/jlis.201904_45(1).0003洪春暉(2010)。數位閱讀產品與服務機會探討。資策會產情所。胡述兆、吳祖善(1989)。圖書館學導論。台北市:漢美。徐柔瑾(2018)。1998-2017年圖書資訊學遠距教育研究及發展演變〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。財團法人台灣網路資訊中心(2021)。2022年台灣網路報告。https://www.twnic.tw/doc/twrp/202207e.pdf國家圖書館(2021)。110年臺灣閱讀風貌及全民閱讀力年度報告。許蓀咪(2016)。國際檔案學文獻之書目計量分析(1976-2015)〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。陳世娟、邵婉卿(2015)。臺灣成年民眾數位閱讀載具與閱讀行為之現況調查。大學圖書館,19(1),41-69。https://doi.org/10.6146/univj.19-1.03傅瑋瓊(2022年9月14日)。數位化潮流下的學習新趨勢,台灣閱讀文化基金會創會廖祿立董事長堅持為孩子點亮一盞書香的燈。天下文化。https://bookzone.cwgv.com.tw/article/25536彭慰(1995)。書目計量法。載於胡述兆(主編),圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典(1209-1210頁)。漢美。曾淑賢(2006)。臺北市立圖書館電子書館藏使用分析及館藏發展探討。臺北市立圖書館館訊,23(3),87-105。曾淑賢(2014)。轉型時代的圖書館-新觀念.新空間.新服務.新體驗。國家圖書館館刊,103(2),1-47。童秀華(2018)。臺灣地區閱讀主題之書目計量分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。黃郁婷、徐顤倩(2016)。閱讀與數位科技的結合:淺談數位閱讀。臺灣教育評論月刊,5(5),105-107。黃聖芬(2018)。1916-2017書目療法期刊文獻資訊計量研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。楊彥緒(2003)。隨機對照試驗醫學文獻之書目計量學研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。淡江大學。董蕙茹(2007)。台灣地區的世界文學翻譯作品:書目計量分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。蔡明月(1997a)。文獻成長現象。中國圖書館學會會報,59,135-153。蔡明月(1997b)。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(1998)。布萊德福定律=Bradford`s Law。資訊傳播與圖書館學,5(2),25-49。蔡明月(1999)。洛卡定律(Lotka’s Law)與作者生產力。中國圖書館學會會報,62,57-75。蔡明月(2003)。資訊計量學與文獻特性。國立編譯館。蔡明月、方碧玲(2006)。資訊素養文獻之書目計量研究。教育資料與圖書館學,44(2),133-152。蔡明月、古育詩(2005)。光觸媒文獻之書目計量學研究。教育資料與圖書館學,43(2),153-172。蔡明月、洪世芳(2002)。OPAC文獻之書目計量學研究。大學圖書館,6(1),15-38。蔡明月、張淑娟(2015)。電子書閱讀器借閱服務之使用研究:以交通大學圖書館為例。大學圖書館,19(2),1-21。https://doi.org/10.6146/univj.19-2.01蔡明月、劉瓊芳(2007)。1992-2005 資訊計量學研究及其發展演變。圖書與資訊學刊,(61),42-56。https://doi.org/10.6575/JoLIS.2007.61.04羅思嘉(2021)。圖書資訊計量研究趨勢分析:領域研究分析發展。載於吳美美(主編),圖書資訊學研究回顧與前瞻2.0(頁118-129)。元華文創。Anonymous. (2011). Business: Great digital expectations; The books business. The Economist, 400(8750), 69-70.Bates, M. J. (1999). The Invisible Substrate of Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1043-1050. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:12<1043::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-XBradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137, 85-86.Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics, 12(5-6), 373-379. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02016680Çeli̇ktürk Sezgi̇n, Z. (2022). Systematic analysis of digital reading studies in the digital age. Participatory Educational Research, 9(1), 233-250. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.13.9.1Cole, 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. http://www.jstor.org.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/stable/43426882Darnton, R. (1989). Toward a History Of Reading. Wilson Quarterly, 13(4), 87-102.Doulani, A. (2021). A bibliometric analysis and science mapping of scientific publications of Alzahra University during 1986–2019. Library Hi Tech, 39(4), 915-935. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2020-0131ELSEVIER(2021)。Scopus專業策劃的摘要與引用資料庫。https://www.elsevier.com/zh-tw/solutions/scopusFairthorne, R. A. (1969). Empirical Hyperbolic Distributions (Bradford‐Zipf‐Mandelbrot) for Bibliometric Description and Prediction. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026481Faverio, M., & Perrin, A. (2022). Three-in-ten Americans now read e-books. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/01/06/three-in-ten-americans-now-read-e-books/Garfield, E. (1980). Bradford’s law and related statistical patterns. In E. Garfield (Ed.), Essays of an Information Scientist (Vol. 4, pp. 476-483). ISI Press.Hertzel, D. H. (2018). Bibliometric Research: History [ELIS Classic]. In M. L.-C. John D. McDonald (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (4th ed., pp. 492-530). Boca Raton.Keathley-Herring, H., Van Aken, E., Gonzalez-Aleu, F., Deschamps, F., Letens, G., & Orlandini, P. C. (2016). Assessing the maturity of a research area: bibliometric review and proposed framework. Scientometrics, 109(2), 927-951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2096-xLebert, M. (2008). Project Gutenberg (1971-2008). https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27045Liao, C. H., & Chen, M.-Y. (2018). Exploring knowledge patterns of library and information science journals within the field: a citation analysis from 2009 to 2016. Scientometrics, 117(3), 1991-2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2925-1Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700-712. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510632040Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-323.http://www.jstor.org/stable/24529203Magyar, G. (1974). BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF A NEW RESEARCH SUB‐FIELD. Journal of Documentation, 30(1), 32-40.https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026568Markoff, J., & Wyatt, E. (2004,December 1). Google Is Adding Major Libraries to Its Database. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/technology/google-is-adding-major-libraries-to-its-database.htmlPeritz, B. C. (1984). On the Careers of Terminologies; the Case of Bibliometrics. Libri, 34(Jahresband), 233-242. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/libr.1984.34.1.233Potter, W. G. (1981). Introduction to Bibliometrics. Library Trends, 30(1), 5-7.Price, D. J. d. S. (1963). Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press.Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4).Pritchard, A. (1972). Bibliometrics and information transfer. Research in Librarianship, 4, 37-46.Proulx, A. (1994,May 26). Books On Top. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/26/opinion/books-on-top.htmlRaisig, L. M. (1962). Statistical bibliography in the health sciences. Bull Med Libr Assoc, 50(3), 450-461.Ranganathan, S. R. (1931). The five laws of library science. Madras Library Association (Madras, India) and Edward Goldston (London, UK).Roldan-Valadez, E., Salazar-Ruiz, S. Y., Ibarra-Contreras, R., & Rios, C. (2019). Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics. Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -), 188(3), 939-951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5Sengupta, I. (1985). Bibliometrics: A bird’s eye view. Iaslic Bulletin, 30(4), 167-174.Thomson, R., Mosier, R., & Worosz, M. (2023). COVID research across the social sciences in 2020: a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 128(6), 3377-3399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04714-5Tsay, M.-Y., Jou, S.-J., & Ma, S.-S. (2000). A Bibliometric Study of Semiconductor Literature, 1978–1997. Scientometrics, 49(3), 491-509. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010593824716Vickery, B. C. (1948). BRADFORD`S LAW OF SCATTERING. Journal of Documentation, 4(3), 198-203. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026133Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., Purcell, K., Madden, M., Brenner, J., Pew, I., & American Life, P. (2012). Younger Americans` Reading and Library Habits. In: Pew Internet & American Life Project. zh_TW