| Abstract: | 學術期刊訂費高漲不下，形成新世紀的學術傳播危機。學術界紛紛推動開放取用 (Open Access, OA)以為因應。網際網路與資訊科技的快速發展，使得開放取用資源急 遽成長，進而促使學術傳播管道更加多元化，其中主要分成商業與開放取用二種機制。 在學術評鑑要項中，論文被引用率是一項重要指標，提供引用數據的引文索引資料庫 因而受到研究者與評鑑者廣泛的重視。然而這些商業導向之引文索引資料庫生產機構 卻不斷提高其產品的價格，阻礙圖書館和研究者的使用。在此時機應運下，促成了開 放取用引文系統的發展。研發者紛紛發展了在網路上可自由傳播供研究者取用的檢索 平台。如何精確嚴謹的生產、檢索、使用、並快速的傳播與評鑑學術資訊，是進行學 術研究與提供學術資訊服務之一大課題。商業與開放取用之學術傳播模式，目的、功 能和方法差異甚大，因此引發本研究加以探討。 本研究旨在比較商業與開放取用兩種學術傳播機制，透過實際操作商業引文索引 資料庫(以 WOS與 Scopus為例)與開放取用引文系統(以綜合型：Google Scholar 、 Microsoft Academic Search (MAS)；學科型：物理學的 arXiv.org.、 經濟學的 RePEc 再加上 OAIster與 OpenDOAR二個世界重要機構典藏為例)，分二年進行，針對其資料 收錄的完整性與重複性情況與資料庫本身之差異性等加以研究。具體的研究問題包括： 第一年：(1)各引文索引資料庫、引文系統與機構典藏庫過去建置，現在之狀況， 以及未來可能發展或應用方向為何？(2)各引文索引資料庫、引文系統與機構典藏庫收 錄資料的來源、類型、地理範圍、收錄年代、語言、學科主題之完整性與正確性為何？ (3)各引文索引資料庫、引文系統與機構典藏庫收錄作者、機構與期刊之特性為何？ 第二年：(4)各引文索引資料庫與各引文系統與機構典藏庫之間，所收錄資料之重 複性、 獨特性及差異性為何？(5)綜合歸納商業與開放取用引文系統與機構典藏庫之 收錄範圍、使用特性、收錄資料來源及其在圖書資訊服務上之應用為何？ 針對本研究之研究對象，利用上述六個引文索引資料庫與系統以及二個機構典藏 系統，進行實際檢索作業，分析比較各系統之檢索介面，再就檢索結果之呈現、輸出 等項目評鑑各個資料庫與系統。本研究之研究樣本選定為諾貝爾物理學與經濟學(1993 年-2012年) 近 20年之得獎者。分別於各系統進行檢索其歷年來之著作，進而下載文 獻資料，再進一步設計電腦程式以執行書目資料剖析，包括排序、比對、刪除、聚集 與統計等。最後將從各資料庫或系統中所搜尋出之文獻資料進行個別之量化統計，並 相互交叉比對，以分析各系統收錄資料之完整性、重複性與獨特性，進而得到研究結 論並提出建議。本研究結果希冀能提供圖書館選擇引文索引資料庫與建置機構典藏， 或未來引文系統發展之參考。此外，藉由對各系統完整性評估結果，提出學術評鑑的 指標與工具的建議。
The persistent high cost of academic journals leads to crises in scholarly communication of the new century. Open access (OA) initiatives were carried out and have been carried on by academia since as solutions to the situation. Benefiting from the development of the Internet and Information technologies, open access resources thrive and contribute to the broader channels of scholarly communication. Scholarly communication system in present days mainly consists of two parts: commercial services and open access. Article citation rate remains crucial to academic performance assessment and brings citation index databases providing citation data to the attention of researchers and appraisers, while the ever rising price of the commercial services hinder the use of libraries and researchers. Open access citation systems are thus developed under the given circumstances: many researchers develop online retrieval platforms providing free access and dissemination for academic purposes. How to properly produce, retrieve, use, disseminate and assess scholarly communication in short period of time is one of the primary concerns for academic researchers and information providers. Whereas, commercial services and open access significantly vary from purpose, functions and methods, which provides the background and motivation for this study. In this study, scholarly communication system of commercial services and open access will be examined through comprehensiveness, overlap and database variation of coverage via field operations of commercial citation index databases (WOS and Scopus) and open access citation system (general: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search, MAS; disciplinary: arXiv.org of physics and RePEc of economics; prestigious institutional repository: OAIster and OpenDOAR) in this two-year study. Retrievals will be conducted in the six citation index databases and two institutional repositories stated above to analyze and compare their retrieval interfaces, and evaluations of each system will be made as well according to presentation and output of retrieval results. Noble laureates in physics and economic sciences from 1993 to 2012 are selected as samples in this study. Records of their publications over time will be retrieved and downloaded from each system, and a computer program will be developed to perform the analytical tasks of sorting, comparison, elimination, aggregation and statistics. Bibliographic records retrieved from the four databases and two repositories will undertake quantitative analyses and cross references to determine the comprehensiveness, overlap and uniqueness of their system coverage. Conclusion and suggestions will be made in the end of the study. The results of the study may provide better references for libraries to acquire citation index databases, to build institutional repositories, or to create citation index systems on their own in the future. Suggestions on indices and tools for academic assessment will be presented based on the comprehensiveness assessment of each system as well. |
