從全文可得性與引用分析探討圖書資訊學電子期刊資源發展之研究

A Study on the Development of Electronic Journals of Library and Information Science from Full-Text Availability and Citation Analysis

郭子銘(Kuo Tzu-Ming)

指導教授 ： 陳昭珍

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/圖書資訊學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202203134

摘要

電子期刊自興起至今,已成為廣泛使用的期刊文獻傳播模式。近來圖書館受電子期刊價格上升、採購預算成長緩慢等情形影響，必須嚴謹地選擇電子期刊資源,尚能建構符合研究需求之館藏。公開取用被視為上述問題之解決方案之一，然而公開取用亦有需要留意之問題，仍須審慎評估。本研究主要透過電子期刊全文可得性分析與引用文獻分析，分析不同取用類型期刊取用情形，瞭解圖書資訊學期刊之取用類型分佈情形,比較公開取用文獻與非公開取用文獻之被引用情形，與瞭解期刊之長期保存情形等,以探討圖書資訊學電子期刊資源發展現況，並提供圖書館於電子期刊資源發展與利用之建議。

本研究以 JCR、DOAJ、CiteScore metrics、Eigenfactor，以及 Manzari 與四所大學圖書館提供之期刊列表作為研究對象選擇範圍，共得 92 份期刊、4,111筆文獻；再以 Web of Science、Scopus 與 Google Scholar 為被引用次數查詢工具。研究結果顯示，其中有 57 份複合公開取用期刊、18 份直接公開取用期刊、11份付費取用期刊、4 份延遲公開取用期刊與 2 份部分公開取用期刊；並以商業出版社發行 48 份複合公開取用期刊為最多。全文可得性方面，4,111 筆文獻中有2,059 筆文獻含有公開取用全文，且有 1,433 筆文獻含有出版社版本全文；另外期刊網站典藏1,012 筆文獻公開取用全文，為數量最多之公開取用全文典藏處，學術社群網站、學校機構典藏與學會、專業組織及政府機構典藏亦典藏豐富公開取用全文；值得注意的是，複合公開取用期刊文獻筆數雖最多，然而其含有公開取用全文之文獻筆數，僅佔 41.87%。文獻被引用情形方面，數據顯示複合公開取用期刊文獻的被引用次數比例較直接公開取用期刊高，差距從 1.91%至 15.53%；但公開取用文獻與非公開取用文獻之被引用情形間的差異則較不明顯；「含有公開取用全文」之非公開取用文獻被引用次數比例，則較「未含有公開取用全文」者高，且公開取用全文數量較多者，被引用次數亦較高；顯示是否含有公開取用全文，是可能影響文獻被引用次數之因素之一。期刊長期保存情形方面，商業出版社與大學出版社之期刊的長期保存情形較良好；學會與專業組織則較少參與長期保存計畫。

綜述以上研究結果，目前圖書資訊學期刊主要取用類型為複合公開取用期刊，且有近半數文獻並未含有公開取用全文，公開取用仍有發展空間。有鑒於學術社群網站與機構典藏含有豐富公開取用全文資源，大學除應積極典藏研究者著作於機構典藏外，亦應鼓勵研究者善加利用學術社群網站；圖書館則可整合分散的公開取用期刊資源，提升館藏完整程度；大學、學會與專業組織則應就維持資源永久取用為目標，參與長期保存計畫。

關鍵字

電子期刊 ； 公開取用 ； 全文可得性 ； 引用文獻分析

並列摘要

Electronic journals have become widely used dissemination mode since the rise. Recently, libraries are affected by the increasing price of electronic journals and the slow growth of purchases budget, they must rigorously select electronic journal resources to construct collections in line with the research needs. Open access (OA) is considered one of the solutions to the above problems. However, people need to pay attention and carefully assessed to the issues of OA. This study analyzes the usage of journals in different types of access through full-text availability and Citation analysis, to understand the distribution of types of access to journals, the citation comparison between OA and non-OA literatures, and the long-term preservation of journals. Completely explores the development of LIS electronic journals, and provides suggestion about the development and utilization of electronic journal to library.

In this study, the journal lists provided by JCR, DOAJ, CiteScore metrics, Eigenfactor, Manzari and four university libraries are selection standard for object of study. There are 92 journals and 4,111 literatures in total, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar are citations query tools of literatures. The results of this study showed that 57 journals are hybrid OA, 18 journals are direct OA, 11 journals are TA, 4 journals are delayed OA, and 2 journals are part OA. Furthermore, commercial publishers publish 48 hybrid OA journals, more than other publishers. In the full-text availability, 2,059 articles contain OA full-text, and 1,433 articles contain publishing edition full-text. In addition, websites of journals are the largest type of full-text archives where contain 1,012 OA full-texts. Moreover, people can access numerous articles at academic social network sites, and institutional repositories of college, associations, professional organizations and government organizations. It is worth noting that hybrid OA journals published the most literatures than the others, but only 41.87% of the literatures contain OA full-texts. In terms of the citation of articles, the data show that the proportion of citation to hybrid OA journals is higher than direct OA journals, and the gap is from 1.91% to 15.53%. However, the difference between the citation to OA and non-OA articles is less evident. It probably is one of the factors that may affect the times cited of articles because the proportion of citation to the non-OA articles having OA full-texts is higher than which having no full-text. Besides, the more OA full-texts articles have, the more times cited for article. In the long-term preservation of journals, the situation of journals published by commercial publishers and university publishers is better; learning and professional organizations are less involved in long-term preservation programs.

At present, the main type of LIS journals is hybrid OA, and nearly half of the articles do not contain OA full-text. In addition to archive researchers’ articles into institutional repositories actively, colleges should also encourage researchers to make good use of academic social network sites. Libraries can integrate diffused OA journals resources with their collection, to enhance the integrity of the collection. Universities, associations and professional organizations should aim at maintaining permanent access to resources and participate in long-term preservation programs.

並列關鍵字

Electronic Journals ； Open Access ； Full-Text Availability ； Citation Analysis

參考文獻

林雯瑤（2003）。電子預行本與學術傳播。圖書資訊學刊，1(2)，59-80。

傅雅秀（2003）。傳統和電子預印本被引用之情形。圖書資訊學刊，1(2)，81-94。

吳紹群、吳明德（2007）。開放資訊取用期刊對學術傳播系統之影響。圖書資訊學研究，2(1)，21-54。

一、 中文文獻

王梅玲（2003）。電子期刊興起及其對學術傳播影響的探討。中國圖書館學會會報，71，61-78。