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