從臺灣學者引文角度看歷史學期刊及學者之評鑑

The Evaluation of History Journals and Historians in Taiwan Based on the Citation Analysis of the First-Class History Journals

黃慕萱(Mu-Hsuan Huang)

歷史學 ； 歷史學期刊 ； 學術評鑑 ； 書目計量學 ； 引文分析 ； History ； History journals ； Research evaluation ； Bibliometrics ； Citation analysis

圖書資訊學研究

4卷2期（2010 / 06 / 01）

1 - 39

繁體中文

本研究採用引文分析方法，以臺灣地區出版之歷史學一級期刊為研究對象，探討歷史學領域之期刊評鑑與學者評鑑。在期刊評鑑方面，比較一級期刊引用次數排名與臺灣人文學引文索引(Taiwan Humanities Citation Index, THCI)期刊引用次數排名之差異，發現兩者達統計上之顯著相關，表示以少數優良歷史學期刊的引文排名可大致上呈現臺灣歷史學期刊在整體人文學領域的影響力。而歷史學期刊引用之臺灣與大陸期刊數量及次數差異不大，顯示兩地期刊對歷史領域之影響力相當。另比較Journal Citation Report(JCR)之歷史學期刊影響係數排名與一級期刊實際引用英文期刊排名之差異，發現兩者未達統計上之顯著相關，顯示JCR歷史學期刊的排名無法反應其對臺灣歷史學一級期刊的影響力。此外亦發現歷史學者引用文獻以中文及圖書為主，且多引用民國前成書的古籍。在學者評鑑方面，發現臺灣歷史學者當中，傑出學者與一般學者在一級期刊及THCI被引用次數的關係皆達統計上之顯著差異，證明以期刊引文分析評鑑歷史學者的學術成就是可行的，惟使用及詮釋上仍須十分謹慎。

This study used citation analysis method to evaluate the history journals and historians in Taiwan. Citation data were drawn from six history journals defined by the National Science Council as the first-class journals. Statistical analysis revealed that the ranking of history journals by ciations of the first-class journals was significantly correlated to the ranking in Taiwan Humanities Citation Index (THCI). This suggests that the first-class journals alone were able to serve as a rather representive sample for journal impact analyses in history and humanities studies in Taiwan. Citation analysis also showed that journals published in Taiwan and China had nearly equal impact on Taiwan's history research. Further, the citation of English journals in Taiwan's history journals was inconsistent with the Journal Citation Reports' (JCR) ranking by impact factor. The finding indicates that JCR journals did not necessarily have more influences on historical studies in Taiwan. In addition, historians tended to cite Chinese language materials, especially books published before 1912. For historian evaluation, analyses revealed that outstanding historians (defined by having received any of three academic honors and awards) and ordinary historians were cited differently both in the first-class history journals and in THCI, and the differences achieved statistical significance. This suggests that citation analysis is applicable to the evaluation of historians in Taiwan, although cautions must be taken in interpreting the data and findings.

1. 林玉茹(2002)。歷史學與區域研究：以東臺灣地區的研究為例。東臺灣研究，7，103-133。
   連結：
2. Campbell, D. F. J. (2002). Conceptual framework for the evaluation ofuniversity research in Europe. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://www.gwu.edu/~cistp/PAGES/campbell_2002.pdf
3. 國科會人文學研究中心（2008）。台灣人文學引用文獻資料庫（THCI資料庫）。上網日期：2008年10月30日，檢自：http://www.hrc.ntu.edu.tw
4. Aksnes, D. W.,Taxt, R. E.(2004).Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university.Research Evaluation,13,33-41.
5. Burnhill, P. M.,Tubby-Hille, M. E.(1994).On measuring the relation between social science research activity and research publication.Research Evaluation,4,130-152.
6. Cronin, B.,Snyder, H.,Atkins, H.(1997).Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: A study of sociology.Journal of Documentation,53,263-273.
7. Evered, D.（ed.）,Harnett, S.（ed.）(1989).The evaluation of scientific research.Chichester, NY:Wiley.
8. Garfield, E.(1999).Journal impact factor: A brief review.Canadian Medical Association Journal,161,979-980.
9. Goedeken, E. A.,Herubel, J. P. V. M.(1995).Periodical dispersion in American history: Observations on article bibliographies from the Journal of American History.The Serials Librarian,27,59-74.
10. Jones, C.,Chapman, M.,Woods, P. C.(1972).The characteristics of the literature used by historians.Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,4,137-156.
11. King, J.(1987).A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation.Journal of Information Science,13,261-274.
12. Kokko, H.,Sutherland, W. J.(1999).What do impact factors tell us?.Trends in Ecology & Evolution,14,382-384.
13. Lawani, S. M.,Bayer, A. E.(1983).Validity of citation criteria for assessing the influence of scientific publications: New evidence with peer assessment.Journal of the American Society for Information Science,34,59-66.
14. Lowe, M. S.(2003).Reference analysis of the American Historical Review.Collection Building,22,13-20.
15. MacRoberts, M. H.,MacRoberts, B. R.(1996).Problems of citation analysis.Scientometrics,36,435-444.
16. Makino, J.(1998).Productivity of research groups: Relation between citation analysis and reputation within research communities.Scientometrics,43,87-93.
17. Meho, L. I.,Sonnenwald, D. H.(2000).Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance: A case study of Kurdish scholarship.Journal of the American Society for Information Science,51,123-138.
18. Moed, H. F.,Burger, W. J. M.,Frankfort, J. G.,van Raan, A. F. J.(1985).The application of bibliometric indicators.Scientometrics,8,177-203.
19. Nederhof, A. J.,Zwaan, R. A.(1991).Quality judgments of journals as indicators of research performance in the humanities and the social and behavioral sciences.Journal of the American Society for Information Science,42,332-340.
20. Nelson, T. M.,Buss, A. R.,Kazko, M.(1983).Rating of scholarly journals by chairpersons in the social sciences.Research in Higher Education,19,469-497.
21. Norris, M.,Oppenheim, C.(2003).Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise V: Archaeology and the 2001 RAE.Journal of Documentation,59,709-730.
22. Plomp, R.(1990).The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy.Scientometrics,19,185-197.
23. Reedijk, J.(1998).Sense and nonsense of science citation analyses: Comments on the monopoly position of ISI and citation inaccuracies. Risks of possible misuse and biased citation and impact data.New Journal of Chemistry,22,767-770.
24. Rinia, E. J.,van Leeuwen, T. N.,van Vuren, H. G.,van Raan, A. F. J.(1998).Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands.Research Policy,27,95-107.
25. Rousseau, R.(2002).Journal evaluation: Technical and practical issues.Library Trends,50,418-439.
26. Seglen, P. O.(1997).Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.Education and Debate,314(7079),497.
27. Sen, B. K.(1992).Normalised impact factor.Journal of Documentation,48,318-325.
28. Sen, B. K.,Shailendra, K.(1992).Evaluation of recent scientific research output by a bibliometric method.Scientometrics,23,31-46.
29. Thomas, P. R.,Watkins, D. S.(1998).Institutional research rankings via bibliometric analysis and direct peer review: A comparative case study with policy implications.Scientometrics,41,335-355.
30. van Raan, A.(1999).Advanced bibliometric methods for the evaluation of universities.Scientometrics,45,417-423.
31. Virgo, J. A.(1977).A statistical procedure of evaluating the importance of scientific papers.The Library Quarterly,47,415-430.
32. Wong, B. B. M.,Kokko, H.(2005).Is science as global as we think?.Trends in Ecology & Evolution,20,475-476.
33. 吳展良主持、甘懷真主持、王遠義主持、方震華主持、秦曼儀主持、劉慧主持(2006)。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告國科會專題研究計畫成果報告,臺北市:國立臺灣大學歷史學系。
34. 杜正勝主持、陳國棟主持、林麗月主持(2003)。國科會補助專題研究計畫成果報告國科會補助專題研究計畫成果報告,臺北市:中央研究院歷史語言研究所。
35. 杜正勝、陳國棟、柳立言(1998)。「國內歷史學學術期刊排序計畫」簡介。漢學研究通訊，17，441-459。
36. 汪榮祖(1997)。論歷史的本質。歷史月刊，100，90-96。
37. 張華葆(1993)。歷史學與社會學的交錯及歷史會學之興起。東海學報，34，463-476。
38. 黃延齡(2008)。歷史學的當前困境與因應之道。歷史月刊，240，116-124。
39. 黃俊傑主持(1984)。「歷史學與社會學之間」學術座談會記錄。思與言：人文與社會科學雜誌，22(1)，1-28。
40. 黃寬重主持、劉錚雲主持、陳弱水主持、林麗月主持、呂妙芬主持(2008)。國科會補助專題研究計畫成果報告國科會補助專題研究計畫成果報告,臺北市:中央研究院歷史語言研究所。
41. 劉益東(1998)。問題譜系比較評議法—同行評議方法新探。自然辯證法研究，14，31-35。
42. 謝劍(1970)。人類學與歷史學。思與言：人文與社會科學雜誌，8(1)，42-45。
43. 顏崑陽(2004)。再哀大學以及一些期待與建議—當前高教學術評鑑的病癥與解咒的可能。反思臺灣的（人文及社會）高教學術評鑑研討會

1. 曾淑賢,林雅詩(2020)。學術期刊評鑑制度對我國圖書資訊學期刊編輯和投稿影響之研究。國家圖書館館刊，109(1)，59-93。
2. 許蓀咪、林巧敏(2015)。歷史期刊文獻引用偏好與引用檔案分析： 2006-2014年變化。圖資與檔案學刊，86，25-46。
3. 楊曉雯、黃慕萱(2012)。經濟學者及社會學者引用文獻特性及學術表現之研究。圖書與資訊學刊，80，59-75。