| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 圖書資訊學研究所 === 97 === This study applied secondary analysis, questionnaire survey, and bibliometric methods to analyzing the results of journal evaluations of Library and Information Science in Taiwan. Three previous journal evaluations, i.e., Hsueh, L.-K. (1995) (A), Huang, S.-H., et al. (2001) (B), and Huang, Y.-J., et al. (2008) (C), are examined in this study. In addition, this study proceeds two additional evaluations: "The experts'' subjective cognition to the journal ranking. (D)" and "An evaluation of library and information science journals by using THCI Core model. (E)".
The major findings are as follows. Three major evaluation methods are used in journal evaluation: expert assessment, citation analysis, and form examination. The researches based on expert assessment gather experts'' subjective cognition to the journal via questionnaire survey. The researches based on citation analysis would set a range of source works and cited works to build citation measurements. Form examination evaluates the journals by using check list composed of five categories: journal form, literature form, editing works, references and citations, and others. The weight of each method is different from research to research. However, the weight of the citation analysis is, in general, lower than the others.
Regarding to tests for the results of five journal evaluation researches, six out of ten pairs show significant consistency by using 5% confidence level. It means they demonstrate consistency in journal ranking. Furthermore, this study analyzes the effects of evaluate methods and their weightings. The results of expert assessment in BCD researches reveal consistent journal ranking. The results of citation analysis in BCE researches reveal low consistency. It is supposed that the different citation measurements cause the lower consistency. The results of form examination in ABE researches reveal inconsistency in EA and EB. The different design and scoring for items in form examination cause the outcome. Besides, according to the data collected by these five journal evaluation researches, we could not conclude the effects of the weightings. More importantly, this study finds the expert assement shows great consistency in journal ranking.
|
|---|
