本研究利用書目計量法分析比較電腦科學領域高被引文章與一般文章之特性，包括基本特性、合著特性，及老化特性，並對臺灣文章同樣進行特性探討。高被引文章蒐集自ESI資料庫，包括1996至2006年共2112篇文章；一般文章檢索自WOS資料庫，包括1996至2006年共2200篇文章。
研究結果顯示，高被引文章平均首次被引年齡較一般文章低，主要由歐美國家所發表；在合著率方面，高被引文章與一般文章皆呈現上升趨勢，以高被引文章合著率較高，達九成，國際合著率同樣是高被引文章較高；分析高被引文章與一般文章之老化曲線可知，高被引文章被引狀況較持久，一般文章則是較早達被引高峰且較早老化。此外，臺灣文章特性與所有文章大致相近，但臺灣的高被引文章數在各國之排名遠不如一般文章，且臺灣的一般文章平均被引次數較所有一般文章低，顯示臺灣文章數量雖不少但品質仍有待提升。

The purpose of this study is to explore the characteristics of highly cited papers and general papers in computer science field, and papers with Taiwan authors are also analyzed. The characteristics, explored by bibliometric techniques, include primary characteristics, collaboration, and obsolescence. The research papers, from 1996 to 2006, are taken from the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) database and the Web of Science (WOS) database.
The results of this study suggest that highly cited papers, mainly published by American and European countries, are cited earlier than general papers. The collaboration rate as well as the international collaboration rate of highly cited papers are higher than those of general papers. Moreover, highly cited papers are cited continually; however, citations of general papers decrease rapidly. In addition, the rank of highly cited papers with Taiwan authors is inferior to that of general papers with Taiwan authors. That is to say, the quality of papers in Taiwan needs to be improved.

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 iii
目次 v
表目次 vii
圖目次 ix

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 問題陳述 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究範圍與限制 4
第四節 名詞解釋 5

第二章 文獻分析 7
第一節 引用文獻分析 7
第二節 合著 13
第三節 文獻老化 16
第四節 高被引文章 21

第三章 研究方法 27
第一節 研究設計 27
第二節 研究工具與對象 29
第三節 研究步驟 31
第四節 資料處理 34

第四章 研究結果分析 37
第一節 電腦科學領域高被引文章特性分析 37
第二節 電腦科學領域一般文章特性分析 50
第三節 電腦科學領域高被引文章與一般文章特性比較 61
第四節 臺灣高被引文章與臺灣一般文章特性分析 73

第五章 結論與建議 93
第一節 結論 93
第二節 建議 97
第三節 進一步研究建議 99

參考書目 101

丁學東（民82）。文獻計量學基礎。北京：北京大學。
王淑儀（民87）。電腦科學文獻老化研究—兼論同時法與歷時法之特質。淡江大學教育資料科學學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北縣。
周曉雯（民83）。我國臺灣地區化學期刊引用文獻老化之研究。國立臺灣大學圖書館學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
孟連生（民85）。試論引文索引法的性質與功能。資訊傳播與圖書館學，3(1)，15-19。
俞培果（民86）。文獻老化現象研究的歷史評說。中國圖書館學報，23(110)，44-49。
張偉嶠（民95）。2000年－2004年台灣學者的科研成績單。民96年5月27日，取自：http://www.sciscape.org/news_detail.php?news_id=2010
黃琇薇（民95）。圖書資訊學期刊引用文獻分析研究：以JASIST為例。淡江大學資訊與圖書館學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺北縣。
黃裕惠（民93）。分子生物與遺傳學之文獻計量分析。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
黃慕萱（民83）。引用文獻初探。載於王振鵠教授七秩榮慶論文集編輯小組，當代圖書館事業論集－慶祝王振鵠教授七秩榮慶論文集（807-816頁）。臺北市：正中書局。
劉京玫（民90）。影響係數、被引用次數與期刊重要性和作者影響力關係之探討—以數學學科為例。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
蔡明月（民92）。資訊計量學與文獻特性。臺北市：國立編譯館。
蔡明月、周淑珍（民93）。臺灣地區生命科學作者之引用研究。教育資料與圖書館學，41(4)，503-529。
羅式勝（民83）。文獻計量學概論。廣州：中山大學。
Ahmed, T., Johnson, B., Oppenheim, C., & Peck, C. (2004). Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited. Part II: The 1953 Watson and Crick article on the structure of DNA. Scientometrics, 61(2), 147-156.
Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159-170.
Aksnes, D.W., & Sivertsen, G. (2004). The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators. Scientometrics, 59(2), 213-224.
Arunachalam, S., & Singh, U. N. (1984). Publication & citation patterns in the literature of a high metabolism area: The case of superconductivity in 1970. Journal of Information Science, 8, 93-102.
Aversa, E. S. (1985). Citation patterns of highly cited papers and their relationship to literature aging: A study of the working literature. Scientometrics, 7(3-6), 383-389.
Avkiran, N. K. (1997). Scientific collaboration in finance does not lead to better quality research. Scientometrics, 39(2), 173-184.
Baird, L. M., & Oppenheim, C. (1994). Do citations matter. Journal of Information Science, 20(1), 2-15.
Bridgstock, M. (1990). The quality of single and multiple authored papers: An unresolved problem. Scientometrics, 21(1), 37-48.
Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 12(5-6), 373-379.
Brooks, T. A. (1986). Evidence of complex citer motivations. American Society for Information Science, 37(1), 34-36.
Brookes, B. C. (1970). The growth, utility, and obsolescence of scientific periodical literature. Journal of Documentation, 26, 283-294.
Cano, V., & Lind, N. C. (1991). Citation life-cycles of 10 citation-classics. Scientometrics, 22(2), 297-312.
Cunningham, S. J. & Bocock, D. (1995). Obsolescence of computing literature. Scientometrics, 34(2), 255-62.
Diodato, V. (1994). Dictionary of bibliometrics. New York: Haworth Press.
Drake, M. A. (2003). Encyclopedia of library and information science. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Egghe, L. (2004). Solution of a problem of Buckland on the influence of obsolescence on scattering. Scientometrics, 59(2), 225-232.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471-479.
Garfield, E. (1996). When to cite. Library Quarterly, 66(4), 449-458.
Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461-473.
Glänzel, W. (2004). Towards a model for diachronous and synchronous citation analysis. Scientometrics, 60(3), 511-522.
Glänzel, W., Schlemmer, B., & Thijs, B. (2003). Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon. Scientometrics, 58(3), 571-586.
Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on aging and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science, 21(1), 37-53.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1992). Some facts and figures on highly cited papers in the sciences, 1981-1985. Scientometrics, 25(3), 373-380.
Gupta, B. M. (1998). Growth and obsolescence of literature in theoretical population genetics. Scientometrics, 42(3), 335-347.
Hart, R. L. (2007). Collaboration and article quality in the literature of academic librarianship. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(2), 190-195.
Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541-554.
Laborie, T., & Halperin, M. (1976). Citation patterns in library science dissertation. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 16, 271-283.
Lawani, S. M. (1986). Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research. Scientometrics, 9(1-2), 13-25.
Line, M. B., & Sandison, A. (1974). “Obsolescence” and changes in the use of literature with time. Journal of Documentation, 30(3), 283-350.
Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R. J. W., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15-36.
MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis, Scientometrics, 36(3), 435-444.
McCain, K. W., & Turner, K. (1989). Citation context analysis and aging patterns of journal articles in molecular genetics. Scientometrics, 17(1-2), 127-163.
Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363-377.
Narin, F., Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1983). Highly cited Soviet papers: An exploratory investigation. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 307-319.
Narin, F., & Hamilton, K. S. (1996). Bibliometric performance measures. Scientometrics, 36(3), 293-310.
Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21, 313-323.
Oppenheim, C., & Renn, S. P. (1978). Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29(5), 225-231.
Oromaner, M. (1975). Collaboration and impact: The career of multi-authored publications, Social Science Information, 14, 147-155.
Plomp, R. (1990). The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy. Scientometrics, 19(3-4), 185-197.
Plomp, R. (1994). The highly cited papers of professors as an indicator of a research group''s scientific performance. Scientometrics, 29(3), 377-393.
Rousseau, R. (2001). Are multi-authored articles cited more than single-authored ones? Are collaborations with authors from other countries more cited than collaborations within the country? A case study. Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://doclib.uhasselt.be/dspace/handle/1942/822
Small, H. (2004). Why authors think their papers are highly cited. Scientometrics, 60(3), 305-316.
Smart, J. C., & Bayer, A. E. (1986). Author collaboration and impact: A note on citation rates of single and multiple authored articles. Scientometrics, 10(5-6), 297-305.
Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation Analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83-106.
Stinson, E. R., & Lancaster, F. W. (1987). Synchronous versus diachronous methods in the measurement of obsolescence by citation studies. Journal of Information science, 13, 65-74.
Subramanyam, K. (1982). Bibliometirc studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information science, 6, 33-38.
Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & Leeuwen, T. N. (2002). Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics, 54(3), 381-397.
Virgo, J. A. (1977). A Statistical procedure for evaluating the importance of scientific papers. Library Quarterly 47(4), 415-430.
Wade, N. (1975). Citation analysis: A new tool for science administrators, Science, 188(4187), 429-432.
Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science, Scientometrics, 62(1), 3-26.
Wallace, D. P. (1986). The relationship between journal productivity and obsolescence, American Society for Information Science, 37(3), 136-145.
Zhu, X., Wu, Q., Zheng, Y., & Ma, X. (2004). Highly cited research papers and the evaluation of a research university: A case study Peking University 1974-2003. Scientometrics, 60, 237-247.