人文與社會科學引用資料類型反映了人文社會科學研究者的資料使用行為，進而突顯其出版作品之資料類型的重要性。學術研究之發展會隨著時間的進展而發生變化，因此，本研究以2000年與2009年為主要研究範圍，以二個年代加以比較各學科引用資料類型之差異。探討各學科引用文獻之資料類型、各學科引用圖書與期刊之變化及其是否因期刊性質與年代不同而有差異。所以，本研究亦將探討各學科期刊引用文獻老化現象，並進一步以期刊性質與年代加以比較，期能幫助研究人員與專家學者對於人文社會科學領域使用資料之行為更加了解，並協助圖書館館藏發展與管理的工作。 研究結果如下：1.人文與社會科學引用參考文獻分析(1)人文學以圖書為主要引用資源，社會科學以期刊為主；(2)評述型期刊的引用文獻數量較高；(3)人文學科的研究型期刊與評述型期刊多引用圖書資源，社會科學中多引用期刊資源；(4)不同年代的人文學評述型期刊與研究型期刊主要引用資料為圖書、期刊；社會科學不同年代的研究型期刊主要引用圖書及期刊資源，評述型期刊引用較多的是圖書與電子資源。2.人文與社會科學引用文獻老化現象呈現出(1)被引用圖書的文獻老化時間較長，其中又以人文學的圖書文獻老化所需時間比較多；(2)人文學的引用圖書資源的出版年份久遠，近期與過去出版的文獻皆有引用，文獻老化程度較不顯著；(3)人文學各學科的被引用期刊半衰期可達13年至19年；另一方面，社會科學各學科被引用期刊半衰期可達7年至19年間；(4)研究型期刊之文獻老化現象中，人文學科的引用年代偏向年代較早的文獻，傾向引用6年至22年的參考文獻作研究，而社會科學者經常引用出版6至11年的文獻；(5)評述型期刊之人文學科的引用年代傾向於引用12年間的參考文獻作研究，而社會學科學者經常引用出版8至10年的文獻；(6)研究表現出研究型和評述型期刊的類型並不完全影響該學科的文獻老化程度。 本研究結果可應用於規畫重要的期刊文獻類型，有助於圖書館或相關研究單位評估人文與社會科學的相關館藏是否足以支援研究，並且藉由與其他領域的老化速度之比較，作為為採購資料之時效性以及期刊裝訂時的必要考量。同時可將研究分析應用於人文社會科學學者的學術資訊需求與特性，藉以提供研究人員完善的資訊服務，由文獻老化速度可以知道學科的發展情形，可作為人文與社會科學學者館藏研究規劃之參考。 / The Humanities and Social Sciences reference categories reflect the use of information of the researchers and highlight the importance of the publication categories. The development of academic research changes over time. Therefore, taking 2000 and 2009 as the major research areas, the study compares the difference between each discipline referring categories. The study also researches the references patterns of different disciplines, the change of referring monographs and journals in different disciplines, and whether they change the pattern due to the transformation and aging of these reference books and journals. Consequently, this study will also probe into the Literature Obsolescence in various references categories of different disciplines, and furthermore to compare the nature and years of journals, hoping to help researchers and experts in humanities and social sciences to understand the information research behavior better and to assist the Library collection development and management. The results are as follows: 1.The analysis of Citation and Reference in Humanities and Social Sciences (1)the humanities mostly refer to monograph, and the social sciences mostly journal; (2)Review journal is in a higher number of citations; (3) research and review journals of Humanities cites more monograph resources, and social science journals resources; (4)Reference materials of review and research Journals of Humanities in different generations are mainly monographs and periodicals; research journals if social sciences in different years more cites in monographs and periodicals, while review periodicals prefer to reference more monograph and electronic resources. 2. Humanities and Social Sciences Citation Literature Obsolescence reveals that (1)the cited monographs take longer for obsolescence, among which monographs in Humanities take more time; (2) the cited monographs in humanities has published from long time ago. Cited recent and past literature, citation literature of aging are less significant. (3) The half-life of the cited journal of each discipline in the humanities is up to 13-19 years. On the other hand, the half-life of Journal reference in social sciences disciplines are up to 7-19 years; (4) About the Literature Obsolescence of research journals, the humanities tend to the refer literatures in earlier years, from past 6 to 22 years, while the Social Sciences often cited published literature published from 6 to 11 years ago; (5) Review journals in the humanities tend to quote the reference materials of past 12 years for research, and social science scholars frequently cited literatures published from 8 to 10 years ago; (6) The study demonstrated the research and the review types of periodicals are not completely affect the academic literature aging. The results can be applied to planning an important type of journal, contributing to the libraries or related research units to assess if the humanities and social sciences collection sufficient to support. Furthermore, by the comparison of other areas in speed of aging, this study also can be a necessary measurement for the timeliness of procurement and for the periodicals binding. Meanwhile, the analysis can be applied to the behavior and characteristics of academic information requirement of humanities and social sciences scholars, in order to provide researchers a complete information services. From the speed of Literature Obsolescence, scholars can acknowledge the development of a subject. It can be used as the reference in humanities and social sciences collection planning.

本研究採用同時法與歷時法二種文獻老化研究方法，進行資訊檢索領域下系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻之老化研究，主要研究重點有二，一是資訊檢索領域下，系統研究及使用者研究二種不同主題文獻老化現象之差異性；二是同一主題文獻下，同時法與歷時法二種不同老化研究方法之文獻衰退情形是否一致。 同時法研究是針對現時某一特定文獻之引用參考文獻進行分析，並測得其引用年齡中數。本研究自LISA資料庫取得2006年資訊檢索領域下系統研究及使用者研究二種主題之相關文獻，作為同時法研究樣本，並利用T檢定檢測系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻老化現象之差異。在同時法研究結果方面，系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻之引用年齡中數分別為7.25歲與7.98歲，系統研究主題文獻同時法老化速度快於使用者研究主題文獻，但差異不大，T檢定結果亦顯示同時法系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻之老化速度無顯著差異。 歷時法研究是分析過去某特定期間所發表之文獻，其逐年被引用情形，並計算其被引用半衰期。本研究利用LISA資料庫取得1996年資訊檢索領域下系統研究及使用者研究二種主題之相關文獻，作為歷時法研究樣本，並利用WOS資料庫，取得其自1996年至2006年間逐年被引用情形。在歷時法研究結果方面，系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻之被引用半衰期分別為5.12歲與4.99歲，系統研究主題文獻之歷時法老化速度較使用者研究主題文獻稍慢，二者差異不大，T檢定結果亦顯示歷時法系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻之老化速度無顯著差異。 在同時法與歷時法二種研究方法比較部份，就文獻老化速度而言，同時法之引用參考文獻數量於高峰期後，呈現顯著文獻衰退現象；而歷時法達到被引用次數最高峰後，則未呈現明顯文獻衰退現象，可知同時法文獻老化速度較歷時法文獻老化速度快。在柯史（K-S）檢測方面，檢測結果發現，不論系統研究主題文獻或使用者研究主題文獻，同時法與歷時法之文獻老化現象皆不一致。 因此，本研究重要研究結論有二：一是資訊檢索領域下，不會因主題不同而有顯著差異；二是資訊檢索領域下，同時法所測得之文獻老化現象與歷時法所測得之文獻老化現象不一致。 / This obsolescence study uses two kinds of aging research methods - synchronous approach and diachrinous approach. Analyze two subjects of systems-centered and users-centered in the information retrieval field. The main emphasis of the research is two. First, under information retrieval field, the differences between systems-centered and user-centered in obsolescence study. Second, the difference between synchronous approach and diachrinous approach’s aging phenomenon in the same subject. Synchronous approach is targeted at the present of a particular literature references and calculated median citation age. This study acquired the information retrieval field of systems-centered and user-centered’s sample in 2006 from LISA database, and tested the difference between systems-centered and user-centered literature aging with using t-test. The result of synchronous approach, median citation age of systems-centered literature is 7.25 years and median citation age of user-centered literature is 7.98 years. So systems-centered literature aging is faster than user-centered literature. But the difference is small. T test results also revealed that difference between systems-centered and user-centered of literature aging has not significantly. Diachrinous approach was to analyze a particular during the past published literature and observed the cited times each year, and finally calculated its half-life. This study acquired the information retrieval field of systems-centered and user-centered’s sample in 1996 from LISA database, and acquired the cited times each year during 1996 to 2006 from WOS database.The result of diachrinous approach, cited half-life of system-centered literatures is 5.12 and cited half-life of user-centered literatures is 4.99 years. So user-centered literature aging was faster than system-centered literatures. But the difference was small. T test results also revealed that difference between the system-centered and user-centered of literature aging has not significantly Synchronous approach and diachrinous approach methods of comparison. By the literature on the aging speed, cited reference numbers of synchronous approach reached peak period, and the literature curve showed significant recession; cited times of diachrinous approach reached a peak, and literature curve were not significantly recession. It revealed that aging speed of synchronous approach was faster than aging speed of diachrinous approach. In the K-S test, the results showed that synchronous approach and diachrinous approach were inconsistent, whether systems-centered literatures or users-centered literatures. Therefore, the important conclusion of this study are two : First, in the information retrieval field, even different subject there will be no significant differences on literature aging phenomenon; Second, under the information retrieval field, synchronous approach and diachrinous approach which measured the aging phenomenon of literature are inconsistent.