本研究旨在探討社會科學各學科期刊自我引用之情形。根據學者專家意見所做的社會科學範圍比較以及SSCI資料庫中對於社會科學類期刊收錄範圍所做的分類，共同篩選本研究的核心學科期刊，包括：人類學（51種）、商業學（101種）、經濟學（173種）、教育學（124種）、歷史學（54種）、資訊科學與圖書館學（53種）、法律學（99種）、管理學（73種）、政治學（83種）、心理學（423種）、社會工作與社會學（146種）等十一類學科。 採用Thomson Scientific公司所製作之2005年版SSCI的JCR資料庫社會科學學科期刊之引用數據，包括：刊載文章篇數、被引用次數、影響因素、即時引用指數、引用半衰期、被引用半衰期、同時法自我引用率及歷時法自我引用率等八項數據之各學科基本特性介紹，並利用皮爾森相關係數、費雪爾Z轉換、獨立樣本T檢定等統計方法進行分析。 研究結果歸納如下。： 一、社會科學各學科期刊的基本特性分析 1.社會科學期刊出刊頻率以季刊為主，其次為雙月刊，以經濟學的年出刊次數最多樣化，政治學的年出刊次數分佈最廣泛。 2.社會科學學科期刊的年刊載文章篇數，主要分佈在20~29篇，其次是30~39篇。 3.社會科學學科期刊的被引用次數，主要集中在100~199次，其次為分佈在200~299次。 4.期刊影響因素主要集中在0.001~0.999，幾近90%的社會科學期刊影響因素都未達2。 5.即時引用指數以分佈在0.001~0.099之間的居多，即時引用指數大於0.5以上的學科，以法律學最高，其次為心理學。 6.社會科學期刊十一類學科引用的參考文獻，以大於10年以上的資料為大多數，除了資訊科學與圖書館學(5至5.9年)和(法律學7至7.9年) 7.社會科學十一種學科期刊的被引用半衰期，主要是分佈在大於等於10年以上，僅有資訊科學與圖書館學(6年至6.9年)和政治學(5年至5.9年)。 8.十一種社會科學學科期刊的同時法自我引用率分佈，主要集中於1%至9.99%，佔社會科學學科期刊的77.75%。 9.十一種社會科學學科期刊的歷時法自我引用率分佈，主要集中於1%至9.99%(佔40.22%)。其次分佈在10%至19.99%(佔32.54%)。 顯示社會科學期刊在同時法自我引用率比歷時法自我引用率之分佈情形來得相似。 二、社會科學各學科期刊自我引用率與其他引用數據的相關性分析 同時法自我引用率與被引用次數、影響因素；歷時法自我引用率與影響因素為最相關的引用數據，而自我引用率與引用半衰期之相關性極小；歷時法自我引用率與即時引用指數則未有學科達到顯著差異。 三、社會科學各學科期刊自我引用率與其他引用數據的相關性差異分析 十三組引用數據相關係數差異性檢定之中，達到顯著水準的為： 1.同時法自我引用率和刊載文章篇數、被引用次數、影響因素、即時引用指數； 2.歷時法自我引用率和被引用半衰期； 3.同時法自我引用率和歷時法自我引用率等六組引用數據。 四、社會科學各學科期刊引用數據之平均數差異性分析 1.平均數最具差異的引用數據，以引用半衰期為最，其次是影響因素、被引用次數。 2.而以學科來看的話，平均數最具有差異的為歷史學，其次為心理學。 / The purpose of this study is to explore the self-citation researches of western social sciences journals. According to the experts and scholars opinions, and from the classification of social sciences journals registered in SSCI database knowing that the disciplines which including anthropology (51records), business (101records), economics (173records), education (124records), history (54records), information science and library science (53records), law(99records), management (73records), politics (83records), psychology (423records), sociology and social work (146 records) etc. This study adopts the citation data of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) on 2005. The citation data include articles, total cites, impact factor, immediacy index, citing half-life, cited half-life, synchronous self-citation rate, and diachronous self-citation rate. This research analyzes the journals'' basic characteristics and the characteristics of self-citation data on 2005 In this study, first, the correlation between each pair of citation data on the Pearson correlation tests. Second, the Fisher’s Z-Transform examination is used to examine the correlation coefficient variation of citation data. Third, the study focuses on independent-samples T test is used to ascertain whether there were equality and mean difference between the citation data in social sciences. The results of this study revealed: 1. The distributions of basic data of each disciplines journals and the characteristic of the citation data. (1)Most social sciences journals are quarterly, followed by bimonthly. The economics journals are the most diverse in issued numbers each year, and politics journals are the most extensive of the distribution scope each year. (2)The most numbers of published articles of each journal are 20-29 articles, followed by 30-39 articles. (3) The most numbers of citation frequency of each journal are 100-199 times, followed by 200-299 times. (4)The impact factor is between 0.001 and 0.999 mostly. Among the journals which have the impact factor bigger than 2. (5)The immediacy index is concentrated mostly in 0.001~0.099. However, the immediacy index bigger than 0.5 are law and psychology journals mostly. (6)The mostly Citing half-life is focused on 10 to more than 10 year. Except for information science and library science journals concentrate in 5 years to 5.9 years, the law journals are focused on 7 to 7.9 years. (7)In addition to the information science and library science and politics journals are in cited half-life, the rest journals are not aged easily and have the longer life cycle. (8) The most numbers of synchronous self-citation rate of each journal are 1%-9.99%. (9) The most numbers of diachronous self-citation rate of each journal are 1%-9.99%, followed by 10%-19.99%. The synchronous self-citation rate for each discipline journals are similar; whereas diachronous self-citation rate are different 2. The correlation between self-citation rate and other citation data in journals of social sciences. The highest correlations of journals citation data are between the synchronous self-citation rate and total cites, impact factor, and between diachronous self-citation rate and impact factor; but the correlation between self-citation rate and citing half-life is the minimum. However, there is no significant difference between diachronous self-citation rate and immediacy index. 3.The correlation coefficient variation of self-citation rate and other citation data in journals of social sciences. There are six groups citation data in each discipline have significant difference in correlation coefficient included： (1)Synchronous self-citation rate and published articles, total cites, impact factor and immediacy index. (2) Diachronous self-citation rate and cited half-life. (3) Synchronous self-citation rate and Diachronous self-citation rate. 4.The analysis of equality and mean difference between the citation data in social sciences disciplines journals. (1)Citing half-life has the most significant differences. The second is impact factor. The third is total cites. (2)The difference between history and other disciplines is the highest, psychology come next.

隨著網際網路與電子資源蓬勃發展，智慧型手機與平板電腦等行動裝 置越來越普及，民眾對於公共圖書館的電子資源館藏接受度較過去幾年雖 有小幅提升，但多數民眾仍未曾使用過電子資源。本研究透過文獻分析法 設計公共圖書館電子資源館藏使用與滿意度問卷共 4 個構面 25 項指標，採用訪談法和問卷調查法以臺北市立圖書館大直分館讀者為研究調查對象，就其電子資源館藏使用和滿意度進行瞭解。 本研究的研究目的有三點：(一) 探討大直圖書館分館讀者對於電子資 源館藏的使用情形與電子資源服務滿意度。(二) 探討影響大直圖書館分館讀者對於電子資源館藏使用與電子資源服務滿意度的因素。(三) 探討大直圖書館分館讀者對於電子資源館藏認為有改善空間的項目，以及謀求改進的方法與策略。 本研究獲得以下結論：(一) 使用者對本館提供之電子資源館藏相關內 容與服務之重視度與滿意度有顯著差距(二) 使用者認為，在電子資源館藏容易查詢檢索以及使用的空間配備是否支援電子資源館藏使用是圖書館應改善的部分。(三) 研究發現不同個人背景變項例如：性別、年齡、教育程度對滿意度有不同的認知與感受，因此應針對使用者的差異處加以瞭解，關心使用者的看法與態度，讓使用者重視度與滿意度的差距能縮小。根據所獲得的研究結果，本研究提出幾點建議，提供質量足夠且多元種類的電子資源館藏供使用者取用；加強行動資訊服務軟硬體支援；加強數位閱覽環境空間規劃；持續進行電子資源館藏推廣活動；保持電子資源館藏使用與滿意度長期調查機制，以瞭解需求強化服務。 / With the advance of the Internet as well as the mobile devices, electronic resources has become more and more popular. The acceptance rate of readers for electronic resource archive might be increased in recent years yet there are still many readers have never used such service in public library. It is crucial to understand the use and need among users to offer electronic resource services in public library more adequately. Research methods in the study includes literature review, interview, and questionnaire survey. A four-dimension, 25-item questionnaire was generated from the review of relevant studies to assessing the electronic resources use and satisfaction of library users. The article aims to explore the use of electronic resources archive and user satisfaction by readers in Taipei Public Library, Dazhi Branch. There are three purposes in this research: a) Exploring the use of electronic resources archive and user satisfaction of the readers in Taipei Public Library, Dazhi Branch; b) identifying factors affecting the using and user satisfaction of readers in Taipei Public Library, Dazhi Branch; c) summarizing the feedbacks from respondents in the study to propose the strategies for improvement on electronic resources archive. The results suggest: a) there are significant differences between the perceived service importance and satisfaction of readers at Taipei Public Library, Dazhi Branch; b) participants care about whether the electronic resource archive is easy for inquiry and supporting space arrangement; c) participants from different gender, age and education levels show significant distinctions between the satisfaction of readers at Taipei Public Library, Dazhi Branch. Therefore the library should take considerations for the differences among users to further the understanding of their concerns. Suggestions were proposed in accordance with the findings of this study. The author believes, library may a) make sufficient and diversified variety of electronic resources archive more available for users; b) improve both soft and hardware supports for mobile information services; c) provide a friendlier digital reading space; d) further promote the electronic resource archive; e) continue investigating the use and satisfaction of electronic resource archive to understand the need for enhanced services.