本研究以2001年至2013年諾貝爾物理學獎得主之著作為研究樣本，比較八個商業資料庫(Scopus和Web of Science)與開放取用系統(搜尋引擎：Google Scholar、Microsoft Academic；匯集式機構典藏系統：OpenDOAR、OAIster；學科性開放取用系統：arXiv.org和Astrophysics Data System)，於物理學文獻收錄之正確性、完整性、重複性(包含內部重複與外部重複性)和獨特性，並評析各資料庫與系統之檢索功能、資料呈現等面向。期望能對圖書館資料庫選購以及使用者檢索資料庫與系統提供建議，並為各資料庫與系統之未來發展提出建議。 研究結果顯示：(一)諾貝爾物理學獎得主之個人著作揭露情形尚未普遍；(二)商業資料庫檢索功能較為多元，搜尋引擎容錯機制較強；(三)開放取用系統Astrophysics Data System和Microsoft Academic改版上線後，檢索功能Google化，重視全文鏈結、圖像化資訊呈現與語意網連結資訊；(四)各資料庫與系統普遍出現書目著錄格式不統一之問題，影響書目品質與檢索效率；(五)一般而言搜尋引擎資料完整性高於商業資料庫，商業資料庫高於機構典藏系統，但學科性開放取用系統Astrophysics Data System之資料收錄完整性僅低於Google Scholar；(六) arXiv內部重複性最低，Google Scholar和OpenDOAR內部重複性最高；(七)開放取用系統彼此重複性高，且與搜尋引擎Google Scholar和Astrophysics Data System重複性達100%。由於各資料庫與系統之收錄範圍各不相同，不同資料庫與系統亦提供不同的功能，使用者應依個人資訊需求與目的選擇資料庫與系統使用，如欲檢索物理學文獻，使用搜尋引擎與開放取用系統Astrophysics Data System可獲得較完整之文獻：若使用者欲取得引文分析之相關資訊，則以選擇商業資料庫Scopus和Web of Science為佳，亦可選擇Astrophysics Data System。 / In this study, scholarly communication system of commercial services and open access will be examined through comprehensiveness, overlap and database variation of coverage via field operations of commercial citation index databases (Web of Science and Scopus) and open access citation system (search engine: Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic; disciplinary of physics: arXiv.org and Astrophysics Data System; prestigious institutional repository: OAIster and OpenDOAR). Retrievals will be conducted in the two commercial databases, two search engines, and four open access systems stated above to analyze and compare their retrieval interfaces, and evaluations of each system will be made as well according to presentation and output of retrieval results. Noble laureates in physics sciences from 2001 to 2013 are selected as samples in this study. Records of their publications over time will be retrieved and downloaded from each system, and a computer program will be developed to perform the analytical tasks of sorting, comparison, elimination, aggregation and statistics. Bibliographic records retrieved from the two databases and six systems will undertake quantitative analyses and cross references to determine the comprehensiveness and uniqueness of their system coverage. The results of the study may provide better references for libraries to acquire citation index databases, to build institutional repositories, or to create citation index systems on their own in the future. Suggestions on indices and tools for academic assessment will be presented based on the comprehensiveness assessment of each system as well.