Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n = 1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the convergent validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of convergent validity of the citation analysis based on the GS data.

M.Phil / Citing is the process by which scholars give recognition to research used by another academic researcher. Citation resources are tools used by academic scholars for keeping track of who did what research and the impact of the research within the discipline. Citation analysis is therefore an attempt to measure the impact and contribution of a study to the body of knowledge and research. Citation tracking and citation analysis is facilitated by making use of information resources which specialize in citations and tools for conducting citation analysis. The citation resource by The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Web of Science (WOS), was traditionally the citation tool of choice of academics for more than 40 years. The arrival in 2004 of Scopus, a fee-based citation resource, and Google Scholar (GS), a citation resource available for free and accessible via the Web, presented WOS with competition. The prolific growth of the citation resources created new opportunities for academics in citation tracking and citation analysis. The question of which citation resource to use in the process of tracking citations and conducting citation analysis posed a challenge to librarians and information professionals at academic institutions. It became essential to establish which citation resource was not only most relevant to use for which subject discipline, but which was the most cost-effective with the advent of shrinking library budgets. Therefore the need arose for citation resources to be compared with the aim of establishing whether the newcomers Scopus and GS are substitutes for or complementary to the traditional WOS. The objectives of this study included comparing WOS, Scopus and GS in order to determine whether evaluation criteria existed for citation resources, to define scholarly environmental sciences journals within a South African context, to determine which citation resource presented the most comprehensive citation coverage of the South African scholarly environmental sciences journals, to determine whether GS could be considered a substitute for the fee-based citation resources WOS and Scopus, and to determine how the content of the exported data for the journal sample population compared in terms of content completeness and quality. The research study consisted of a detailed literature review, followed by an empirical component using a comparative research design and the technique of purposive non-probability sampling in order to define the sample population for the study. The South African scholarly environmental sciences journals internationally accredited during the period 2004-2008 were chosen as the sample target population. The study consisted of a pilot study and three measuring instruments that were compiled based on the literature review. The results of the macro-level evaluation established that Scopus surpasses both WOS and GS. On the other hand, the micro-level evaluation concluded that WOS surpasses Scopus and GS. The content verification process conducted determined that Scopus and WOS both surpass GS. These findings were presented at the 12th Annual World Wide Web Applications conference in September 2010. The study was able to establish that GS is not a substitute for WOS and/or Scopus for the South African scholarly environmental sciences journals. In addition, it was concluded that GS can be used as a supplementary citation resource to the fee-based citation resources WOS and Scopus. It was further determined that the citation resource Scopus can be considered a substitute for WOS, which was traditionally the citation resource of choice of academic researchers.

競爭是現代社會中無所不在的行為，國家或企業透過產業競爭分析、企業競爭分析，乃至市場分析及技術預測（Technological Forecast），才能知己知彼並且擬定正確的決策。對科技產業而言，若企業無法隨時掌握技術發展的趨勢，儘早投入技術研發或調整企業的經營策略。不久之後，市場便會被其他競爭對手所佔據。所幸，沒有一項技術發明是直接由發明者的腦袋直接跳到廣泛應用的境地。其間總是經過好幾個連續階段，每一個階段都使得「實用性」及「有用性」更成熟。因此若能掌握科技發展的脈絡，早期投入研發，便能維持企業的競爭優勢。 專利資訊可以用來評估與預測技術發展、規劃研發或技術發展項目、避免誤觸專利權而浪費研發資源、掌握企業發展動向及市場需求。許多企業和政府機關已經發現專利分析的重要性，並且投入大量的人力、物力來進行專利分析的工作。然而，專利的申請日和公開日之間還是存在至少18個月的時滯，若企業過渡倚賴專利資訊的分析，容易使後續的研發資源投入競爭激烈的技術紅海當中。因此若要充分掌握前瞻技術發展的脈動，基礎研究趨勢分析相對於專利趨勢分析，其重要性有過之而無不及。 在分析方法方面，現存的書目記錄以科學與技術類佔大多數，因此，以書目計量學為工具，自然成為研究「科學」技術整體發展的主流。除了傳統的計量分析之外，利用自動化的方法，挖掘大量文件中的隱含及有用知識，也是最近熱門的研究議題。對探勘技術而言，關聯分析、分群、預測等探勘技術，也漸漸成為技術預測不可或缺的工具之一。 過去曾有眾多的研究利用書目計量來分析學術論文或專利資訊，而最近幾年則陸續出現利用文字探勘來分析學術論文或專利資訊，但這樣的分析結果是片段而不完全的。本研究提出整合性的概念，同時結合計量分析（Bibliometrics）與文字探勘（Text Mining）兩種方法，分別對學術論文（Science Citation Index Expanded）與專利資訊（Derwent World Patents Index）這兩種文獻資料作分析，透過互相比較來瞭解技術發展的趨勢。除此之外，也希望透過個案分析，對本研究所提出之方法論本身，探討之間的關聯性。 在選擇個案方面，奈米科技是目前最熱門的科技產業發展方向。其中最具代表性的產業即「半導體產業」和「微機電系統產業」。蝕刻（Etching）製程與設備技術的良劣，直接影響晶圓產品良率的高低，是影響奈米科技未來發展的重要技術之一。故蝕刻技術之發展趨勢值得深入研究。 而本研究之研究結論如下： 1.技術趨勢分析在層次上宜由遠（計量分析）而近（文獻探勘），理論（論文資料）與應用（專利資料）應並重，分析結果才能互補長短。 2.科學發展與市場需求為專利技術生命週期的領先指標。 3.科學發展增加技術商業化的應用，但市場需求則強化了創新擴散的效果。 4.蝕刻技術的基礎研究目前處於成熟期，而技術發展目前處於成長期。在電子產品輕薄短小、高效能的需求下，預期蝕刻技術將持續被商業化應用。 5.蝕刻技術的領先地位，美商已逐漸被亞洲企業所取代，尤其近來南韓的半導體廠商最為積極。台灣的台積電和聯電過去已累積雄厚的技術發展基礎，惟台灣在基礎研究與產學合作方面仍待加強。