第六章 結論與建議
第三節 進一步研究之建議
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
第三節 進一步研究之建議
本研究探討傳統同儕評閱制度與開放式同儕評閱制度的發展，另為了解台灣 圖書資訊學期刊現況，以問卷及訪談模式調查台灣圖書資訊學領域學者及期刊主 編，受限於人力及時間等諸多因素，無法涵蓋更多議題，本節提出研究建議，提 供給未來研究此相關議題先進參考。
一、了解其他身分對於學術期刊及同儕評閱制度的看法
本研究僅對於期刊主編及期刊評閱者進行調查，未對學術期刊讀者進行調查 對於目前學術期刊的想法與同儕評閱制度的意見，並了解若學術期刊導入開放式 同儕評閱制度後，對於開放資訊、與期刊文章作者互動等模式，期刊讀者的意願 及想法。
二、了解其他學科領域的狀況
本研究受限於人力與時間，未能針對更多學科進行問卷或訪談調查，由於各 學科的研究、發表特性不同，期刊的出版週期也有所不同，建議後續研究者，可 針對不同學科之期刊發展現況及對於開放式同儕評閱制度看法進行調查。
三、開放式同儕評閱制度的特點融入台灣期刊
在發展開放式同儕評閱制度平台的過程中，已有許多創新作為及創新科技的 使用，建議後續研究者可以針對此特點進一步做探討，包含新工具結合在目前台 灣期刊平台的可行性，另外也可以針對期刊平台開發商的意向做調查。以期待未 來台灣的學術期刊經營模式與平台應用有更多的可能性。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
參考文獻
一、中文
Elsevier。「Scopus 提升您的期刊國際能見度」。檢索於 2018 年 3 月 15 日。
http://taiwan.elsevier.com/htmlmailings/training_website/Scopus/Journal_Selecti on_Brochure.pdf。
中華民國科技部。「科技部對研究人員學術倫理規範」。中華民國科技部。最後更 新於 2017 年 11 月 13 日。檢索於 2018 年 3 月 15 日。
https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/a8ff2bb9-84ae-41ec-b539-bc54d908 5811?。
行政院國家科學委員會。「行政院國家科學委員會學術倫理案件處理及審議要點」。 行政院國家科學委員會。最後更新於 2000 年 4 月 20 日。檢索於 2016 年 3 月 15 日。http://host.cc.ntu.edu.tw/sec/all_law/9/9-14.html。
林娟娟。「學術期刊之同儕審查」。大學圖書館 1 期（1997）：127-140。
林曉雲。「台灣高教奇特現象 學者：論文共同掛名 200 人」。自由時報。2016 年 12 月 17 日。檢索於 2018 年 3 月 15 日。
http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/1920406。
傅雅秀。「科學社群與無形學院」。資訊傳播與圖書館學 5 卷。2 期(1998): 77-85。
顏玉茵。「台灣學術期刊電子化同儕評閱系統建構之評析」。（碩士論文。南華大 學出版與文化事業管理研究所。2004）。
二、英文
____. “A Publishing Milestone to Celebrate: 200.000 PLOS Research Articles and Counting.” PLOS ONE. Accessed October 15, 2018.
____. “About ASAPbio.” ASAPbio. Accessed October 15, 2018.http://asapbio.org/about-.
____. “About PubPeer.” Pubpeer. Accessed October 15, 2018.
https://pubpeer.com/static/about.
____. “About ScienceOpen.” ScienceOpen. Accessed October 12, 2018.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
http://about.scienceopen.com/.
____. “About The Winnower.” The Winnower. Accessed October 12, 2018.
https://thewinnower.com/about.
____. “Become a master of peer review.” Publons. Accessed October 12, 2018.
https://publons.com/blog/publons-academy/.
____. “Benefits of Membership.” Crossref. September 2018. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://www.crossref.org/membership/benefits/.
____. “Exporting Verified Reviews to Orcid - Is This Possible?” Publons. March 2018 Accessed October 15, 2018.
____. “General Information About arXiv.” arXiv. Accessed October 12, 2018.
https://arxiv.org/help/general.
____. “Introducing metadata for peer review.” Crossref. June 2019. Accessed October 15, 2018.
https://www.crossref.org/news/2018-06-05-introducing-metadata-for-peer-review /.
____. “Learned Society Defends Peer Review.” Times Higher Education. September 7.
2007. Accessed December 25, 2015,
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/learned-society-defends-peer-revie w/310359.article.
____. “Open Access Survey: Exporing the Views of Taylor & Francies and Routledge Authors.” Taylor & Francis Group. March 2013. Accessed December 20, 2015, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/open-Access-survey-march2013.pdf.
____. “Open Letter on the Publication of Peer Review Reports.” ASAPbio. Accessed October 15, 2018. http://asapbio.org/letter.
____. “ORCID and CASRAI: Acknowledging Peer Review Activities.” ORCID. April 2014. Accessed October 15, 2018.
https://orcid.org/blog/2014/04/08/orcid-and-casrai-acknowledging-peer-review-a ctivities.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
____. “Peer Review in 2015 A Global View: A White Paper from Taylor & Francis.”
Taylor & Frances Group. October 2015, Accessed December 29, 2015, http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review-in-2015/.
____. “Peer Review Week.” Peer Review Week. Accessed October 13, 2018.
https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/
____. “Philosophical Transactions−the world's first science journal.” The Royal Society. Accessed June 16, 2016. http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/.
____. “PubMed Commons to be Discontinued.” PubMed. Accessed October 12, 2018.
https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2018/02/01/pubmed-commons-to-be-discon tinued/.
____. “PubMed Help.” PubMed. Accessed October 15, 2018.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3827/#pubmedhelp.PubMed_Quick_S tart.
____. “Quality Indices.” Peerage of science. Accessed Discontinued, 2018.
https://www.peerageofscience.org/how-it-works/quality-indices/.
____. “Sense about Science: Peer Review Survey 2009.” Sense About Science .Accessed December 29. 2015,
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html.
____. “Singapore Statement on Research Integrity.” World Conferences on Research Integrity. (September 22. 2010). Accessed December 25, 2015,
http://www.researchintegrity.org/
____. “Terms. Policies & Guidelines.” Publon. Accessed October 28, 2018.
https://publons.com/about/terms.
____. “Peer review in Scientific Publications: Eighth Report of Session 2010–12.”
Publication prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in The Peer Review System Science and Engineering Ethics Science and Technology
Committee. House of Commons (July 18. 2011). Accessed December 18, 2016.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856 .pdf.
____. “Why PeerJ?.” PeerJ. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://peerj.com/benefits/.
____. “All Science Deserves to Be Published PLOS ONE.” Accessed October 28, 2018. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/static/publish.
Cat, Ferguson., Marcus, Adam., and Oransky, Ivan. "Publishing: The peer-review scam." Nature. No.515 (2014): 480-482.
COPE Council. “COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers–English.” COPE.
September. 2017. Accessed December 20, 2018.
https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf .
Dorival, Paglione Laura. and Lawrence Rebecca Naomi. “Data Exchange Standards to Support and Acknowledge Peer‐Review Activity.” Learned Publishing no.28 (2015): 309-16.
Douglas, Peters. P. and Ceci , Stephen J.“ Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles. submitted again.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. no.5.1982: 187-105.
Faculty of 1000. “How it Works.” Faculty of 1000. Accessed October 15, 2018.
http://f1000research.com/about.
https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000012212-exporting-verif ied-reviews-to-orcid-is-this-possible-.
Jordan, Katherine. “Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric:
Reflections and implications for practice.” (Paper presented Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web) . Oxford. (Jun 30 2015).
Accessed October 15, 2018. http://oro.open.ac.uk/43538/.
Lutz, Bornmann. "Scientific peer review." Annual review of information science and technology no.45 (2011): 197-245.
Marshal, Barry l. “Helicobacter evolution.” Accessed October 15,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2018.https://www.scienceopen.com/collection/Helicobacter_evolution.
Pontille, David and Torny Didier. "From manuscript evaluation to article valuation:
the changing technologies of journal peer review." Human Studies 38.1 (2015):
57-79.
Ray, Spier. "The history of the peer-review process." TRENDS in Biotechnology no.20.8 (2002): 357-358.
Rooyen, Susan van., Delamothe, Tony, and Evans, Stephen J. W. “Effect on Peer Review of Telling Reviewers That Their Signed Reviews Might Be Posted on the Web: Randomised Controlled Trial.” BMJ no.341 (November 2010). Accessed October 15, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729.
Ross-Hellauer, Tony. “Defining Open Peer Review: Part Two – Seven Traits of OPR.”
OpenUP November 2, 2016. Accessed October 28, 2018.
https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1410.
Tattersall , Andy. “For What It’S Worth–The Open Peer Review Landscape.” Online Information Review 39 (2015): 649-663.
Tennant, Jonathan P. et al. “A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review.” F1000Research 6. no. 1151 (2017). Accessed October 15, 2018. https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v1#ref-216.
Tennant, Jon. “Collections as The Future of Academic-Led Journals.” September 29.
2017. Accessed October 28, 2018.
http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/03/collections-as-the-future-of-academic-led-j ournals/.
Ware, Mark. “Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly
Community – An International Study.” Information Service & Use. January 2008.
Accessed December 18, 2015.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7050/9ee2d48f00b0b5ed1d471773f6c0d9b45b3 0.pdf