帳號:guest(34.204.169.76)          離開系統
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  

詳目顯示

以作者查詢圖書館館藏以作者查詢臺灣博碩士論文系統以作者查詢全國書目勘誤回報
作者姓名(中文):蔣大展
作者姓名(英文):Ta-Chan Chiang
論文名稱(中文):菁英群指標的系統化分類架構
論文名稱(外文):Systematic classification of elite set indicators
指導教授姓名(中文):管中徽
指導教授姓名(英文):Chung-Huei Kuan
口試委員姓名(中文):劉顯仲
王俊傑
口試委員姓名(英文):none
none
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣科技大學
系所名稱:專利研究所
學號:M10224017
出版年(民國):104
畢業學年度:103
學期:2
語文別:中文
論文頁數:82
中文關鍵詞:書目計量專利計量專利評價菁英群h指標
外文關鍵詞:bibliometricspatent bibliometricspatent evaluationelite set concepth-index
相關次數:
  • 推薦推薦:0
  • 點閱點閱:372
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:6
  • 收藏收藏:0
書目計量的發展有助於人們掌握知識進展,其中的評價指標不僅給予被評價者一個定位,並有供評價者調整策略的功能,也協助社會分配資源。而在評價指標中,又有一種利用被評價者表現突出的部分來進行評價活動者,此類型稱做「菁英群」的評價方式,如h指標即屬此類。然而,菁英群概念應用於評價卻少見於專利資訊計量中。因此本研究透過文獻回顧的方式整理菁英群概念應用於評價的基礎,再透過蒐集、分類相關指標的方式提出觀察菁英群指標的架構,方便日後應用。首先,在文獻中我們認識到專利資訊的分布不僅同書目資訊具有分布扭曲(skewed)的特性,相關文獻更指出在專利資訊的分布狀態更為扭曲,這個特徵正是菁英群概念所以提出的重要基礎,因而我們認為源於書目計量的菁英群概念將同樣適合應用於專利權人評價。接著,本研究有系統地對菁英群概念相關指標進行回顧與整理。對於菁英群指標,本研究發現可以用篩選菁英的門檻、評價菁英群的方式分別觀察,在此架構下,本研究又將篩選門檻的設計依相似性分為三種:絕對、相對、h指標;而另一方面,評價方式則可分為兩種:個別性、總體性。除此之外,本研究再對近年受h指標啟發而發展迅速的h型指標進行回顧。在h型指標中同樣依據門檻、評價方式的架構,本研究分之為三類h型指標。第一類利用h指標的門檻結合不同的評價方式、第二類在h指標門檻的啟發上創造了新門檻,並利用新門檻結合的不同評價方式、而第三類則已不屬於菁英群指標。最後,本研究將篩選門檻、評價方式此架構為兩軸至繪製成可以監控菁英群相關指標發展的矩陣圖,我們稱之為門檻—評價方式矩陣,我們發現此矩陣不僅能指出菁英群指標的發展,更能指引我們發現具有潛力的新式菁英群指標可能。
Bibliometric helps people in managing and monitoring progress of human intelligence, and bibliometric indicators not only provides evaluated entities information about their objective position, but also assists authorities in distributing limited social recourses. One group of indicators is based on so called “elite set concept” which evaluates entities only by their output that performs outstandingly, in which h-index serves as an example. However, the so called elite set concept is rarely seen being applied within patent bibliometric context. Our research, therefore, by literature review, answers the possibility of applying elite set indicators within patent bibliometric context, and, by collecting, organizing elite set indicators, establishes a framework for convenient observation and comparison. First, we find the very foundation of elite set concept, skewed distribution of bibliographic, is also true when it comes to patent bibliographic distribution. Actually, the distribution of patent bibliographic could be even more skewed. In other words, elite set indicators should be applicable within patent bibliometric context. Second, we systematically review elite set indicators proposed so far, and find elite set indicators are composed of two elements: a threshold that determines elites, and a method for evaluating the found elites. These two elements give us a framework to categorize indicators into three categories by threshold definitions: absolute, relative, and h, and two categories by evaluating methods: individual, and global. In addition to these, our research also review h-type indicators that are inspired by h-index. According to our framework, h-type indicators are classified into three classes. First class contains h-type indicators that shares the same threshold with h-index but has different evaluating methods, whereas the second class includes indicators which define new thresholds that are different from h-index. As to the third class, these indicators are actually not elite set indicators. Finally, our work provides a matrix, which we name it threshold—evaluating method matrix. Using this matrix, we are not only able to observe new development of elite set indicators, but also are able to discover potential indicators yet to be designed.
指導教授推薦書………………………………………………………………………………………………I
學位考試委員審定書……………………………………………………………………………………II
中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………………………III
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………………IV
致謝………………………………………………………………………………………………………………V
目錄………………………………………………………………………………………………………………VI
圖表目錄……………………………………………………………………………………………………VII
第1章 概論1
第1.1節 研究背景1
第1.2節 研究方法3
第1.3節 論文架構與名詞解釋4
第2章 文獻回顧7
第2.1節 菁英群概念與專利計量應用7
第2.2節 菁英群概念發展12
第2.3節 專利權人與評價計量21
第3章 菁英群指標探討25
第3.1節 菁英群指標分類25
第3.2節 篩選門檻分類26
第3.3節 評價方式分類39
第4章 h型指標探討43
第4.1節 h型指標分類43
第4.2節 第一類h型指標48
第4.3節 第二類h型指標54
第4.4節 第三類h型指標64
第5章 結論65
第5.1節 研究總結65
第5.2節 成果應用、限制與後續方向68
參考文獻70
附錄1 菁英群篩選門檻與菁英群指標對照表76
附錄2 h型指標對照表78
附錄3 以高通2898篇專利為例之門檻計算結果82
中文部分
何光國(著)(1994),《文章計量學導論》,初版,頁137-139,臺北市:三民書局。
李瑞、夢連生(2010)。<論專利引用行為與期刊論文引用行為在揭示知識關聯方面的差異>,《情報學報》, 第29卷第3期,頁474-478。
阮明淑、梁峻齊(2009)。<專利指標發展研究>,《圖書館學與資訊科學》, 第35卷第2期,頁88-106。
張瑞芬、張力元、吳俊逸、樊晉源(著)(2013),《專利分析與智慧財產管理》,初版,頁250-258,臺北市:華泰文化事業股份有限公司。
陳達仁、黃慕萱(著)(2009),《專利資訊檢索、分析與策略》,初版,頁136-150,臺北市:華泰文化事業股份有限公司。
葉鷹、唐建、趙星(著)(2011),《h指數與h型指數研究》,初版,北京市:科學出版社。
英文部分
Ajiferuke, I., & Wolfram, D. (2010). Citer analysis as a measure of research impact: Library and information science as a case study.Scientometrics, 83(3), 623-638.
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2010). hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h-and g-indices. Scientometrics, 82(2), 391-400.
Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., & Kinouchi, O. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?.Scientometrics, 68(1), 179-189.
Bessen, J. (2008). The value of US patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37(5), 932-945.
Blessinger, K., & Hrycaj, P. (2010). Highly cited articles in library and information science: An analysis of content and authorship trends. Library & Information Science Research, 32(2), 156-162.
Bloom, N., Schankerman, M., & Van Reenen, J. (2013). Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry. Econometrica, 81(4), 1347-1393.
Boell, S. K., & Wilson, C. S. (2010). Journal Impact Factors for evaluating scientific performance: use of h-like indicators.Scientometrics, 82(3), 613-626.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). The citation speed index: A useful bibliometric indicator to add to the h index. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 444-446.
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830-837.
Brown, R. J. (2009). A simple method for excluding self-citation from the h-index: the b-index. Online Information Review, 33(6), 1129-1136.
Cabrerizo, F. J., Alonso, S., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2010). q2-Index: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the Hirsch core. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 23-28.
Carpenter, M. P., Narin, F., & Woolf, P. (1981). Citation rates to technologically important patents. World Patent Information, 3(4), 160-163.
de Solla Price, D. J. (1971). Little Science - Big Science. New York: Clumbia Universoty Press.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152.
Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2008). An h-index weighted by citation impact. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 770-780.
Ernst, H. (1998). Patent portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(4), 279-308.
Fernandez‐Alles, M., & Ramos‐Rodríguez, A. (2009). Intellectual structure of human resources management research: A bibliometric analysis of the journal Human Resource Management, 1985–2005. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 161-175.
Frogel, J. A. (2010). Astronomy’s greatest hits: The 100 most cited papers in each year of the first decade of the 21st century (2000–2009). Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 122(896), 1214-1235.
Garfield, E. (1976). 1975 life sciences articles highly cited in 1975.Current Contents, 15, 5-9.
Garfield, E. (2000). The evolution of 'Hot papers'. The Scientist, 14
Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1992). Some facts and figures on highly cited papers in the sciences, 1981-1985. Scientometrics, 25(3), 373-380.
Google Inc. (n.d.). Google schalor metrics. Retrieved October 6, 2014 from http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues
Google Inc. (n.d.). Google scholar citations open to all. Retrieved January 28, 2014 from http://googlescholar.blogspot.ca/2011/11/google-scholar-citations-open-to-all.html
Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey (No. w3301). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hall, H. B., (2004) Patent data as indicators, WIPO Conference Proceedings.
Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1997). Citation frequency and the value of patented innovation. ZEW Discussion Papers(No. 97-27).
Highly Cited Researchers, Retrieved October 6, 2014 from http://highlycited.com/
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569-16572.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572.
Hirsch, J. E. (2010). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, 85(3), 741-754.
Hu, X., Rousseau, R., & Chen, J. (2010). In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. Journal of Information Science, 36(1), 73-85.
Huang, M. H., & Huang, M. J. A bibliometric analysis of highly cited and general papers in the computer science field.
International Mathematical Union. (2014). Fields Medal. Retrieved November 5, 2014 from http://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes/fields/details
J. Schmookler. Invention and economic growth (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, (1966).
Karki, M. M. S. (1997). Patent citation analysis: A policy analysis tool. World Patent Information, 19(4), 269-272.
Kosmulski, M. (2006). A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI newsletter, 2(3), 4-6.
Kosmulski, M. (2009). New seniority-independent Hirsch-type index. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 341-347.
Kosmulski, M. (2010). Hirsch-type approach to the 2nd generation citations. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 257-264.
Kosmulski, M. (2010). Hirsch-type index of international recognition. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 351-357.
Kostoff, R. N. (2007). The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet. Scientometrics, 72(3), 513-520.
Kuan, C.-H., Huang, M.-H., & Chen, D.-Z. (2011). Ranking patent assignee performance by h-index and shape descriptors. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 303-312. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.002
Kuan, C.-H., Huang, M.-H., & Chen, D.-Z. (2013). Cross-field evaluation of publications of research institutes using their contributions to the fields' MVPs determined by h-index. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 455-468.
Lazaridis, T. (2010). Ranking university departments using the mean h-index. Scientometrics, 82(2), 211-216.
Leiden ranking, Retrieved October 6, 2014 from http://www.leidenranking.com/
Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16(12), 317-323.
Meyer, M. (2000). What is special about patent citations? Diference between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49(1), 93-123.
Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation (Vol. 9). Netherland: Springer.
Namazi, M. R., & Fallahzadeh, M. K. (2010). N-index: A novel and easily-calculable parameter for comparison of researchers working in different scientific fields. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, 76(3), 229.
Narin, F. (1994). Patent bibliometrics. Scientoetrics, 30(1), 147-155.
Narin, F. (1999). Tech-Line background paper. In CHI Research (Ed.).
Narin, F., Capenter, M. P., & Woolf, P. (1984). Technological performance assessment based on patents and patent citations. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, EM-31(4).
Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research policy, 16(2), 143-155.
Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1980). Patents and R and D at the firm level: A first look.
Patsopoulos, N. A., Ioannidis, J. P., & Analatos, A. A. (2006). Origin and funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: database analysis. BMj, 332(7549), 1061-1064.
Pavitt, K. (1985). Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: possibilities and problems. Scientometrics, 7(1), 77-99.
Plomp, R. (1990). The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy. Scientometrics, 19, 185-197.
Plomp, R. (1994). The highly cited papers of professors as an indicator of a research group's scientific performance. Scietometrics, 29(3), 377-393.
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics?, Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348-349.
Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. (2014). QS University Ranking. Retrieved October 6, 2014 from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings
Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(45), 17268-17272.
Retrieved October 13, 2014 from http://www.nownews.com/n/2014/10/03/1441004
Riikonen, P., & Vihinen, M. (2008). National research contributions: A case study on Finnish biomedical research. Scientometrics, 77(2), 207-222.
Rousseau, R., & Ye, F. Y. (2008). A proposal for a dynamic h‐type index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1853-1855.
Ruane, F., & Tol, R. S. (2008). Rational (successive) h-indices: An application to economics in the Republic of Ireland. Scientometrics, 75(2), 395-405.
Ryan, T. P., & Woodall, W. H. (2005). The most-cited statistical papers. Journal of Applied Statistics, 32(5), 461-474.
Scherer, F. (1984). Using linked patent and R&D data to measure interindustry technology flows. In R & D, Patents, and Productivity (pp. 417-464). University of Chicago Press.
Schreiber, M. (2008). To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics, 10(4), 040201.
Schubert, A. (2009). Using the h-index for assessing single publications. Scientometrics, 78(3), 559-565.
Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the american Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628-638.
ShanghaiRanking Consultancy. (2014). Academic ranking of world universities. Retrieved October 6, 2014 from http://www.shanghairanking.com/
Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2007).Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72(2), 253-280.
Thomas, P. (2001). A relationship between technology indicators and stock market performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 319-333.
Thomson Reuters. (n.d.). About Citation Thresholds. Retrieved January 28, 2015 from http://archive.sciencewatch.com/about/met/thresholds/
Thomson Reuters. (n.d.). Essential science indicator. Retrieved October 6, 2014, from http://thomsonreuters.com/essential-science-indicators/
Thomson Reuters. (n.d.). Impact factor. Retrieved October 6, 2014 from http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citation-reports/
Thomson Reuters. (n.d.). Quick reference card. Retrieved January 28, 2015 from http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/mgr/qrc_esi_mar09.pdf
Times higher education, Retrieved October 6, 2014 from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/
TIPO. (n.d.). Taiwan patent search system. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://twpat.tipo.gov.tw/
TIPO, Retrieved March 19, 2015 from http://www.tipo.gov.tw/public/Attachment/5261441219.pdf
PatentDocs. (2015). Top 100 assignee. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.faqs.org/patents/asnl/00000
Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and value of innovations. RAND Journals of Economics, 21(1), 172-187.
USPTO. (n.d.). USPTO fee schedule. Retrieved March 18, 2015 from http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule
Van Raan, A. F. (2005). Measuring science. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19-50). Springer Netherlands.
Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. (2010). A research impact indicator for institutions. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 581-590.
Vinkler, P. (2007). Eminence of scientist in the light of the h-index and other scientometric indicators. Journal of Information Science, 33(4), 481-491.
Vinkler, P. (2010). The pi-index a new indicatorfor assessing scientific impact. Journal of Information Science, 35, 602-612.
Vinkler, P. (2010). The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Elsevier.
Vinkler, P. (2011). Application of the distribution of citations among publications in scientometric evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 1963-1978.
Vinkler, P. (2011). The piv-index: a new indicator to characterize the impact of journals. Scientometrics, 82(3), 461-475.
Vinkler, P. (2013). Comparative rank assessment of journal articles. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 712-717.
Vinkler, P. (2014). The use of the Percentage Rank Position index for comparative evaluation of journals. Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 340-348.
Wohlin, C. (2009). A new index for the citation curve of researchers. Scientometrics, 81(2), 521-533.
World intellectual Property Organization, (2013). Standard ST.9Handbook on industrial property information and documentation (pp. 3.9.0-3.9.12).
Wu, Q. (2010). The w‐index: A measure to assess scientific impact by focusing on widely cited papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 609-614.
Yang, Z. K., Liu, Q. N., Liu, Z. Y. (2008). Top ten highly cited patents in USPTO.
Zhang, C. T. (2009). The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS One, 4(5), e5429.
Zhang, L., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2011). The diffusion of H-related literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 583-593.
Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1999). California’S Inventive Activity: Patent Indicators OF Quantity, Quality and Organizational Origins.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
* *