本研究主要目的為探討2007年版至2014年版的JCR封鎖期刊，利用引用文獻分析法探討封鎖期刊之特質、封鎖因素及其在學術評鑑相關指標之表現與變化，並比較封鎖期刊在Scopus與WoS不同指標之表現。研究對象為所有JCR封鎖期刊，共有281種，扣除歷年重複期刊則有177種。
研究結果顯示：封鎖期刊之特性方面，美國出版的封鎖期刊數最多達40種，但若從封鎖期刊於該國出版所佔比例來看，比例最高變為巴基斯坦(4.22%)、出版商類型以商業學術出版社最多(51.26%)、學科領域以工程學領域最多達36種、被封鎖時間為連續兩年和一年居多達161種、僅一種封鎖期刊提出被封鎖聲明。封鎖期刊之指標表現方面，封鎖期刊於封鎖期間之IF分布為0.2至0.6之間居多、封鎖期間之SJR分布為0.2至0.5之間居多、封鎖期間在WoS的期刊自我引用率以50%至60%最多、封鎖期間在Scopus的期刊自我引用率以40%至50%最多、封鎖期間扣除或保留期刊自我引用後的IF變化以相差13倍為最大差異。封鎖期刊之封鎖因素方面，第一個因素為期刊自我引用，包括期刊自我引用率過高或過低、期刊編輯於編者言中大量引用該期刊文章、作者大量自我引用導致期刊自我引用率過高；第二個因素為堆疊引用，包括期刊編輯關係之堆疊引用、異質學科領域間的堆疊引用、出版機構內的堆疊引用、作者間的堆疊引用；第三個因素為強迫引用。
根據研究結果所提出之建議包括：學術期刊出版單位加強內部出版人員對於封鎖期刊的認知以及制定或提供相關的出版政策、期刊編輯提醒編輯委員會成員、審稿者、作者等關於封鎖期刊的議題和其重要性，也應自我警惕勿透過人為手段扭曲引用行為、作者加強瞭解封鎖期刊清單和其相關內容，也應自我要求和相互提醒勿進行學術不端行為、國家科技政策制訂者在官網放置封鎖期刊清單供研究人員查詢，也應自我警惕和改善相關學術政策、學術圖書館在網站說明封鎖期刊之議題等內容供讀者參考，並於圖書館利用教育課程宣導封鎖期刊和學術倫理之重要性。

The main objective of this study was to investigate the suppressed journals in the 2007 to 2014 JCR editions and identify the characteristics and factors of these journals and their performance in various indicators. The number of suppressed journals in the 2007 to 2014 JCR editions totaled 281. After excluding repeating journals, the number totaled 177.
The results of the study reveal that:
(1)The U.S.A had the highest numbers of suppressed journals, the number was 40. Pakistan had the highest proportion of suppressed journals, the proportion was 4.22%. Commercial scientific publishers are the main publisher of suppressed journals (51.26%). The subject area of Engineering contained the most suppressed journals, the number of suppressed journals was 36. Most of the suppressed journals required two consecutive years or one year to change their abnormal citation patterns, the number of suppressed journals was 161. Only one suppressed journal provided the statement of suppression.
(2)During the period of suppression, most of the suppressed journals had IF values between 0.2 and 0.6. Most of the suppressed journals had SJR values between 0.2 and 0.5. Most of the suppressed journals had self-citation rate between 50% and 60% in WoS. Most of the suppressed journals had self-citation rate between 40% and 50% in Scopus. No matter containing the self-cited data or not, the highest difference of IF values was 13 times.
(3)The first factor of suppressed journals are journal self-citation, including the journal self-citation rate is too high or too low, journal editors cite a large number of references in editorial article, the author self-citations lead to journal self-citation rate is too high. The second factor of suppressed journals are citation stacking, including the relationships of the journal editors and editorial board members may have facilitated the citation stacking, the citation stacking of heterogeneous subject areas, the citation stacking of publishers, the citation stacking of authors. The third factor of suppressed journals are coercive citation.
The suggestions for improvement based on the findings of this study are as follows:
(1)The journal publishers should promote the understanding of suppressed journals, and provide relevant publication policy.
(2)The journal editors should remind the editorial board members, reviewers, authors on the suppressed journal issues, and shouldn’t manipulate or distort the citation behavior.
(3)The authors should strengthen the understanding of suppressed journals, and pay attention to academic ethics and integrity.
(4)The national science and technology policy makers should provide suppressed journal list on their website, and improve relevant academic policy.
(5)The academic library should provide suppressed journal issues or list on their website, and promote the topic of academic ethics and integrity in library instructions.

目次
第一章	緒論 1
第一節	研究背景與動機 1
第二節	研究目的與問題 5
第三節	研究範圍與限制 6
第四節	名詞解釋 7
第二章	文獻探討 9
第一節	封鎖期刊之定義與相關研究 9
第二節	期刊影響係數和期刊自我引用之關聯 11
第三節	堆疊引用之定義與相關研究 19
第四節	Scopus與WoS比較之相關實徵研究 21
第三章	研究設計與實施 25
第一節	研究設計 25
第二節	研究對象 27
第三節	資料處理 28
第四節	研究步驟與實施程序 32
第四章	研究結果與分析 35
第一節	封鎖期刊之特性 35
第二節	封鎖期刊之指標表現與變化 53
第三節	封鎖期刊之封鎖因素 69
第四節	綜合討論 79
第五章	結論與建議 81
第一節	結論 81
第二節	建議 87
第三節	未來研究之建議 89
參考文獻 90
附錄一：封鎖期刊清單 99
附錄二：官方標示之期刊被封鎖原因 103

表次
表 1 相關指標數據來源 26
表 2 歷年封鎖期刊之數量 27
表 3 期刊被封鎖年份之分析 37
表 4 各國封鎖期刊數一覽表 39
表 5 2007至2014年JCR封鎖期刊數平均最高前十國 40
表 6 2007至2014年JCR封鎖期刊數佔出版比例最高前十國 40
表 7 封鎖期刊數量最高之五個出版商 42
表 8 封鎖期刊數量最高之五個學科領域 43
表 9 封鎖期刊之學科領域排名分布 43
表 10 封鎖前、封鎖期間包含/扣除自我引用IF之Pearson相關分析 56
表 11 封鎖期間、解除封鎖後包含/扣除自我引用IF之Pearson相關分析 57
表 12 封鎖前、封鎖期間IF和期刊自引率之Pearson相關分析 62
表 13 封鎖期間、解除封鎖後IF和期刊自引率之Pearson相關分析 63
表 14 自我引用率過高的封鎖期刊之Pearson相關分析 64
表 15 堆疊引用的封鎖期刊之Pearson相關分析 65
表 16 封鎖前、封鎖期間SJR和期刊自引率之Pearson相關分析 67
表 17 封鎖期間、解除封鎖後SJR和期刊自引率之Pearson相關分析 68

圖次
圖 1 資料處理步驟 31
圖 2 研究步驟 33
圖 3 封鎖期刊之數量 36
圖 4 封鎖期刊之出版機構類型 41
圖 5 封鎖期刊IF之直方圖 54
圖 6 封鎖期刊IF (扣除自引) 之直方圖 54
圖 7 封鎖期刊SJR之直方圖 58
圖 8 封鎖期刊於WoS的期刊自我引用率 60
圖 9 封鎖期刊IF和期刊自我引用率之散布圖 61
圖 10 封鎖期刊扣除及保留自引之IF變化 61
圖 11 封鎖期刊於Scopus的期刊自我引用率 66
圖 12 封鎖期刊SJR和期刊自我引用率之散布圖 66

Abadal, E., Melero, R., Rodrigues, R. S., & Navas-Fernández, M. (2015). Spanish scholarly journals in WoS and Scopus: The impact of open access. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47(1), 77-96.
Agrawal, A. A. (2005). Corruption of journal impact factors. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 20(4), 157.
American Society for Cell Biology. (2012). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ascb.org/files/SFDeclarationFINAL.pdf
Andrade, A., González-Jonte, R., & Campanario, J. (2009). Journals that increase their impact factor at least fourfold in a few years: The role of journal self-citations. Scientometrics, 80(2), 515-528.
Andrade, A., González-Jonte, R., & Campanario, J. M. (2009). Journals that increase their impact factor at least fourfold in a few years: the role of journal self-citation. Scientometrics, 80(2), 515-528.
Anseel, F., Duyck, W., De Baene, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Journal impact factors and self-citations: Implications for Psychology journals. American Psychologist, 59(1), 49-51.
Arnold, D. N. (2009). Integrity under attack: The state of scholarly publishing. SIAM News, 42(10), 1-3.
Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3, 1-7.
Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271.
Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the "Introduction to informetrics" indexed by WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 82(3), 495-506.
Beall, J. (2015). Beall’s List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
Bordons, M., Fernández, M., & Gómez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics, 53(2), 195-206.
Campanario, J. M. (2011). Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year: The effect of journal self-citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 230-235.
Campanario, J. M., & Molina, A. (2009). Surviving bad times: The role of citations, self-citations and numbers of citable items in recovery of the journal impact factor after at least four years of continuous decreases. Scientometrics, 81(3), 859-864.
Casadevall, A. (2014). Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio, 5(2), 1-5.
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2011a). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2011b). Code of conduct for journal publishers. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_publishers_Mar11.pdf
Davis, P. (2011). Gaming the impact factor puts journal in time-out. Retrieved from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/10/17/gaming-the-impact-factor-puts-journal-in-time-out/
Davis, P. (2012). The emergence of a citation cartel. Retrieved from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/04/10/emergence-of-a-citation-cartel/
Davis, P. (2014). When a journal sinks, should the editors go down with the ship? Retrieved from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/10/06/when-a-journal-sinks-should-the-editors-go-down-with-the-ship/
De Groote, S. L., & Raszewski, R. (2012). Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 60(6), 391-400.
Delgado, E., & Repiso, R. (2013). The impact of scientific journals of communication: Comparing Google Scholar metrics, Web of Science and Scopus. Comunicar, 21(41), 45-52.
Elangovan, S., & Allareddy, V. (2015). Publication metrics of Dental journals – What is the role of self citations in determining the impact factor of journals? Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, 15(3), 97-104.
Elsevier. (2015). Publishing ethics. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/editors/publishing-ethics
European Science Foundation. (2011). The European code of conduct for research integrity. Retrieved from http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.pdf
Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB Journal, 22(8), 2623-2628.
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338-342.
Fassoulaki, A., Paraskeva, A., Papilas, K., & Karabinis, G. (2000). Self-citations in six anaesthesia journals and their significance in determining the impact factor. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 84(2), 266-269.
Foo, J. Y. A. (2011). Impact of excessive journal self-citations: A case study on the folia phoniatrica et logopaedica journal. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(1), 65-73.
Franck, G. (1999). Scientific communication A vanity fair? Science, 286(5437), 5355. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5437.53
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108-111.
Garfield, E. (1975). Preface and introduction to Journal Citation Reports - Volume 9 of the Science Citation Index. Retrieved from http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jcr1975introduction.pdf
Garfield, E. (1996). How can impact factors be improved? British Medical Journal, 313(7054), 411–413.
Garfield, E. (1997). Editors are justified in asking authors to cite equivalent references from same journal. British Medical Journal, 314(7096), 1765.
Gowrishankar, J., Divakar, P., Baylis, M., Gravenor, M., & Kao, R. (1999). Sprucing up one's impact factor. Nature, 401(6751), 321-322.
Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2015). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Huang, M.-H., & Lin, W.-Y. C. (2012). The influence of journal self-citations on journal impact factor and immediacy index. Online Information Review, 36(5), 639-654. doi: 10.1108/14684521211275957
Huggett, S. (2012). Impact factor ethics for editors. Retrieved from http://editorsupdate.elsevier.com/issue-36-june-2012/impact-factor-ethics-for-editors/
IEEE. (2006). IEEE code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.sfjohnson.com/acad/ethics/FourCodesOfEthics.pdf
Institute for Scientific Information. (1994). Journal Citation Reports. Retrieved from http://www.um.es/documents/793464/1310224/jcr_1994_sociales_alfymat.pdf/8f8b19bc-3e4f-47e3-841d-1e68b7945ee2
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2015). A generalized view of self-citation: Direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 78(1), 7-11.
Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search – Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537-1547.
Jawaid, S. (2014). Despite misuse and abuse, journal impact factor will retain its impact and won’t fade away soon. Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute, 28(1), 1-4.
Knievel, J. E., & Kellsey, C. (2005). Citation analysis for collection development: A comparative study of eight humanities fields. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 75(2), 142-168.
Krauss, J. (2007). Journal self-citation rates in ecological sciences. Scientometrics, 73(1), 79-89.
Krell, F. T. (2010). Should editors influence journal impact factors? Learned Publishing, 23(1), 59-62.
Krell, F. T. (2014). Losing the numbers game: Abundant self-citations put journals at risk for a life without an impact factor. European Science Editing, 40(2), 36-38.
Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citations in web of science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(10), 1092-1096.
Kurmis, T. P., & Kurmis, A. P. (2010). Self-citation rates among medical imaging journals and a possible association with impact factor. Radiography, 16(1), 21-25.
Labanaris, A. P., Kuhn, R., Schott, G. E., & Zugor, V. (2007). Impact factors in urology: How well do our journals stack up against other medical and surgical journals? Urologia Internationalis, 78(4), 299-304. doi: 10.1159/000100831
Li, J., Qiao, L., Li, W., & Jin, Y. (2014). Chinese-language articles are not biased in citations: Evidences from Chinese-English bilingual journals in Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 912-916.
Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42, 1005-1014.
McVeigh, M. E. (2004). Journal self-citation in the Journal Citation Reports - Science Edition (2002). Retrieved from http://wokinfo.com/essays/journal-self-citation-jcr/
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.
Mimouni, M., & Segal, O. (2014). Self-citation rate and impact factor in Ophthalmology. Ophthalmic research, 52(3), 136-140.
Motamed, M., Mehta, D., Basavaraj, S., & Fuad, F. (2002). Self citations and impact factors in otolaryngology journals. Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences, 27(5), 318-320.
National Science Foundation. (2002). 45 C.F.R. part 689 – Research Misconduct. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/part-689
Olden, J. D. (2007). How do ecological journals stack-up? Ranking of scientific quality according to the h index. Ecoscience, 14(3), 370-376.
Opthof, T. (2013). Inflation of impact factors by journal self-citation in cardiovascular science. Netherlands Heart Journal, 21(4), 163-165.
Pouris, A. (2005). An assessment of the impact and visibility of South African journals. Scientometrics, 62(2), 213-222.
Rogers, L. F. (2002). From the editor’s notebook – Impact factor: The numbers game. American journal of roentgenology, 178, 541-542.
Romano, N. C. (2009). Journal self-citation V: Coercive journal self-citation – Manipulations to increase impact factors may do more harm than good in the long run. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25, 41-56.
Rousseau, R. (2002). Journal evaluation: Technical and practical issues. Library trends, 50(3), 418-439.
Schutte, H. K., & Švec, J. G. (2007). Reaction of Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica on the current trend of impact factor measures. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 59, 281-285.
Scopus. (2015). Scopus launches annual journal reevaluation process to maintain content quality. Retrieved from http://blog.scopus.com/posts/scopus-launches-annual-journal-re-evaluation-process-to-maintain-content-quality
Sivakumaran, M. (2002). The "academic cartel": Another pernicious weed in the field of academic medicine. Blood, 99(9), 3489.
Smith, R. (1997). Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. British Medical Journal, 314, 461.
Testa, J. (2008). Playing the system puts self-citation's impact under review. Nature, 455, 729.
Thombs, B. D., Levis, A. W., Razykov, I., Syamchandra, A., Leentjens, A. F. G., Levenson, J. L., & Lumley, M. A. (2015). Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 78, 1-6.
Thomson Reuters. (2015a). Journal Citation Reports Notices. Retrieved from http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/static_html/notices/notices.htm
Thomson Reuters. (2015b). Title suppression from Journal Citation Reports. Retrieved from http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/jcr-suppression.pdf
Torabian, R., Heidari, A., Shahrifar, M., Khodadi, E., & Vardanjani, A. E. S. (2012). The relation between self-citation and impact factor in medical science open access journals in ISI & DOAJ databases. Life Science Journal, 9(4), 2206-2209.
Van Noorden, R. (2013). Brazilian citation scheme outed: Thomson Reuters suspends journals from its rankings for ‘citation stacking’. Nature, 500, 510–511.
Wilhite, A. W., & Fong, E. A. (2012). Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335, 542-543.
Yue, W., & Wilson, C. S. (2004). Measuring the citation impact of research journals in clinical neurology: A structural equation modeling analysis. Scientometrics, 60(3), 317-332.
CONCERT全國學術電子資訊資源共享聯盟（2014）。Ulrichsweb.com。檢索自https://www.google.com.tw/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CEAQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fconcert.stpi.narl.org.tw%2Ffdb%2Ftr%2F2007%2F0703_ulrich.ppt&ei=HQq3VMyQEKK9mgWu5YDAAQ&usg=AFQjCNEzf0gs7VVdxIM8eCsCbxi6HfGPeQ
Elsevier（2015）。線上產品：Scopus。檢索自http://taiwan.elsevier.com/ElsevierDNN/%E7%94%A2%E5%93%81/%E7%B7%9A%E4%B8%8A%E7%94%A2%E5%93%81/SciVerseScopus/tabid/448/Default.aspx
中國醫藥大學（2013）。教師引用本校BioMedicine雜誌之研究獎勵事宜。檢索自 http://www2.cmu.edu.tw/~cmcrdc/doc/201301231542071.pdf
王淩峰、葉涯劍（2012）。期刊影響因子操縱行為及抑制策略。編輯學報，24(6)，567-570.
行政院國家科學委員會（2013）。研究人員學術倫理規範。檢索自 http://140.123.13.96/new_teacher/ethics/7.pdf
林雯瑤（2009）。作者與期刊自我引用之研究：以環境工程領域為例（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所，臺北市。
臺北醫學大學（2015）。引用北醫大論文獎勵。檢索自 http://www.tmu.edu.tw/app/news.php?Sn=1873
臺灣皮膚科醫學會（2016）。引用中華皮膚科醫學雜誌文獻獎勵辦法。檢索自 http://www.derma.org.tw/index.php?sort_no=1383021265&sort_s_no=1383021431
蔡明月（2005）。引文索引與引文分析之探討。圖書館學與資訊科學，31(1)，45-53。
蔡明月、張美琪（2008）。圖書資訊學期刊自我引用分析。教育資料與圖書館學，45(3)，303-329。