搞笑諾貝爾獎（Ig Nobel Prize）設立宗旨在於表彰「乍看之下令人發笑，之後發人深省的研究」，具備幽默與科學的特質。因此相較其他學術獎項，即使搞笑諾貝爾獎的獲獎作品多為正式學術出版品，其學術影響力仍可能被低估。而本研究透過學術評鑑指標探討獲獎文章的學術影響力表現與獲獎前後之變化，並分析獲獎文章作者的學術合著模式。研究使用書目計量法分析搞笑諾貝爾獎醫學與物理學獎2000-2020年間的獲獎文章獲獎前後之學術影響力。並使用傳統引文指標以及Altmetrics 指標，以瞭解獲獎文章的學術影響力與社會影響力表現。
研究發現搞笑諾貝爾獎醫學與物理學獲獎文章的被引用次數於獲獎後出現明顯上升，顯示搞笑諾貝爾獎對學術論文具有正面影響力。並且出版獲獎文章的期刊主要集中於Q1與Q2等級，顯示多數期刊表現優於同領域的其他期刊，具有良好的學術品質。另外，透過獲獎文章於五項PlumX Metrics表現可看出，獲獎文章多於引文資料庫被高度使用，而全文或摘要檢視為最常見的使用模式，並且獲獎文章於Facebook與Twitter獲得的關注度與擴散度較高。於作者方面，獲獎文章作者隸屬機構多為大學，並且普遍以跨學校的合著模式最多，跨國合著則較不常見。
研究結果顯示搞笑諾貝爾獎醫學與物理學多數獲獎文章具備優良學術品質，並且搞笑諾貝爾獎能提升學術論文的學術影響力。然而本研究尚有諸多侷限之處，因此建議後續研究可擴大研究範圍或結合其他研究方法，以利更深入瞭解搞笑諾貝爾獎不同面向的研究發現。

The Ig Nobel Prize, notable for its celebration of humor and science, was inaugurated to "honor achievements that make people laugh, then think". As such, its academic influence may be underestimated compared to other academic awards, even though majority of the works it recognized were published formally. This study employs academic evaluation indicators to examine the performance of academic influence of the publications before and after receiving the award, and also analyzes the authors’ co-authorship model. 
Bibliometric analysis was conducted on the academic influence of medical and physics papers before and after receiving the Ig Nobel Prize between the year 2000 and 2020. Traditional citation metrics and altmetrics were also used to determine the performance of academic and social influence of these papers.
This study discovered a substantial increase in citation numbers after the papers received the award, which indicates a positive effect that the award has on the publications. Moreover, the papers were primarily published in Q1 and Q2 journals, which are known for academic rigor and are also more prestigious than other journals in the same discipline. Based on five PlumX metrics, this study observed that the papers were frequently referenced in citation databases, especially in full-text and abstract searches. The papers also enjoyed a higher following and more widespread dissemination on Facebook and Twitter. As for the researchers, most have university affiliations and their award-winning papers tend to be co-authored with colleagues from other schools. Cross-border co-authorship was less common.
The results of this study show that these medical and physics papers mostly demonstrate academic excellence, and that the Ig Nobel Prize can elevate their academic influence. That said, there remained limitations to this study. Scope expansion or integration with other research methodologies are recommended for future studies, to obtain a deeper and more multi-faceted understanding of the Ig Nobel Prize.

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	4
第三節 研究範圍與限制	4
第四節 名詞解釋	6
第二章 文獻探討	9
第一節 搞笑諾貝爾獎之概述	9
第二節 搞笑諾貝爾獎相關書目計量研究	14
第三節 引文分析法與學術影響力指標	18
第四節 學術合作與學術合著相關研究	24
第三章 研究設計與實施	29
第一節 研究方法	29
第二節 研究範圍	30
第三節 研究對象	31
第四節 資料蒐集與處理	34
第五節 研究實施與步驟	41
第四章 研究結果與分析	45
第一節 文章於傳統引文指標之學術影響力表現	45
第二節 文章於出版期刊之分布與期刊影響指標表現	58
第三節 文章於Altmetrics指標之學術影響力表現	63
第四節 文章作者之學術合著模式分析	75
第五章 結論與建議	81
第一節 結論	81
第二節 未來研究之建議	85
參考文獻	87
附錄一 搞笑諾貝爾獎醫學獎獲獎文章清單	95
附錄二 搞笑諾貝爾獎物理學獎獲獎文章清單	98

 
表次
表 1 搞笑諾貝爾獎1991年至2020年獎項數量一覽表	30
表 2 搞笑諾貝爾獎2000年至2020年獎項數量一覽表	30
表 3 搞笑諾貝爾獎 2000 年至 2020年醫學與物理學獲獎文章類型及數量	31
表 4 本研究對象之文章類型及數量	32
表 5 搞笑諾貝爾獎2000年至2020年物理學獎文章出版期刊清單	32
表 6 搞笑諾貝爾獎2000年至2020年醫學獎文章出版期刊清單	33
表 7 本研究使用指標清單	38
表 8 醫學與物理學獲獎文章之FWCI數值分布	48
表 9 醫學與物理學獲獎文章之引文基準指標分布	49
表 10 醫學與物理學獲獎文章出版至獲獎年份分布	50
表 11 醫學與物理學獲獎文章出版至獲獎年份區間分析	50
表 12 醫學與物理學獎文章獲獎前後總被引次數之變化	51
表 13 醫學獎文章獲獎前後平均被引次數之比較	52
表 14 物理學獎文章獲獎前後平均被引次數之比較	52
表 15 醫學與物理學獲獎文章於長短期引用區間之表現	53
表 16 醫學獎獲獎文章於長短期引用區間之分析	54
表 17 物理學獎獲獎文章於長短期引用區間之分析	56
表 18 醫學與物理學獎期刊各指標平均值	60
表 19 醫學獎獲獎文章出版期刊影響係數前五名	61
表 20 物理學獎獲獎文章出版期刊影響係數前五名	61
表 21 醫學與物理學獲獎文章出版期刊排名分布	62
表 22 醫學與物理學獲獎文章出版期刊學科領域排名與文章數量	63
表 23 醫學獎獲獎文章五種指標之表現	64
表 24 物理學獎獲獎文章五種指標之表現	64
表 25 醫學與物理學獲獎文章引用指標來源之分析	65
表 26 醫學與物理學獎引用指標排名前五之文章	67
表 27 醫學與物理學獲獎文章使用指標來源之分析	68
表 28 醫學與物理學獲獎文章使用指標數據之表現	68
表 29 醫學與物理學獎使用指標排名前五之文章	69
表 30 醫學獎與物理學獲獎文章獲取指標來源之分析	70
表 31 醫學與物理學獲獎文章獲取指標數據之表現	70
表 32 醫學與物理學獎獲取指標排名前五之文章	71
表 33 醫學獎與物理學獲獎文章提及指標來源之分析	72
表 34 醫學與物理學獲獎文章提及指標數據之表現	72
表 35 醫學與物理學獎提及指標排名前五之文章	73
表 36 醫學獎與物理學獲獎文章社群媒體指標來源之分析	73
表 37 醫學與物理學獲獎文章社群媒體指標數據之表現	74
表 38 醫學與物理學獎社群媒體指標排名前五之文章	75
表 39 醫學獎獲獎文章作者人數及合作情形分析	76
表 40 醫學獎獲獎文章作者所屬機構分析	76
表 41 物理學獎獲獎文章作者所屬機構分析	77
表 42 醫學獎獲獎文章作者跨機構合著交叉篇數分析	77
表 43 物理學獎獲獎文章作者跨機構合著交叉篇數分析	78
表 44 醫學獎獲獎文章作者國別分析	78
表 45 物理學獎獲獎文章作者國別分析	79

 
圖次
圖 1 研究架構圖	29
圖 2 辨識作者合著情形流程圖	40
圖 3 研究步驟圖	43
圖 4 醫學獎獲獎文章總被引用次數分布	46
圖 5 物理學獎獲獎文章總被引用次數分布	47
圖 6 醫學獎獲獎文章出版期刊學科領域分布	58
圖 7 物理學獎獲獎文章出版期刊數量分布	59
圖 8 醫學與物理學獲獎文章引用指標與SCOPUS引用次數之比較	66

Abrahams, M. (2004). The Ig Nobel Prizes. New York: Plume.
Abrahams, M. (2010a). Bodnar’s bra declared an idea-of-the-year. Retrieved from https://improbable.com/2010/12/15/bodnars-bra-declared-an-idea-of-the-year/
Abrahams, M. (2010b). Geim becomes first Nobel & Ig Nobel winner. Retrieved from https://improbable.com/2010/10/05/geim-becomes-first-nobel-ig-nobel-winner/
Abrahams, M. (2013). A Feminist science reading of Dr. Bodnar’s Ig Nobel Prize-Winning Emergency Bra. Retrieved from https://improbable.com/2013/11/08/a-feminist-science-reading-of-dr-bodnars-ig-nobel-prize-winning-emergency-bra/
Abrahams, M. (2014). Double-Ig slime-mold winner studies backwards-dead-end behavior of paramecia. Retrieved from https://improbable.com/2014/05/18/double-ig-slime-mild-winner-studies-backwards-dead-end-behavior-of-paramecia/
Abrahams, M. (2015). Building on Ig Nobel-winning cereal soggification research. Retrieved from https://improbable.com/2015/07/30/building-on-ig-nobel-winning-cereal-soggification-research/
Abrahams, M. (2019a). Double-Ig Nobel Prize Winner David Hu Awarded Science Communication Prize. Retrieved from https://improbable.com/2019/10/03/double-ig-nobel-prize-winner-david-hu-awarded-science-communication-prize/
Abrahams, M. (2019b). The value of spit, in the art world. Retrieved from https://improbable.com/2019/05/25/the-value-of-spit-in-the-art-world/
Abt, H. A. (2007). The future of single-authored papers. Scientometrics, 73(3), 353-358.
Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation. (2022). About the Awards. Retrieved from https://laskerfoundation.org/awards/about-the-awards/
Altmetric.com (2022). The donut and Altmetric Attention Score. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/about-our-data/the-donut-and-score/
American Institute of physics. (2019). Science Communication Awards. Retrieved from https://www.aip.org/aip/awards/science-communication
Association for Computing Machinery. (2022). About ACM A.M. Turing Award. Retrieved from https://awards.acm.org/turing
Bai, X., Zhang, F., Li, J., Xu, Z., Patoli, Z., & Lee, I. (2021). Quantifying scientific collaboration impact by exploiting collaboration-citation network. Scientometrics, 126(9), 7993-8008.
Beaver, D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365-377.
Beaver, D., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration: Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65-84.
Belyakov, G., & Kolesnikov, S. (2017). Pride or prejudice: how research organizations respond to recipiency of Ig Nobel Prize? Paper presented at Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Bhattacharyya, P. K., & Sahu, N. B. (2020). Informetric Portrait of Elinor Ostrom, the Nobel Laureate in the Field of Economic Sciences. Journal of Scientific Research, 9(2), 204-213.
Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 895-903.
Chan, H. F., Gleeson, L., & Torgler, B. (2014). Awards before and after the Nobel Prize: A Matthew effect and/or a ticket to one’s own funeral? Research Evaluation, 23(3), 210-220.
Chan, H. F., Önder, A. S., & Torgler, B. (2015). Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception? Scientometrics, 105(3), 2215-2235.
Clarivate. (2021a). Journal Immediacy Index. Retrieved from https://incites.help.clarivate.com/Content/Indicators-Handbook/ih-journal-immediacy-index.htm
Clarivate. (2021b). Journal Impact Factor. Retrieved from https://incites.help.clarivate.com/Content/Indicators-Handbook/ih-journal-impact-factor.htm?Highlight=Journal%20Impact%20Factor
Clarivate. (2022). Journal Citation Reports. Retrieved from https://clarivate.com/zh-hant/solutions/journal-citation-reports/
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
Ding, Y., Foo, S., & Chowdhury, G. (1999). A bibliometric analysis of collaboration in the field of information retrieval. The International Information & Library Review, 30(4),367-376.
Durrani, M. (2003). Ig Nobels prove to be more than a joke. Physics World, 16(4), 12.
Elsevier. (2021a). CiteScore. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/zh-tw/solutions/scopus/citescore-trends
Elsevier. (2021b). Scopus. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/zh-tw/solutions/scopus
Elsevier. (2021c). What is field-weighted citation impact. Retrieved from https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14894/supporthub/scopus/related/1/
Elsevier. (2021d). Journal analyzer: SJR & SNIP. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/zh-tw/solutions/scopus/-impact-factor-sjr-and-snip
Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 540-553. 
Gardiner, M. (2018). Dr Farahbakhsh’s infant washer-dryer invention (new patent). Retrieved from https://improbable.com/2018/08/30/dr-farahbakhshs-infant-washer-dryer-invention-new-patent/
Gingras, Y., & Wallace, M. L. (2010). Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007). Scientometrics, 82(2), 401-412.
Glänzel, W., & Czerwon, H. (1996). A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level. Scientometrics, 37(2), 195-221.
González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V., & Moya-Anegon, F. (2009). The SJR indicator: A new indicator of journals' scientific prestige. arXiv preprint arXiv:0912.4141.
Hart, R. L. (2000). Co-authorship in the academic library literature: A survey of attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(5), 339-345
Hu, D. L. (2016). Confessions of a wasteful scientist. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/confessions-of-a-wasteful-scientist/
Improbable Research. (2021). About the Ig Nobel Prizes. Retrieved from https://improbable.com/ig/about-the-ig-nobel-prizes/
International Mathematical Union. (2022). Fields medal. Retrieved from https://www.mathunion.org/imu-awards/fields-medal
Ioannidis, J. P., Cristea, I. A., & Boyack, K. W. (2020). Work honored by Nobel prizes clusters heavily in a few scientific fields. Plos one, 15(7), e0234612.
Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. (2014). The system of national accounts changes. Retrieved from https://www.istat.it/en/archivio/126619

Valentine, J. P. (2015). EPA, California Notify Volkswagen of Clean Air Act Violations / Carmaker allegedly used software that circumvents emissions testing for certain air pollutants. Retrieved from https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-california-notify-volkswagen-clean-air-act-violations-carmaker-allegedly-used_.html
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research policy, 26(1), 1-18.
Moeliker, K. (2007). Bart Knols – Ig winner garners further honor. Retrieved from https://improbable.com/2007/05/28/bart-knols-a-case-of-ig-meets-nobel/
Kitagaki, I., Nagaoka, K., & Hikita, A. (2018). Analysis of the Ig-Nobel Prize. International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 4(4), 160-167.
Larivière, V., Archambault, É., Gingras, Y., & Vignola‐Gagné, É. (2006). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 997-1004.
Larivière, V., Kiermer, V., MacCallum, C. J., McNutt, M., Patterson, M., Pulverer, B., ... & Curry, S. (2016). A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. BioRxiv, 062109.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social studies of science, 35(5), 673-702.
Liang, G., Hou, H., Ren, P., Bu, Y., Kong, X., & Hu, Z. (2019). Understanding Nobel Prize-winning articles: A bibliometric analysis. Current Science, 116(3), 379.
Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1462-1480.
Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S., & Frith, C. D. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(8), 4398-4403.
Maguire, E. A., Woollett, K., & Spiers, H. J. (2006). London taxi drivers and bus drivers: A structural MRI and neuropsychological analysis. Hippocampus, 16(12), 1091-1101.
Maurya, A. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of chemistry nobel laureate george pearson smith. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 4644.
Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363-377.
Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265-277.
Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213-238.
Nadri, H., Rahimi, B., Timpka, T., & Sedghi, S. (2017). The top 100 articles in the medical informatics: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Medical Systems, 41(10), 1-12.
Nobel Prize Outreach. (2022). Nobel Prize facts. Retrieved from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/nobel-prize-facts/
Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2003). Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise V. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 709-730.
Pickup, S. L., Reynolds, J. A., Brown, B., Dymond, F. A., Jones, M., Richardson, T., ... & Willems, K. N. (2012). Defense Management: Actions Needed to Evaluate the Impact of Efforts to Estimate Costs of Reports and Studies. (No. ADA561328). Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office. Retrieved from Defense Technical Information Center website: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA561328.pdf
Pilcher, H. (Ed.). (2004). Laughter in the lab [Special section]. Nature. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/news040927-20
Piwowar, H. (2013). Introduction altmetrics: What, why and where? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 8-9.
Plum Analytics. (2022). About PlumX Metrics. Retrieved from https://plumanalytics.com/learn/about-metrics/
Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S., & Perreault, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture. Research evaluation, 15(3), 187-195.
Priem, J., Groth, P., & Taraborelli, D. (2012). The altmetrics collection. PloS ONE, 7(11), e48753.
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto, 26 October 2010. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
Ranaei, S. (2017). Topic Analysis of Ig Nobel prize laudations. Paper presented at Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Rinia, E. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Van Vuren, H. G., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research. Research policy, 30(3), 357-361.
Rousseau, R., Egghe, L., & Guns, R. (2018). Becoming metric-wise: A bibliometric guide for researchers. Chandos Publishing.
Satari, L., Guillén, A., Vidal-Verdú, À., & Porcar, M. (2020). The wasted chewing gum bacteriome. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1-10.
Shaman, J., Solomon S., Colwell R. R. & Field C.B. (2013). Fostering Advances in Interdisciplinary Climate Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(1), 3653-3656.
Shapira, P., Gӧk, A., Li, C., Salehi Yazdi, F., Belyakov, G., Woo, S., Kolesnikov, S., Li, Y., & Youtie, J. (2017). The Ig Nobels – Who Wins What and Why? Paper presented at Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Shema, H., Bar‐Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1018-1027.
Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Librany Trends, 30(1), 83-106.
Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131-1143.
Tang Prize Foundation. (2022). Categories and Awards. Retrieved from https://www.tang-prize.org/en/spirit.php?cat=62
Thelwall, M. (2020). The Pros and Cons of the Use of Altmetrics in Research Assessment. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), 2.
The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. (2022). Sloan Research Fellowships. Retrieved from https://sloan.org/fellowships
The Hyatt Foundation. (2022). About the Pritzker Architecture Prize. Retrieved from https://www.pritzkerprize.com/about 
The Wolf Foundation. (2022). The Wolf Prize. Retrieved from https://wolffund.org.il/the-wolf-prize/
Van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research policy, 40(3), 463-472.
Vanclay, J. K. (2013). Factors affecting citation rates in environmental science. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 265-271.
Wagner, C. S., Horlings, E., Whetsell, T. A., Mattsson, P., & Nordqvist, K. (2015). Do Nobel Laureates create prize-winning networks? An analysis of collaborative research in physiology or medicine. PloS one, 10(7), e0134164.
Woo, S., & Li, Y. (2017). Does Humor Advance Science? Evidence from Ig Nobel Prizes. Paper presented at Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Woo, S., & Li, Y. (2018). The Role of Curiosity in Science: Evidence from Ig Nobel Prizes. Paper presented at DRUID 18 Copenhagen Business School Conference, Copenhagen.
Woollett, K., & Maguire, E. A. (2011). Acquiring “the Knowledge” of London's layout drives structural brain changes. Current biology, 21(24), 2109-2114.
Yeung, A. W. K. (2022). Not just nickel-and-dime: An analysis of journal articles winning Ig Nobel prize during 2011–2020. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 27(1), 93-99.
Ye, S., Xing, R., Liu, J., & Xing, F. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of Nobelists’ awards and landmark papers in physiology or medicine during 1983–2012. Annals of Medicine, 45(8), 532-538.
Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., & Okubo, Y. (2000). Shadows of the past in international cooperation: Collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science. Scientometrics, 47(3), 627-657.
石秋霞、黃鴻珠（2006）。 學術論文被引用次數之分析研究：以 Science Citation Index Expanded 及 Scopus 為例。教育資料與圖書館學，44(1)，15-34。
邱炯友、張瑜倫（2005）。引文格式規範對引文分析法之影響：學術出版之傳播效應。圖書館學與資訊科學，31(1)，63-78。
何光國（1994）。文獻計量學導論。台北市：三民。
邵婉卿（2010）。期刊評鑑及期刊影響數之研究。台灣圖書館管理季刊，6(3)，75-94。
林東翰（譯）。（2020）。最有梗的桂冠：搞笑諾貝爾獎（原作者：Marc Abrahams）台北市：行路出版。（原作出版年：2003年）。
陳光華、江玉婷、 莊雅蓁、許雅淑（1998）。引文分析法研究發展現況。書府，18/19，15-47。
張郁蔚（2011）。從共同作者之學科組合探討跨學科合作：以高分子學研究為例。圖書與資訊學刊，3(3)，42-62。
黃慕萱、張郁蔚（2006）。人文社會學者學術評鑑指標之探討。圖書資訊學刊，4(1/2)，17-47。
蔡明月（2005）。引文索引與引文分析法之探討。圖書館學與資訊科學，31(1)，45-53。
蔡明月（2011）。期刊影響力指標探析。教育資料與圖書館學，49(2)，195-214。
蔡明月、 郭政遠（2009）。台灣、香港、大陸地區之學術合作研究：以工程類爲例。 教育資料與圖書館學，46(4)，522-546。