目的：比較醫務管理領域期刊作者發表論文的合作情形。方法：蒐集華藝線上圖書資料庫自2003年於醫務管理期刊（324篇）及醫院雜誌（461篇）發表的論文785篇，挑出作者1,229人次（867人）及1,587人次（1,015人），總計2,816人次（1,882人）。利用社會網絡分析比較國內兩大醫務管理領域期刊：(1) 作者的貢獻與合作圖騰，(2) 期刊的作者連結與合作密度。結果：醫務管理期刊的作者合作程度高於醫院雜誌。期刊別與作者人數間具有關聯（p＜0.0001），醫院雜誌的單一作者比例（19.52%）高於醫務管理期刊（5.56%）。醫務管理期刊平均一篇作者數（3.79）高於醫院雜誌（3.01），合作程度（0.94:0.81）、合作係數（0.48:0.46）、合作關聯密度（0.51%, 0.45%），都顯示醫務管理期刊高於醫院雜誌。結論：社會網絡分析用來比較醫務管理領域期刊作者間的合作情形，研究結果的統計數據可以提供期刊未來經營走向的參考。

Objectives: To compare authorship patterns and the degree of collaboration in health-related journals using social network analysis (SNA). Methods: A total of 785 published papers with 2816 authors (1882 persons) in 2 principle domestic journals (324 from the Journal of Healthcare Management and 461 from Hospital Magazine) since 2003 was downloaded from the Chinese Airiti Library to determine differences in authorship patterns and degree of collaboration. We applied SNA to compare the following: (1) authorship patterns from a micro-perspective; and (2) degree of collaboration from a macro-perspective for the above-mentioned two study journals. Results: The degree of collaboration was higher in the Journal of Healthcare Management than Hospital Magazine. The former had a stronger association with the number of authors (p＜0.0001). The single author rate was higher in Hospital Magazine (19.52%) than the Journal of Healthcare Management (5.56%). The average author number per paper was less in Hospital Magazine (3.01) than the Journal of Healthcare Management (3.79). Other indices regarding the degree of collaboration (0.94:0.81), collaborative coefficient (0.48:0.46), and association density (0.51%: 0.45%) also showed that the Journal of Healthcare Management had a higher benefit than Hospital Magazine. Conclusions: The SNA is useful in identifying the authorship and degree of collaboration in health-related journals. The results show that those statistical indicators can be offered to strategy and decision making for journals in future.