Abel, Richard E. (2002). The Chang of Book and Journal Infrastructure : Two Publishers, Consolidation, and Niche Publishers. In Richard E. Abel & Lyman W. Newlin (Ed.), Scholarly Publishing : Book, Journal, Publishers, and Libraries in the Twentieth Century (pp.121-134). New York : Wiley.
Al, Umut., Sahiner, Mustafa & Tonta, Yasar. (2006). Arts and Humanities Literature : Bibliometric Characteristics of Contributions by Turkish Authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1011-1022.
Albanese, Andrew Richard. (2001). Revolution or Evolution. Library Journal, 126(18), 48-51.
Armstrong, C. and Lonsdale, R. (2000). Scholarly Monographs : Why Would I Want to Publish Electronically. The Electronic Library, 18(1), 21-28.
Armstrong, C. and Lonsdale, R. (2005). Challenges in Managing E-Books Collections in UK Academic Libraries. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 29, 33-50.
Association of Research Libraries. (1997, September 12). The Specialized Scholarly Monograph in Crisis : Or How can I Get Tenure if You won’t Publish My Book. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/specscholmono
Ayris , P. (2007). Scholarly Communication in the Arts and Humanities. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.dartington.ac.uk/drha07/programme/index.asp
Benn, F. (2009). Who Uses the Interlibrary Loan and Document Deliver Service and What do They Request : A Case Study at the University of Western Australia. Interlending & Document Supply, 37(1), 41-45.
Bernard-Donals, M. (2008). It’s Not about the Book. Profession, 172-184.
Berinstein, Paula. (2006). The Day of the Author Has Arrived : Right and Business Models for Online Books. Searcher, 14(4), 26-32.
Benaud , Claire-Lise and Bordeianu, Sever. (1995). Electronic Resources in the Humanities. Reference Services Review, 23(2), 41-50.
Borgman, Christine L., (ed.). (1990). Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics. Newbury Park : Sage.
Braxton, John M. and Del Favero, M. (2002). Evaluating Scholarship Performance : Traditional and Emergent Assessment Templates. In Carol L. Colbeck (Ed.), Evaluating Faculty Performance (pp.23-34). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Budd , John M. and Harloe, Bart. (1997). Collection Development and Scholarly communication in 21st Century : From Collection Management to Content Management. In G. E. Gorman & Ruth H. Miller (Ed.), Collections Management for the 21st Century: A Handbook for Librarians (pp.1-24). Westport : Greenwood.
Carnochan, W. B. (2008). On the Tyranny of Good Intentions : Some Notes on the MLA Task Force Report. Profession, 194-201
Chillingworth, M. (2004). Google Rolls out Revolution to Print and Appliances. Information World Review, 207, 1.
Chillingworth, M. (2005). Amazon to Carve up Book Delivery. Information World Review, 217, 1.
Chodorow, Stanley. (1997, September 12). The Once and Future Monograph. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.arl.org/ resources/pubs/ specscholmono/chodorow.shtml
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2003). Can Scholarly Publishing Be Save ?. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(9), B17.
Clark, Giles. (2001). Inside Book Publishing. London : Routledge.
Cohen, Barbara L. (2006). HumaniTech : A Discipline-Centered Approach to Technology at UCI. Library Hi tech News, 6 , 34-35.
Collier, Bonnie (1999). Preserving the Central Role of the Monograph. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45 (22), A56.
Correia, Ana Maria Ramalho (2005). Reforming Scholarly Publishing and Knowledge Communication. Online Information Review, 29(4), 349-364.
Cronin, Blaise and La Barre, Kathryn (2004, April). Mickey Mouse and Milton : Book Publishing in the Humanities. Learned Publishing, 17(2), 85-98.
Cope, Bill and Phillips, Angus., (ed.). (2006). The Future of the Book in the Digital Age. Oxford : Chandos.
Crewe, Jennifer (2004). Scholarly Publishing : Why our Business is your Business too. Profession, 25-31.
Cullars, John M. (1992). Citation Characteristics of Monographs in the Fine Art. Library Quarterly, 62(3), 325-342.
Cullars, John M. (1998). Citation Characteristics of English-Language Monographs in Philosophy. Library & Information Science Research, 20, 41-68.
D’Arms, John H. (1997, September 12). Advancing Humanistic Scholarship in the Pre-Tenure Years. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.arl.org/resources/ pubs/specscholmono/DArms.shtml
Dalton, Margaret Stieg (2006, July). A System Destabilized : Scholarly Books Today. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 37(4), 251-269.
Day, Colin. (1997, September 12). Digital Alternatives : Solving the Problem or Shifting the Costs ?. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.arl.org/resources/ pubs/specscholmono/day.shtml
De Tiratel and Susana, Romanosde. (2000). Access Information Use by Humanists and Social Scientists : A Study at the Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(5), 346-354.
East, J. W. (2006). Subject Retrieval of Scholarly Monographs via Electronic Databases. Journal of Documentation, 62(5), 597-605.
English, James F. (2005). Scholarly Journal in the Digital Age : Old versus New Forms of Inquiry. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 37 (1), 8-18.
Feather, John. (2003). Communication Knowledge : Publishing in 21st Century. Munchen: K.G Saur.
Freitag, Sandria. (1997, September 12). The AHA/ARL Proposal on the Endangered Monograph. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.arl.org/resources/ pubs/specscholmono/Freitag.shtml
Gannon-Leary, P., Bent, M. & Webb, J. (2008). Researchers and Their Information Needs : A Literature Review. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 13(1/2), 51-69.
Garfield, Eugene (1980). Is Information Retrieval in the Arts and Humanities Inherently Different from that in Science? The Effect that ISI’s Citation Index for the Arts and Humanities is Expected to Have on Future Scholarship. Library Quarterly, 50(1), 40-47.
Gilmore, Matthew B. and Case, Donald O. (1992). Historians, Books, Computers, and the Library. Library Trends, 40(4), 667-686.
Givler, P. (2002). University Press Publishing in United States. In Richard E. Abel & Lyman W. Newlin (Ed.), Scholarly Publishing : Book, Journal, Publishers, and Libraries in the Twentieth Century (pp.107-120). New York : Wiley.
Google (2006, Jun 12). Google Book Search: New and View. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://books.google..com/googlebooks/newsviews/
Gorman, Michael. (2002). The Economic Crisis in Libraries : Causes and Effects. In Richard E. Abel & Lyman W. Newlin (Ed.), Scholarly Publishing : Book, Journal, Publishers, and Libraries in the Twentieth Century (pp.257-272). New York : Wiley.
Hall, G. (2007). The Impact of the Humanities : or , What’s Next for Open Access. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from http://openhumanitiespress.org/Hall_20-sept-
2007_What%20next%20for%20humanities.pdf
Heinzkill, R. (1980). Characteristics of References in Selected Scholarly English Literary Journals. Library Quarterly, 50(3), 352-365.
Heller, Scott (1999). Writing Long: Some Scholars Still Have a Lot to Say. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45 (22), A16.
Henon, Alain L. (1990). Publish and Perish. The Serials Librarian, 17 (3/4), 35-41.
Hitchcock, Joanna. (1997, September 12). Reaching Specialized Audiences : The Publisher’s Conundrum. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.arl.org/
resources/pub/specscholmono/ Hitchcock.shtml
Hopkin, Richard H. (1990). The Scholarly Communication Process in the Humanities : The Role of the Editor. The Serials Librarian, 17 (3/4), 25-32.
Houghton, J. (2005). Economics of Publishing and the Future of Scholarly Communication. In G. E. Gorman. (Ed.), Scholarly Publishing in an Electronic Era : International Yearbook of Library and Information Management 2004/2005 (pp.65-72). London : Facet Publishing.
Houghton, J., Rasmussen B., Sheehan, P., Oppenheim, C., Morris, A., & Creaser, C. (2009). Economics Implications Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models : Exploring the Costs and Benefits. Retrieved February 15, 2010, from Loughborough University, EI-ASPM Project Web Site : http://ie-repository.jisc.
ac.uk/278/4/EI-ASPM_Summary.pdf
Humphreys, R. Stephen. (1997, September 12). Why do We Write Stuff That Even Our Colleagues Don’t Want to Read ?. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.arl.
org/resources/pub/specscholmono/ humphreys.shtml
Johnson, R. K. (2004). The Future of Scholarly Communication in the Humanities : Adaptation or Transformation. Retrieved November 9, 2009, form http://www.arl.
org/sparc/bm~doc/johnson_humanities_2004-2.pdf
Joshi, Sam. (2004). Hippo Meets Dissertator on Forked Path in Academic Jungle. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 36(1), 23-26.
Jordan, Peter. (1998). The Academic Library and Its User. London : Gower.
Katz, S. N. (2007). Disciplinary Societies and Evaluating Scholarship : A View from History. Profession, 89-93.
Kist, J. (2009). New thinking for 21st century publishers. Oxford : Chandos.
Kling, R. and McKim, G. (1999). Scholarly Communication and the Continuum of Electronic Publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(10), 890-906.
Kousha, K. (2009). Google Book Search : Citation Analysis for Social Science and the Humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1537-1549.
Lally, Elaine. (2001). A Research’s Perspective on Electronic Scholarly Communication. Online Information Review, 25(2), 80-87.
Levine, C. (2007). Rethinking Peer Review and the Fate of the Monograph. Profession, 100-106.
Levine-Clark, M. (2007). Electronic Books and the Humanities : A Survey at the University of Denver. Collection Building, 26(1), 7-14.
Lewis, P. (2002). Is Monographic Tyranny the Problem ?. PMLA, 117(5), 1222-1224.
Lewis, P. (2004). The Publishing Crisis and Tenure Criteria : An Issue for Research Universities. Profession, 14-25.
Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1987). The Flow of Ideas within and among Academic Disciplines : Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Lorimer, Rowland. (2003). Online Social Science and Humanities Journal Publishing in Canada and the SYNERGIES Project. Serials Librarian 45(2), 61-86.
Lowry, Anita. (1992). Electronic Texts in English and American Literature. Library Trends, 40(4), 704-723.
Lynch, Clifford. (1997, September 12). The Scholarly Monograph’s Descendants. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.arl.org/resources/pub/specscholmono
/Lynch.shtml
Mann, P. H. (1980). The Publishing of Scholarly Monographs. Journal of Documentation, 36(1), 1-11.
Mcgann, Jerome. (2005). Culture and Technology : The Way We Live Now, What is to be Done ?. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 30(2), 179-189.
MLA (2007). Report of the MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion. Profession, 9-71.
Nederhof, A. J., Zwaan, R. A., De Bruin, R. E. and Dekker, P. J. (1989). Assessing the Usefulness of Bibliometric Indicators for the Humanities and the Social and Behavioural Sciences : A Comparative Study. Scientometrics, 15(5/6), 423-435.
Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric Monitoring of Research Performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities : A Review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100.
Oshika, Beatrice T. and Krausse, Sylvia C. (1992). Electronic Databases for Linguistic and Language Research. Library Trends 40(4), 724-732.
Oxford English Dictionary Online. (1989, Janurary, 5). Humanity. Retrieved March 2, 2007, from http://dicitionary/.oed.com/cgi/entry/50109101?
Oxford English Dictionary Online. (2002, December, 1), Monograph. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http:// dicitionary.oed.com/ entry/ 00314629?
Palmer, Carole L. (2005). Scholarly Work and the Shaping of Digital Access. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(11), 1140-1153.
Parsons, P. F. (1987). Getting Published : The Acquisitions Process at University Presses. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tennessee.
Paisley, W. (1984). Communication in the Communication Science. In B. Dervin & M.J. Voigt (Ed.), Progress in Communication Sciences- v.5 (pp.23-35). Norwood, N.J. : Ablex.
Prosser, David C. (2005).The Next Information Revolution : How Open Access will Transform Scholarly Communications. In G. E. Gorman (Ed.), Scholarly Publishing in an Electronic Era : International Yearbook of Library and Information Management 2004/2005 (pp.99-117). London : Facet Publishing.
Quint, Barbara. (2005). Digital Books : More Value-Added, Please. Information Today, 22(1), 7.
Reynolds, Victor. (1955). Refuge of the Scholar : The University Press. Nation, 180(18), 366-367.
Rice, R. E. and Sorcinelli, M. D. (2002). Can the Tenure Process be Improved?. In Richard P. Chait (Ed.), The Questions of Tenure (pp.24-33). Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
Ringuette, D. (2008). We Need to Talk : Scholarship, Tenure, and Promotion in the Balance. Profession, 185-193.
Ryan, J. (2004). Publishing and Purchasing : The Great Paradigm Shift. Profession, 7-13.
Stanton, D. C. (2004). Working Through the Crises : A Plan for Action. Profession, 32-41.
Sayre, G. M. (2005). The Crisis in Scholarly Publishing : Demystifying the Fetishes of Technology and the Market. Profession, 52-59.
Saule, Mara R. (1992). User Instruction Issue for Databases in the Humanities. Library Trend 40(4), 596-613.
Schuster, Jack H. (1990). The Context of Scholarly Communication. The Serials Librarian, 17(3/4), 15-23.
Shreeves, Edward. (1992). Between the Visionaries and the Luddites : Collection Development and Electronic Resources in the Humanities. Library Trends, 40(4), 579-595.
Steele, Colin (2005). The Library’s Perspective on Scholarly Publishing in the 21st Century. In G. E. Gorman (Ed.), Scholarly Publishing in an Electronic Era : International Yearbook of Library and Information Management 2004/2005 (pp.35-54). London : Facet Publishing.
Steele, C. (2005). Book to the Future : 21st Century Models for the Scholarly Monograph. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://hdl.handle.net/1885/43261
Steel, C. (2008). Scholarly Monograph Publishing in the 21st Century : The Future More Than Ever Should Be and Open Book. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(2). Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=
=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0011.201
Stern, Madeleine. (1983). Characteristics of the Literature of Literary Scholarship. College & Research Libraries, 44(4), 199-209.
Stoller, Michael E. (1992). Electronic Journal in the Humanities : A Survey and Critique. Library Trends, 40(4), 647-666.
Stimpson, C. R. (2007). A Dean’s View of the MLA Report. Profession, 72-76.
Strosnider, Kim. (1997). Historians Seek Funds for Key Documents. Chronicle of Higher Education, 43(37), A33.
Sweetland, James H. (1992). Humanists, Libraries, Electronic Publishing, and the Future. Library Trends, 40(4), 781-803.
Tang, R. (2008). Citation Characteristics and Intellectual Acceptance of Scholarly Monographs. College & Research Libraries, 69(4), 356-369.
Thatcher, Sanford G. (1997, September 12). Thinking Systematically About the Crisis in Scholarly Communication. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.arl.org/resources/pub/specscholmono/thatcher.shtml
Thatcher, S. G. (2006). Dissertations into Books. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(1), 1-2.
Thatcher, S. G. (2007). The Future of Scholarly Book Publishing in Political Theory. PS: Political Science & Politics, 40(1), 129-132.
Thompson, J. B. (2005). Books in the Digital Age. Cambridge, England : Polity.
Thompson, J. W. (2002). The Death of the Scholarly Monograph in the Humanities ? Citation Patterns in Literary Scholarship. Libri, 52, 121-136.
Thorp, Roger (2006, February). Publishing on Art : A Crisis ?. The Art Book, 13(1), 27-28.
Torres-Salinas, D. and Moed, H. F. (2008). Library Catalog Analysis as a Tool in Studies of Social Sciences and Humanities : An Exploratory Study of Published Book Titles in Economics. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 9-26.
Townsend, Robert B. (2003, October). History and the Future of Scholarly Publishing. Perspectives, 41(7), 32-41.
Trower, Cathy A. (2002). What is Current Policy ?. In Richard P. Chait (Ed.), The Questions of Tenure (pp.11-23). Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
Van de Sompel, H., Payette, S., Erickson, J., Lagoze, C. & Warner, S. (2004, September). Rethinking Scholarly Communication. D-Lib Magazine, 10(9). Retrieved December 15, 2007, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september04/ vandesompel/09vandesompel.html
Warwick, C., Terras, M., Galina, I., Huntington, P. & Pappa, N. (2008). Library and Information Resources and Users of Digital Resources in the Humanities. Program : Electronic Library and Information Systems, 42(1), 5-27.
Walker, Paulette V. (1996). Publishers Fear Impact of Arts and Humanities Budget Cuts. Chronicle of Higher Education, 42(17), A37.
Waters, Lindsay (2001, September). The Tyranny of the Monograph and The Plight of the Publisher. Publishing Research Quarterly, 17(3), 19-25.
Waters, Lindsay (2004, October). Scholarship and Silence. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 36 (1), 15-22.
Waters, Lindsay (2007). Tenure, Publication, and the Shape of the Careers of Humanists. Profession, 93-99.
Watkinson, A. (2001). Electronic Solutions to the Problems of Monograph Publishing. London : The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries.
Wasserman, Marlie. (1997, September 12). How Much Does It Cost to Publish a Monograph and Why. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/specscholmono/ wasserman.shtml
Welsch, Erwin K. (1992). Hypertext, Hypermedia, and the Humanities. Library Trend, 40(4), 614-646.
Wiberley Jr., Stephen E. and Jones, William G. (2000). Time and Technology : A Decade-Long at Humanists’ Use of Electronic Information Technology. College & Research Libraries, 61(5), 421-431.
Williams, P., Stevenson, I., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A. & Rowlands, I. (2009). The Role and Future of the Monograph in Arts and Humanities Research. Aslib Proceedings : New Information Perspectives, 61(1), 67-82.
Willinsky, J. (2009). Toward the Design for an Open Monograph Press. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 12(1). Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://quod.lib.
umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0012.103
Wissoker, Ken. (2002, September 18). An Emerging Crisis : Scholarly Publishing & the Humanities. Retrieved October 19, 2007, from http://www.jhfc.duke.edu/fhi/events
/scholarlhy_pub/2002 kenwissoker.php
Xia, Jingfeng. (2006). Electronic Publishing in Archaeology. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 37(4), 270-285.
丁希如 (2003)。商業出版社學術書市場經營研究：以「桂冠圖書公司」與「麥田出版公司」爲例。在 邱炯友編，大學出版社與學術出版 (頁103-112)。台北縣：淡江大學出版中心。
王梅玲 (2003)。從學術出版的變遷探討學者、出版者與圖書館的角色。國家圖書館館刊，92年(1)，67-93。
王乾任 (2004)。台灣出版產業大未來：文化與商品的調和。台北市：華文網。
王翠華 (2003)。審稿與編務。在 邱炯友編，大學出版社與學術出版 (頁75-80)。台北縣：淡江大學出版中心。
反思會議工作小組 (2005)。共識與主張。在 反思會議工作小組編，全球化與知識生產：反思台灣學術評鑑 (頁vii-ix)。台北市：台灣社會研究季刊社。
江宜樺 (2005)。關於台灣學術評鑑制度的幾點建議。在 反思會議工作小組編，全球化與知識生產：反思台灣學術評鑑 (頁145-152)。台北市：台灣社會研究季刊社。
行政院新聞局 (2008)。出版年鑑。台北市：行政院新聞局。
邱炯友 (2000)。電子出版的歷史與未來。佛教圖書館館訊，23，6-17。邱炯友 (2006)。學術傳播與期刊出版。台北市：遠流。邱炯友、林串良 (2002)。大學出版社與學術社群電子出版之研究。資訊傳播與圖書館學，9(2)，11-25。邱炯友 (2005)。我們到底出了什麼問題。上網日期：2007年5月20日，檢自http://www.lib.pu.edu.tw/~jiang/OnLineDB/20050108.pdf
吳明德 (1987)。我國公立大學圖書館支援研究所學術研究之探討 (國科會專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC76-0301-H002-13)。台北市：國立台灣大學圖書館學系暨研究所。
吳栢青 (2005)。名山風雨礪志業，書林誰與共令名：台灣學生書局的學術出版。文訊，239， 159-164。
吳栢青 (2006)。見證歷史．閱覽尋根：記成文出版社。文訊，245，96-100。
吳栢青 (2006)。舊學商量加邃密，知培養轉深沉：商務印書館與臺灣商務印書館。文訊，252，106-115。
吳雅慧、吳明德 (2003)。電子期刊使用研究－以國立臺灣大學電機資訊學院及文學院爲例。國家圖書館館刊，1，169-196。周美慧 (2007)。從生態系統觀點探討新台灣之子的生活適應。未出版之碩士論文，靜宜大學青少年兒童福利學系，台中縣。
胡幼慧、姚美華 (1996)。質性研究－理論，方法及本土女性研究實例。台北市：巨流。
派頓 (Michael Quinn Patton) (1995)。質的評鑑與研究 (Quality Evaluation and Research) (吳芝儀、李奉儒譯)。台北市：桂冠。(原作1990年出版)
洪鎌德 (1997)。人文思想與現代社會。台北市：揚智。郭明政 (2005)。以SSCI及TSSCI爲名的學術大屠殺。在 反思會議工作小組編，全球化與知識生產：反思台灣學術評鑑 (頁153-178)。台北市：台灣社會研究季刊社。
辛廣偉 (2002)。版權貿易與華文出版。台北市：遠流。
莊宇慧、Jennifer Abbey (2005)。民族誌與護理研究。護理雜誌，52(6)， 49-56。封德屏 (2008)。台灣人文出版社30家。台北市：文訊雜誌社。
陳向明 (2002)。社會科學質的研究。台北市：五南。陳明莉 (2003)。台灣學術場域的知識生產、傳播與消費：人文社會科學的學術出版分析。教育與社會研究，5，1-46。陳信元 (2004)。出版與文學：見證二十年海峽兩岸文化交流。台北市：揚智文化。
陳穎青 (2007)。老貓學出版：編輯的技藝 & 二十年出版經驗完全彙整。台北市：時報文化。
教育部 (2008)。教育部顧問室人文社會科學相關領域計畫97年度報告書。台北：教育部。
章英華 (2000)。學術出版、評審與學術發展：一個社會學家的參與觀察。台灣社會學刊，23，1-23。陳恆光 (2007)。人文領域學術評鑑首次規劃會議。評鑑，7，25-27。
陳曼玲 (2007)。正視社會科學及人文學領域評比的必要性。評鑑，5，38-41。
渥爾 (Tomas Woll) (2005)。誰說出版不賺錢 (Publishing for Profit) (鄭永生譯)。台北市：高寶。(原作2003年出版)
黃厚銘 (2005)。SSCI、TSSCI與台灣社會科學學術評鑑制度。在 反思會議工作小組編，全球化與知識生產：反思台灣學術評鑑 (頁87-108)。台北市：台灣社會研究季刊社。黃慕萱、張郁蔚 (2005)。從研究產出探討人文社會學者學術評鑑之特性。圖書資訊學刊，2(3/4)，1-19。黃輝南 (2003)。淡江大學出版中心的過去與未來：從傳統到資訊時代。在 邱炯友編，大學出版社與學術出版 (頁249-258)。台北縣：淡江大學出版中心。
張維安 (2008)。人文學研究的重要性及其發展策略。在 國立台灣大學人文社會高等研究院編，第十二次全國人文聯盟座談會會議手冊 (頁49-56)。台北市：國立台灣大學人文社會高等研究院。
張慧銖 (2007)。積極建立人文學門教師研究力評鑑指標。評鑑，5，42-43。
傅雅秀 (1999)。從圖書資訊學的觀點探討科學傳播。台北市：漢美。葉乃靜 (2003)。資訊與老年人的生活世界：以台北市兆如老人安養護中心爲例。
未出版之博士論文，國立台灣大學圖書訊學研究所，台北市。
葉啓政 (2005)。缺乏社會現實感的指標性評鑑迷思。在 反思會議工作小組編，
全球化與知識生產：反思台灣學術評鑑 (頁111-126)。台北市：台灣社會研究
季刊社。
詹麗萍 (2005)。電子資源與圖書館館藏發展。台北市：麥田。萬麗慧 (2004)。海峽兩岸大學出版社暨學術出版的現況與未來。出版界，70，10-15。
劉芷綾 (2006)。第五次人文學聯盟座談會(一)之會議記錄。上網日期：2007年11月10日，檢自http://www.nchu.edu.tw/~hum/download/092304-recor1.doc
劉淑莉 (2003)。電子出版品交易營業稅課稅問題之研究。未出版之碩士論文，靜宜大學會計與財稅研究所，台中市。
廖朝陽 (2005)。書目計量在人文學科的意義。在 反思會議工作小組編，全球化與知識生產：反思台灣學術評鑑 (頁141-144)。台北市：台灣社會研究季刊社。
齊力、林本炫編 (2003)。質性研究方法與資料分析。嘉義縣：南華大學教育社會
學研究所。
蔡明月 (1999)。學術傳播與書目計量學。教育資料與圖書館學，35(1)，38-57。蔡佩真 (2006)。台灣癌症喪親家庭關係之變化與研究。未出版之博士論文，國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系，南投縣。潘淑滿 (2003)。質性研究：理論與應用。台北市：心理。
賴鼎銘等 (2001)。圖書資訊學概論。台北縣：空大。
賴鼎銘 (2005)。量化指標並非學術評鑑的萬靈丹。在 反思會議工作小組編，全球化與知識生產：反思台灣學術評鑑 (頁31-66)。台北市：台灣社會研究季刊社。
歐陽崇榮 (2003)。從電子出版與電子商務看學術出版的發展。教育資料與圖書館學，41(2)，237-253。蘇拾平 (2007)。文化創意產業的思考技術：我的120道出版經營練習題。台北市：如果。
蘇 諼 (2002)。電子資訊資源、電子出版、學術傳播。圖書與資訊學刊，40，18-28。
魏念怡 (2003)。國科會補助出版人文學與社會科學專書及論文集作業要點修正及實施。人文與社會科學簡訊，4(4)，43-46。
簡春安、鄒平儀編 (1998)。社會工作研究法。台北市：巨流。簡俊成、方婷婷 (2005)。虛擬社群商業化之紮根理論研究。管理論壇，24(3)， 43-67。顏崑陽 (2005)。再哀大學以及一些期待與建議。在 反思會議工作小組編，全球化與知識生產：反思台灣學術評鑑 (頁187-204)。台北市：台灣社會研究季刊社。
經濟部工業局編 (2007)。2006臺灣文化創意產業發展年報。台北市：經濟部工業局。
聯合晚報 (2010)。Kindle取代教科書還行不通。上網日期：2010年7月1日，檢自http://mag.udn.com/mag/digital/storypage.jsp?f_MAIN_ID=320&f_SUB_ID=
294&f_ART_ID=253488
龔鵬程 (2000)。知識份子。台北市：聯合文學。