運用數學及統計等量化技術，以評估現代文明之發展與成長，除可描述 學術發展現況，亦為書目計量之研究內涵與精神。然文獻資料收集之完整性， 為書目計量學相關研究主要困難點之一，亦嚴重影響計量研究之分析結果。 過去在人工處理資料情況下，資料蒐集之完整性有其難以避免之困境，而今文獻 資料內容之數位化建立與普遍性似乎開啟解決此問題的窗口。本研究採期刊 評比指標資料庫－SCImago Journal Rank (簡稱SJR 資料庫) 中收錄之癌症研究 (cancer research) 領域期刊清單為研究個案，並以PubMed 資料庫做為文獻資料 蒐集來源，蒐集自1945 年至2015 年10 月共172 種期刊，608,790 篇文獻， 透過書目計量學 (bibliometrics) 三大定律進行檢驗，研究結果顯示：(1) 在文獻 成長方面，自1992 年起，癌症研究領域文獻成長量突破每年千篇並呈現逐步 升高的趨勢；(2) 文獻出版類型以期刊文獻為最多 (journal article, 574,924 篇)， 其次為文獻回顧 (含系統性回顧) (review, 61,463 篇)；以文獻內容型式區分， 以對比研究 (comparative study) 為最多，計有46,698 篇；以研究報告類型區分， 以非美國政府資助的研究報告 (non-U.S. government-supported research) 為最多， 計有251,024 篇；(3) 癌症研究領域之文獻多數為合著作者型式，個人作者的 發表偏低；(4) 採用布萊德福定律 (Bradford’s Law) 驗證，結果顯示可分為四區， 以布萊德福定律1：n：n2：n3 之計算公式，求得n 值為2.5；(5) 針對洛卡定律 (Lotka’s Law) 作者生產力分析，以第一作者與全部作者分別帶入公式進行計算 與驗證，並將公式修正為f(x) = 0.6387/x1.975，其結果可符合洛卡定律。

To evaluate development and growth of modern civilization, quantifying approaches such as mathematical and statistical methods have been adopted to not only describe academic development but also explore natures of Bibliometrics. One of the challenges of Bibliometrics is the integrity of literature search that also of relevance to the result of quantitative analysis. The case study adopted in this research was the journal list covered by Cancer Research of the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). The database of PubMed was the sources of literature collection, in which we collected 608,790 articles from 172 journals published from 1945 to October 2015. By carrying out the three principles of Bibliometrics for verification, the result suggested the following: (1) In terms of literature growth, cancer researchrelated publications have exceeded one thousand publications annually since 1992, and showed a rising tendency. (2) The types of publications were dominated by journal articles (574,924 articles) followed by reviews (61,463 articles including systematic reviews). By considering the content and the type of research report, the major types were comparative study and non-U.S. government-supported research with 46,698 and 251,024 publications, respectively. (3) Most cancer research literature was written in collaboration with coauthors rather than by a single author. (4) According to Bradford’s Law, the results can be divided into 4 groups, in which the 1: n: n2: n3 rations derived from Bradford’s formula were applied and concluded that n equaled to 2.5. Finally, (5) by performing author productivity analysis based on Lotka’s Law, we considered the numbers of first authors and all authors of an article, in which we substituted into Lotka’s formula in- dependently. The result was in line with Bradford’s Law given that the para- meters were modified as follows: f(x)=0.6387/x1.975.