文章摘要

陈必坤,周慧娴,钟周燕,王曰芬.基于Usage Metrics的中文学术论文用户平台偏好和兴趣偏好比较研究[J].中国图书馆学报,2018,44(6):90~104
基于Usage Metrics的中文学术论文用户平台偏好和兴趣偏好比较研究
Exploring the User Platform Preference and User Interest Preference of Chinese Scholarly Articles: A Comparison Based on Usage Metrics
投稿时间:2018-09-17  修订日期:2018-10-12
DOI:
中文关键词: 学术文献  使用数据  Usage Metrics  学术期刊  学术交流  使用模式
英文关键词: Academic literature  Usage data  Usage Metrics  Academic journals  Academic communication  Usage pattern
基金项目:本文系国家社会科学基金重大项目“面向知识创新服务的数据科学理论与方法研究”(16ZDA224)的研究成果之一
作者单位E-mail
陈必坤 南京理工大学经济管理学院信息管理系讲师 江苏 南京 210094 chenbikun@njust.edu.cn,chenbikun@njust.edu.cn 
周慧娴 南京理工大学经济管理学院信息管理系硕士研究生 江苏 南京 210094  
钟周燕 南京理工大学经济管理学院信息管理系硕士研究生 江苏 南京 210094  
王曰芬 南京理工大学经济管理学院信息管理系教授 江苏南京 210094  
摘要点击次数: 167
全文下载次数: 
中文摘要:
      研究中文学术论文用户使用模式有助于分析使用规律,为应用决策提供依据。本文以八个学科被CSSCI或CSCD收录的61本开放获取期刊发表于2014—2015年的学术论文为样本,以期刊官网和信息集成平台上的使用数据为来源,采用Usage Metrics的方法,从用户平台偏好和用户兴趣偏好两方面比较中文学术论文的用户使用模式。研究发现:①期刊官网与信息集成平台的用户平台偏好存在差异。一是从学科视角看,用户整体上倾向于使用期刊官网而不是信息集成平台获取所需论文,而社会科学的信息集成平台篇均下载次数均大于自然科学。二是从期刊视角看,社会科学用户比自然科学用户更倾向于使用信息集成平台获取所需论文;与信息集成平台相比,期刊官网的用户下载数据呈现更为明显的“两级分化”现象;期刊官网下载次数与信息集成平台下载次数整体上的相关性较低。②期刊官网与信息集成平台的用户兴趣偏好存在差异。每本期刊官网和信息集成平台下载次数前20%的学术论文的Jaccard相似系数较低;在所列举的图书馆、情报与文献学中,期刊官网与信息集成平台的用户关注主题不同。图7。表5。参考文献37。
英文摘要:
With the rapid progress of networking and digitization, interactive data of users on various platforms have been recorded in real time. It has promoted the rise and development of usage metrics that provided new ideas and methods for users academic communication behavior research and decision making applications. Also, various Chinese academic literature databases have been increasingly utilized by users who are in need for high quality information service, which can be promoted by usage metrics on user usage patterns. 
In order to comparatively investigate the usage patterns of journal official sites and pay for access platform and then to support decision making, this study selected academic papers, published in 2014-2015 of 61 Chinese open access journals indexed by CSSCI and CSCD in eight disciplines, “Library, Information and Archival Science”, “Management Science”, “Economics”, “Pedagogy”, “Computer Science”, “Earth Science”, “Math” and “Biology”, and explored Chinese usage patterns from user platform preferences aspect and user interest preferences aspect by analyzing usage data of journal official sites and pay for access platforms. Operatively, comparisons of user platform preferences were implemented by descriptive statistics and correlation analysis and comparisons of user interest preferences were explored by Jaccard similarity coefficient and co word analysis.
Firstly,it proved that there were differences in user platform preferences between journal official sites and pay for access platforms. From the perspective of discipline, users tended to use journal official sites rather than pay for access platforms to obtain papers, and the paper downloads of social science were higher than natural science in pay for access platforms. From the perspective of journals, social science users were more inclined to use pay for access platforms than natural science users to obtain papers. Compared with pay for access platforms, the paper downloads of journal official sites showed a more obvious Matthew effect. The paper downloads of journal official sites showed a lower correlation with pay for access platforms overall. Secondly, it proved that there were differences in user interest preferences between journal official sites and pay for access platforms. The top 20% most downloaded papers in journal official sites and pay for access platforms showed a lower Jaccard similarity. In the example of library, information and literature science, the users of journal official sites and pay for access platforms paid attention to different topics respectively.
In a word, this study tried to comparatively investigate the usage patterns and its influencing factors by analyzing the usage data of Chinese journal official sites and pay for access platforms. However, the factors that affect the usage patterns were very complicated. How to probe into the mechanism of influencing factors and then verify them was still an important problem to be solved in further study. 7 figs. 5 tabs. 37 refs.
下载全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器