学术搜索引擎:限制、缺陷和建议

Zhengyang Li, A. Rainer
{"title":"学术搜索引擎:限制、缺陷和建议","authors":"Zhengyang Li, A. Rainer","doi":"10.1145/3548659.3561310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academic search engines (i.e., digital libraries and indexers) play an increasingly important role in systematic reviews however these engines do not seem to effectively support such reviews, e.g., researchers confront usability issues with the engines when conducting their searches. To investigate whether the usability issues are bugs (i.e., faults in the search engines) or constraints, and to provide recommendations to search-engine providers and researchers on how to tackle these issues. Using snowball-sampling from tertiary studies, we identify a set of 621 secondary studies in software engineering. By physically re-attempting the searches for all of these 621 studies, we effectively conduct regression testing for 42 search engines. We identify 13 bugs for eight engines, and also identify other constraints. We provide recommendations for tackling these issues. There is still a considerable gap between the search-needs of researchers and the usability of academic search engines. It is not clear whether search-engine developers are aware of this gap. Also, the evaluation, by academics, of academic search engines has not kept pace with the development, by search-engine providers, of those search engines. Thus, the gap between evaluation and development makes it harder to properly understand the gap between the search-needs of researchers and search-features of the search engines.","PeriodicalId":264587,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Automating Test Case Design, Selection and Evaluation","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Academic search engines: constraints, bugs, and recommendations\",\"authors\":\"Zhengyang Li, A. Rainer\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3548659.3561310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Academic search engines (i.e., digital libraries and indexers) play an increasingly important role in systematic reviews however these engines do not seem to effectively support such reviews, e.g., researchers confront usability issues with the engines when conducting their searches. To investigate whether the usability issues are bugs (i.e., faults in the search engines) or constraints, and to provide recommendations to search-engine providers and researchers on how to tackle these issues. Using snowball-sampling from tertiary studies, we identify a set of 621 secondary studies in software engineering. By physically re-attempting the searches for all of these 621 studies, we effectively conduct regression testing for 42 search engines. We identify 13 bugs for eight engines, and also identify other constraints. We provide recommendations for tackling these issues. There is still a considerable gap between the search-needs of researchers and the usability of academic search engines. It is not clear whether search-engine developers are aware of this gap. Also, the evaluation, by academics, of academic search engines has not kept pace with the development, by search-engine providers, of those search engines. Thus, the gap between evaluation and development makes it harder to properly understand the gap between the search-needs of researchers and search-features of the search engines.\",\"PeriodicalId\":264587,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Automating Test Case Design, Selection and Evaluation\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Automating Test Case Design, Selection and Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3548659.3561310\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Automating Test Case Design, Selection and Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3548659.3561310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

学术搜索引擎(即数字图书馆和索引器)在系统评论中扮演着越来越重要的角色,然而这些引擎似乎并不能有效地支持这样的评论,例如,研究人员在进行搜索时面临着引擎的可用性问题。调查可用性问题是bug(即搜索引擎中的错误)还是约束,并就如何解决这些问题向搜索引擎提供商和研究人员提供建议。使用来自三级研究的雪球抽样,我们确定了软件工程中的621个二级研究。通过物理上重新尝试对所有这621项研究的搜索,我们有效地对42个搜索引擎进行了回归测试。我们确定了8个引擎的13个bug,并确定了其他约束条件。我们提供了解决这些问题的建议。研究人员的搜索需求与学术搜索引擎的可用性之间仍然存在相当大的差距。目前尚不清楚搜索引擎开发商是否意识到这一差距。此外,学术界对学术搜索引擎的评价也没有跟上搜索引擎提供商对这些搜索引擎的发展。因此,评估与开发之间的差距使得人们很难正确理解研究人员的搜索需求与搜索引擎的搜索特性之间的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Academic search engines: constraints, bugs, and recommendations
Academic search engines (i.e., digital libraries and indexers) play an increasingly important role in systematic reviews however these engines do not seem to effectively support such reviews, e.g., researchers confront usability issues with the engines when conducting their searches. To investigate whether the usability issues are bugs (i.e., faults in the search engines) or constraints, and to provide recommendations to search-engine providers and researchers on how to tackle these issues. Using snowball-sampling from tertiary studies, we identify a set of 621 secondary studies in software engineering. By physically re-attempting the searches for all of these 621 studies, we effectively conduct regression testing for 42 search engines. We identify 13 bugs for eight engines, and also identify other constraints. We provide recommendations for tackling these issues. There is still a considerable gap between the search-needs of researchers and the usability of academic search engines. It is not clear whether search-engine developers are aware of this gap. Also, the evaluation, by academics, of academic search engines has not kept pace with the development, by search-engine providers, of those search engines. Thus, the gap between evaluation and development makes it harder to properly understand the gap between the search-needs of researchers and search-features of the search engines.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信