理解数据质量分类之间的差异:文献综述和未来研究的指导方针

IF 4.2 3区 工程技术 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Anders Haug
{"title":"理解数据质量分类之间的差异:文献综述和未来研究的指导方针","authors":"Anders Haug","doi":"10.1108/imds-12-2020-0756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeNumerous data quality (DQ) definitions in the form of sets of DQ dimensions are found in the literature. The great differences across such DQ classifications (DQCs) imply a lack of clarity about what DQ is. For an improved foundation for future research, this paper aims to clarify the ways in which DQCs differ and provide guidelines for dealing with this variance.Design/methodology/approachA literature review identifies DQCs in conference and journal articles, which are analyzed to reveal the types of differences across these. On this basis, guidelines for future research are developed.FindingsThe literature review found 110 unique DQCs in journals and conference articles. The analysis of these articles identified seven distinct types of differences across DQCs. This gave rise to the development of seven guidelines for future DQ research.Research limitations/implicationsBy identifying differences across DQCs and providing a set of guidelines, this paper may promote that future research, to a greater extent, will converge around common understandings of DQ.Practical implicationsAwareness of the identified types of differences across DQCs may support managers when planning and conducting DQ improvement projects.Originality/valueThe literature review did not identify articles, which, based on systematic searches, identify and analyze existing DQCs. Thus, this paper provides new knowledge on the variance across DQCs, as well as guidelines for addressing this.","PeriodicalId":51064,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Management & Data Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the differences across data quality classifications: a literature review and guidelines for future research\",\"authors\":\"Anders Haug\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/imds-12-2020-0756\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeNumerous data quality (DQ) definitions in the form of sets of DQ dimensions are found in the literature. The great differences across such DQ classifications (DQCs) imply a lack of clarity about what DQ is. For an improved foundation for future research, this paper aims to clarify the ways in which DQCs differ and provide guidelines for dealing with this variance.Design/methodology/approachA literature review identifies DQCs in conference and journal articles, which are analyzed to reveal the types of differences across these. On this basis, guidelines for future research are developed.FindingsThe literature review found 110 unique DQCs in journals and conference articles. The analysis of these articles identified seven distinct types of differences across DQCs. This gave rise to the development of seven guidelines for future DQ research.Research limitations/implicationsBy identifying differences across DQCs and providing a set of guidelines, this paper may promote that future research, to a greater extent, will converge around common understandings of DQ.Practical implicationsAwareness of the identified types of differences across DQCs may support managers when planning and conducting DQ improvement projects.Originality/valueThe literature review did not identify articles, which, based on systematic searches, identify and analyze existing DQCs. Thus, this paper provides new knowledge on the variance across DQCs, as well as guidelines for addressing this.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial Management & Data Systems\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Industrial Management & Data Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-12-2020-0756\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial Management & Data Systems","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-12-2020-0756","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

目的在文献中可以找到以DQ维集形式的大量数据质量(DQ)定义。这些DQ分类(dqc)之间的巨大差异意味着DQ是什么缺乏清晰度。本文旨在澄清dqc差异的方式,并为处理这种差异提供指导,为未来的研究奠定基础。设计/方法/方法文献综述确定会议和期刊文章中的dqc,并对其进行分析,以揭示这些文章之间的差异类型。在此基础上,提出了今后研究的指导方针。文献综述在期刊和会议文章中发现了110个独特的dqc。对这些文章的分析确定了七种不同类型的dqc差异。这导致了未来DQ研究的七个指导方针的发展。通过识别dqc之间的差异并提供一套指导方针,本文可能会促进未来的研究在更大程度上围绕对DQ的共同理解。实际意义了解dqc之间已识别的差异类型可以支持管理者在计划和实施DQ改进项目时。原创性/价值文献综述没有识别文章,这是基于系统的搜索,识别和分析现有的dqc。因此,本文提供了关于跨dqc差异的新知识,以及解决这一问题的指导方针。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding the differences across data quality classifications: a literature review and guidelines for future research
PurposeNumerous data quality (DQ) definitions in the form of sets of DQ dimensions are found in the literature. The great differences across such DQ classifications (DQCs) imply a lack of clarity about what DQ is. For an improved foundation for future research, this paper aims to clarify the ways in which DQCs differ and provide guidelines for dealing with this variance.Design/methodology/approachA literature review identifies DQCs in conference and journal articles, which are analyzed to reveal the types of differences across these. On this basis, guidelines for future research are developed.FindingsThe literature review found 110 unique DQCs in journals and conference articles. The analysis of these articles identified seven distinct types of differences across DQCs. This gave rise to the development of seven guidelines for future DQ research.Research limitations/implicationsBy identifying differences across DQCs and providing a set of guidelines, this paper may promote that future research, to a greater extent, will converge around common understandings of DQ.Practical implicationsAwareness of the identified types of differences across DQCs may support managers when planning and conducting DQ improvement projects.Originality/valueThe literature review did not identify articles, which, based on systematic searches, identify and analyze existing DQCs. Thus, this paper provides new knowledge on the variance across DQCs, as well as guidelines for addressing this.
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
Industrial Management & Data Systems
Industrial Management & Data Systems 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
10.90%
发文量
115
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The scope of IMDS cover all aspects of areas that integrates both operations management and information systems research, and topics include but not limited to, are listed below: Big Data research; Data analytics; E-business; Production planning and scheduling; Logistics and supply chain management; New technology acceptance and diffusion; Marketing of new industrial products and processes; Sustainable supply chain management; Green information systems; IS strategies; Knowledge management; Innovation management; Performance measurement; Social media in businesses
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信