{"title":"数据平台评价视角与评价标准的发展","authors":"Suntae Kim","doi":"10.1633/JISTAP.2020.8.2.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study is a preliminary study to develop an evaluation framework necessary for evaluating the DataON platform. The first objective is to examine expert perceptions of the level of DataON platform construction. The second objective is to evaluate the importance, stability, and usability of DataON platform features over OpenAIRE features. The third objective is to derive weights from the evaluation perspective for future DataON platform evaluation. The fourth objective is to examine the preferences of experts in each evaluation perspective and to derive unbiased evaluation criteria. This study used a survey method for potential stakeholders of the DataON platform. The survey included 12 professionals with at least 10 years of experience in the field. The 57 overall functions and services were measured at 3.1 out of 5 for importance. Stability was -0.07 point and usability was measured as -0.05 point. The 42 features and services scored 3.04 points in importance. Stability was -0.58 points and usability was -0.51 points. In particular, the stability and usability scores of the 42 functions and services provided as of 2018 were higher than the total functions were, which is attributed to the stable and user-friendly improvement after development. In terms of the weight of the evaluation point, the collection quality has the highest weight of 27%. Interface usability is then weighted 22%. Subsequently, service quality is weighted 19%, and finally system performance efficiency and user feedback solicitation are equally weighted 16%.","PeriodicalId":37582,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice","volume":"198 1","pages":"68-78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of Evaluation Perspective and Criteria for the DataON Platform\",\"authors\":\"Suntae Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1633/JISTAP.2020.8.2.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study is a preliminary study to develop an evaluation framework necessary for evaluating the DataON platform. The first objective is to examine expert perceptions of the level of DataON platform construction. The second objective is to evaluate the importance, stability, and usability of DataON platform features over OpenAIRE features. The third objective is to derive weights from the evaluation perspective for future DataON platform evaluation. The fourth objective is to examine the preferences of experts in each evaluation perspective and to derive unbiased evaluation criteria. This study used a survey method for potential stakeholders of the DataON platform. The survey included 12 professionals with at least 10 years of experience in the field. The 57 overall functions and services were measured at 3.1 out of 5 for importance. Stability was -0.07 point and usability was measured as -0.05 point. The 42 features and services scored 3.04 points in importance. Stability was -0.58 points and usability was -0.51 points. In particular, the stability and usability scores of the 42 functions and services provided as of 2018 were higher than the total functions were, which is attributed to the stable and user-friendly improvement after development. In terms of the weight of the evaluation point, the collection quality has the highest weight of 27%. Interface usability is then weighted 22%. Subsequently, service quality is weighted 19%, and finally system performance efficiency and user feedback solicitation are equally weighted 16%.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37582,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":\"198 1\",\"pages\":\"68-78\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTAP.2020.8.2.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTAP.2020.8.2.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Development of Evaluation Perspective and Criteria for the DataON Platform
This study is a preliminary study to develop an evaluation framework necessary for evaluating the DataON platform. The first objective is to examine expert perceptions of the level of DataON platform construction. The second objective is to evaluate the importance, stability, and usability of DataON platform features over OpenAIRE features. The third objective is to derive weights from the evaluation perspective for future DataON platform evaluation. The fourth objective is to examine the preferences of experts in each evaluation perspective and to derive unbiased evaluation criteria. This study used a survey method for potential stakeholders of the DataON platform. The survey included 12 professionals with at least 10 years of experience in the field. The 57 overall functions and services were measured at 3.1 out of 5 for importance. Stability was -0.07 point and usability was measured as -0.05 point. The 42 features and services scored 3.04 points in importance. Stability was -0.58 points and usability was -0.51 points. In particular, the stability and usability scores of the 42 functions and services provided as of 2018 were higher than the total functions were, which is attributed to the stable and user-friendly improvement after development. In terms of the weight of the evaluation point, the collection quality has the highest weight of 27%. Interface usability is then weighted 22%. Subsequently, service quality is weighted 19%, and finally system performance efficiency and user feedback solicitation are equally weighted 16%.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice (JISTaP) is an international journal that aims at publishing original studies, review papers and brief communications on information science theory and practice. The journal provides an international forum for practical as well as theoretical research in the interdisciplinary areas of information science, such as information processing and management, knowledge organization, scholarly communication and bibliometrics. To foster scholarly communication among researchers and practitioners of library and information science around the globe, JISTaP offers a no-fee open access publishing venue where a team of dedicated editors, reviewers and staff members volunteer their services to ensure rapid dissemination and communication of scholarly works that make significant contributions. In a modern society, where information production and consumption grow at an astronomical rate, the science of information management, organization, and analysis is invaluable in effective utilization of information. The key objective of the journal is to foster research that can contribute to advancements and innovations in the theory and practice of information and library science so as to promote timely application of the findings from scientific investigations to everyday life. Recognizing the importance of the global perspective with understanding of region-specific issues, JISTaP encourages submissions of manuscripts that discuss global implications of regional findings as well as regional implications of global findings.