- P-ISSN1013-0799
- E-ISSN2586-2073
- KCI
Article Contents
- 2024 (Vol.41)
- 2023 (Vol.40)
- 2022 (Vol.39)
- 2021 (Vol.38)
- 2020 (Vol.37)
- 2019 (Vol.36)
- 2018 (Vol.35)
- 2017 (Vol.34)
- 2016 (Vol.33)
- 2015 (Vol.32)
- 2014 (Vol.31)
- 2013 (Vol.30)
- 2012 (Vol.29)
- 2011 (Vol.28)
- 2010 (Vol.27)
- 2009 (Vol.26)
- 2008 (Vol.25)
- 2007 (Vol.24)
- 2006 (Vol.23)
- 2005 (Vol.22)
- 2004 (Vol.21)
- 2003 (Vol.20)
- 2002 (Vol.19)
A Study on User Information Seeking Behavior of Metasearch System in the Academic Library
Abstract
The amount of online scholarly information rapidly expands in numerous resources, while user behavior demands single search box interface like Google Scholar. Despite scholarly values of e-resources libraries provide, users consider Google Scholar as the most efficient research tool attracted by its speed, simplicity, ease of use, and convenience. Characteristics of Metasearch System compared with Google Scholar are analyzed from perspectives of the interface and e-resource. Based on usage statistics of Metasearch System along with a link resolver in one academic library, e-resource accessibility patterns and information seeking behaviors of subject-specific areas are investigated for electronic information services.
- keywords
- 메타서치시스템, 구글스칼라, 인터페이스, 전자정보원, 이용행태, metasearch system, federated search system, Google Scholar, interface, e-resource, information seeking behavior, metasearch system, federated search system, Google Scholar, interface, e-resource, information seeking behavior
Reference
이수상. (2006). 디지털도서관의 통합검색 방식에 관한 연구. 한국도서관·정보학회지, 37(2), 127-144.
Bakkalbasi, N.. (2006). Three Options for Citation Tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3, 7-.
Chen, Xiaotian. (2006). MetaLib, WebFeat, and Google: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Federated Search Engines Compared with Google. Online Information Review, 30(4), 413-427.
Cox, Christopher. (2006). An Analysis of Impact of Federated Search Products on Library Instruction Using the ACRL Standards. Libraries and the Academy, 6(3), 253-267.
Fryer, Donna. (2004). Federated Search. Online, 28(2), 16-19.
Gardner, Susan. (2005). Gaga Over Google? Scholar in the Social Sciences. Library Hi Tech News, 22(8), 42-45.
IST. (2010). CiteSeerx beta. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/.
Joint, Nocholas. (2008). Managing the Implementation of a Federated Search Tool in an Academic Library. Library Review, 58(1), 10-16.
Joint, Nocholas. (2010). The One-Stop Search Engine: A Transformational Library Technology?. Library Review, 59(4), 240-248.
Korah, Abe. (2010). Students and Federated Searching: A Survey of Use and Satisfaction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 49(4), 325-332.
Kousha, Kayvan. (2006). Google Scholar Citations and Google Web/URL Citations: Multi-Discipline Exploratory Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055-1065.
Marshall, Peg.. (2006). In Search of More Meaningful Search. Serials Review, 32(3), 172-180.
Microsoft Corporation. (2010). Microsoft Academic. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/.
Mullen, Laura Bowering. (2006). Google Scholar and the Library Web Site: The Early Response by ARL Libraries. College & Research Libraries, 67(2), 106-122.
Neuhaus, Chris.. (2008). Google Scholar Goes to School: The Presence of Google Scholar on College and University Web Sites. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 39-51.
Neuhaus, Chris.. (2006). The Depth and Breadth of Google Scholar: An Empirical Study. Portal: Libraries and the Acad, 6(2), 127-141.
OCLC. (2005). Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. .
Walters, William. (2007). Google Scholar Coverage of a Multidisciplinary Field. Information Proceeding & Management, 43(4), 1121-1132.
- Downloaded
- Viewed
- 0KCI Citations
- 0WOS Citations