초록

Abstract

The study examines two aspects that relate to undergraduates’ selection and use of information sources for their academic assignments: (1) sources perceived useful vs. sources frequently used, and (2) source characteristics considered important as selection criteria vs. selection criteria used as reflected in characteristics of frequently used sources. A survey of 251 undergraduate students attempted to address the gaps between what students think they should do and what they actually do with regard to source selection. Characteristics of frequently used sources were analyzed to find out the criteria used for source selection. Friends/family were among the frequently used sources although they were not perceived as useful. Unlike other sources suffering gaps between the perceived usefulness and the use behavior, Web sources were the ones not only perceived most useful but also used most frequently. When the important selection criteria were compared with the characteristic of sources used often, students did not seem to actually use the selection criteria they thought important. While students considered some characteristics related to information quality (e.g., accuracy, comprehensiveness) as important criteria for source selection, the actual criteria they applied for choosing information sources could be described as ‘convenient’ or ‘accessible’ (e.g., efficient/time saving, easy to use, familiar, accessible). Based on the findings, suggestions were made to help bridge such gaps through information literacy programs and information systems design.

초록

이 연구의 목적은 인문학분야를 대상으로 인용DB간 구축 정보를 비교하고 차이가 있는 경우 그 원인과 문제점을 분석하여 구축 정보의 정확성을 향상시킬 수 있는 방안을 제시하는데 있다. 이를 위해 인용정보를 구성하는 주요 항목 중의 하나인 피인용횟수를 기준으로 네이버와 KCI에서 국내학술논문을 비교하였다. 조사결과, KCI가 네이버보다 좀 더 정확한 인용정보를 제공하고 있었지만 그 차이는 크지 않았다. 각 인용DB간 차이의 원인은 수록범위의 불완전성, 서지정보의 오류, 참고문헌 구축의 불완전성, 링크와 관련된 오류 등으로 조사되었다. 두 인용DB 모두 개선의 여지가 남아있으며, 양자를 상호보완적으로 활용한다면 인문학 분야에서 더욱 완전한 인용정보를 파악할 수 있을 것이다.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify differences between KCI and Naver Scholar as citation analysis tools. Four subcategories in the humanities category were selected as the subject of study. The recall of Naver Scholar was 64%(2,227 times) and the KCI's was 77%(2,665 times). There were some differences in the results at the individual article level or the subcategory level, but the gaps were not significant. Therefore, researchers who analyze citations are urged to use both databases because neither of them are complete, but supplementary to each other.

초록

본 연구는 인터넷 서점의 건강분야 분류체계의 개선방안으로 이를 위해 국내․외 8곳의 인터넷 서점의 건강분야 분류체계 현황을 비교분석하고, KDC, DDC의 해당 주제 분류항목과 비교 분석하였다. 그리고 인터넷 서점의 건강분야 분류체계의 이용에 대한 이용자 면담을 진행하였다. 그 결과를 바탕으로 설계원칙을 수립하고, 인터넷 서점의 건강분야 분류체계 설계안을 개발한 후, 실무자와 전문가 평가를 받아서 건강이란 대분류 아래 11개의 중분류 항목과 60개의 소분류 항목, 16개의 세분류 항목으로 제시하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 인터넷 서점은 물론 웹상에서 건강 관련 정보를 효율적으로 분류하는 기반이 될 것이다.

Abstract

The purposes of this study are to analyze and compare current state of subject directories of the health field in eight internet bookstores in domestic and abroad. A comparative analysis was carried out for KDC and DDC, using names of subdivisions within the health field of internet bookstore. Also, user interviews to find their information needs about the health field in internet bookstore were conducted. And then, based upon the findings, this study proposed a design principle and a new classification for the health field of internet bookstores. With evaluations of the experts from the field, a final classification schedule (1 class, 11 division, 60 subdivision, and 16 section) was suggested. The results of this study can be used for a foundation of classifying health resources efficiently in internet bookstores and other web sites.