바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • P-ISSN1013-0799
  • E-ISSN2586-2073

대학도서관 이용자의 메타서치시스템 이용행태 연구

A Study on User Information Seeking Behavior of Metasearch System in the Academic Library

정보관리학회지, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2010, v.27 no.3, pp.307-323
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.3.307
남영준 (중앙대학교)
양지안 (중앙대학교)

  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

초록

정보환경의 변화에 따라 도서관과 웹 검색엔진의 차별성이 있음에도 불구하고 이용자들은 인터넷의 자원과 학술데이터베이스의 자원을 혼동하고 있다. 특히 구글스칼라와 같은 상업용 검색엔진의 검색속도와 조작 편의성이라는 상대적 장점 때문에 학술데이터베이스가 갖고 있는 학술적 가치와 신뢰성에도 불구하고 이용자는 구글스칼라를 선호하고 있는 실정이다. 이 연구에서는 구글스칼라가 갖는 장점을 반영한 메타서치시스템의 특성과 가치를 인터페이스 측면과 전자정보원 측면에서 분석하였다. 또한 이러한 새로운 검색채널로서 메타서치시스템과 이와 연계된 링크리졸버를 이용하는 대학도서관의 이용통계를 분석하였다. 이를 바탕으로 구글스칼라와 차별화될 수 있는 도서관만의 특징인 이용자 이용행태 패턴과 주제별 전자정보 이용행태를 도출하여 전자정보 서비스의 방안으로 활용할 수 있음을 조사하였다.

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.

참고문헌

1

이수상. (2006). 디지털도서관의 통합검색 방식에 관한 연구. 한국도서관·정보학회지, 37(2), 127-144.

2

Bakkalbasi, N.. (2006). Three Options for Citation Tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3, 7-.

3

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.

4

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.

5

Fryer, Donna. (2004). Federated Search. Online, 28(2), 16-19.

6

Gardner, Susan. (2005). Gaga Over Google? Scholar in the Social Sciences. Library Hi Tech News, 22(8), 42-45.

7

IST. (2010). CiteSeerx beta. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/.

8

Joint, Nocholas. (2008). Managing the Implementation of a Federated Search Tool in an Academic Library. Library Review, 58(1), 10-16.

9

Joint, Nocholas. (2010). The One-Stop Search Engine: A Transformational Library Technology?. Library Review, 59(4), 240-248.

10

Korah, Abe. (2010). Students and Federated Searching: A Survey of Use and Satisfaction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 49(4), 325-332.

11

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.

12

Marshall, Peg.. (2006). In Search of More Meaningful Search. Serials Review, 32(3), 172-180.

13

Microsoft Corporation. (2010). Microsoft Academic. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/.

14

Mullen, Laura Bowering. (2006). Google Scholar and the Library Web Site: The Early Response by ARL Libraries. College & Research Libraries, 67(2), 106-122.

15

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.

16

Neuhaus, Chris.. (2006). The Depth and Breadth of Google Scholar: An Empirical Study. Portal: Libraries and the Acad, 6(2), 127-141.

17

OCLC. (2005). Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership.

18

Walters, William. (2007). Google Scholar Coverage of a Multidisciplinary Field. Information Proceeding & Management, 43(4), 1121-1132.

정보관리학회지