Motivation for downloading academic publications

IF 2.4 3区管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Library & Information Science Research Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.lisr.2023.101239

Zequan Xiong , Xia Peng , Li Yang , Wen Lou , Star X. Zhao

{"title":"Motivation for downloading academic publications","authors":"Zequan Xiong , Xia Peng , Li Yang , Wen Lou , Star X. Zhao","doi":"10.1016/j.lisr.2023.101239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Downloads have been considered as supplemental to citations in reflecting the impact of scientific research activities and scientific output, yet the motivations to download a specific publication has not been fully explored. In scientific evaluation practice, unclear motivations could lead to difficulties for evaluating the impact of academic literature without providing a cogent interpretation of downloads as an alternative metric. To fill this gap, an expanded Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to investigate motivations for downloading academic literature was proposed and the effectiveness verified using questionnaire data containing 480 respondents. The results show that the degree of usefulness of literature to users and the degree of relevance of literature to users were the primary factors that drive users to download specific literature. Due to the consistency between downloading and citing in reflecting the usefulness, downloads is an effective metric to supplement citation metrics in evaluating the impact of academic literature.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47618,"journal":{"name":"Library & Information Science Research","volume":"45 2","pages":"Article 101239"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Library & Information Science Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740818823000154","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Downloads have been considered as supplemental to citations in reflecting the impact of scientific research activities and scientific output, yet the motivations to download a specific publication has not been fully explored. In scientific evaluation practice, unclear motivations could lead to difficulties for evaluating the impact of academic literature without providing a cogent interpretation of downloads as an alternative metric. To fill this gap, an expanded Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to investigate motivations for downloading academic literature was proposed and the effectiveness verified using questionnaire data containing 480 respondents. The results show that the degree of usefulness of literature to users and the degree of relevance of literature to users were the primary factors that drive users to download specific literature. Due to the consistency between downloading and citing in reflecting the usefulness, downloads is an effective metric to supplement citation metrics in evaluating the impact of academic literature.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

下载学术出版物的动机

下载被认为是对引用的补充，反映了科学研究活动和科学产出的影响，但下载特定出版物的动机尚未得到充分探讨。在科学评估实践中，不明确的动机可能导致难以评估学术文献的影响，而不能提供对下载作为替代度量标准的令人信服的解释。为了填补这一空白，提出了一个扩展的技术接受模型(TAM)来调查学术文献下载的动机，并使用包含480名受访者的问卷数据验证了有效性。结果表明，文献对用户的有用程度和文献对用户的相关性程度是驱动用户下载特定文献的主要因素。由于下载与引用在反映有用性方面的一致性，下载是评价学术文献影响力的有效补充指标。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Library & Information Science Research INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

6.90%

发文量

期刊介绍： Library & Information Science Research, a cross-disciplinary and refereed journal, focuses on the research process in library and information science as well as research findings and, where applicable, their practical applications and significance. All papers are subject to a double-blind reviewing process.