Incorporating Usability into the Database Review Process: New Lessons and Possibilities
Too Much Is Not Enough!, Page: 240-245
2014
- 385Usage
- 11Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage385
- Downloads284
- Abstract Views101
- Captures11
- Readers11
- 11
Conference Paper Description
In summer 2013, Purdue Libraries introduced a modified standard usability concept (heuristic evaluation, or expert review) into an existing yearly electronic resource evaluation process. Introducing more user experience parameters into the process allows librarians to record usability errors to be communicated back to database vendors or to be considered for database renewal and selection in the future at the Libraries. In total, 37 databases were reviewed by eight librarians. This proceeding will review the reported impact the internal process made on librarians’ database decisions.
Bibliographic Details
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2013/Users/1; http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315267; https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2013/Users/1; https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1466&context=charleston; https://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315267; https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2013/Users/1/
Purdue University Press
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know