[目的/意义]随着技术的发展,信息资源形态正在发生深刻变迁。随着图书文献由实体形态向数字化形态的转型,图书馆统计评价工作也不断得以演进。基于这一背景,本文旨在循着文献资料发展的先后顺序,文献、信息、数据3个层次相对应阶段的图书馆统计评价体系加以解析。[方法/过程]本文采用文献调查与理论回顾相结合的方法展开研究。针对信息资源序化整理的历史进程,本研究采用了理论回顾的方法,系统性地梳理了基于文献、信息和数3个层次序化整理时期,图书馆统计评价指标体系的本质、特征及其指标体系的构建。同时,对3个时期有代表性的研究成果进行了述评。[结果/结论]研究发现,在文献层次的序化整理阶段,图书馆统计评价指标体系相关的研究集中在藏书流通方面,指标涉及图书利用效率、馆藏发展质量、读者参与度等方面。在信息层次的序化整理阶段,图书馆统计评价指标相关研究集中在服务质量评价方面,这一时期的指标转向了数字化资源的使用情况及服务响应时间等指标。在数据层次的序化整理阶段,图书馆统计评价指标相关研究集中到了科研数据管理方面,指标涉及数据价值评估等方面。本文对智能时代图书馆统计与评价研究具有理论和实践启示价值。
[Purpose/Significance] This paper aims to explore the development and evolution of the library statistical evaluation index system, highlighting its characteristics and changes at different stages of document management, information management, and data management. The research is conducted around three key stages: document level, information level, and data level, analyzing the main content and significance of the library statistical evaluation index system at different development stages. The innovation of this paper lies in the systematic analysis of these transitions, providing a comprehensive perspective that integrates theoretical and methodological advances with practical indicators. [Method/Process] The research methodology includes a systematic analysis of statistical evaluation indicators of libraries in different stages of development. The study uses historical review and theoretical analysis methods, analyzing the development of document organization, information digitization, and data management in libraries. By examining the development of classification, cataloging, and evaluation metrics, the research combines historical documentation with contemporary practices to provide a solid theoretical foundation. The study also draws on existing literature and integrates data from library management systems and user feedback to assess service quality and operational efficiency. This mixed-methods approach ensures a comprehensive understanding of the applicability and effectiveness of the evaluation indicators. [Results/Conclusions] The study shows that the library's statistical evaluation index system has evolved significantly, reflecting the library's adaptation to changing resource types and management needs. The main conclusions can be summarized as follows. The document level in the first stage, focusing on book circulation, including indicators such as book use efficiency, collection development quality, and reader engagement. Key metrics such as cumulative borrowing and utilization rates provide basic service performance data, but lack deep information insights. With the development of information technology, library statistical evaluation indicators have expanded to include service frequency, response time, user satisfaction, and growth rates, enabling libraries to evaluate and improve service strategies based on user feedback and service performance. Currently, the library's statistical evaluation system focuses on research data management and data value assessment. Indicators now include not only resource- and service-related metrics but also operational efficiency, budget utilization, technological updates, scholarly contributions, and social impact. These indicators provide a comprehensive view of the library's performance in resource management, service quality, and social contribution, helping to optimize resource allocation, enhance service quality, and increase impact. The study also acknowledges certain limitations, such as the evolving nature of technology and user needs, which may require continuous updates to the evaluation system. Future research should explore the integration of advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence to further refine evaluation metrics. In addition, ongoing studies are needed to adapt to emerging trends in data management and user behavior to ensure that libraries remain at the forefront of information services in the digital age.
[1] 齐晓航, 张士男, 彭絮. 图书剔旧工作中使用效率的运用和思考——以对外经济贸易大学图书馆为例[J]. 新世纪图书馆, 2022(5): 26-31.
QI X H, ZHANG S N, PENG X.Utilization and consideration of book efficiency in weeding: Taking the university of international business and economics library as an example[J]. New century library, 2022(5): 26-31.
[2] HIRSCH J E.An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output[J]. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102(46): 16569-16572.
[3] JIN B H, LIANG L M, ROUSSEAU R, et al.The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index[J]. Chinese science bulletin, 2007, 52(6): 855-863.
[4] 叶鹰, 唐健辉, 赵星, 等. h指数与h型指数研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2011.
YE Y, TANG J H, ZHAO X.Studies on the h-indes and h-type indices[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2011.
[5] NITECKI D A.Changing the concept and measure of service quality in academic libraries[J]. The journal of academic librarianship, 1996, 22(3): 181-190.
[6] 施国洪, 王治敏. 图书馆服务质量评价研究回顾与展望[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2009, 35(5): 91-98.
SHI G H, WANG Z M.Review and forecast of library service quality assessment research[J]. Journal of library science in China, 2009, 35(5): 91-98.
[7] H BERT F.The quality of interlibrary borrowing services in large urban public libraries in Canada[D]. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1994.
[8] ANDALEEB S S, SIMMONDS P L.Explaining user satisfaction with academic libraries: Strategic implications[J]. College & research libraries, 1998, 59(2): 156-167.
[9] DABHOLKAR P A, THORPE D I, RENTZ J O.A measure of service quality for retail stores: Scale development and validation[J]. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 1996, 24(1): 3-16.
[10] NITECKI D A, HERNON P.Measuring service quality at Yale uni-versity's libraries[J]. The journal of academic librarianship, 2000, 26(4): 259-273.
[11] THOMPSON B, COOK C, KYRILLIDOU M.Concurrent validity of LibQUAL+TM scores: What do LibQUAL+TM scores measure?[J]. The journal of academic librarianship, 2005, 31(6): 517-522.
[12] 刘锦源. LibQUAL+AM的信度与效度检验: 来自本土大学图书馆的证据[J]. 图书情报工作, 2007, 51(9): 96-99, 146.
LIU J Y.Reliability and validity of LibQUAL+AM: An empirical analysis on Chinese university librariesies[J]. Library and informa-tion service, 2007, 51(9): 96-99, 146.
[13] 唐琼, 张玫, 曾颖, 等. 基于LibQUAL+TM的广东高校图书馆服务质量评价[J]. 大学图书馆学报, 2006, 24(2): 63-69.
TANG Q, ZHANG M, ZENG Y, et al.Service quality evaluation based on LibQUAL+TM in Guangdong academic libraries[J]. Journal of academic libraries, 2006, 24(2): 63-69.
[14] 夏前龙, 施国洪. 基于AHP-模糊综合评判方法的图书馆移动信息服务质量影响因素探析[J]. 情报学报, 2014, 33(8): 860-871.
XIA Q L, SHI G H.Analysis on factors affecting library mobile information service quality based on AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method[J]. Journal of the China society for scientific and technical information, 2014, 33(8): 860-871.
[15] 汤淼, 王铁旦, 彭定洪. 用户感知移动图书馆服务质量评价的犹豫模糊Kano-Taguchi方法[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2020, 43(3): 105-110, 84.
TANG M, WANG T D, PENG D H.Hesitant fuzzy kano-taguchi method for user perception of mobile library service quality evaluation[J]. Information studies: Theory & application, 2020, 43(3): 105-110, 84.
[16] 胡媛, 邹小敏, 谢守美. 高校图书馆科研数据管理服务能力评价指标体系研究[J]. 图书馆理论与实践, 2024(1): 67-76.
HU Y, ZOU X M, XIE S M.Research on evaluation index system for research data management service capability in university libraries[J]. Library theory and practice, 2024(1): 67-76.
[17] 周雷, 杨萍, 燕娜, 等. 德国高校科研数据管理服务现状和启示[J]. 情报杂志, 2021, 40(7): 166-173, 133.
ZHOU L, YANG P, YAN N, et al.Current situation and enlightenment of scientific research data management in German universities[J]. Journal of intelligence, 2021, 40(7): 166-173, 133.
[18] 王晓鹏. 剑桥大学科研数据管理实践及启示[J]. 图书馆, 2022(9): 47-52.
WANG X P.Practice of research data management in university of Cambridge and its enlightenment[J]. Library, 2022(9): 47-52.
[19] 司莉, 李月婷, 邢文明, 等. 我国科学数据共享平台绩效评估实证研究[J]. 图书馆理论与实践, 2014(9): 30-35.
SI L, LI Y T, XING W M, et al.Empirical study on performance evaluation of scientific data sharing platform in China[J]. Library theory and practice, 2014(9): 30-35.
[20] 丁楠, 黎娇, 李文雨泽, 等. 基于引用的科学数据评价研究[J]. 图书与情报, 2014(5): 95-99.
DING N, LI J, LI W Y Z, et al. Scientific Data Evaluation based on Data Citation[J]. Library & information, 2014(5): 95-99.
[21] COX A M, KENNAN M A, LYON L, et al.Maturing research data services and the transformation of academic libraries[J]. Journal of documentation, 2019, 75(6): 1432-1462.
[22] 周文杰. 图情档学科嬗变的“第三次浪潮”: 数据管理[J]. 图书馆建设, 2023(4): 4-10.
ZHOU W J."Third wave" of transformation in the field of information resources management: Data management[J]. Library development, 2023(4): 4-10.
