行政院農業委員會電子文獻資源體系之績效評估研究

Abstract

本研究透過行政院農業委員會所屬16 個試驗研究場所2020–2021 年間利用16 種電子文獻資料庫的情形，包括全文下載量、引文量、訂購成本等數據，結合下載與引文分析，探明研究人員利用各種類型文獻的行為和規律，來評估所採購的文獻資源是否切合研究所需，並計算成本效益以檢視經費是否有合理利用。分析結果顯示，各電子文獻資料庫單篇下載與單次引用的平均成本之差異甚大。研究人員偏向優先檢索下載中文期刊，因中文文獻資料庫的價格低廉，顯現其使用成本效益較高；而英文期刊是研究人員發展農業科技研究時最主要引用參考的文獻資源，發表於Science Citation Index (SCI) 及非SCI 期刊之研究報告的英文引用文獻各高達91.4% 及74.1%，但由於外文專業性文獻資料庫的價格通常昂貴，若以下載引用的成本效益來看，使用績效較難彰顯。發表報告中的引文以期刊類文獻是首要資訊來源，比例高達77.5%。根據引文時效性分析，近20 年文獻可保證近80% 的引文量，是文獻資訊中的重點部分。研究人員使用資料庫的全文下載量與引用量不具有相關性，涵蓋農業重要議題的期刊種類愈多、學科專業性高、英文期刊為主的資料庫，下載的期刊文獻較會被真正引用參考。圖書館應綜合考慮各項因素建立館藏，避免以使用率高低作為刪訂之唯一標準。本研究所建立的各項數據比對流程及多元績效評估指標，可作為日後選購館藏電子文獻資源之重要評估依據。 This study evaluated the performance of 16 electronic literature databases used by 16 research units of Council of Agriculture (COA), Executive Yuan in 2021–2022. Using data such as full-text downloads, citations and ordering costs, combined with download and citation analysis, we found out researchers’ behaviors and patterns using various types of literature and evaluated whether the purchased literature resources meet research needs and rational use of funds. The results showed that the average cost per download and per citation varied greatly among electronic literature databases. Researchers preferred to search and download Chinese journals first. Due to the low price of Chinese literature databases, it showed that their use was more cost-effective. English journals were the most important literature resources cited by researchers when researchers developed agricultural research. The English citations of research reports published in Science Citation Index (SCI) and non-SCI journals were as high as 91.4% and 74.1% respectively. Since the price of professional literature databases in foreign languages is usually expensive, it was difficult to demonstrate the use performance in terms of the cost-effectiveness of downloads and citations. For citations in published reports, periodical literature was the primary source of information, accounting for 77.5%. According to the analysis of citation timeliness, the literature in the past 20 years guaranteed nearly 80% of the citations, which was the key part of the literature information. There was no correlation between the counts of full-text downloads and citations used by researchers using the database. The more types of journals covering important agricultural topics, the more specialized the subject is, and the more English-language journals are based, the more likely the downloaded journal literature will be referenced. Libraries should comprehensively consider various factors to build their collections, and avoid taking the usage rate as the only criterion for deletion. The data comparison process and multiple performance indexes established by this research can be used as an important evaluation basis for purchasing electronic literature resources of library collections in the future.