نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 Doctoral School of Business Informatics, Corvinus University of Budapest

2 Department of Knowledge and Information Science, University of Isfahan.

چکیده

Aim: The purpose of this study was comparing Information Retrieval Capabilities in Web-based Library Software of Payam, with Voyager and ALEPH.
Methodology: A checklist designed and included six main trait for evaluation and comparing 73 scales. Data collected by experts' observing of the software's OPAC. Data analyzed by the descriptive statistics methods.
Findings: Findings shows the preferences in search capabilities in species of fields the Aleph with 97% is the most and Payam with 93.45% is the least, in search formula Aleph and Voyager with 100% has the most and Payam with 58.33% is the least, in possibility of species of searches Voyager with 83.9% is the most and Aleph with 78.73% is the least, in display of results Aleph with 96.36% is the most and Payam with 78.18% is the least, in help all of software with 92.85% are equal, and in web 2 capabilities Aleph with 80% is the most and Payam with 0% has the least preferences.
Results: The results show that Aleph with 91.30 percent is in first grade, Voyager with 87.24 percent is in the second grade and Payam with 75.50 percent is in the third grade. Payam has the least preferences of evaluation than the two other software.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison of Information Retrieval Capabilities in Library Software of Payam, Voyager and Aleph

نویسندگان [English]

  • Asefeh Asemi 1
  • Parisa Shafiei Alavijeh 2

1 Doctoral School of Business Informatics, Corvinus University of Budapest

2 Department of Knowledge and Information Science, University of Isfahan.

Ahmed, S.M.Z., McKnight, C. & Oppenheim, Ch. (2009). A review of research on human-computer interfaces for online information retrieval systems, The Electronic Library, 27 (1) 96 – 116.
Ahmed, S.M.Z. (2006). A comparison of novices’ initial performance, learnability and memorability with a web-based IR interface, Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 11 (2) 75-85.
Ahmed, S.M.Z., McKnight, C. & Oppenheim, C. (2006). A user-centred design and evaluation of IR interfaces, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 38 (2) 157-72.
Akbari, A., & Asemi, A. (2011). Software's ability in the academic central libraries of Tehran to provide the information needed by managers. Library and Information Quarterly. 14 (4-56), 91-114. http://lis.aqr-libjournal.ir/article_47843.html
Asemi, A., Hoseini, Z.S., & Asemi, A.(2010). A Survey on the Library Open Source Software at the University of Isfahan, Iran: Viewpoint of Librarians. 3rd International Conference on Information Sciences and Interaction (ICIS2010). June 23-25, Chengdu, China. Pp. 340-345. IEEE Xplore.  DOI: 10.1109/ICICIS.2010.5534809. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5534809/
Bahmanabadi, A. (2002). Information storage and retrieval. Encyclopedia of library and information science, Tehran: National library of Republic of Iran, 853.
Deb, S. (2006). TERI Integrated Digital Library Initiative, The Electronic Library, 24 (3) 366 – 379.
Dulaei, A. & Farhadpour, M.R. (2009). Comparison of Iran and UK academic OPACs. Faslname Ketab, 21(3), 178-198.
Harinarayana, N.S. & Raghavan, K.S. (2008). Retrieval capabilities of CDS/ISIS and LibSys: a comparison, Annals of Library and Information Studies, 55, 91-100.
Kochtanek, T. & Matthews, J.R. (2002). Library Information Systems: From Library Automation to Distributed Information Access Solutions, Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO.
Kurniawati, D. & Triawan, D. (2017). Increased information retrieval capabilities on e-commerce websites using scraping techniques. International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology (SIET), Malang, Indonesia: 25-27 Nov. DOI: 10.1109/SIET.2017.8304139
Lohani, M. & Jeevan, V.K.J. (2007). Intelligent software agents for library applications, Library Management, 28 (3) 139 – 151.  
Mercun, T. & Žumer, M. (2008). New Generation of Catalogues for the New Generation of Users: A Comparison of Six Library Catalogues, Program: Electronic Library & Information Systems 42(3) 243–61.
Mojiri, Sh., Rakhsh, F., Nohrouzian, N., Ardestani, M., & Mousavi, M. (2013).Satisfaction Rate of Librarians from Library Software Interface In Isfahan, Iran. Health Information Management. 9 (6), 862-869. http://www.sid.ir/En/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=402363
Nowruzi, Y. & Nemati, S. (2010). Evaluation of library OPACs of Parsazarakhsh, Nosa and Namaye in information retrieval, information and public libraries researches, 16(1), 25-43.
Rehman, S. & Al-Huraiti, R. (2010). Integrated systems applications in Kuwait academic libraries, The Electronic Library, 28 (6), 858 – 872.  
Reitz, J.M. (2004). ODLIS: Online Dictionary of Library and Information Science, Libraries Unlimited, Portsmouth, NH, available at: www.lu.com/odlis
Riewe, L. (2008). Integrated Library System (ILS) Survey: Open Source vs. Proprietary-Tables, 2–5.
Rowley J.E. (1990). Guidelines on the evaluation and selection of library software packages, Aslib Proceedings, 42(9), 225 – 235. 
Saffady, W. (2000). The state of library automation at 2000, Library Technology Reports, 36 (1) 67-101.
Shafique, F. & Mahmood, Kh. (2008). Integrated Library Software: A Survey of Lahore, Library Hi Tech News, 25 (6), 6 – 13. 
Shahbazi, F., Norouzi, Y., & Alipour-Hafezi, M. (2015). Evaluation of using expert system features in information retrieval in Iranian digital library software. Journal of Information Processing and Management. 30 (3), 823-851. http://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-2589-en.html
Stewart, R., Narendra, V. & Schmetzke, A. (2005). Accessibility and usability of online library databases, Library Hi Tech, 23 (2), 265 – 286.  
Xie, H. & Cool, C. (2000). Online interface comparison: features and functionalities, Proceedings of the 21st National Online Meeting, Information Today, Medford, NJ, 513-22. 
Yang, Sh.Q. & Hofmann, M.A. (2010). The Next Generation Library Catalog: A Comparative Study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager, Information Technology and Libraries, 141- 150.