A comparative analysis on digital libraries and academic search engines from the dual-route perspective

Purpose Digital libraries and academic search engines have developed as two important online scholarly information sources with different features. The purpose of this study is to compare digital libraries and academic search engines from the perspective of the dual-route model. Design/methodology/approach Research hypotheses were developed. Potential participants were recruited to answer an online survey distributing at Chinese social media out of which 251 responses were deemed to be valid and used for data analysis. The paired samples t-test was used to compare the means. Findings Both information quality (central route) and source credibility (peripheral route) of digital libraries are significantly higher than those of academic search engines, while there is no significant difference between digital libraries and academic search engines in terms of affinity (peripheral route). Practical implications In the digital information society, the important status of digital libraries as conventional information sources should be spread by necessary measures. Academic search engines can act as complementary online information sources for seeking academic information rather than the substitute for digital libraries. Practitioners of digital libraries should value the complementary role of academic search engines and encourage users to use academic search engines while emphasizing the importance of digital libraries as conventional information sources. Originality/value According to the dual-route model, this study compares digital libraries and academic search engines in terms of information quality, source credibility and affinity, which the authors believe presents a new lens for digital libraries research and practice alike.

[1]  Laura Bowering Mullen,et al.  Google Scholar and Academic Libraries: An Update , 2008 .

[2]  T. Cothran.  Google Scholar acceptance and use among graduate students: A quantitative study , 2011 .

[3]  Christine L. Borgman,et al.  What are Digital Libraries? Competing Visions , 1999, Inf. Process. Manag..

[4]  Helen Georgas,et al.  Google vs. the Library (Part III): Assessing the Quality of Sources Found by Undergraduates , 2015 .

[5]  Ulrike Dapp,et al.  Development, feasibility and performance of a health risk appraisal questionnaire for older persons , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[6]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[7]  Dirk Lewandowski.  Google Scholar as a tool for discovering journal articles in library and information science , 2010, Online Inf. Rev..

[8]  Carla Ruiz-Mafé,et al.  Exploring individual personality factors as drivers of M-shopping acceptance , 2009, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[9]  S. Diljit,et al.  Modeling web-based library service quality , 2012 .

[10]  D. Grant Campbell,et al.  "I still like Google": University student perceptions of searching OPACs and the web , 2005, ASIST.

[11]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Influence Processes for Information Technology Acceptance: An Elaboration Likelihood Model , 2006, MIS Q..

[12]  Yunzhi Wang,et al.  Comparing digital libraries with social media from the dual route perspective , 2019, Online Inf. Rev..

[13]  Chin-Feng Lai,et al.  An evaluation model for digital libraries' user interfaces using fuzzy AHP , 2014, Electron. Libr..

[14]  Markus Follmann,et al.  Developing search strategies for clinical practice guidelines in SUMSearch and Google Scholar and assessing their retrieval performance , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[15]  Yi-Hsiu Cheng,et al.  Social influence's impact on reader perceptions of online reviews , 2015 .

[16]  David Bawden,et al.  Is Google enough? Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources , 2005, Aslib Proc..

[17]  Su Yan,et al.  LeeDeo: Web-Crawled Academic Video Search Engine , 2008, 2008 Tenth IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia.

[18]  Xiaotian Chen.  Google Scholar's Dramatic Coverage Improvement Five Years after Debut 1 1 The author is grateful to Alice Chen of Duke University for editing this paper. , 2010 .

[19]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion , 1984 .

[20]  Isidro F. Aguillo.  Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis , 2012, Scientometrics.

[21]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[22]  Xiao-Liang Shen,et al.  Herd behavior in consumers’ adoption of online reviews , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[23]  M. Heesacker,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Implications for the Practice of School Psychology. , 1997 .

[24]  Barbara Quint,et al.  Changes at Google Scholar: A Conversation with Anurag Acharya , 2008 .

[25]  Juan Wang,et al.  Exploring Innovative Information Seeking: The Perspectives of Cognitive Switching and Affinity with Digital Libraries , 2019, The Journal of Academic Librarianship.

[26]  Qiang Zhu,et al.  China Academic Library and Information System: Current Situation and Future Development , 2003 .

[27]  Stephanie Watts,et al.  Informational Influence in Organizations: An Integrated Approach to Knowledge Adoption , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[28]  Narasimhaiah Gorla,et al.  Organizational impact of system quality, information quality, and service quality , 2010, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[29]  Tao Zhou,et al.  Understanding users' initial trust in mobile banking: An elaboration likelihood perspective , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[30]  Feng Xia,et al.  Big Scholarly Data: A Survey , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Big Data.

[31]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research , 2004, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[32]  Philipp Mayr,et al.  An exploratory study of Google Scholar , 2007, Online Inf. Rev..

[33]  Joon Koh,et al.  A Comparison of Online Trust Building Factors between Potential Customers and Repeat Customers , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[34]  William Y. Arms.  The 1990s: The Formative Years of Digital Libraries , 2012, Libr. Hi Tech.

[35]  Maoria J. Kirker,et al.  Architects, Renovators, Builders, and Fragmenters: A Model for First Year Students' Self-perceptions and Perceptions of Information Literacy , 2019, The Journal of Academic Librarianship.

[36]  Yalan Yan,et al.  Comparison between user affinity with digital libraries and virtual communities , 2014, Learn. Publ..

[37]  Fiona Salisbury,et al.  Information literacy milestones: building upon the prior knowledge of first-year students , 2004 .

[38]  L. Ross,et al.  The Library is Dead, Long Live the Library! The Practice of Academic Librarianship and the Digital Revolution , 2008 .

[39]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker: is it too little, too late? , 2012 .

[40]  Wenyi Huang,et al.  Towards building a scholarly big data platform: Challenges, lessons and opportunities , 2014, IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries.

[41]  Ming-der Wu,et al.  Graduate students appreciate Google Scholar, but still find use for libraries , 2014, Electron. Libr..

[42]  Timmy H. Tseng,et al.  Facilitation of consumer loyalty toward branded applications: The dual-route perspective , 2018, Telematics Informatics.

[43]  Chris Neuhaus,et al.  The Depth and Breadth of Google Scholar: An Empirical Study , 2006 .

[44]  Fang Xu,et al.  Factors influencing users' satisfaction and loyalty to digital libraries in Chinese universities , 2018, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[45]  Jessica Bates,et al.  Will Web Search Engines Replace Bibliographic Databases in the Systematic Identification of Research , 2017 .

[46]  Matthew L. Jensen,et al.  Using an elaboration likelihood approach to better understand the persuasiveness of website privacy assurance cues for online consumers , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[47]  Douglas A. Ferguson,et al.  The World Wide Web as a Functional Alternative to Television , 2000 .

[48]  William H. Walters,et al.  Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field , 2007, Inf. Process. Manag..

[49]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  A review of quality evaluation of digital libraries based on users’ perceptions , 2012, J. Inf. Sci..