[Purpose/significance] Information quality is an important premise for platform to improve competitive advantage and sustainable development. The free and open spirit of academic social networking sites causes obstacles to information quality control. Therefore, it is necessary to optimize and improve information quality through analysis of key elements.[Method/process] Based on the previous research work, an information quality governance decision-making model of academic social networking sites is constructed, which composed by four dimensions of control rules, platform technology, information content and information users; based on the DEMETAL method, each impact strategy is identified and analyzed to determine the key strategies affecting the information quality of academic social networking sites.[Result/conclusion] Through data analysis, five important conclusions are sorted out, two management inspirations and implementation steps are summarized, which can overcome the subjective assumptions in qualitative research and provide practical references for human-computer interaction, quality control and service design of academic social networking sites' platform.
[1] WANG R Y, STOREY V C,FIRTH C P. A framework for analysis of data quality research[J]. IEEE transactions on knowledge & data engineering, 1995, 7(4):623-640.
[2] 华中生.网络环境下的平台服务及其管理问题[J].管理科学学报,2013,16(12):1-12.
[3] WILLIAMS A E, WOODACRE M A. The possibilities and perils of academic social networking sites[J]. Online information review, 2016, 40(2):282-294.
[4] JENG W, HE D, JIANG J. User participation in an academic social networking service:a survey of open group users on Mendeley[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2015, 66(5):890-904.
[5] HARTLEY J,CABANAC G. Are two authors better than one? Can writing in pairs affect the readability of academic blogs?[J] Scientometrics, 2016, 109(3):2119-2122.
[6] YAN W, ZHANG Y. Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site:an examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2018, 12(1):385-400.
[7] GRUZD A, STAVES K, WILK A. Connected scholars:examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2012, 28(6):2340-2350.
[8] PIETERSE E,MEISHAR T H. Academics' use of academic social networking sites:the case of ResearchGate and Academia.edu[C]//European distance & e-learning network conference. Budapest:EDEN, 2016:19-24.
[9] THELWALL M, KOUSHA K. Academia.edu:social network or academic network?[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2014, 65(4):721-731.
[10] CORVELLO V, GENOVESE A, VERTERAMO S. Knowledge sharing among users of scientific social networking platforms[C]//Conference on DSS 2.0-Supporting decision making with new technologies. Paris:IOS Press, 2014:369-380.
[11] 王曰芬, 贾新露, 傅柱. 学术社交网络用户内容使用行为研究——基于科学网热门博文的实证分析[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2016, 32(6):63-72.
[12] ADBDULLAH N L, HAMZAH N, ARSHAD R, et al. Psychological contract and knowledge sharing among academicians:mediating role of relational social capital[J]. International business research, 2011,4(4):231-241.
[13] 李晶,卢小莉,李卓卓. 学术社区用户沉浸体验的形成动因及其影响机理研究[J]. 大学图书情报学刊, 2017, 35(1):3-8.
[14] FENG Y,YE H. Why do you return the favor in online knowledge communities? A study of the motivations of reciprocity[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2016, 63:342-349.
[15] MARSCHAK J. Economics of information systems[J]. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1971, 66(333):192-219.
[16] SHAH C, POMERANTZ J. Evaluating and predicting answer quality in community QA[C]//Proceeding of the 33rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval. Geneva:ACM, 2010:411-418.
[17] LI L, HE D,ZHANG C. Evaluating academic answer quality:a pilot study on ResearchGate Q&A[C]//Proceeding of 3rd international conference on HCI in business, government and organizations. Cham:Springer International Publishing, 2016:61-71.
[18] 丁敬达,许鑫. 论学术博客评论的质量测度功能及指标[J].情报学报, 2015, 34(2):129-135.
[19] 王东,曲久龙,刘国亮. 虚拟学术社区的学术质量评价流程与模式研究[J]. 情报理论与实践,2012,35(5):94-98.
[20] KANE G C. A multimethod study of information quality in wiki collaboration[J]. ACM transactions on management information systems, 2011, 2(1):article4.
[21] 张发明,方旭鹏.用户角色关系:SQA平台内容质量提升新路径的经验研究[J].图书情报知识,2018(1):78-86.
[22] 张宁,袁勤俭.用户视角下的学术社交网络信息质量影响因素研究——基于扎根理论方法[J].图书情报知识,2018(5):105-113.
[23] LOIACONO E, WATSON R, GOODHUE D. WebQual:an instrument for consumer evaluation of web sites[J]. International journal of electronic commerce, 2007, 11(3):51-87.
[24] YOO B, DONTHU N. Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an internet shopping site[J]. Quarterly journal of electronic commerce, 2001, 2(1):31-46.
[25] EPPLER M J. Managing information quality:increasing the value of information in knowledge-intensive products and processes[M]//Berlin:Springer Publishing, 2006:43-69.
[26] FONTELA E, GABUS A. The DEMATEL observer[M]. Geneva:Battelle Geneva Research Centre, 1976:45-46.
[27] DELONE W H, MCLEAN E R. Information systems success:the quest for the dependent variable[J]. Information system research, 1992, 3(1):60-95.
[28] WANG R Y, STRONG D M. Beyond accuracy:what data quality means to data consumer[J].Journal of management information system, 1996, 12(4):5-34.
[29] ZHU Z M, BERNHARD D, GUREVYCH I.A multi-dimensional model for assessing the quality of answers in social Q&A[EB/OL].[2018-10-25]. http://tuprints.ulb.tudarmstadt.de/1940/1/TR_dimensi.
[30] 李晶. 虚拟社区信息质量建模及感知差异性比较研究[D]. 武汉:武汉大学, 2013.
[31] 冯缨, 王娟. 社会化媒体环境下的信息质量影响因素研究[J]. 图书馆学研究, 2017(7):2-8.
[32] BROWN T J, DACIN P A. The company and the product:corporate associations and consumer product responses[J]. Journal of marketing, 1997, 61(1):68-84.
[33] 孙晓阳. 社会化媒体信息质量的影响主体博弈及管控策略研究[D].镇江:江苏大学,2016.
[34] 查先进, 陈明红. 信息资源质量评估研究[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2010, 36(2):46-55.
[35] 章成志, 李蕾. 社会化标签质量自动评估研究[J]. 现代图书情报技术, 2015, 31(10):2-12.
[36] ROSENGERG M J. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes[M]//Attitude organization & change. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1960:1-14.
[37] AIKEN K D, BOUSH D M. Trustmarks, objective-source ratings, and implied investments in advertising:investigating online trust and the context-specific nature of internet signals[J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2006, 34(3):308-323.
[38] ZEITHAML V A, PARASURAMAN A, BERRY L. Delivering quality service:balancing customer perceptions and expectations[J]. Journal of consumer affairs, 1990, 24(2):418-419.
[39] GRIFFIN M W, WILLIAM B, MIKE C, et al. Direct2Experts:a pilot national network to demonstrate interoperability among research-networking platforms[J]. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association,2011,18(S1):157-160.
[40] HARPER F M, RABAN D, RAFAELI S, et al. Predictors of answer quality in online Q&A sites[C]//Conference on human factors in computing systems. New York:ACM, 2008:865-874.
[41] 新浪科技. 微博启动信息流优化计划低质信息将被限制展示[EB/OL].[2018-10-25].http://tech.sina.com.cn/i/2014-07-16/10029497354.shtml.
