[Purpose/significance] In view of the deficiency of the current scientific and technological information service ecosystem, this paper based on the VOR theory, from the perspective of information ecology, constructs the health assessment system of science and technology information service ecosystem to guide the stable and healthy development of the ecosystem. [Method/process] Based on the literature survey and expert interview, combined with the health characteristics of the science and technology information service ecosystem, the evaluation index system is constructed. ANP method is used to estimate the relative importance weight of each index. Through the questionnaire survey, interview and data collection, the multi-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is applied to empirical research. [Result/conclusion] The results show that vigor is the most important criterion dimension. The application of ANP and multi-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method has good applicability, which can provide guidance and reference for the stable and healthy development of scientific and technological information service ecosystem and the improvement of science and technology information service function.
Liu Jia
,
Shao Shiya
,
Peng peng
. Health Assessment System Construction and Empirical Research on the Science and Technology Information Service Ecosystem[J]. Library and Information Service, 2018
, 62(11)
: 88
-96
.
DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2018.11.010
[1] "十三五"国家科技创新规划.中华人民共和国国务院[EB/OL].[2017-10-08].http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2016-08/08/content_5098072.htm.
[2] GHAZINOORY S,FARZKISH M,MONTAZER G A,et al. Designing a national science and technology evaluation system based on a new typology of international practices[J].Technological forecasting & social change, 2017,122(9):119-127.
[3] CASTRO P,FILHO S S,BIN A,et al. Multidimensional evaluation framework for science technology and innovation instruments:GEOPI impact evaluation approach[EB/OL].[2017-10-02].https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294719161.
[4] ALVES M C,FARIA L I L D,AMARAL R M D. Information visualization to simplify understanding indicators for evaluation of science and technology[J]. Digital journal of library and information science,2017,15(2):324-348.
[5] BIRANVAND A,KHASSEH A A. Evaluating the service quality in the regional information center for science and technology using the six sigma methodology[J].Library management. 2013,34(1).:56-67.
[6] 苏朝晖,苏梅青.科技创新平台服务质量评价-对福州、厦门、泉州三地的实证研究[J].科技进步与对策,2015,32(4):93-99.
[7] 屈鹏. 开放环境科技语料库质量评价研究[J/OL]. 情报理论与实践,2016,39(5):79-85.
[8] 周承聪.信息服务生态系统运行与优化机制研究[D].上海:华中师范大学,2011.
[9] 柳楷玲.工业园生态系统健康评价研究[D].大连:大连理工大学,2016.
[10] 薛卫双. 高校数字图书馆信息生态系统健康评价研究[J]. 情报科学,2014,32(5):97-101.
[11] 肖蜀吉.企业信息生态系统评价指标体系构建研究[D].长春:吉林大学,2010.
[12] 马可·扬西蒂,罗伊·莱温.制定战略:从商业生态系统出发[J].会计师,2004(5):68.
[13] 陈斯杰. 基于用户视角的科技信息服务网站影响力评估研究[D].南京:南京理工大学,2009.
[14] VARGO S L,LUSCH R F. Institutions and axioms:an extension and update of service-dominant logic[J]. Journal of the academy of marketing science,2016,44(1):5-23.
[15] 胡斌,章仁俊,邵汝军.企业生态系统健康的基本内涵及评价指标体系研究[J].科技管理研究,2006(1):59-61.
[16] RAPPORT D J,COSTANZA R,MC MICHAEL A J.Assessing ecosystem health[J].Trends in ecology & evolution,1998,13(10):397-402.
[17] RAPPORT D J. What constitutes ecosystem health?[J].Perspective in biology and medicine,1989,33(1):120-132.
[18] 于海跃,喻锋,符蓉.生态系统评价方法研究[J].国土资源情报,2013(12):42-45.
[19] 孙燕,周杨明,张秋文,等. 生态系统健康:理论/概念与评价方法[J].地球科学进展,2011,26(8):887-896.
[20] 汪朝辉,王克林,许联芳.湿地生态系统健康评估指标体系研究[J].国土与自然资源研究,2003(4):63-64.
[21] 娄策群,周承聪. 信息生态链:概念、本质和类型[J].图书情报工作,2007(9):29-32.
[22] 孙宏才,田平.网络层次分析法(ANP)与科学决策[M].北京:海洋出版社,2001:148-288.
[23] 战学秋,温金明.多层次模糊综合评判法在数字图书馆评价中的应用[J].情报科学,2007(7):1035-1038.
[24] 杜栋,庞庆华.现代综合评价方法与案例精选[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2005:34-61.
[25] 高卓,何鑫,胡祖芳,等.层次分析法在生态系统健康评价指标体系中的应用[J].中央民族大学学报(自然科学版), 2017,26(1):61-66. 作者贡献说明:刘佳:提出研究命题、研究思路,论文撰写、论文修改及最终版本修订; 邵诗雅:论文撰写及论文修改; 彭鹏:问卷调查与数据整理。
