Page 115 - Journal of Library Science in China, Vol.45, 2019

114 Journal of Library Science in China, Vol.11, 2019

of different platforms are summarized as follows:
● Ecology of academic paper exchange and utilization in China (Zhu, 2015). There are limited
and scattered literatures on open access journal official websites but massive and centralized
literatures on pay-for-access information integration platforms, which affect channel choices
of users.
● Payment mode of academic paper exchange and utilization in China. “Fee for institution and
free for institution users” is the primary mode in China, which means that institution users
can directly use literatures on pay-for-access platforms for free, affecting usage patterns on
information integration platform.
● Functions of academic paper exchange and utilization platforms in China. Journal qualities,
information architecture of websites, user access configurations and sorting mechanism of
search results have an influence on user usage.
● User categories and user needs of academic paper exchange and utilization in China.
Generally, there are more users on information integration platform than each journal official
website. Most users of journal official websites are limited to their own field, while users
of information integration platform are from various fields. In addition, when users retrieve
academic papers on specific topics, they prefer information integration platforms because
their massive resources can satisfy demands of comprehensive and systematic literatures.
While users on journal official websites browse and download academic papers regularly in
order to catch overall research topics and emerging trends of their own or related fields.

References

Bollen, J., Luce, R., Vemulapalli, S. S., & Xu, W. (2003). Usage analysis for the identification of research
trends in digital libraries. D-Lib Magazine, 9 (5). Retrieved October 28, 2018, from http://www.dlib.org/
dlib/may03/bollen/05bollen.html.
Bollen, J., Sompel, H. V. D., Smith, J. A., & Luce, R. (2005). Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A
comparison of download and citation data. Information Processing & Management, 41 (6), 1419-1440.
Cao, Y., Wang, Y.F., & Ding, J. (2012). Relativity between citation and download indicators of scientific
papers for academic influence evaluation（面向学术影响力评价的科技文献引用与下载的相关性研
究） . Library and Information Service（图书情报工作） , 56 (8), 56-64.
Chen, B.K. (2018). Usage pattern comparison of the same scholarly articles between web of science (WoS)
and Springer. Scientometrics, 115 (1), 519-537.
Chen, B.K, Zhong, Z.Y., & Zhan, C.J. (2017). Usage pattern analysis of academic articles from two
Chinese journals.In K. Holmberg & J. Vainio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on
Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2017) (pp.366–375). Wuhan:Wuhan University.
Chi, P. S., & Glänzel, W. (2017). An empirical investigation of the associations among usage, scientific
collaboration and citation impact. Scientometrics, 112 (1), 403-412.
Chi, P. S., & Glänzel, W. (2018). Comparison of citation and usage indicators in research assessment in
scientific disciplines and journals. Scientometrics, 116 (1), 537-554.
Coombs, K. A. (2005). Lessons learned from analyzing library database usage data. Library Hi Tech, 23 (4),