Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 投稿经验-刊鹿论文编译

Academic Librarians in Canada Concerned About Online and Patron Privacy but Lack Knowledge About Institutional Procedures and Policies

Abstract:

A Review of: \nTummon, N., & McKinnon, D. (2018). Attitudes and practices of Canadian academic librarians regarding library and online privacy: A national study. Library and Information Science Research, 40(2), 86-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.05.002 \nAbstract \nObjective – To assess attitudes of Canadian academic librarians regarding online privacy issues and to gauge their knowledge of related procedures and policies at their institutions. \nDesign – Attitudinal online survey in English. \nSetting – English-language academic libraries in 10 Canadian provinces. \nSubjects – English-speaking academic librarians across Canada. \nMethods – Survey, based on Zimmer’s 2014 study of librarians in the United States of America, announced via email to 1,317 potential participants, managed using LimeSurvey, and available from April 7 to May 5, 2017. In 28 optional multiple choice or Likert scale questions, the survey prompted participants to express their attitudes regarding online privacy scenarios and privacy-related library practices, including patron data collection. Results were analyzed in Microsoft Excel and SPSS. \nMain Results – The survey response rate was 13.9% (183 respondents). Job position, age, or geographic location did not appear to influence attitudes towards privacy, with almost all respondents strongly agreeing or agreeing that individuals should control who sees their personal information (96.2%) and that companies collect too much such information (97.8%). Respondents voiced slightly less concern about government information collection, but nearly all respondents agreed that governments should not share personal information with third parties without authorization and that companies should only use information for the purposes they specify. When asked if privacy issues are more important today than five years ago, 69.9% of respondents said they were more concerned and 78.1% noted they knew more than five years before about privacy-related risks. \nRegarding online behaviour, 53.3% of respondents felt web behaviour tracking is both beneficial and harmful, with 29.1% considering it harmful, and 13.7% finding it neither beneficial nor harmful. Online shopping and identify theft, social media behaviour tracking, search engine policy display, and personal information sharing were also areas of concern for respondents, with the majority noting they were somewhat or very concerned about these issues. \n\xa0In terms of library practices, most respondents strongly agreed that libraries should not share personal information, circulation records, or Internet use records with third parties unless authorized, though 33% of respondents noted they could neither agree nor disagree that libraries are doing all they can to prevent unauthorized access to such information. The majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that libraries should play a role in educating patrons about privacy issues. Many respondents (68.9%) did not know if their libraries had practices or procedures for dealing with patron information requests from law enforcement or governmental representatives. The majority of respondents did not know if patrons at their libraries had inquired about privacy issues, 42.3% did not know if their libraries communicate privacy policies to patrons, and 45.4% noted their libraries did not inform patrons about library e-resource privacy policies. Many respondents (55.2%) had attended educational sessions about online privacy and surveillance in the past five years, while 52.2% noted their libraries had not hosted or organized such sessions over the same period. \nConclusion – Survey participants showed concern about online and patron privacy, though their lack of knowledge about local procedures and policies highlights a potential need for enhanced privacy education.

Author Listing： Stephanie Krueger

Volume： 14

Pages： 116-118

DOI： 10.18438/EBLIP29555

Language： English

Journal： Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

EVID BASED LIB INF P

影响因子：0.8

是否综述期刊：未知

是否OA：是

是否预警：未知

发行时间：-

ISSN：1715-720X

发刊频率：-

收录数据库：ESCI/Scopus收录/DOAJ开放期刊

出版国家/地区：Canada

出版社：University of Alberta

期刊介绍

年发文量	36
国人发稿量	-
国人发文占比	0%
自引率	25.0%
平均录取率	-
平均审稿周期	12 Weeks
版面费	-
偏重研究方向	INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
期刊官网	https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP
投稿链接	-

质量指标占比

研究类文章占比	OA被引用占比	撤稿占比	出版后修正文章占比
83.33%	98.95%	-	-

预警情况查看说明

时间	预警情况
2025年03月发布的2025版	不在预警名单中
2024年02月发布的2024版	不在预警名单中
2023年01月发布的2023版	不在预警名单中
2021年12月发布的2021版	不在预警名单中
2020年12月发布的2020版	不在预警名单中

JCR分区 WOS分区等级：Q3区

版本	按学科	分区
WOS期刊SCI分区 WOS期刊SCI分区是指SCI官方（Web of Science）为每个学科内的期刊按照IF数值排序，将期刊按照四等分的方法划分的Q1-Q4等级，Q1代表质量最高，即常说的1区期刊。（2021-2022年最新版）
	INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE	Q4

关于2019年中科院分区升级版（试行）

分区表升级版（试行）旨在解决期刊学科体系划分与学科发展以及融合趋势的不相容问题。由于学科交叉在当代科研活动的趋势愈发显著，学科体系构建容易引发争议。为了打破学科体系给期刊评价带来的桎梏，“升级版方案”首先构建了论文层级的主题体系，然后分别计算每篇论文在所属主题的影响力，最后汇总各期刊每篇论文分值，得到“期刊超越指数”，作为分区依据。

分区表升级版（试行）的优势：一是论文层级的主题体系既能体现学科交叉特点，又可以精准揭示期刊载文的多学科性；二是采用“期刊超越指数”替代影响因子指标，解决了影响因子数学性质缺陷对评价结果的干扰。整体而言，分区表升级版（试行）突破了期刊评价中学科体系构建、评价指标选择等瓶颈问题，能够更为全面地揭示学术期刊的影响力，为科研评价“去四唯”提供解决思路。相关研究成果经过国际同行的认可，已经发表在科学计量学领域国际重要期刊。

《2019年中国科学院文献情报中心期刊分区表升级版（试行）》首次将社会科学引文数据库（SSCI）期刊纳入到分区评估中。升级版分区表（试行）设置了包括自然科学和社会科学在内的18个大类学科。基础版和升级版（试行）将过渡共存三年时间，推测在此期间各大高校和科研院所仍可能会以基础版为考核参考标准。提示：中科院分区官方微信公众号“fenqubiao”仅提供基础版数据查询，暂无升级版数据，请注意区分。

中科院分区查看说明

版本	大类学科	小类学科	Top期刊	综述期刊
暂无数据