A Comparative Study on Iranian Journal Management Systems in Universities of Medical Sciences Based on the Usability Components

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Amir Mohamad Mozafari-Vanani 1
Rasool Nouri 2
Akbar Hassanzadeh 3
Alireza Rahimi 2
1 MSc Student, Medical Library and Information Sciences, Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Medical Library and Information Sciences, Health Information Technology Research Center AND Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
10.22122/him.v17i1.4061
Abstract
Introduction: Due to developments in journal management systems (JMS) and the insufficient relevant studies in the field of information systems usability, the purpose of this paper was to compare the most widely used Iranian JMSs based on the 8 usability criteria.Methods: The population of this survey included the users of the selected 4 systems among 13 Iranian journal management systems at Iranian medical science universities. This study used a multi-stage sampling method, and selected 80 users from these systems. Evaluation of users' interfaces was conducted based on the Purdue Usability Testing Questionnaire (PUTQ) questionnaire in 4 layers including chief editors, referees, authors, and regular users. Data were analyzed using descriptive tests and repeated measures ANOVA.Results: Overall, in the 8 usability criteria in sequence, Yektaweb (4.84), Neoscribber3 (4.67), and Open Journal Systems (OJS) (4.59) had the highest and Sinaweb had the lowest average. Furthermore, users showed that the compatibility and the consistency criteria had the highest averages while all systems had the lowest mean in flexibility criterion.Conclusion: It seems that more attention needs to be paid to two criteria of flexibility and user-guide during design of Iranian JMS systems. It is also important to select JMSs, which are user-friendly in order to make processes easier and faster. Researchers and medical librarians also should focus on all usability criteria equally.

Keywords

  1. Hasan L, Abuelrub E. Usability testing for IAJIT OpenConf Journal Management System. Journal of Software 2013; 8(2): 387-96.
  2. Sadeqi Jabali M, Nabovati E, Farzandipour M, Farrahi S R, Abbasi R. Evaluation of the usability of admission and medical record information system: A heuristic evaluation. Journal of Health and Biomedical Informatics 2019; 6(2): 80-9. [In Persian].
  3. Khajouei R, Azizi A, Atashi A. Usability evaluation of an emergency information system: A heuristic evaluation. J Health Adm 2013; 16(52): 61-72. [In Persian].
  4. Chan AJ, Islam MK, Rosewall T, Jaffray DA, Easty AC, Cafazzo JA. Applying usability heuristics to radiotherapy systems. Radiother Oncol 2012; 102(1): 142-7.
  5. Sheykh Shoaei F, Hosseini SM. Essential features for a scholarly journal content management and peer review software. Information Sciences and Technology 2010; 25(2): 289-315. [In Persian].
  6. Taheri B, Yousefi A, Faragpahloo A, Ghazavi R, Hadadpoor A. Evaluation of journals management softwares. Proceedings of the National Conference on Scientific Publications of the country; 2016 Oct 19; Tehran, Iran. [In Persian].
  7. Chan CH, Chen SY. The interface design of electronic journals via mobile devices: A cognitive styles perspective. Proceedings of the 22th International Conference on Computers in Education; 2014 Nov 30, Dec 4; Nara, Japan. p. 446-53.
  8. Bhattacharyya S. SXC-JMS: A WEB -Based Journal Management System. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information Technology Convergence and Services (ITCS 2012); 2012 Sep 6-8; Gwangju, Korea. p. 417-27.
  9. Corte-Real A, Rocha A. Developing a web scientific journal management platform. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2017 p. 86-94.
  10. Chin J, Diehl V, Norman K. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '88); 1988 May 15-19; Washington, DC, USA. p. 213-8.
  11. Brooke J. System usability scale (SUS): A quick-and-dirty method of system evaluation user information. Reading, UK: Digital Equipment Co Ltd; 1986. p. 43.
  12. Nielsen J. Usability Engineering. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann; 1993.
  13. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989; 13(3): 319-40.
  14. Lewis JR. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum-Comput Int 1995; 7(1): 57-78.
  15. Lin HX, Choong YY, Salvendy G. A proposed index of usability: A method for comparing the relative usability of different software systems. Behav Inform Technol 1997; 16(4-5): 267-77.
  16. Perlman G. Practical usability evaluation. Proceedings of the ACM CHI 97 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference; 1997 Mar 22-27; Atlanta, GA, USA.
  17. Lund AM. Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability Interface 2001; 8(2): 3-6.
  18. Assila A, de Oliveira K, Ezzedine H. Standardized Usability Questionnaires: Features and quality focus. Electronic Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology 2016; 6(1): 15-31.
  19. Nielsen J. 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Nielsen Norman Group; 1995.
  20. Narmenji M. User interface capabilities of Saman Library Sistem of Iran Public Libraries Foundation based on Nilsson's principles. Research on Information Science and Public Libraries 2017; 23(2): 199-217. [In Persian].
  21. Abedi S, Khajouei R. Evaluating the users' interaction problems with physiotherapy information system. Hospital 2015; 14(3): 83-92. [In Persian].
  22. Keevil B. Measuring the usability index of your Web site. Proceedings of the 16th annual international conference on Computer documentation (SIGDOC '98); 1998 Sep 24-26; Quebec Canada.
  23. Harms I, Schweibenz W, Strobel J. Usability Evaluation von Web-Angeboten mit dem Web Usability Index. Proceedings of the 24th DGI-Online-Tagung; 2002 Jun 3-5; Frankfurt, Germany. p. 283-92.
  24. Zins A, Bauernfeind U, Missier F, Mitsche N, Ricci F, Rumetshofer H, et al. Prototype testing for a destination recommender system: Steps, procedures and implications. In: Frew AJ, editors. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2004: Proceedings of the International Conference in Cairo, Egypt. Vienna, Austria: Springer Vienna; 2004.
  25. Lin CJ, Hsieh TL. Exploring the design criteria of website interfaces for gender. Int J Ind Ergonom 2016; 53: 306-11.
  26. Commission of Medical Sciences Publications, Ministry of Health and Medical Education. About Commission. Database of Medical Publications of the Country [Online]. [cited 2018]; Available from: URL: http://journals.research.ac.ir/page/11/%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%87-%DA%A9%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86
  27. Saljoughi E, Aghasi N, Asadi M, Okhovati M. Evaluating the user interface of health literacy websites in Iran. Health Inf Manage 2016; 13(2): 108-13 [In Persian].
  28. Savoy A, Patel H, Flanagan ME, Weiner M, Russ AL. Systematic heuristic evaluation of computerized consultation order templates: Clinicians' and human factors engineers' perspectives. J Med Syst 2017; 41(8): 129.
  29. Norouzi Y, Motazhari S. Evaluation of user interfaces of selected national digital libraries: suggestions for the Iranian national digital library. National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization 2015; 25(4): 7-20. [In Persian].