| Title |
An evaluation and selection problems of OSS-LMS packages
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-1828-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Belal Najeh Abdullateef, Nur Fazidah Elias, Hazura Mohamed, A. A. Zaidan, B. B. Zaidan |
| Abstract |
The evaluation and selection of inappropriate open source software in learning management system (OSS-LMS) packages adversely affect the business processes and functions of an organization. Thus, comprehensive insights into the evaluation and selection of OSS-LMS packages are presented in this paper on the basis of three directions. First, available OSS-LMSs are ascertained from published papers. Second, the criteria for evaluating OSS-LMS packages are specified.according to two aspects: the criteria are identified and established, followed by a crossover between them to highlight the gaps between the evaluation criteria for OSS-LMS packages and the selection problems. Third, the abilities of selection methods that appear fit to solve the problems of OSS-LMS packages based on the multi-criteria evaluation and selection problem are discussed to select the best OSS-LMS packages. Results indicate the following: (1) a list of active OSS-LMS packages; (2) the gaps on the evaluation criteria used for LMS and other problems (consisting of main groups with sub-criteria); (3) use of multi-attribute or multi-criteria decision-making (MADM/MCDM) techniques in the framework of the evaluation and selection of the OSS in education as recommended solutions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 129 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 15% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Researcher | 6 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 24% |
| Unknown | 28 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 48 | 37% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Engineering | 9 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 8 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 29 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,252,924
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#770
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,072
of 298,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#64
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.