The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Expert evaluation methods
Abstract
An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field. (Niels Bohr) Introduction Comprehensive, generalizable evaluations of digital libraries (DLs) are rare. Where evaluation does occur, it is generally minimal. Saracevic (2004) analysed around 80 evaluations to conclude that, both in scientific research and in practice, thorough evaluations of DLs are rather the exception than the rule. The complexity of DL systems can be identified as one reason for this. Examining them in their entirety is not straightforward. Even when attempting to do so, we lack scientifically accepted concepts, approaches and models. Another reason is the allocated funding in DL projects. Evaluation is always a ‘must have’ stated by the funder, but is rarely supported by adequate resources. These reasons are, unfortunately, still valid at the time of writing. In this chapter the method of expert evaluation is presented and shown to be one possible way of addressing such problems. Expert evaluations are heuristic or qualitative in nature, as opposed to quantitative evaluations, which aim to provide statistically significant results. Heuristic evaluations (Nielsen, 1994) are common in usability engineering, where user interfaces are evaluated by a small group of experts on the basis of their conformity to certain usability principles (heuristics). Expert evaluations differ from other types of heuristic evaluation in that they lack predefined heuristics. The experts…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Although subjective ratings are common proxies for real-world design effectiveness [26, 50], they may not fully capture objective performance metrics, such as actual click-through rates on social media platforms.”
From Decoupling of Usefulness and Novelty: Evaluating the Impact of Generative AI on Design Outputs and Novice Designers' Creative Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [50]
Citations
The citation lists are queued
They are fetched later and appear here then.
Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Klas, C.-P.
- Corresponding author
- Klas, Claus-Peter
- ORCID
- Klas, Claus-Peter
- Venue
- User Studies for Digital Library Development
- Publisher
- Facet
- Published
- 2018-07-05
- Pages
- 75-84
- OpenAlex
- W3015555051
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Facet eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information Systems
- Keywords
- expert evaluation, digital libraries, heuristic evaluation, usability evaluation, qualitative evaluation, expert assessment method, Nielsen's heuristics, user interface evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Expert evaluation methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.29085/9781856049269.009
- The paper
- Klas, C.-P. (2018). Expert evaluation methods. User Studies for Digital Library Development. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781856049269.009