Scholarly use of internet-based electronic resources

This research examines the use of Internet-based electronic resources (e-sources) by a group of library and information science (LIS) scholars. It focuses particularly on how scholars use, cite, and evaluate e-sources during the research process. This research also explores the problems scholars encounter and concerns they have when using e-sources for research. The following approaches were used to collect data for the investigation: (a) a longitudinal analysis of e-source citations in eight LIS journals from 1991 through 1998; (b) a survey of editors of the eight journals; and (c) a survey of 201 authors with articles to be published in the eight journals. The longitudinal analysis of e-source citations shows that there has been a notable increase in the number and proportion of authors who cite e-sources in their research articles over the 8-year period, although at the time of this study, e-sources were still cited much less frequently than print sources. This result provides empirical evidence that e-sources are increasingly used among scholars. Complementing the citation data, the results from the author survey show that e-sources are becoming an important component in scholars' research, and are serving a wide range of purposes and functions. The number of access points and self-perceived overall ability to use the Internet are identified as the two significant variables affecting frequency of e-source use. The results of this study also suggest that a limited number of criteria can be implemented in practice for scholars to evaluate electronic sources and systems. When citing e-sources, scholars consider some factors that are unique to e-sources, in addition to the factors they consider for print sources. Although the advantages of e-sources promote citing, some drawbacks of e-sources at this stage serve as a barrier. The survey of editors also reveals a lack of clearly stated editorial policies regarding citing e-sources. The major problems and concerns reported by scholars regarding using e-sources are summarized, and both the theoretical implications and practical applications of the findings are discussed.

[1]  Stephen P. Harter,et al.  Scholarly Communication and Electronic Journals: An Impact Study , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[2]  Winifred Sewell,et al.  Observations of end-user online searching behavior over eleven years , 1986, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[3]  Noam Kaminer.  Scholars and the use of the internet , 1997 .

[4]  Bryce Allen,et al.  The Effects of Academic Background on Statement of Information Need , 1990, The Library Quarterly.

[5]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Trends in Analyzing Access to Information. Part I: Cross-Disciplinary Conceptualizations of Access , 1999, Inf. Process. Manag..

[6]  Sandra Payette,et al.  Supporting Scholarly Inquiry: Incorporating Users in the Design of the Digital Library , 1998 .

[7]  Ellen Finnie Duranceau.  Naming and describing networked electronic resources: The role of uniform resource identifiers , 1994 .

[8]  Yin Zhang,et al.  The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science: a citation analysis , 1998, J. Inf. Sci..

[9]  Rob Kling,et al.  Electronic Journals and Legitimate Media in the Systems of Scholarly Communication , 1995, Inf. Soc..

[10]  Anita Greenhill,et al.  Academic referencing of Internet‐based resources , 1995 .

[11]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Computer Networks and Scientific Work , 1996 .

[12]  Stephen P. Harter,et al.  The Downside of Scholarly Electronic Publishing: Problems in Accessing Electronic Journals through Online Directories and Catalogs , 1998 .

[13]  Judith A. Adams,et al.  Electronic Information Technologies and Resources: Use by University Faculty and Faculty Preferences for Related Library Services , 1995 .

[14]  Charles R. McClure.  So What Are the Impacts of Networking on Academic Institutions , 1994 .

[15]  Gary S. Lawrence,et al.  Further analysis of the CLR online catalog project , 1984 .

[16]  William S. Cooper,et al.  On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness part II. Implementation of the philosophy , 1973, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[17]  Eileen G. Abels,et al.  Factors that influence the use of electronic networks by science and engineering faculty at small institutions: part I: queries , 1996 .

[18]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  The Role of genre in shaping our understanding of digital documents , 1998 .

[19]  David G. Stork,et al.  Is paperless really more? , 2000, CACM.

[20]  Lynn Silipigni Connaway,et al.  University faculty and networked information: results of a survey , 1997 .

[21]  Mary J. Culnan,et al.  The dimensions of perceived accessibility to information: Implications for the delivery of information systems and services , 1985, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[22]  Linda Schamber,et al.  Users' Criteria for Evaluation in a Multimedia Environment. , 1991 .

[23]  Russell T. Clement,et al.  Crossing the Threshold of Rocket Mail: E-Mail Use by U.S. Humanities Faculty , 1997 .

[24]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  Citation indexing - its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities , 1979 .

[25]  Amy Dykeman.  Faculty citations: An approach to assessing the impact of diminishing resources on scientific research , 1994 .

[26]  Carol L. Barry,et al.  Users' Criteria for Relevance Evaluation: A Cross-situational Comparison , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[27]  Ann C. Schaffner,et al.  The Future of Scientific Journals: Lessons from the Past , 1994 .

[28]  W. D. Garvey.  Communication, the essence of science , 1979 .

[29]  Yin Zhang.  Using the Internet for survey research: a case study , 2000 .

[30]  Andrew Dillon.  Designing usable electronic text , 1994 .

[31]  Charles R. McClure,et al.  User-Based Data Collection Techniques and Strategies for Evaluating Networked Information Services , 1994, Libr. Trends.

[32]  Ann Peterson Bishop,et al.  Logins and Bailouts: Measuring Access, Use, and Success in Digital Libraries , 1998 .

[33]  Christine L. Borgman,et al.  All users of information retrieval systems are not created equal: An exploration into individual differences , 1989, Inf. Process. Manag..

[34]  Gregory B. Newby,et al.  Scholarly publishing: the electronic frontier , 1996 .

[35]  F. W. Lancaster.  The Evolution of Electronic Publishing , 1995 .

[36]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Access to, usage of, and outcomes from an electronic messaging system , 1988, TOIS.

[37]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Trends in Analyzing Access to Information. Part II: Unique and Integrating Conceptualizations , 1999, Inf. Process. Manag..

[38]  Leigh S. Estabrook,et al.  Accessibility to Internet-based Electronic Resources and its Implications for Electronic Scholarship , 1998 .

[39]  Trudi Bellardo.  An investigation of online searcher traits and their relationship to search outcome , 1985, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[40]  Hannu Paulapuro.  The future of paper in the information society , 1991 .

[41]  Joel Cohen,et al.  Computer mediated communication and publication productivity among faculty , 1996, Internet Res..

[42]  Tefko Saracevic,et al.  Individual Differences in Organizing, Searching and Retrieving Information. , 1991 .

[43]  Peiling Wang,et al.  A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I. document selection , 1998 .

[44]  Don Schauder.  Electronic publishing of professional articles: attitudes of academics and implications for the scholarly communication industry , 1994 .

[45]  Terrence A. Brooks,et al.  Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations , 1985, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[46]  Bryce Allen,et al.  Information Tasks: Toward a User-Centered Approach to Information Systems , 1996 .

[47]  Mengxiong Liu,et al.  Progress in Documentation the Complexities of citation Practice: a Review of citation studies , 1993, J. Documentation.

[48]  Yale M. Braunstein,et al.  Bibliometric Analysis of the Impact of Internet Use on Scholarly Productivity , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[49]  Harry Bruce,et al.  User satisfaction with information seeking on the Internet , 1998 .

[50]  Philip Doty,et al.  Scientific Norms and the Use of Electronic Research Networks. , 1991 .

[51]  Mengxiong Liu,et al.  A study of citing motivation of Chinese scientists , 1993, J. Inf. Sci..

[52]  Diane K. Kovacs,et al.  Scholarly E-conferences on the academic networks: how library and information science professionals use them , 1995 .

[53]  Eileen G. Abels,et al.  Factors that influence the use of electronic networks by science and engineering faculty at small institutions. Part II. Preliminary use indicators , 1997 .

[54]  Yaşar Tonta.  Scholarly Communication and the Use of Networked Information Sources , 1996 .

[55]  Jonathan Furner,et al.  Scholarly communication and bibliometrics , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[56]  William E. Moen,et al.  Assessing the Government Information Locator Service (GILS): A Multi-Method Approach for Evaluating Networked Services. , 1997 .

[57]  Robert J. Greene.  Computer Analysis of Local Citation Information in Collection Management , 1994 .

[58]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Science and Scholarship on the World Wide Web: a North American Perspective , 1996, J. Documentation.

[59]  William S. Cooper,et al.  On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness , 1973, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[60]  Ann Peterson Bishop.  Working Towards an Understanding of Digital Library Use: A Report on the User Research Efforts of the NSF/ARPA/NASA DLI Projects , 1995, D Lib Mag..

[61]  Richard C. Hsu,et al.  After 400 years, print is still superior , 1997, CACM.

[62]  T. Allen,et al.  Criteria used by research and development engineers in the selection of an information source. , 1968, The Journal of applied psychology.

[63]  Xia Li,et al.  Electronic Style: A Guide to Citing Electronic Information , 1993 .

[64]  Raya Fidel,et al.  Factors affecting online bibliographic retrieval: A conceptual framework for research , 1983, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[65]  Zane L. Berge,et al.  IPCT Journal: A Case Study of an Electronic Journal on the Internet , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[66]  Arlene G. Taylor,et al.  The Organization of Information , 1999 .

[67]  Louise T. Su.  Value of Search Results as a Whole as the Best Single Measure of Information Retrieval Performance , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[68]  Stephen P. Harter,et al.  Accessing Electronic Journals and Other E-Publications: An Empirical Study , 1996 .

[69]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  E-Journals and Tenure , 1995, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[70]  M. White,et al.  A Qualitative Study of Citing Behavior: Contributions, Criteria, and Metalevel Documentation Concerns , 1997, The Library Quarterly.

[71]  Louise T. Su.  The Relevance of Recall and Precision in User Evaluation , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[72]  Carol L. Barry.  User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study , 1994 .

[73]  Ann Peterson Bishop.  Scholary Journals on the Net: A Reader's Assessment , 1995, Libr. Trends.

[74]  Louise T. Su.  Evaluation Measures for Interactive Information Retrieval , 1992, Inf. Process. Manag..

[75]  Janice R. Walker,et al.  The Columbia Guide to Online Style , 1998 .

[76]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Internet Use by Faculty Members in Various Disciplines: A Comparative Case Study , 1997, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[77]  A. Anker.  Book reviewThe citation process: The role and significance of citation in scientific communication: Blaise Cronin. London: Taylor Graham, 1984. ISBN 0 947568 01 8. £10. , 1985 .