Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of reading in scholarly work among academics in Finland. This study analyzes readings from a variety of publication types including books, conference proceedings, research reports, magazines, newspapers, blogs, non-fiction and fiction.

An online survey was developed and distributed in Finland in 2016–2017 (n=528). Participants were asked their finding and use of scholarly information resources of all types.

Scholars read from a variety of publications. Different types of publications are read and used differently. Reading also varies between disciplines, ranks, work responsibilities and type of research performed.

The study was a nationwide study of researchers in Finland; therefore, all findings are within the context of researchers in a single country. All results are self-reported; therefore, the authors assume but cannot be sure that respondents accurately recollect the specifics of their use of scholarly information.

The results of this study are relevant to publishers, research librarians, editors and others who serve consumers of scholarly information resources, design information products and services for those scholars, and seek to better understand the information needs and use of a variety of types of scholarly publications.

This study replicates previous studies in a variety of countries and provides a more up-to-date and single-country contextualized overview of how researchers find and use scholarly information in their work.

The purpose of this paper is to ask: What is the value and outcome of scholarly reading for academic staff? How do academic library collections support research and teaching activities of academic staff? How do reading patterns of articles, books, and other materials differ? What is the role of the academic library collections in teaching and learning?

The paper provides insight into the values and outcomes of scholarly reading, identifies overall reading patterns, and illuminates issues academics address. Approximately 2,000 academic staff members from six UK universities completed a web‐based survey. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected through the survey. The survey used the critical incident of last reading by academics to gather information on the purpose, outcomes, and values of scholarly readings and access to library collections. The survey concluded with open‐ended comments, which is the focus of this article.

The open‐ended comments focused on the importance of article readings to all work activities, in particular research. They also placed emphasis on the value of the library's e‐journal collections, but they had some issues with electronic access. The role of book reading was also discussed.

Open‐ended comments are only one way of measuring the value of scholarly reading and library collections. Ongoing studies and examinations of the findings from the other sections of this study will add to the overall findings of the value of the academic library.

This paper further illustrates the essential role of scholarly reading and the library's collections on the academic enterprise. This type of qualitative “story” helps libraries demonstrate their value and assess areas of concern.

In this article an epistemological interpretation of the role of subject literature in scholarly communication shall be proposed. Such an interpretation will focus on the epistemological dimension of communicating knowledge through literature and how this is achieved through discursive and rhetorical means. It will be argued that library and information science (LIS) theory on scholarly communication can be supplemented and strengthened by this interpretation. By establishing a social epistemology of subject literature the article contributes with a sketch of a coherent theory of scholarly literature explaining the epistemological and communicative division of labor between the various types of subject literature. Such a theory is in line with the current revival of social epistemology in LIS. The article is structured into three main sections. The first section will outline an epistemological position that pays particular attention to knowledge acquired through social interaction in general, and through interaction with written texts in particular. The works of the later Wittgenstein and Ludwik Fleck will be used as the theoretical frameworks. Having established this epistemological framework, the second section will outline what is considered to be the main types of subject literature, with emphasis on their discursive and rhetorical functions in scholarly communication. The third section will synthesize the two other sections into a sketch of a theory that will be labeled the social epistemology of subject literature and point to some implications for LIS research of this theory.

To provide an overview of the growing international movement of librarians, faculty members, and researchers who are working together to develop new methods of scholarly communication, including Open Access (OA) journals, digital e‐print archives, and institutional repositories, and to press for public access to federally funded research.

Key elements which have created pressures for change in the scholarly communication system are reviewed: the development and expansion of the Internet and networked technologies, and rapidly increasing journal costs due to consolidation, pricing structures and title aggregating in the commercial journal publishing industry. Effects of these pressures on libraries, citing Bowdoin College as an illustrative case, and examples of OA and affordably priced journal publishing models and OA principles and infrastructure are presented.

The OA movement has gained momentum and appears to be meeting with some success, with worldwide efforts to make federally funded research available to taxpayers and the largest science, technology and medicine journal publishers revisiting pricing structures. It is predicted that commercial journals, OA journals and digital repositories will continue to co‐exist as information resources for the scholarly community for the foreseeable future.

This is not an exhaustive history, but rather a review of movement highlights, written by a steering committee member of SPARC, a major scholarly communication movement stakeholder.

A useful overview for librarians and researchers unfamiliar with the movement who wish to educate local faculty members about the implications for their publishing and professional activities, as well as for commercial publishers and scholarly presses interested in learning more about the movement.

Presents an annotated bibliography of journals and magazines useful to students and professors of German studies. The publications listed are suitable for academic and large public libraries.

“Scholarly Communication” is a frequent topic of both the professional and research literature of Library and Information Science (LIS). Despite efforts by individuals (e.g. Borgman, 1989) and organizations such as the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) to define the term, multiple understandings of it remain. Discussions of scholarly communication infrequently offer a definition or explanation of its parameters, making it difficult for readers to form a comprehensive understanding of scholarly communication and associated phenomena.

This project uses the evolutionary concept analysis (ECA) method developed by nursing scholar, Beth L. Rodgers, to explore “Scholarly Communication” as employed in the literature of LIS. As the purpose of ECA is not to arrive at “the” definition of a term but rather exploring its utilization within a specific context, it is an ideal approach to expand our understanding of SC as used in LIS research.

“Scholarly Communication” as employed in the LIS literature does not refer to a single phenomenon or idea, but rather is a concept with several dimensions and sub-dimensions with distinct, but overlapping, significance.

The concept analysis (CA) method calls for review of a named concept, i.e. verbatim. Therefore, the items included in the data set must include the phrase “scholarly communication”. Items using alternate terminology were excluded from analysis.

The model of scholarly communication presented in this paper provides language to operationalize the concept.

LIS lacks a nuanced understanding of “scholarly communication” as used in the LIS literature. This paper offers a model to further the field's collective understanding of the term and support operationalization for future research projects.

The key purpose of this study is to gain an insight into the quality of the scholarly publishing and refereeing system used by Emerald’s Library and Information Science (LIS) journals from the perspectives of the Arab authors who are publishing in this wide-ranging database. It also tries to provide helpful guidance for authors to fit their authorship for publication.

Of the total 3,846 papers published in Emerald’s LIS journals in the past five years (the beginning of 2011 to the end of 2015), there were only 81 papers (research/technical/conceptual papers and case studies only) authored by Arabs, representing 2.11 per cent of the whole productivity in the discipline of the LIS in Emerald in this period. Corresponding authors (mostly first authors) (n = 73) were contacted to answer the questionnaire of the study. Five of those 73 authors could not be reached because of the lack of validity of their e-mails. Out of the remaining authors (n = 68), 47 returned their valid questionnaires, representing 69.1 per cent of the total number of the Arab authors.

This study revealed that the Arab male authors dominated (78.7 per cent) the publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals in the past five years. Two-thirds of the Arab authors are aged between 36 to 45 years (mostly males with doctoral degrees), followed by those authors (17 per cent) who are aged between 46 to 50 years (mostly males with doctoral degrees) and by those authors (12.8 per cent) aged between 31 to 35 years (all are males and half of them hold a doctorate). The study also found that there was a direct proportionality between the Arab authors’ research experience with the history of publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals because the more research experience they have, the greater the number of their research history of publishing in Emerald. Assistant Professors (44.7 per cent) were found to be the group most frequently publishing in Emeralds’ LIS journals with research experience ranging between 11 and 20 years (mainly with a publishing history of five years), followed by lectures with research experience ranging between 1 and 20 years (mostly with a publishing history of five years) and then associate professors with research experience ranging between 11 and 20 years (mostly with a publishing history of ten years). The findings also found that most Arab authors (80.9 per cent) publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals preferred the sole or single authorship. The co-authorship or co-authored works were not much preferred by many of them. A large number (87.2 per cent) of the Arab authors, who are mainly described as experts and advanced authors in using the Emerald refereeing system, see this system, at least, as good. Regarding the reasons/factors to submit articles to Emerald’s LIS journals, this study revealed that the availability of papers in electronic formats, the journal’s impact factor, the association with the research area, the academic coverage of the journal, abstracting and indexing services, the availability in hard copy, the speed of reviewing, the size of readership, the ease of acceptance and the standing of the editorial board were the most significant reasons and factors to submit articles papers for publication in Emerald. The Arab authors in this study have shown considerable positive attitude and perceptions towards the publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals because all of them, at least, agree that publishing in Emerald can increase the speed of finding information and reduce the use of papers. A very large number of them also showed that such publishing may also help create a wider spread, build confidence, be convenient, secure credibility and be objective. Compared to their positive attitude and perceptions towards the publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals, Arab authors had little negative feelings about the publishing in these journals. A few of them (8.5 per cent) have shown a considerable concern about the time it takes in reviewing their articles because they reported that such publishing requires a long time for the peer review process, and it also needs long communications with the editorial staff; this may affect negatively on the time of the research topic. Not being their first language, a few Arab authors (8.5 per cent) have also shown a considerable concern about the use of English being the publishing language in Emerald, as it requires certain skills needed not only to publish their articles but also to deal with the Emerald system and communicate with editorial staff. Overall, this small percentage did not affect the rest of the authors who described their concerns about this obstacle as modest to some extent. Although there is a lot of enthusiasm for publication in Emerald showed by the Arab authors, there have been also some concerns expressed by them towards that goal. A modest number of the Arab authors suggested that the lack of language skills needed for publishing in Emerald, followed by the lack of patience needed to wait for issuing papers, the technical problems related to the system and its interface and the lack of technical skills needed for publishing, as well as the time needed to be online, were significant to them when looking to publish in Emerald.

The paper investigates the quality of the scholarly publishing and refereeing system used in Emerald’s LIS journals from the perspectives of Arab authors who are publishing in this wide-ranging database. Such topic, to date, has limited previous research, as well as the limited size of the representation of the Arab authors in Emerald’s LIS journals in the past five years, which is due logically to the lack of their research and scientific contributions in this database during this period. Future research could focus on varied contexts or samples, such as other different disciplines and nationalities.

The paper provides valuable insight into the perception about the Emerald’s peer review quality by a very significant client group – academic researchers representing 22 Arab countries.

This study is to be the first one of its kind conducted by one of the Arab authors who has published in Emerald’s LIS journals. Being one of the few studies about the scholarly communication/productivity/collaboration of Arab authors in these journals, this study considers a pioneer one among many studies conducted in scholarly communication, especially with Arab authors.

As a response to the claims that much of management academic research is irrelevant from the practitioner perspective, this study aims to empirically investigate whether books serve as effective knowledge distribution agents and whether peer‐reviewed publications are used in the development of book content.

A citation analysis of 40 authored and nine edited books was done, followed by a survey of 35 book authors.

This study refutes the previous claims that management academic research has made little impact on the state of practice. Peer‐reviewed sources, such as refereed journals, book chapters, and conference proceedings, are used to develop the content of knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC) books. Even though most business professionals do not directly read academic articles, the knowledge existing in these articles is delivered to them by means of books and textbooks.

Scholarly research has played a significant role in developing the KM/IC field. This study confirms the existence of the indirect knowledge dissemination channels where books serve as knowledge transmission agents. Therefore, academics should not change their research behavior. Instead, infrastructure should be developed to facilitate the transition of scholarly knowledge to practitioners. The question is not whether academic research is relevant, instead it is whether it reaches practitioners in the most efficient way.

This is the most comprehensive empirical investigation of the role of books in academic knowledge transition ever conducted.

The present study compares the use of web citations as references in leading scholarly journals in Library and Information Science (LIS) and Communication and Media Studies (CMS). A total of 20 journals (each 10 from LIS and CMS) were selected based on the publishing history and reputation published between 2008 and 2017.

The present study compares the use of web citations as references in leading scholarly journals in LIS and CMS. A PHP script was used to crawl the Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) collected from the reference list. A total of 12,251 articles were downloaded and 555,428 references were extracted. Of the 555,428 references, 102,718 web citations were checked for their accessibility.

The research findings indicated that 76.90% URLs from LIS journals and 84.32% URLs from Communication and Media Studies journals were accessible and others were rotten. The majority of errors were due to HTTP 404 error code (not found) in both the disciplines. The study also tried to retrieve the rotten URLs through Time Travel, which revived 61.76% rotten URLs in LIS journal articles and 65.46% in CMS journal articles.

This is an in-depth and comprehensive comparative study on the availability of web citations in LIS and CMS journals articles spanning a period of 10 years. The findings of the study will be helpful to authors, publishers, and editorial staff to ensure that web citations will be accessible in the future.

This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015.

The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology.

The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed.

Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).