Search results

Systems to support literature review (LR) and manuscript preparation tend to focus on only one or two of the tasks involved. The purpose of this paper is to describe an intervention framework that redesigns a particular set of tasks, allowing for interconnectivity between the tasks and providing appropriate user interface display features for each task in a prototype system.

A user evaluation study was conducted on the prototype system. The system supports the three tasks: building a reading list (RL) of research papers, finding similar papers based on a set of papers and shortlisting papers from the final RL for inclusion in manuscript based on article type. A total of 119 researchers who had experience in authoring research papers, participated in the evaluation study. They had to select one of the provided 43 topics and execute the tasks offered by the system. Three questionnaires were provided for evaluating the tasks and system. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on the collected evaluation data.

Task redesign aspects had a positive impact in user evaluation for the second task of finding similar papers while improvement was found to be required for the first and third tasks. The tasks interconnectivity features seed basket and RL were helpful for the participants in conveniently searching for papers within the system. Two of the four proposed informational display features, namely, information cue labels and shared co-relations were the most preferred features of the system. Student user group found the task recommendations and the overall system to be more useful and effective than the staff group.

This study validates the importance of interconnected task design and novel informational display features in accentuating task-based recommendations for LR and manuscript preparatory tasks. The potential for improvement in recommendations was shown through the task redesign exercise where new requirements for the tasks were identified. The resultant prototype system helps in bridging the gap between novices and experts in terms of LR skills.

During the literature review phase, the task of finding similar research papers can be a difficult proposition for researchers due to the procedural complexity of the task. Current systems and approaches help in finding similar papers for a given paper, even though researchers tend to additionally search using a set of papers. This paper aims to focus on conceptualizing and developing recommendation techniques for key literature review and manuscript preparatory tasks that are interconnected. In this paper, the user evaluation results of the task where seed basket-based discovery of papers is performed are presented.

A user evaluation study was conducted on a corpus of papers extracted from the ACM Digital Library. Participants in the study included 121 researchers who had experience in authoring research papers. Participants, split into students and staff groups, had to select one of the provided 43 topics and run the tasks offered by the developed assistive system. A questionnaire was provided at the end of each task for evaluating the task performance.

The results show that the student group evaluated the task more favourably than the staff group, even though the difference was statistically significant for only 5 of the 16 measures. The measures topical relevance, interdisciplinarity, familiarity and usefulness were found to be significant predictors for user satisfaction in this task. A majority of the participants, who explicitly stated the need for assistance in finding similar papers, were satisfied with the recommended papers in the study.

The current research helps in bridging the gap between novices and experts in terms of literature review skills. The hybrid recommendation technique evaluated in this study highlights the effectiveness of combining the results of different approaches in finding similar papers.

The paper attempts to provide an outline account of the development and context of scientific and technical communication during the twentieth century. The main channels and forms of communication are reviewed, and their changing contributions to the overall pattern of information flow. The ever‐increasing volume and diversity of scientific and technical information are emphasised. The paper concludes with some reflections on what may be learnt from this history.

The development of electronic publishing heralds a new period in scientific communications. Besides the obvious advantages of an almost endless storage and transport capacity, many new features come to the fore. As each technology finds its own expressions in the ways scientific communications take form, we analyse print on paper scientific articles in order to obtain the necessary ingredients for shaping a new model for electronic communications. A short historical overview shows that the typical form of the present‐day linear (essay‐type) scientific article is the result of a technological development over the centuries. The various characteristics of print on paper are discussed and the foreseeable changes to a more modular form of communication in an electronic environment are postulated. Subsequently we take the functions of the present‐day scientific article vis‐à‐vis the author and the reader as starting points. We then focus on the process of scientific information transfer and deal essentially with the information consumption by the reader. Different types of information, at present intermingled in the linear article, can be separated and stored in well‐defined, cognitive, textual modules. To serve the scientists better in finding their way through the information overload of today, we conclude that the electronic information transfer of the future will be, in essence, a transfer of well‐defined, cognitive information modules. In the last part of this article we outline the first steps towards a new heuristic model for such scientific information transfer.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize library and information science (LIS) as fragmenting discipline both historically and by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory about the organization of sciences and Fuchs’ (1993) theory about scientific change.

The study combines historical source analysis with conceptual and theoretical analysis for characterizing LIS. An attempt is made to empirically validate the distinction between LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The origin of fragmentation in LIS due the contributions of other disciplines can be traced in the 1960s and 1970s for solving the problems produced by the growth of scientific literature. Computer science and business established academic programs and started research relevant to LIS community focusing on information retrieval and bibliometrics. This has led to differing research interests between LIS and other disciplines concerning research topics and methods. LIS has been characterized as fragmented adhocracy as a whole, but we make a distinction between research topics LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The paper provides an elaborated historical perspective on the fragmentation of LIS in the pressure of other disciplines. It also characterizes LIS as discipline in a fresh way by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a novel personal scientific document retrieval system. The most common approach taken for the storage of personal documents is to construct a hierarchical folder structure. Most users prefer searching for documents by manually traversing their organizational hierarchy until reaching the location where the target item is stored, then locating the specific documents within its directory or folder. However, this is very time-consuming, especially when the number of personal scientific documents is very large. Unfortunately, related personal information management (PIM) systems, which provide solutions for managing various types of personal information, have thus far made little progress at managing personal scientific documents.

In this paper, we introduce the design of a personal scientific document retrieval system, namely, LocalContent. It is composed of database indexing and retrieval stages. During indexing, term feature extraction from scientific documents is performed by the natural language processing technique. The extracted terms are stored in the inverted index for later retrieval. For retrieval, a graphical user interface is provided by LocalContent, which allows users to search their personal scientific documents.

The evaluation results based on 20 different personal archives taken from 20 graduate students show that LocalContent is simple to use and can facilitate the search for relevant scientific documents. Moreover, these users were willing to have a system which provides specialized search functions like LocalContent to explore their personal scientific documents in the future.

LocalContent is a novel scientific document retrieval system and provides several particular functions of LocalContent including displaying the content summary of the query term frequency in each specific section of the retrieved documents, querying by local section specification and providing a number of recommended keywords related to the query terms.

The purpose of this paper is to present the initial relationship between the Classification Research Group (CRG) and the Center for Documentation and Communication Research (CDCR) and how this relationship changed between 1952 and 1970. The theory of normative behavior and its concepts of worldviews, social norms, social types, and information behavior are used to characterize the relationship between the small worlds of the two groups with the intent of understanding the gap between early classification research and information retrieval (IR) research.

This is a mixed method analysis of two groups as evidenced in published artifacts by and about their work. A thorough review of historical literature about the groups as well as their own published works was employed and an author co-citation analysis was used to characterize the conceptual similarities and differences of the two groups of researchers.

The CRG focused on fundamental principles to aid classification and retrieval of information. The CDCR were more inclined to develop practical methods of retrieval without benefit of good theoretical foundations. The CRG began it work under the contention that the general classification schemes at the time were inadequate for the developing IR mechanisms. The CDCR rejected the classification schemes of the times and focused on developing punch card mechanisms and processes that were generously funded by both government and corporate funding.

This paper provides a unique historical analysis of two groups of influential researchers in the field of library and information science.

In this paper the extent to which modern indexing and information retrieval research meets the needs and requirements of different types of readers is criticised. A review of the stagnation in this field gives evidence for the need for a radically different approach. The main problem is identified as the assumption that knowledge contained in a scientific article can be represented by a semantic network only, and therefore can be manipulated by formal logic approaches. Complementary to this, a plea is made to start an argumentational analysis of the — highly structured — corpus of scientific articles (mainly in physics). Such an analysis might lead to an argumentational syntax which will also enable the non‐expert to browse through large quantities of electronically stored articles. A first attempt at such an approach is given. Furthermore the possible use of the Standard General Markup Language (sgml) approach in relation to a hypertext environment for a possible application is discussed.

This paper aims at analysing the impact of open access (OA) on the creation, retrieval and transfer of scientific knowledge. In doing so, the focus is set on scientific research as one core function of higher education institutions. It also aims to identify potential advantages of OA over traditional subscription‐based publishing models from the viewpoint of academic scientists.

The approach of this study can be classified as analytical conceptual research. First the SECI model of organisational knowledge creation is applied to knowledge management in science (with the university as organisation). In a second step the resulting framework is used to describe influences of OA on the management of scientific knowledge.

OA accelerates the creation and widens the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Subject‐based repositories are suggested to provide the best conditions for retrieval of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, in terms of economic efficiency, OA has the potential to significantly decrease the costs of scholarly communication.

In this paper the focus of investigation is academic research. Thus in order to get the “big picture” the influence of openly accessible information on knowledge management processes in teaching and administration should also be evaluated. The approach used in this paper seems to be suitable for such an analysis.

The findings of the paper are of interest for policy makers in higher education institutions – especially when facing decisions regarding the (financial) support of OA initiatives.

The paper adds a theoretically sound approach of analysing OA impacts to the existing literature in this field.

The International Conference on Scientific Information which will be held in November 1958 in Washington is the first large‐scale sequel to the Royal Society Conference on Scientific Information of 1948. In the ten intervening years there has been such a multiplication of scientific publications, despite some efforts at rationalizing their production, that the problem which seemed vast enough ten years ago is now considered so great as to defy dealing with as a whole even in such a large‐scale international conference. The Royal Society Conference attempted to deal with every aspect of scientific publication; with the method of producing scientific papers, with the organization of journals where original work is published—abstracts, reports—and with the processes of filing and finding information. The Washington conference is definitely more limited in its scope. It is essentially concerned with the provision of effective storage and retrieval mechanisms rather than with the question of publication. In the words of its own announcement, ‘emphasis will be placed on the critical examination and appraisal of techniques, mechanisms, systems and organization for the storage and retrospective search of scientific information and particularly upon recent research studies in these aspects. Problems concerned with primary publication and dissemination will not be considered except incidentally. The practical point of view of the using scientist—whether he be an isolated individual depending on a small library or one who has access to a large information retrieval centre—will be kept foremost.’