Communication in the sciences

Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Volumn 44, Issue , 2010, Pages 285-316

  Brown, Cecelia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952002159     PISSN: 00664200     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1002/aris.2010.1440440114     Document Type: Article

References (124)

1. Almind, T. C., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). Infometric analyses on the World Wide Web: Methodological approaches to "webometrics." Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 404-426.
2. American Chemical Society. (2006). Publications. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from pubs.acs.org/about.html
3. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 65, 372-382.
4. arXiv.org. (2008). arXiv monthly submission rate statistics. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from arxiv.org/show-monthly-submissions
5. Association of Research Libraries. (2008). Create change. Retrieved June 7, 2008, from www.createchange.org
6. Atkins, D. E., Droegemeier, K. K., Stuart I., Feldman, S. I., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M. L., et al. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved October 29, 2008 from www.nsf.gov/cise/sci/reports/atkins.pdf
7. Bar-Ilan, J., & Fink, N. (2005). Preference for electronic format of scientific journals: A case study of the science library users at the Hebrew University. Library & Information Science Research, 27, 363-376.
8. Blake, C, & Pratt, W. (2007a). Collaborative information synthesis I: A model of information behaviors of scientists in medicine and public health. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1740-1749.
9. Blake, C, & Pratt, W. (2007b). Collaborative information synthesis II: Recommendations for information systems to support synthesis activities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(14), 1888-1895.
10. Bollen, J., & Van De Sompel, H. (2006). Mapping the structure of science through usage. Scientiometrics, 69(2), 227-258.
11. Bollen, J., Van De Sompel, H., Smith, J. A., & Luce, R. (2005). Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1419-1440.
12. Borgman, C. L., & Fumer, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 2-72.
13. Braam, R. R., Moed, H. F., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1991a). Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis 1: Structural aspects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(4), 233-251.
14. Braam, R. R., Moed, H. F, & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1991b). Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis 2: Dynamical aspects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(4), 252-266.
15. Brody, T., Stamerjohanns, H., Hamad, S., Gingras, Y., Vallieres, E, & Oppenheim, C. (2004). The effect of open access on citation impact. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Policies on Open Access (OA) Provision for University Research Output: An International Meeting, Southampton University, Southampton UK. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from opcit.eprints.org/ febl9oa/brodyimpact.pdf
16. Brown, C. M. (1999). Information seeking behavior of scientists in the electronic information age: Astronomers, chemists, mathematicians, and physicists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(10), 929-943.
17. Brown, C. M. (2001). The e-volutton of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(3), 187-200.
18. Brown, C. M. (2003a). The changing face of scientific discourse: Analysis of genomic and proteomic database usage and acceptance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 926-938.
19. Brown, C. M. (2003b). The role of electronic preprints in chemical communication: Analysis of citation, usage, and acceptance in the journal literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 262-271.
20. Brown, C. M. (2004). The Matthew effect of the annual reviews of series and the flow of scientific communication through the World Wide Web. Scientometrics, 60(1), 25-30.
21. Brown, C. M. (2007). The role of Web based information in the scholarly communication of chemists: Citation and content analyses of American Chemical Society journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2055-2065.
22. Bush, V. (1945a, July). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176, 101-108.
23. Bush, V. (1945b). As we may think: A top scientist foresees a future world in which man-made machines will start to think. Life, 19(11), 112-114, 116, 121, 123-124.
24. Bush, V. (1945c). Summary of the report to the President on a program for postwar scientific research. Science, 102(2639), 79-81.
25. Butler, D. (1999). US biologists propose launch of electronic preprint archive. Nature, 397(6715), 91.
26. Chan, L., Cuplinskas, D., Eisen, M., Friend, E, Genova, Y., Guédon, J.-C., et al. (2002). The Budapest Open Access Initiative. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shlml
27. Covi, L. M. (2000). Debunking the myth of the Nintendo generation: How doctoral students introduce new electronic communication practices into university research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1284-1294.
28. Craig, I. D., Plume, A. M., McVeigh, M. E., Pringle, J., & Amin, M. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Infometrics, 1, 239-248.
29. Davis, P. M. (2008). Author-choice open access publishing in the biological and medical literature: A citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(14), 1-6.
30. Davis, P. M., & Fromerth, M. J. (2007). Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles? Scienlometrics, 71(2), 203-215.
31. Davis, P. M., & Price, J. S. (2006). eJoumal interface can influence usage statistics: Implications for libraries, publishers, and Project COUNTER. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1243-1248.
32. Davis, P. M., & Solla, L. R. (2003). An IP-level analysis of usage statistics for electronic journals in chemistry: Making inferences about user behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(11), 1062-1068.
33. Drott, M. C. (2006). Open access. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40, 79-109.
34. Duy, J., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Can electronic journal usage data replace citation data as a measure of journal use? An empirical examination. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32, 512-517.
35. Egghe, L. (2000). New informetric aspects of the Internet: Some reflections-Many problems. Journal of Information Science, 26(5), 329-335.
36. Erdelez, S., & Means, T. (2005). Measuring changes in information sharing among life science researchers. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Knowledge Management, 29-40.
37. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), 692-698. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from biology.plosjournals. org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040157
38. Finholt, T. (2002). Collaboratories. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 73-107.
39. Fosmire, M., & Yu, S. (2000). Free scholarly electronic journals: How good are they? Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 27. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from www.istl.org/00-summer/refereed.html
40. Garfield, E. (1998, May). The use of journal impact factors and citation analysis for evaluation of science. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Council of Biology Editors, Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from www.garfield.library.upenn. edu/papers/eval-of-science-CBE (Utah).html
41. Garfield, E. (2001). Impact factors, and why they won't go away. Nature, 411, 522.
42. Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines: Empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(3), 123-136.
43. Giles, C. L., Bollacker, K. D., & Lawrence, S. (1998). CiteSeer: An automatic citation indexing system. Proceedings of the Third ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, 89-98.
44. Ginsparg, P. (1996). Winners and losers in the global research village. Paper presented at a conference held at UNESCO Headquarters. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~ginsparg/blurb/pg96unesco.html
45. Glanzel, W. & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171-193.
46. Glaze, W. H. (1999). Electronic preprint publications. Environmental Science & Technology, 33(13), 265a.
47. Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952-965.
48. Hamad, S. (2008). The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: A bibliography of studies. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from opcit.eprints.org/oacitotion-biblio.htmlrody-harnad04
49. Hamad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, 10 (6). Retrieved October 29, 2008, from www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06hamad.html
50. Harter, S. P. (1998). Scholarly communication and electronic journals: An impact study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(6), 507-516.
51. Hey, T., & Hey, J. (2006). e-Science and its implications for the library community. Library Hi Tech. 24 (4) 515-528.
52. Hilgartner, S. (1995). Biomolecular databases: New communication regimes for biology? Science Communication, 17(2), 240-263.
53. Hurd, J. M. (1996). Models of scientific communication systems. In S. Y. Crawford, J. M. Hurd, & A. C. Weller (Eds.), From print to electronic: The transformation of scientific communication (pp. 9-33). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
54. Hurd, J. M. (2000). The transformation of scientific communication: A model for 2020. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(4), 1279-1283.
55. Hyland, K., & Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific writing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42, 297-338.
56. Institute for Scientific Information. (2001). Journal citation reports. New York: Thomson Scientific.
57. Jankowski, N. W. (2007). Exploring e-science: An introduction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 549-562.
58. King, D. W., & Tenopir, C. (1999). Using and reading scholarly literature. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, 423-477.
59. Kling, R. (2004). The Internet and unrefereed scholarly publishing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38, 591-631.
60. Kling, R., & Callahan, E. (2003). Electronic journals, the Internet, and scholarly communication. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 127-177.
61. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1306-1320.
62. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. New York: Pergamon Press.
63. Koenig, R. (2000). Publishers discuss European e-print site. Science, 287(5453), 563-564.
64. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multidiscipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055-1065.
65. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74(2), 273-294.
66. Kreitz, P. A., Addis, L., Galic, H., & Johnson, T. (1997). The virtual library in action: Collaborative international control of high-energy physics pre-prints. Publishing Research Quarterly, 13(2), 24-32.
67. Kurata, K., Matsubayashi, M., Mine, S., Muranushi, T., & Ueda, S. (2007). Electronic journals and their unbundled functions in scholarly communication: Views and utilization by scientific, technological and medical researchers in Japan. Information Processing & Management, 43(5), 1402-1415.
68. Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C, Demleitner, M., Henneken, E., et al. (2005). The effect of use and access on citations. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1395-1402.
69. Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C, Demleitner, M., & Murray, S. S. (2005). Worldwide use and impact of the NASA Astrophysics Data System digital library. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 36-45.
70. Lancaster, F. W. (1978). Toward paperless information systems. New York: Academic Press.
71. Landolt, A. U. (1992). UBVRI photometric standard stars in the magnitude range 11.5-16.0 around the celestial equator. Astronomical Journal, 104, 340-371.
72. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
73. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
74. Lawler, A. (2008). Harvard faculty votes to make open access its default mode. Science, 319(5866), 1025.
75. Lawrence, S. (2001). Online or invisible? Nature, 411(6837), 521.
76. Leydesdorff, L. (2004). Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in journal citation reports. Journal of Documentation, 60(4), 371-427.
77. Lievrouw, L. A., & Carley, K. (1990). Changing patterns of communication among scientists in an era of "telescience." Technology in Society, 12, 457-477.
78. Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van De Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1462-1480.
79. Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L., & Randall, R. J. (1951). Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 193(1), 265-275.
80. Lynch, C. A. (2008). e-Research crosses the pond: Contrasting transformations in the United States and United Kingdom. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45, NA.
81. Marshall, E. (1990). Data sharing: A declining ethic? Science, 248(4958), 952-957.
82. Marshall, E. (1999a). NIH weighs bold plan for online preprint publishing. Science, 283(5408), 1610-1611.
83. Marshall, E. (1999b). Researchers plan free global preprint archive. Science, 286(5441), 887.
84. McCain, K. W. (1991). Communication, competition, and secrecy: The production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(4), 491-516.
85. McCain, K. W. (1995). Mandating sharing: Journal policies in the natural sciences. Science Communication, 16(4), 403-432.
86. McVeigh, M. E. (2004). Open access journals in the ISI citation databases: Analysis of impact factors and citation patterns: A citation study from Thomson Scientific. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from science. thomsonreuters.eom/m/pdfs/openaccesscitations2.pdf
87. Metcalfe, T. S. (2005). The rise and citation impact of astro-ph in major journals. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/ 0503519vl" http://arwv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503519vl
88. Moed, H. F. (2007). The effect of "Open Access" on citation impact: An analysis of arXiv's condensed matter section. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2047-2054.
89. Mueller, P. S., Murali, N. S., Cha, S. S., Erwin, P. J., & Ghosh, A. K. (2006). The effect of online status on the impact factors of general internal medicine journals. Netherlands Journal of Medicine, 64(2), 39-44.
90. National Academy of Sciences. (2008). PNAS open access option. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from www.pnas.org/site/subscriptions/open-access.shtml
91. Palmer, C. L., Cragin, M. H., & Hogan, T. P. (2007). Weak information work in scientific discovery. Information Processing & Management, 43(3), 808-820.
92. Peek, R. P., & Pomerantz, J. P. (1998). Electronic scholarly journal publishing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 33, 321-356.
93. Piwowar, H. A., Day, R. S., & Fridsma D. B. (2007). Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLoS ONE, 2(3), e308. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10. 1371%2Fjoumal.pone.0000308
94. Price, D. J. D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
95. Price, D. J. D., & Beaver, D. D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011-1018.
96. Rover, S. (2006). Evolving access: Publishers experiment with immediate open access to articles if author pays. Chemical & Engineering News, 84(7), 8.
97. Schwarz, G. J., & Kennicutt, R. C. (2004). Demographic and citation trends in astrophysical journal papers and preprints. Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 36, 1654-1663. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411275vl
98. Shen, Y. (2006). Scholarly communication in scientific research practice: A study of computer sciences faculty. Libri, 56, 239-251.
99. Smith, E. T. (2003). Changes in faculty reading behaviors: The impact of electronic journals on the University of Georgia. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29(3), 162-168.
100. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration: Challenges and solutions. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 643-682.
101. Sotudeh, H., & Horri, A. (2007a). The citation performance of open access journals: A disciplinary investigation of citation distribution models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2145-2156.
102. Sotudeh, H., & Horri, A. (2007b). Tracking open access journals evolution: Some considerations in open access data collection validation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(11), 1578-1585.
103. Suber, P. (2008). An Open Access mandate for the NIH. SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 117. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from www.earlham.edu/-peters/fos/ newsletter/01-02-08.htm
104. Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2005). Open access self-archiving: An author study. Retrieved October 29, 2008, fromeprints.ecs.soton. ac.uk/10999/01/jisc2. pdf
105. Tenopir, C, & King, D. W. (2000). Towards electronic journals: Realities for scientists, librarians, and publishers. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association.
106. Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Boyce, P., Grayson, M., & Paulson, K. L. (2005). Relying on electronic journals: Reading patterns of astronomers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(8), 786-802.
107. Tenopir, C, King, D. W., Boyce, P., Grayson, M., Zhang, Y, & Ebuen, M. (2003). Patterns of journal use by scientists through three evolutionary phases. D-Lib Magazine, 9 (5). Retrieved October 29, 2008, fromwww.dlib.org/ dlib/may03/king/05king.html
108. Thelwall, M., Vaughan, L., & Bjömebom, L. (2005). Webometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 39, 81-135.
109. Thomson Reuters. (2008). Web of science. New York: Thomson Reuters.
110. Thomson Scientific. (2005). Journal Citation Reports quick reference card. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from scientific.thomson. com/media/scpdf/jcr- 0805-q.pdf
111. Trager, R. (2008, January). NIH battles publishers over open access. Chemistry World. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/ News/2008/January/22010801.asp
112. Trimble, V., & Aschwanden, M. J. (2000). Astrophysics in 1999. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 112, 434-503.
113. Van House, N. A. (2004). Science and technology studies and information studies. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38, 1-86.
114. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2003). The use of bibliometric analysis in research performance assessment and monitoring of interdisciplinary scientific developments. Technikfolgenabschätzung: Theorie und Praxis, 1(12), 20-29. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from www.itas.fzk.de/tatup/031/raan03a.pdf
115. Vaughan L., & Shaw, D. (2005). Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1075-1087.
116. Voorbij, H., & Ongering, H. (2006). The use of electronic journals by Dutch researchers: A descriptive and exploratory study. Journal of Academic Librarianskip, 32, 223-237.
117. Weinberg, R. A. (1993). Reflections on the current state of data and reagent exchange among biomedical researchers. In National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process (Vol. 2, pp. 66-78). Washington, DC: The Academy.
118. Weller, A. C. (2005). Electronic scientific information, open access, and editorial peer review: Changes on the horizon? Science & Technology Libraries, 26(1), 89-108.
119. Wilkinson, S. (1998). Web continues to raise publishing issues. Chemical & Engineering News, 77(36), 11.
120. Wren, J. D. (2005). Open access and openly accessible: A study of scientific publications shared via the Internet. British Medical Journal, 330, 1128-1132. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ full/330/7500/U28
121. Yitzhaki, M., & Hammershlag, G. (2004). Accessibility and use of information sources among computer scientists and software engineers in Israel: Academy versus industry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(9), 832-842.
122. Youngen, G. K. (1998). Citation patterns to traditional and electronic preprints in the published literature. College & Research Libraries, 59(5), 448-456.
123. Zemke, S. L. (2007). Academic knowledge sharing on the Web: Webometric analysis of bookmark and tag clustering trends in Connotea. (Unpublished master's thesis, University of Oklahoma).
124. Zuccala, A. (2006). Modeling the invisible college. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 152-168.