The effect of the internet on researcher motivations, behaviour and attitudes

Journal of Documentation

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 290-311

  Mulligan, Adrian ^a   Mabe, Michael ^b  

^a ELSEVIER MASSON   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Individual behaviour; Information exchange; Motivation (psychology); Peer review; Research

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952294051     PISSN: 00220418     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/00220411111109485     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Arnold, K. (1995), The body in the virtual library: rethinking scholarly communication, Journal of Electronic Publishing, Vol. 1, 1 and 2, January.
2. Churchill, G. (1995), Marketing Research Methodological Foundations, 6th ed., Dryden Press, Lansing, MI.
3. Coles, B. (1993), The Scientific, Technical and Medical Information System in the UK, BLR&DD Report 6123, Royal Society, The British Library, and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, London.
4. Gates, W. (1999), Business@The Speed of Thought, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
5. Harley, D., Krzys Acord, S., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S. and Judson, C. (2010), Final Report: Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines, CSHE 1.10, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
6. Keyhani, A. (1993), The online journal of current clinical trials: an innovation in electronic journal publishing in Database, Vol. 16, February, pp. 14-23.
7. King, D.W. and Montgomery, C.H. (2002), After migration to an electronic journal collection: impact on faculty and doctoral students in D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 8, No. 12, p. 11.
8. Likert, R. (1932), A technique for the measurement of attitudes in Archives of Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 140, pp. 1-55.
9. Mabe, M.A. (2009), Scholarly publishing in European Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 3-22.
10. Mabe, M.A. (2010), Scholarly communication: the long view in New Review of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 132-44.
11. Mabe, M.A. and Amin, M. (2002), Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde: author-reader asymmetries in scholarly publishing in Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 149-57.
12. Merton, R.K. (1973), Sociology of Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
13. Mulligan, A. (2005), Is peer review in crisis? in Oral Oncology, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 135-41.
14. Nicholas, D., Jamali, H.R. and Rowlands, I. (2006), On the tips of their tongues: authors and their views on scholarly publishing in Learned Publishing, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 193-203.
15. NISO (2008), "NISO journal article versions", available at: www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf.
16. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2002), Postnote: Peer Review, No. 182, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, London, September.
17. PCG (2005), "PCG library budget survey for 2005", available at: www.pcgplus.com/Resources/LibraryBudgetSurvey2005.pdf.
18. Ravetz, J.R. (1973), Scientific Knowledge, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
19. Research Information Network (RIN) (2009), Communicating Knowledge: How and Why UK Researchers Publish and Disseminate Their Findings, RIN, London.
20. Research Trends (2008), 8, November, available at: www.info.scopus.com/researchtrends/archive/RT8/cou_tre_8.html.
21. Swan, A. and Brown, S. (1999) in What Authors Want: The ALPSP Research Study on the Motivations and Concerns of Contributors to Learned Journals, ALPSP, Worthing, pp. 1-41.
22. Swan, A. and Brown, S. (2003), Authors and electronic publishing: what authors want from the new technology in Learned Publishing, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 28-33.
23. University of California (2007), "Faculty attitudes and behaviors regarding scholarly communication: survey findings from the University of California", available at: http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/OSC-survey-full-20070828.pdf.
24. Ziman, J.M. (1968), Public Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25. Wheeler, A.G. (1989), The pressure to publish promotes disreputable science in The Scientist, Vol. 3, No. 14, p. 11.