A study of factors that affect the information-seeking behavior of academic scientists

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 336-353

  Niu, Xi ^a   Hemminger, Bradley M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS; ELECTRONIC ACCESS; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS; EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS; INFORMATION BEHAVIOR; INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIORS; LOGIT MODELS; MEDICAL SCIENCE; ORDERED LOGIT MODEL; POISSON MODEL; REGRESSION MODEL; RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES;

DATA REDUCTION; EDUCATION; FACTOR ANALYSIS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84857362853     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21669     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Applegate, R. (2008). Whose decline? Which academic libraries are "deserted" in terms of reference transactions? Reference and User Services Quarterly, 48(2), 176-189.
2. Boneva, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). Email, gender, and personal relationships. The Internet in Everyday Life (pp. 372-403). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
3. 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 and Technology, 50(10), 929-943.
4. Brynin, M. (2006). The neutered computer. Computers, Phones, and the Internet: Domesticating Information Technology. New York: Oxford Press.
5. Buente, W., & Robbin, A. (2008). Trends in internet information behavior, 2000-2004. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1743-1760.
6. Burdick, T.A. (1996). Success and diversity in information seeking: Gender and the information search styles model. School Library Media Quarterly, 25(1), 19-26.
7. Davies, M. (1998). Impact of information developments on the information handling techniques of research scientists: Implications of selected results. New Review of Information Networking, 11, 53-70.
8. Dillon, I.F., & Hahn, K.L. (2002). Are researchers ready for the electroniconly journal collection? Results of a survey at the University of Maryland. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2(3), 375-390.
9. Gayton, J.T. (2008). Academic libraries: "Social" or "communal?" The Nature and Future of Academic Libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 60-66.
10. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people's online skills. First Monday, 7(4), 1-20.
11. Hemminger, B.M., Lu, D.,Vaughan, K., &Adams, S.J. (2007). Information seeking behavior of academic scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2205-2225.
12. Hiller, S. (2002). How different are they? A comparison by academic area of library use, priorities, and information needs at the University of Washington. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 33.
13. Hinton, P.R. (2004). Statistics explained. London, England: Routledge.
14. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). The manual of learning styles (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: P. Honey.
15. Howard, P.E.N., Rainie, L., & Jones, S. (2002). Days and nights on the internet. The Internet in Everyday Life (pp. 45-73). Malden, MA:Wiley-Blackwell.
16. Jakobsdottir, S., Jonsdottir, B., & Hjartarson, T. (2004). Gender, ICT-related student skills, and the role of a school library in an Icelandic school. School LibrariesWorldWide, 10, 52-72.
17. Karim, N.S.A.,&Hasan,A. (2007). Reading habits and attitude in the digital age. The Electronic Library, 25(3), 285-298.
18. Kelly, D. (2004). Understanding implicit feedback and document preference: Anaturalistic user study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
19. Kennedy, T., Wellman, B., & Klement, K. (2003). Gendering the digital divide. IT & Society, 1(5), 72-96.
20. King, D.W., Tenopir, C., Montgomery, C.H., &Aerni, S.E. (2003). Patterns of journal use by faculty at three diverse universities. D-Lib Magazine, 9(10), 1-10.
21. Liu, Z. (2006). Print vs. electronic resources: A study of user perceptions, preferences, and use. Information Processing&Management, 42(2), 583-592.
22. Losh, S.C. (2004). Gender, educational, and occupational digital gaps 1983-2002. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 152.
23. Marcella, R., & Binfield, S.J. (1996). Gender differences in the oral communication of technical information. Education for Information, 14(3), 181-193.
24. Marley, J.L. (2007). Gender differences and distance education: Major research findings and implications for LIS education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(1), 13-20.
25. Meho, L.I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105.
26. Moore, D.S., & McCabe, G.P. (1998). Introduction to the practice of statistics. NewYork, NY: Freeman.
27. Mullis, R.L., Mullis, A.K., & Cornille, T.A. (2007). Relationships between identity formation and computer use among black and white emerging adult females. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 415-423.
28. Nelder, J., &Wedderburn, R. (1972). Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), 135(3), 370-384.
29. Niu, X., Hemminger, B.M., & Lown, C. (2010). National Study of Information Seeking Behavior of Academic Researchers in the United States. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(5), 869-890.
30. Odlyzko, A. (2002). The rapid evolution of scholarly communication. Learned Publishing, 15, 7-19.
31. O'Hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '97) (pp. 335-42). NewYork: ACM Press.
32. Palmer, J. (1991a). Scientists and information: I. Using cluster analysis to identify information style. Journal of Documentation, 47(2), 105-129.
33. Palmer, J. (1991b). Scientists and information: II. Personal factors in information behavior. Journal of Documentation, 47(3), 254-275.
34. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2000). Tracking online life: How women use the internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends.
35. Rainie, L. (2000). Tracking online life: How women use the internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends. Pew Internet &American Life Project.
36. Raban,Y., & Brynin, M. (2006). Older people and new technologies. Computers, Phones, and the Internet: Domesticating Information Technology. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
37. Robbin, A., & Buente, W. (2008). Trends in internet information behavior, 2000-2004. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1743-1760.
38. Rowland, I.,&Nicholas, D. (2008). Information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Scholarly Communication Report, 12(1), 7.
39. Tenopir, C. (2003). Use and users of electronic library resources: An overview and analysis of recent research studies. Report of the Council on Library and Information Resources. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.
40. Tenopir, C., & King, D.W. (2002). Reading behaviour and electronic journals. Learned Publishing, 15(4), 259-265.
41. Tenopir, C., King,D.W.,&Bush,A. (2004). Medical faculty's use of print and electronic journals: Changes over time and in comparison with scientists. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92, 233-241.
42. Vibert, N., Rouet, J.F., Ros, C., Ramond, M., & Deshoullieres, B. (2007). The use of online electronic information resources in scientific research: The case of neuroscience. Library and Information Science Research, 29(4), 508-532.
43. Voelck, J. (2003). Directive and connective: Gender-based differences in the management styles of academic library managers. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(3), 393-418.
44. Walsh, J. (2010). E-books: The end of theword as we knowit. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/is- thepublishing-industry-doomed-2099796.html
45. Whitmire, E. (2002). Disciplinary differences and undergraduates' information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(8), 631-638.
46. Wilson, T. (1997). Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective. Information Processing & Management, 33(4), 551-572.