Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age: Results of an international questionnaire

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 67, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 2344-2361

  Tenopir, Carol ^a   Levine, Kenneth ^a   Allard, Suzie ^a   Christian, Lisa ^a   Volentine, Rachel ^a   Boehm, Reid ^a   Nichols, Frances ^a   Nicholas, David ^b   Jamali, Hamid R ^b   Herman, Eti ^b   Watkinson, Anthony ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^b CIBER RESEARCH LTD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

scholarly communication; scholarly publishing; trust

Indexed keywords

SURVEYS;

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY; JOURNAL RANKINGS; MAKING DECISION; OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING; SOCIAL MEDIA; TRUST;

PUBLISHING;

HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOUND; TRUST;

EID: 84960369648     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23598     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Agichtein, E., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A., & Mishne, G. (2008). Finding high-quality content in social media. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining (pp. 183–194). New York: ACM.
2. Batini, C., & Scannapieca, M. (2006). Data quality: Concepts, methodologies and techniques. New York: Springer.
3. Bauerlein, M., Gad-el-Hak, M., Grody, W., McKelvey, B., & Trimble, S.W. (2010). We must stop the avalanche of low-quality research. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(38), A80–A80. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/We-Must-Stop-the-Avalanche-of/65890/
4. nd ed.). Scholarly Open Access: Critical Analysis of Scholarly Open-Access Publishing. Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/
5. Beall, J. (2013). Unethical practices in scholarly, open-access publishing. Journal of Information Ethics, 22(1), 11–20.
6. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65.
7. Carey, B. (2011). Fraud case seen as a red flag for psychology research. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
8. Chai, K., Potdar, V., & Dillon, T. (2009). Content quality assessment related frameworks for social media. In O. Gervasi, D. Taniar, B. Murgante, A. Laganà, Y. Mun, & M. Gavrilova (Eds.), Computational science and its applications–ICCSA 2009 (pp. 791–805). Berlin: Springer.
9. CIBER & Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. (2010). Social media and research workflow. Retrieved from http://ciber-research.eu/download/20101111-social-media-report.pdf
10. Colquhoun, D. (2011). Publish or perish: Peer review and the corruption of science. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
11. Coonin, B. (2011). Open access publishing in business research: The authors' perspective. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(3), 193–212.
12. Corritore, C.L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: Concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 737–758.
13. Creaser, C., Fry, J., Greenwood, H., Oppenheim, C., Probets, S., Spezi, V., & White, S. (2010). Authors' awareness and attitudes toward open access repositories. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16(sup1), 145–161. doi: 10.1080/13614533.2010.518851
14. Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Darby, R., Goerner, B., Hyppoelae, J., Igo-Kemenes, P., Kahn, D., … van der Stelt, W. (2011). Highlights from the SOAP project survey. What scientists think about open access publishing, arXiv:1101.5260. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260
15. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), e5738.
16. Fang, F.C., & Casadevall, A. (2011). Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity, 79(10), 3855–3859.
17. Fisher, C., Lauría, E., & Chengalur-Smith, S. (2012). Introduction to information quality. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
18. Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2007). The intellectual and social organization of academic fields and the shaping of digital resources. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 115–133. doi: 10.1177/0165551506068153
19. Grabner-Krauter, S., & Kaluscha, E.A. (2003). Empirical research in on-line trust: A review and critical assessment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 783–812.
20. Herman, E., & Nicholas, D. (2010). The information enfranchisement of the digital consumer. Aslib Proceedings, 62(3), 245–260.
21. Hertzum, M., Andersen, H.H., Andersen, V., & Hansen, C.B. (2002). Trust in information sources: Seeking information from people, documents, and virtual agents. Interacting With Computers, 14(5G), 575–599.
22. Huang, L.S., Chou, Y.J., & Lin, C.H. (2008). The influence of reading motives on the responses after reading blogs. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 11(3), 351–355.
23. Jamali, H.R., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Hermann, E., Tenopir, C., Levine, K., … Nichols, F. (2014). How scholars implement trust in their reading, citing and publishing activities: Geographic differences. Library & Information Science Research, 36(3–4), 192–202. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2014.08.002
24. John, L.K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.
25. Kelton, K., Fleischman, K.R., & Wallace, W.A. (2008). Trust in digital information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(3), 363–374.
26. Klein, B.D. (2001). User perceptions of data quality: Internet and traditional text sources. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 41(4), 9–15.
27. Knight, S.A. (2008). User perceptions of information quality in World Wide Web information retrieval behaviour (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Edith Cowan University, Western Australia.
28. Knight, S.A., & Burn, J.M. (2005). Developing a framework for assessing information quality on the World Wide Web. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 8(5), 159–172.
29. Lacetera, N., & Zirulia, L. (2011). The economics of scientific misconduct. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 27(3), 568–603.
30. Lankes, R.D. (2008). Credibility on the internet: Shifting from authority to reliability. The Journal of Documentation, 64(5), 667–686.
31. Martinson, B.C., Anderson, M.S., & De Vries, F.D. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738.
32. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
33. McKnight, D.H., & Chervany, N.L. (2002). What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 35–60.
34. Metzger, M.J., & Flanagin, A.J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 598, 210–220. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012; Advance online publication.
35. Moss, M.S. (2011). Is it a question of trust or why are we afraid to go to Nineveh? Archival Science, 11(3), 409–425.
36. Nedeva, M., Boden, R., & Nugroho, Y. (2012). Rank and file: Managing individual performance in university research. Higher Education Policy, 25(3), 335–360.
37. Nicholas, D. (2013). Trust and authority in scholarly communications: In the digital era. Retrieved from http://ciber-research.eu/download/20131104-trust_portugal2.pdf
38. Nicholas, D., & Rowlands, I. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Information Services and Use, 31(1–2), 61–83.
39. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Jamali, H.R., & Dobrowolski, T. (2008). The information-seeking behaviour of the digital consumer: Case study the virtual scholar. In D. Nicholas & I. Rowlands (Eds.), Digital consumers: Reshaping the information professions (pp. 113–158). London: Facet Publishing.
40. Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Clark, D., & Williams, P. (2011). Google generation II: Web behaviour experiments with the BBC. Aslib Proceedings, 63(1), 28–45. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
41. Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Volentine, R., Allard, S., Levine, K., Tenopir, C., & Herman, E. (2014). Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition: Setting the scene for a major study. Learned Publishing: Journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 27(2), 121–134. doi: 10.1087/20140206
42. Noorden, R.V. (2011). The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28.
43. Pickard, A.J., Gannon-Leary, P., & Coventry, L. (2010). Users' trust in information resources in the Web environment: A status report. JISC Final Report. Retrieved from http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/470/2/JISC_User_Trust_final_report.pdf
44. Pickard, A.J., Gannon-Leary, P., & Coventry, L. (2011). The onus on us? Stage one in developing an I-trust model for our users. Library and Information Research, 35(111), 87–104.
45. Procter, R., Williams, R., & Stewart, J. (2010). If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use Web 2.0. Report for the Research Information Network. Retrieved from http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/web_2.0_screen.pdf
46. Rajasekaran, S. (2012). Publish to flourish: Is it corrupting science? Bone & Joint 360, 1(4), 5–7.
47. Rieh, S.Y., & Danielson, D.R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 307–364.
48. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing: Journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 24(3), 183–195.
49. Rowley, J., & Johnson, F. (2013). Understanding trust formation in digital information sources: The case of Wikipedia. Journal of Information Science, 39(4), 494–508.
50. Solomon, D.J., & Björk, B.C. (2012). A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1485–1495. doi: 10.1002/asi.22673
51. Sovacool, B.K. (2008). Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5(4), 271–282.
52. Steneck, N.H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.
53. Taraborelli, D. (2008). Soft peer review: Social software and distributed scientific evaluation. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP ′08), Carry-Le-Rouet, France, May 20–23, 2008. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/8279/1/8279.pdf
54. Tenopir, C., & Volentine, R. (2013). Social media and scholarly reading. Online Information Review, 37(2), 193–216.
55. Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Bates, B., Levine, K., King, D.W., Birch, B., … Caldwell, C. (2010). Research publication characteristics and their relative values: A report for the Publishing Research Consortium. Center for Information and Communication Studies, University of Tennessee. Retrieved from http://www.publishingresearch.net/
56. Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Bates, B., Levine, K., King, D.W., Birch, B., … Caldwell, C. (2011). Perceived value of scholarly articles. Learned Publishing: Journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 24(2), 123–132.
57. Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., & Christian, L. (2013). Scholarly reading by faculty in the United States: Summary results of a study conducted in 2012 in five universities. Retrieved from http://libvalue.cci.utk.edu/sites/default/files/US.Faculty.Combined.Final__0.pdf
58. Warlick, S.E., & Vaughan, K.T.L. (2007). Factors influencing publication choice: Why faculty choose open access. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 4(1). doi: 10.1186/1742-5581-4-1
59. Wilson, L. (1940). The academic man: A study in the sociology of a profession. New York: Oxford University Press.