[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[drf:24] Re: [drf:22] 見つけられないものは無いものだ問題 Fwd: "Discoverability" Problem or Non-Existence Problem?



小樽商大 鈴木です。

私は同じAlma Swanさんからのメールを(Cross-postなので)
JISC-REPOSITORIESメーリングリストで見ました。(※)

北大杉田さんからのメールでASOAF-MLに入っとこうっと思われ
た方は、ついでにJISC-MLにも入られてはいかがでしょう。

http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/jisc-repositories.html


※ 見ました、というのは、なかなか英文メールを読むのが難
しいからです。内容を紹介してくださると本当に嬉しいですね。
ありがとうございます。


余談ですが、業務上の経験から言うと、OA方面は調べずにILLを
注文してくる先生もいらっしゃますよね。最近、こちらで調べて
ここから読めますよーとお知らせしています。IR宣伝にもなります!



--------------------------------------------------------
>
>北大 杉田です。
>
>ASOAFメーリングリスト(AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM)上の
>Alma Swanさんからのメールです。
>
>研究者の情報探索行動についての質問に対し、幾つかの調査結果を踏まえ、
>
>・図書館の提供情報などに基づき、無料でその場でオンラインアクセス
> できるフルテキストを探す。
> (無料で、とは(OA文献というよりも)機関購読のこと)
>・それがうまくいかなければ、GoogleでOAバージョンを探す。
>・それがうまくいかなければ、より大きな研究機関に所属している仲間に、
> 横流ししてくれるように電子メールで頼む。(※)
>・それがうまくいかなければ、著者に電子メールで頼む。(※※)
>・それがうまくいかなければ、ILLを申し込むか、主題司書に相談する。
>
>とまとめていました。
>
>#恥ずかしながら、私自身はこのIR関連の業務に携わるまで、(※)や、
>#とくに(※※)(≒抜刷交換文化)の存在を過小に想像しておりました。
>#IRはこの(※※)のプラットフォームであるわけですね。
>
>すぐに手に入らなければなしで済ます、という傾向についても、
>
>> > There is another barrier, too, that is bad for scholarship, and one that is
>> >  largely self-imposed by scholars and their (rather new-found) attitudes to
>> >  obtaining information for their work. This is that if an article or book
>> > will take some time to obtain -- and that time varies between disciplines -
>> > - then the scholar will, as in the case of toll-barriers, abandon the chase
>> >  and go without.
>
>として示されていました。その傾向は分野によっても差があり、
>
>・人文系 ほんとに重要な本なら何ヶ月でもがんばって待つ。
>・数学 BLで文献が供給される2日間は「耐えられなくもないがもっと早く」
>・細胞分子生物学 「すぐに、とは、数秒以内に、という意味だ」
>
>というエピソードが紹介されています。
>
>
>ASOAFメーリングリストは下記から購読できます。
>http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?SUBED1=american-scientist-open-access-forum&A=1
>
>
>Alma Swan さんは書きました:
>> > **Cross-posted from American Scientist Open Access forum list**
>> >
>> >  Frank McCown asked:
>> >
>>> > > Can anyone point me to research on the topic of how researchers go
>>> > > about finding research papers on a particular topic? Do most
>>> > > researchers start with Google Scholar, etc.
>>> > > or do they first go to OAIster or ScienceDirect? When do they stop
>>> > > searching? I'm looking for something addressing computer scientists,
>>> > > perhaps a large survey.
>> >
>> > One of our recent studies, based on surveys about researcher behaviour,
>> > indicated that over 70% of researchers use Google or Google Scholar as
>> > their first-choice tool for finding information on a topic (http://www.jisc
>> > .ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Open%20Access%20Self%20Archiving-an%20author%20
>> > study.pdf). Hardly any use OAIster (they haven't heard of it) and
>> > ScienceDirect is further down the line, if available. We split the
>> > responses by major disciplines (physical sciences, life sciences, social
>> > sciences, arts & humanities) so computer scientists are subsumed into
>> > physical sciences in the report.
>> >
>> > Lee van Orsdel and Katherine Born also did a study recently on this topic
>> > and reported that Google is used by over 60% of researchers (Van Orsdel L C
>> >  and Born K (2006) Journals in the time of Google. LibraryJournal.com ,
>> > April 15, 2006. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6321722.html )
>> >
>> > When researchers do not have access to articles via their library then they
>> >  set off on a particular path of discovery. Here is an excerpt of our
>> > report from an even more recent study (http://www.rin.ac.uk/researchers-use
>> > -libraries or http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13868/), based on surveys and
>> > discussions with researchers, on what researchers do when their library
>> > holdings don't provide access to articles they know they want to see:
>> >
>> > "It is commonly said nowadays, with reference to scholars’ information-
>> > seeking and use behaviour, that unless something is available in digital
>> > form it is invisible. What we learned from this study did not entirely
>> > support that notion, but there is nevertheless a substantial degree of
>> > truth in it. Researchers told us that they would ideally like to be able to
>> >  find everything they need for their work in digital form. The ideal is
>> > unlikely to be fully achieved in some areas, but in most it is not an
>> > unimaginable concept. Scholarly publishers continue with their archive-
>> > digitisation programmes; books are now increasingly available in electronic
>> >  form; libraries are hard at work digitising legacy material and special
>> > collections where appropriate. Tomorrow’s scholars, especially in the
>> > sciences, will find that the bulk of what they need -- or think they need -
>> > - to access is accessible digitally, and for many this is already the case.
>> >
>> > That is not necessarily to say it is available digitally. There is still a
>> > cost for getting at much of the material not purchased by a researcher’s
>> > institution, and those extra costs must be paid for. Sometimes this is a
>> > dissuasive factor: researchers say that if they run up against a toll
>> > barrier whilst following up an article or book they ‘give up and find
>> > something else I can get for nothing’. This is not good for scholarship.
>> >
>> > There is another barrier, too, that is bad for scholarship, and one that is
>> >  largely self-imposed by scholars and their (rather new-found) attitudes to
>> >  obtaining information for their work. This is that if an article or book
>> > will take some time to obtain -- and that time varies between disciplines -
>> > - then the scholar will, as in the case of toll-barriers, abandon the chase
>> >  and go without.
>> >
>> > The usual pathway followed to obtain an article not instantly available via
>> >  a library subscription is much the same in sciences, social sciences, and
>> > arts and humanities:
>> >
>> >     *  the scholar seeks access to the full-text, anticipating immediate
>> >     and free electronic availability via the local library; if fails
>> >     *  tries Google to see if an Open Access version is available; if fails
>> >     *  emails a friend in another institution with better library provision
>> >      to see if they can email the article; if fails
>> >     *  emails the author; if fails
>> >     *  orders article via inter-library loan
>> >     *  consults a subject librarian for expert help
>> >
>> > The difference between the disciplines is that some will press on through
>> > all steps while others only try some of them. Arts and humanities scholars
>> > have an information-pursuit timeframe that is longer than that of
>> > scientists, and told us that if a book is genuinely considered to be very
>> > important to their work they will wait months if necessary to lay their
>> > hands on it (and in general this still means it will arrive in printed form
>> > ). Scientists, on the other hand, and especially some kinds of scientists
>> > who work in the very fast-moving fields, want information immediately, on
>> > their computer screen. The two days that the British Library can take to
>> > supply an article to a mathematician is ‘bearable but not ideal’, we were
>> >  told, and is viewed in that way by scientists in fields that move
>> > reasonably fast but not excessively so (the scientists we spoke to appeared
>> >  unaware of the BL’s ability to deliver within an hour, or unwilling to
>> > consider this option because of its relatively high cost). Cell and
>> > molecular biologists, in contrast, told us that "now means in seconds; I
>> > want it on my screen immediately". If the article cannot be supplied within
>> >  such a very short timeframe, one that allows for a very few click-through
>> > steps, then the pursuit is abandoned.
>> >
>> > For scientists this is a problem, but one about which they are pragmatic:
>> > if the article cannot be read -- or at least located and requested --
>> > within minutes, it remains invisible. For libraries trying their best to
>> > service the needs of their users, it poses a real dilemma. No library can
>> > offer the level of provision that such scientists say they want (indeed,
>> > say they need). Yet despite their need, researchers go without rather than
>> > spend time and effort and patience chasing an article deemed necessary. The
>> >  result is information-deficit, with researchers proceeding on the basis of
>> >  not having taken that information into account in their work. Does this
>> > have important repercussions?"
>> >
>> > Alma Swan
>> >
>> > Key Perspectives Ltd
>> >
>> > Truro, UK
>
>-- 
>杉田茂樹 <sugita @ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>北海道大学附属図書館情報システム課システム管理担当
>電話番号:011-706-2524,ファクシミリ:011-706-4099
>HUSCAP http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/
>

--
小樽商科大学附属図書館参考係
  鈴木 雅子 0134-27-5274
 jako @ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx