[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[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?
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:37:22 +0900
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/