[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?

- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:02:08 +0900

    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

- References:
  - [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?
    - From: SUGITA Shigeki

- Prev by Date: [drf:23] 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?
- Next by Date: [drf:25] 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?
- Previous by thread: [drf:23] 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?
- Next by thread: [drf:25] 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?
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread