[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/

- Follow-Ups:
  - [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?
    - From: Masamitsu Kuriyama
  - [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?
    - From: suzuki masako
  - [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?
    - From: Yuko Murakami

- Prev by Date: [drf:21] Re: [drf:20] Re: 室蘭工業大学学術資源アーカイブ(仮称)の試験公開について
- Next 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?
- Previous by thread: [drf:21] Re: [drf:20] Re: 室蘭工業大学学術資源アーカイブ(仮称)の試験公開について
- Next 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?
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread