Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Lee, D.J."
  • × author_ss:"Stvilia, B."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Stvilia, B.; Hinnant, C.C.; Wu, S.; Worrall, A.; Lee, D.J.; Burnett, K.; Burnett, G.; Kazmer, M.M.; Marty, P.F.: Research project tasks, data, and perceptions of data quality in a condensed matter physics community (2015) 0.00 
    0.0030444188 = product of:
  0.0060888375 = sum of:
    0.0060888375 = product of:
      0.012177675 = sum of:
        0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 1631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012177675 = score(doc=1631,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 1631, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    To be effective and at the same time sustainable, a community data curation model needs to be aligned with the community's current data practices, including research project activities, data types, and perceptions of data quality. Based on a survey of members of the condensed matter physics (CMP) community gathered around the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, a large national laboratory, this article defines a model of CMP research project tasks consisting of 10 task constructs. In addition, the study develops a model of data quality perceptions by CMP scientists consisting of four data quality constructs. The paper also discusses relationships among the data quality perceptions, project roles, and demographic characteristics of CMP scientists. The findings of the study can inform the design of a CMP data curation model that is aligned and harmonized with the community's research work structure and data practices.
    Type
    a
  2. Stvilia, B.; Wu, S.; Lee, D.J.: Researchers' uses of and disincentives for sharing their research identity information in research information management systems (2018) 0.00 
    0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 4373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=4373,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4373, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study examined how researchers used research information systems (RIMSs) and the relationships among researchers' seniority, discipline, and types and extent of RIMS use. Most researchers used RIMSs to discover research content. Fewer used RIMSs for sharing and promoting their research. Early career researchers were more frequent users of RIMSs than were associate and full professors. Likewise, assistant professors and postdocs exhibited a higher probability of using RIMSs to promote their research than did students and full professors. Humanities researchers were the least frequent users of RIMSs. Moreover, humanities scholars used RIMSs to evaluate research less than did scholars in other disciplines. The tasks of discovering papers, monitoring the literature, identifying potential collaborators, and promoting research were predictors of higher RIMS use. Researchers who engaged in promoting their research, evaluating research, or monitoring the literature showed a greater propensity to have a public RIMS profile. Furthermore, researchers mostly agreed that not being required, having no effect on their status, not being useful, or not being a norm were reasons for not having a public RIMS profile. Humanities scholars were also more likely than social scientists to agree that having a RIMS profile was not a norm in their fields.
    Type
    a

Authors