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.; Wu, S.; Lee, D.J.: Researchers' uses of and disincentives for sharing their research identity information in research information management systems (2018) 0.00 
    7.2068995E-4 = product of:
  0.010089659 = sum of:
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 4373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=4373,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4373, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4373)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.1035-1045
  2. 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 
    4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1631)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.246-263

Authors