Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=2885,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study sets out to explore the factors that influence the evaluation of information and the judgments made in the process of finding useful information in web search contexts. Based on a diary study of 2 assigned tasks to search on Google and Google Scholar, factor analysis identified the core constructs of content, relevance, scope, and style, as well as informational and system "ease of use" as influencing the judgment that useful information had been found. Differences were found in the participants' evaluation of information across the search tasks on Google and on Google Scholar when identified by the factors related to both content and ease of use. The findings from this study suggest how searchers might critically evaluate information, and the study identifies a relation between the user's involvement in the information interaction and the influences of the perceived system ease of use and information design.

0.0075442037 = product of:
  0.02263261 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 5618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=5618,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 5618, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5618)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of individual and information characteristics on university students' information channel selection (that is, search engines, social question & answer sites, online health websites, and social networking sites) of online health information (OHI) for three different types of search tasks (factual, exploratory, and personal experience). Quantitative data were collected via an online questionnaire distributed to students on various postgraduate programs at a large UK university. In total, 291 responses were processed for descriptive statistics, Principal Component Analysis, and Poisson regression. Search engines are the most frequently used among the four channels of information discussed in this study. Credibility, ease of use, style, usefulness, and recommendation are the key factors influencing users' judgments of information characteristics (explaining over 62% of the variance). Poisson regression indicated that individuals' channel experience, age, student status, health status, and triangulation (comparing sources) as well as style, credibility, usefulness, and recommendation are substantive predictors for channel selection of OHI.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=3597,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 5474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=5474,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 5474, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5474)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose A major development in academic libraries in the last decade has been recognition of the need to support research data management (RDM). The purpose of this paper is to capture how library research data services (RDS) have developed and to assess the impact of this on the nature of academic libraries. Design/methodology/approach Questionnaire responses from libraries in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK and USA from 2018 are compared to a previous data set from 2014. Findings The evidence supports a picture of the spread of RDS, especially advisory ones. However, future ambitions do not seem to have seen much evolution. There is limited evidence of organisational change and skills shortages remain. Most service development can be explained as the extension of traditional library services to research data. Yet there remains the potential for transformational impacts, when combined with the demands implied by other new services such as around text and data mining, bibliometrics and artificial intelligence. A revised maturity model is presented that summarises typical stages of development of services, structures and skills. Research limitations/implications The research models show how RDS are developing. It also reflects on the extent to which RDM represents a transformation of the role of academic libraries. Practical implications Practitioners working in the RDM arena can benchmark their current practices and future plans against wider patterns. Originality/value The study offers a clear picture of the evolution of research data services internationally and proposes a maturity model to capture typical stages of development. It contributes to the wider discussion of how the nature of academic libraries are changing.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=168,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

On April 2, 2018, the State Council of China formally released a national Research Data Management (RDM) policy "Measures for Managing Scientific Data". In this context and given that university libraries have played an important role in supporting RDM at an institutional level in North America, Europe, and Australasia, the aim of this article is to explore the current status of RDM in Chinese universities, in particular how university libraries have been involved in taking the agenda forward. This article uses a mixed-methods data collection approach and draws on a website analysis of university policies and services; a questionnaire for university librarians; and semi-structured interviews. Findings indicate that Research Data Service at a local level in Chinese Universities are in their infancy. There is more evidence of activity in developing data repositories than support services. There is little development of local policy. Among the explanations of this may be the existence of a national-level infrastructure for some subject disciplines, the lack of professionalization of librarianship, and the relatively weak resonance of openness as an idea in the Chinese context.