Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Tenopir, C."
  • × theme_ss:"Benutzerstudien"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Tenopir, C.; Levine, K.; Allard, S.; Christian, L.; Volentine, R.; Boehm, R.; Nichols, F.; Nicholas, D.; Jamali, H.R.; Herman, E.; Watkinson, A.: Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age : results of an international questionnaire (2016) 0.00 
    5.345087E-4 = product of:
  0.0122937 = sum of:
    0.0122937 = product of:
      0.0245874 = sum of:
        0.0245874 = weight(_text_:international in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0245874 = score(doc=3113,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.31273875 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed.
  2. Wang, P.; Hawk, W.B.; Tenopir, C.: Users' interaction with World Wide Web resources : an exploratory study using a holistic approach (2000) 0.00 
    4.0990516E-4 = product of:
  0.0094278185 = sum of:
    0.0094278185 = product of:
      0.018855637 = sum of:
        0.018855637 = weight(_text_:1 in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018855637 = score(doc=423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.32568932 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    1. 4.2002 13:53:02
  3. Tenopir, C.; Wang, P.; Zhang, Y.; Simmons, B.; Pollard, R.: Academic users' interactions with ScienceDirect in search tasks : affective and cognitive behaviors (2008) 0.00 
    2.4153895E-4 = product of:
  0.0055553955 = sum of:
    0.0055553955 = product of:
      0.011110791 = sum of:
        0.011110791 = weight(_text_:1 in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011110791 = score(doc=2027,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    This article presents part of phase 2 of a research project funded by the NSF-National Science Digital Library Project, which observed how academic users interact with the ScienceDirect information retrieval system for simulated class-related assignments. The ultimate goal of the project is twofold: (1) to find ways to improve science and engineering students' use of science e-journal systems; (2) to develop methods to measure user interaction behaviors. Process-tracing technique recorded participants' processes and interaction behaviors that are measurable; think-aloud protocol captured participants' affective and cognitive verbalizations; pre- and post-search questionnaires solicited demographic information, prior experience with the system, and comments. We explored possible relationships between affective feelings and cognitive behaviors. During search interactions both feelings and thoughts occurred frequently. Positive feelings were more common and were associated more often with thoughts about results. Negative feelings were associated more often with thoughts related to the system, search strategy, and task. Learning styles are also examined as a factor influencing behavior. Engineering graduate students with an assimilating learning style searched longer and paused less than those with a converging learning style. Further exploration of learning styles is suggested.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.105-121

Authors

Years