Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.046496272 = product of:
  0.092992544 = sum of:
    0.092992544 = sum of:
      0.057578463 = weight(_text_:research in 884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057578463 = score(doc=884,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.38605565 = fieldWeight in 884, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=884)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=884,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 884, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=884)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research information management systems (RIMS) have become critical components of information technology infrastructure on university campuses. They are used not just for sharing and promoting faculty research, but also for conducting faculty evaluation and development, facilitating research collaborations, identifying mentors for student projects, and expert consultants for local businesses. This study is one of the first empirical investigations of the structure of researchers' scholarly profile maintenance activities in a nonmandatory institutional RIMS. By analyzing the RIMS's log data, we identified 11 tasks researchers performed when updating their profiles. These tasks were further grouped into three activities: (a) adding publication, (b) enhancing researcher identity, and (c) improving research discoverability. In addition, we found that junior researchers and female researchers were more engaged in maintaining their RIMS profiles than senior researchers and male researchers. The results provide insights for designing profile maintenance action templates for institutional RIMS that are tailored to researchers' characteristics and help enhance researchers' engagement in the curation of their research information. This also suggests that female and junior researchers can serve as early adopters of institutional RIMS.

Date

22. 1.2023 18:43:02

0.029460195 = product of:
  0.05892039 = sum of:
    0.05892039 = sum of:
      0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023506312 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The production of scientific knowledge has evolved from a process of inquiry largely based on the activities of individual scientists to one grounded in the collaborative efforts of specialized research teams. This shift brings to light a new question: how the composition of scientific teams affects their production of knowledge. This study employs data from 1,415 experiments conducted at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) between 2005 and 2008 to identify and select a sample of 89 teams and examine whether team diversity and network characteristics affect productivity. The study examines how the diversity of science teams along several variables affects overall team productivity. Results indicate several diversity measures associated with network position and team productivity. Teams with mixed institutional associations were more central to the overall network compared with teams that primarily comprised NHMFL's own scientists. Team cohesion was positively related to productivity. The study indicates that high productivity in teams is associated with high disciplinary diversity and low seniority diversity of team membership. Finally, an increase in the share of senior members negatively affects productivity, and teams with members in central structural positions perform better than other teams.

Date

22. 1.2011 13:19:42

0.018583369 = product of:
  0.037166737 = sum of:
    0.037166737 = product of:
      0.074333474 = sum of:
        0.074333474 = weight(_text_:research in 4373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074333474 = score(doc=4373,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.4983957 = fieldWeight in 4373, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, 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.

0.015547963 = product of:
  0.031095926 = sum of:
    0.031095926 = product of:
      0.06219185 = sum of:
        0.06219185 = weight(_text_:research in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06219185 = score(doc=309,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.41698778 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Here, we report on a qualitative study that examined research information management (RIM) ecosystems on research university campuses from the perspectives of research information (RI) managers and librarians. In the study, we identified 21 RIM services offered to researchers, ranging from discovering, storing, and sharing authored content to identifying expertise, recruiting faculty, and ensuring the diversity of committee assignments. In addition, we identified 15 types of RIM service provision and adoption problems, analyzed their activity structures, and connected them to strategies for their resolution. Finally, we report on skills that the study participants reported as being needed in their work. These findings can inform the development of best practice guides for RIM on university campuses. The study also advances the state of the art of RIM research by applying the typology of contradictions from activity theory to categorize the problems of RIM service provision and connect their resolution to theories and findings of prior studies in the literature. In this way, the research expands the theoretical base used to study RIM in general and RIM at research universities in particular.

0.014103786 = product of:
  0.028207572 = sum of:
    0.028207572 = product of:
      0.056415144 = sum of:
        0.056415144 = weight(_text_:research in 1631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056415144 = score(doc=1631,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.37825575 = fieldWeight in 1631, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, 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.

0.01163503 = product of:
  0.02327006 = sum of:
    0.02327006 = product of:
      0.04654012 = sum of:
        0.04654012 = weight(_text_:research in 1976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04654012 = score(doc=1976,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 1976, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1976)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As the amount of research data management is growing, the use of identity metadata for discovering, linking, and citing research data is growing too. To support the awareness of different identifier systems and the comparison and selection of an identifier for a particular data management environment, there is need for a knowledge base. This article contributes to that goal and analyzes the data management and related literatures to develop a data identifier taxonomy. The taxonomy includes four categories (domain, entity types, activities, and quality dimensions). In addition, the article describes 14 identifiers referenced in the literature and analyzes them along the taxonomy.

0.009402524 = product of:
  0.018805047 = sum of:
    0.018805047 = product of:
      0.037610095 = sum of:
        0.037610095 = weight(_text_:research in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037610095 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library and information science research. 30(2008) no.1, S.67-74

0.008227208 = product of:
  0.016454415 = sum of:
    0.016454415 = product of:
      0.03290883 = sum of:
        0.03290883 = weight(_text_:research in 2469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03290883 = score(doc=2469,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 2469, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2469)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reviews theoretical and empirical studies on information credibility, with particular questions as to how scholars have conceptualized credibility, which is known as a multifaceted concept with underlying dimensions; how credibility has been operationalized and measured in empirical studies, especially in the web context; what are the important user characteristics that contribute to the variability of web credibility assessment; and how the process of web credibility assessment has been theorized. An agenda for future research on information credibility is also discussed.

0.005876578 = product of:
  0.011753156 = sum of:
    0.011753156 = product of:
      0.023506312 = sum of:
        0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 1859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023506312 = score(doc=1859,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 1859, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The classic problem within the information quality (IQ) research and practice community has been the problem of defining IQ. It has been found repeatedly that IQ is context sensitive and cannot be described, measured, and assured with a single model. There is a need for empirical case studies of IQ work in different systems to develop a systematic knowledge that can then inform and guide the construction of context-specific IQ models. This article analyzes the organization of IQ assurance work in a large-scale, open, collaborative encyclopedia - Wikipedia. What is special about Wikipedia as a resource is that the quality discussions and processes are strongly connected to the data itself and are accessible to the general public. This openness makes it particularly easy for researchers to study a particular kind of collaborative work that is highly distributed and that has a particularly substantial focus, not just on error detection but also on error correction. We believe that the study of those evolving debates and processes and of the IQ assurance model as a whole has useful implications for the improvement of quality in other more conventional databases.

0.005876578 = product of:
  0.011753156 = sum of:
    0.011753156 = product of:
      0.023506312 = sum of:
        0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 4971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023506312 = score(doc=4971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 4971, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4971)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The rapid accumulation of genome annotations, as well as their widespread reuse in clinical and scientific practice, poses new challenges to management of the quality of scientific data. This study contributes towards better understanding of scientists' perceptions of and priorities for data quality and data quality assurance skills needed in genome annotation. This study was guided by a previously developed general framework for assessment of data quality and by a taxonomy of data-quality (DQ) skills, and intended to define context-sensitive models of criteria for data quality and skills for genome annotation. Analysis of the results revealed that genomics scientists recognize specific sets of criteria for quality in the genome-annotation context. Seventeen data quality dimensions were reduced to 5-factor constructs, and 17 relevant skills were grouped into 4-factor constructs. The constructs defined by this study advance the understanding of data quality relationships and are an important contribution to data and information quality research. In addition, the resulting models can serve as valuable resources to genome data curators and administrators for developing data-curation policies and designing DQ-assurance strategies, processes, procedures, and infrastructure. The study's findings may also inform educators in developing data quality assurance curricula and training courses.