General literature search
Of the three disciplines interviewed, chemists had the most systematic approach to ‘keeping on top of the literature’. Some chemists still maintain personal subscriptions to paper journals and the departments also maintain paper subscriptions in the libraries which are used by some of the interviewees. Several chemists interviewed indicated that general browsing of the literature was still part of their routine, although many of them
mentioned how different things are today from ten years ago, when putting aside a period of time each week to sit in the library with the new display of journals was a regular habit:
In [earlier institution] the scientific library was down the corridor and every Friday afternoon I would go and sit down to look at the changed display of what has come in that week … That browsing technique I can’t do it anymore. I still
browse Tetrahedron because I get it in the mail … Now I try to keep up with a
handful of major journals and do it very badly. I get access via the web to journals, I scan the Tables of Contents.
Friday appears to be the day that used to be set aside by several chemists for this activity. Respondents indicated that browsing in this way had the advantage that it allowed the browser to “flick through, then you get things from left field”. It would seem this practice is now entirely outmoded in favour of email notification, “I have not picked up a journal in the last three years. I just remember the last bastion of paper. I remember the reading area in the library”. The chemists, almost without exception, undertook systematic literature searches. Some have replaced their regular Friday browsing with an online version: I get abstracts of journals sent – keeping up with it all is hard. I am on email lists … I look at journals online. When they first came online I used to set half a day a week to look at journals by skimming through the journal abstracts and flicking through the journals. I found that quite rewarding as you can see things you otherwise don’t see. It is evident that the volume of literature is now very large but most of the interviewees strive to keep up with journals in their field: There is a series of journals that I read religiously – I look them up online and skim [through] the Tables of Contents. Periodically, once a month, I look at SciFinder or similar search for candidate areas or particular authors – in areas close to what I’m working on.
In some cases this activity is still carried out in the library, often at weekends, “I am tending to go into the library [for a] few hours each week. The library is in the building, it’s a very good one. Normally [I go] on weekends”. This chemist then prints out any interesting abstracts and reads them at their leisure. Some Chemistry papers have abstracts consisting of graphics of the chemical structure discussed in the paper which provide a comparatively fast way of skimming through the literature. In addition, ‘alerts’ which are circulated in this discipline also assist in keeping up to date:
98
Ten years ago I spent far more time in the library. Now the contents lists are delivered via alerts. 40 contents lists. Saturday morning is a busy one. I read them within a few hours of getting them otherwise the inbox gets out of control. Some journals are more important than others. I guess that there are 10 really important papers per week. There were, however, a couple of chemists who were more sporadic about their searching, while others used their reviewing as a method of keeping up, “I review about two papers a month … [it’s] another way I find out about what’s going on. It’s running ahead of reading the literature”. Some chemists described alternative ways of keeping up with the literature, including one who uses their students as a resource: “I have a group meeting once a week. Students are assigned journals – with a specific list of categories. They pick up relevant literature and discuss at meetings. I don’t sit down and trawl”. For those chemists I spoke to who do not undertake this regular literature browse, there appeared to be vestiges of guilt with not doing so: I don’t keep on top of what’s going on in the literature. I mostly use SciFinder these days and look for key words. I don’t sit down and read journals, I should … You can’t read everything. I doubt many people have enough time to read the literature they would like … I don’t get emailed the Tables of Contents. Even then scanning through eight to 10 journals takes a fair amount of time.
Searching for a specific topic
The second type of information search involves specifically searching for work that relates to a research project that is being planned, currently in process or being written up. Chemists use a variety of databases for this purpose, with the American Chemical Society Abstracts, the Web of Science and PubMed all mentioned. The search tool used by almost every chemist interviewed was SciFinder, “[w]e have a very good chemical database called SciFinder run by the US Chemical Society. Often it is easier to find original papers through a search”. Another chemist commented that “it has really revolutionised the way we work with the literature”.
One chemist said that rather than restricting themselves to an initial SciFinder search, their searches continue throughout a study, “[b]ecause Chemistry is going on everywhere”, and they do not want to miss something that might have been published during the time of their study. In addition, as a backup their “students are also doing that. Multiple check, there is more than one person doing it”.
While “most of the work is found on Pub Med”, a couple of chemists also mentioned the Web of Science because: “it allows me to get away with monitoring only eight out of 100 journals. It connects me with papers I haven’t seen. It’s a collating mechanism”.
Electronic search tools
One chemist commented that, “SciFinder is one of two tools. The other is Google – they are complimentary. Sometimes more modest journals you can find through Google and get free access. It is not foolproof, you still get stymied.” Those that admitted they did use Google did so somewhat reluctantly, “I have Googled – generally for clarification about a topic, I am sorry to say”. This mistrust of Google was reflected by another chemist, “[o]ccasionally I use Google a little – it is not something I rely on”. In summary, chemists are systematic in their search of the literature and have good search tools available to them that they use widely.
Information-seeking by Sociologists
The sociologists interviewed rely on a combination of journal articles and books for their browsing, following citation chains. They described a broad range of information‐seeking techniques, such as PubMed Central, Project Muse, the library’s own electronic resource portal, and government websites.The idea of ‘keeping up’ with the literature was barely evident in the Sociology group, although one person specifically stated they have Tables of Contents regularly sent to them:
I am on Ingenta and I get about five or six, oh maybe more, seven or eight journals regularly. But I don’t usually have time to read through them but it is a good way of keeping up with what is going on. I [also] go into [the university] library, look up the journal in the electronic selection and download it.
Another researcher, who browses through Tables of Contents, tends to link all their reading to teaching. A third follows journals but in a more relaxed way, “I keep in touch with what journals are doing. Every now and again [I] go into the library, look at serials and flick through them”. More common was a combination of ‘active and passive’ searching:
Actively I have a few references and know what I’m looking for. The passive is when I am looking at another kind of problem and see something that might be
100
relevant – serendipitous. I might look at a book – where I know I have seen something before.
One reason for this technique could be the breadth of the discipline:
I have used whatever references are available that were relevant. The ideas are interdisciplinary, the field is so broad I don’t worry about covering it … it is different in the sciences – you always have to cover your tracks and have to know what has been done.
Otherwise there was far less emphasis than the other disciplines on regular engagement with particular journals, with one researcher using “whole transcripts from the Federal Reserve Bank website”. Several interviewees described a combination of book and article use with one researcher describing the use of key books, but primarily tending to “read largely articles because I am pursuing new fields, a lot of literature in a short time”. One self‐confessed ‘book person’ reads “about three books a week … I buy books out of my own personal budget”. The sociologists seemed to be aware, in a way that was not expressed by the interviewees in the other two disciplines, that the library is providing them with the portal they need to access the material they are looking for through electronic databases that can be accessed from home or work: “There are advantages to being in a university, at the moment there are adequately trained librarians who know which databases they subscribe to. You can belt through [a search] in six weeks”.
Of the three groups interviewed, sociologists are the most likely to respond to the ‘increased visibility’ argument. Interviewees at both institutions described a less‐than‐ optimum access to literature through their libraries, which may explain their awareness. In addition, there can be a protracted lag time in Sociology between manuscript submission and publication. The information‐seeking behaviours of the sociologists varied greatly, with more than one ANU sociologist “going to the National Library on weekends”, and the UNSW sociologists using a combination of “what is in UNSW or Fisher [University of Sydney] Libraries”.
One sociologist described their approach to the literature as “non‐systematic searching” which allows the researcher to experience serendipitous discoveries. In these searches, browsing in books or on the internet, what turns up is “largely a matter of accident”. Indeed one sociologist specifically said they did not have notifications sent to them,
“because I would be overwhelmed”, stating that “sometimes it’s an advantage not to know what’s going on – there is so much you don’t want to go near it”. One researcher writing a dictionary noted the problem of changing definitions of words over time, which poses a problem for internet searches: [It] was great fun sitting in the school of medicine library. You find out so much more serendipitously that you don’t come across on the web. You don’t spot it because of however it is coded or how they have chosen to key words doesn’t trigger anything … I spent a lot of time in the library physically pulling things off the shelf. How they had defined or used a word, what context it was in, had it changed over time.
Several sociologists described ‘non‐systematic searching’, often referred to as ‘snowballing’, which consists of following “footnotes, references in articles, leads given by people I know”. One researcher described keeping up with the literature “by the seat of my pants”, and said refereeing is another source of new references: “It is the pay off in refereeing. I pay very close attention to the bibliography – how up to date they are. If there is something I haven’t seen I check it out”.
Electronic search tools
Despite having a higher reliance on books as a source of information than the other two disciplines interviewed, many of the Sociologists interviewed also used search engines, although some expressed frustration at the broad brush Google takes. Even the self confessed ‘book person’ has undertaken some online searches to “get a sense of how it plays out in the discourse”. Another sociologist made the observation that “some material lives only on the internet. Future academic research won’t involve literature because of the alternatives. It’s what people want. I am using Google or AltaVista or Yahoo”.
Another made a related reference to the usefulness of Google as a source of snowballing: “Sometimes if I just do a Google search you can pick up things that have been placed on websites, from a CV. I use this to get a reference when I know part of the details”. However, another sociologist observed that one of the problems with this was: “With the Internet it’s a nightmare. You put the keyword in topic you get 300,000 hits in Google”. While search engines were described as having “varying quality”, PubMed was praised by one researcher, and another said the move to electronic availability of articles means “[m]ost of the things I am interested in I can access. It’s better now through Project Muse”.
102
At least one sociologist stated they were on a couple of listserves, but a couple of people expressed some discomfort with the electronic tools: “A lot of colleagues keep abreast through the web. I am still a book person … Occasionally I find something from the web – I have bookmarked a few”. These responses indicate that this group of sociologists are not adverse to using electronic search engines.