National Academies Press: OpenBook

Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information: Two Volumes (1959)

Chapter: How Scientists Actually Learn of Work Important to Them

« Previous: Systematically Ascertaining Requirements of Scientists for Information
Suggested Citation:"How Scientists Actually Learn of Work Important to Them." National Research Council. 1959. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information: Two Volumes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10866.
×

How Scientists Actually Learn of Work Important to Them

BENTLEY GLASS and SHARON H.NORWOOD

In the light of the very large sums of money—to say nothing of the time and skilled labor—expended annually on the indexing and abstracting of the scientific literature and on the development of new methods of recording and retrieving information, it seemed desirable to examine the actual ways in which representative scientists in practice find out about the existence of scientific work that is crucial to the development of their own research. The method we used was simple in the extreme. In individual interviews each scientist was asked to select a recent, significant paper from his own list of publications. From the references given in this paper he was then asked to choose up to five or six items representing scientific concepts and research of major or crucial significance to the development of his own work reported in the chosen paper. This done, the scientist was asked two questions: (1) How did you first learn of the existence of the work reported in each of the selected items? (2) Would it have made any significant difference to the progress of your own work had you learned of it sooner than you did? The first question was accompanied by an enumeration of the various ways in which experience soon showed the investigators had actually discovered work of importance to them (e.g., in casual conversation; from a formal report at a meeting; in a journal subscribed to by the investigator; in a journal regularly scanned in the library; in an abstracting service; in an indexing service; through a reprint received in exchange; from a reference book; from a review article on the subject; from a cross citation in some other article; in a formal discussion group; from a bibliography; or from a co-worker in the same laboratory.

The interviews elicited a vigorous response. Many of the investigators volunteered comments on the general problem of keeping up with the literature and on their personal methods of trying to cope with it. Fifty scientists were interviewed, representing a variety of fields, although concentrated in the bio-

BENTLEY GLASS and SHARON H.NORWOOD Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Suggested Citation:"How Scientists Actually Learn of Work Important to Them." National Research Council. 1959. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information: Two Volumes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10866.
×

logical sciences. There were 10 animal and human physiologists, 2 plant physiologists, 5 biophysicists, 8 biochemists, 2 organic chemists, 6 cytogeneticists and geneticists, 3 embryologists, 1 microbiologist, 1 physical anthropologist, 1 parasitologist, 6 psychologists, 1 oceanographer, 1 geologist, 2 sanitary engineers, and 1 radio engineer. The number of items from the literature on which they reported totaled 346. When the results were tabulated, rather striking differences were apparent between the workers in different fields. However, since the sample is too small for a really adequate representation of any single group, only the total for the entire sample will be presented. Even so, no positive conclusions should be drawn. The survey is presented merely as a pilot study in order to indicate a method for obtaining information about the actual methods employed by university scientists in their efforts to keep up with the progress of their own fields. The results, ranked in order of frequency, are given in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Ranking of Methods Whereby 50 Representative Scientists Actually Learned of Work Crucial to Their Own

 

Number

Percentage

Casual conversation

78

22.6

From a journal regularly scanned

76

22.0

From a journal subscribed to

29

8.4

From a cross citation in another paper

24

6.9

Can’t remember—general background—common knowledge

22

6.4

From a reprint received from the author

20

5.8

Through an abstracting service

18

5.2

From a co-worker in the same laboratory or department

15

4.3

From a reference work or textbook

15

4.3

From a review article (old work)

14

4.0

Through a formal report at a meeting

9

2.6

By chance

9

2.6

From a bibliography or material supplied in a course

6

1.7

Through an indexing service

4

1.2

In a formal discussion group

4

1.2

From a book list

3

0.9

It may be of some significance that the animal physiologists and biophysicists never referred to cross citations as valuable to them; the biochemists never reported discoveries in journals they regularly subscribe to (one wonders why?); the biophysicists, embryologists, and geneticists almost without exception eschew abstracting services; and the biophysicists and psychologists fail to use reprints.

Little weight can be placed upon the answers to the second question. However, 34 of the 50 scientists interviewed gave “No” as their answer for all their references, when asked whether it would have made a significant difference to

Suggested Citation:"How Scientists Actually Learn of Work Important to Them." National Research Council. 1959. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information: Two Volumes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10866.
×

the progress of their own work had they known of the related work sooner; and 9 answered “yes” at least once. A more extensive study of this relationship appears desirable.

The comments made by the scientists who were interviewed contrasted considerably with the data they provided. Many of them spoke of the importance of abstracts, the use they made of them, and the need for a better coverage of the literature and prompter publication. The data show that for this group of scientists abstracts were not often of primary importance. On the contrary, the most striking fact is unquestionably the very heavy reliance by most workers, and in nearly every field checked, on verbal communication with scientists working in the same area. It is not clear how this could apply to foreign work and workers, and it may therefore indicate a growing tendency to provincialism on the part of the scientists of the United States. In any future study of this sort, it would be valuable to have a breakdown of the distribution of items according to native country, foreign country of same language, and foreign country of different language; and to check this distribution against estimates of the amount of work being done in each field in the United States and abroad.

Dependence upon the memory of the scientists interviewed constitutes a flaw in the present procedure. In any future analysis of like nature the subjects might well be notified of the project in advance and asked to keep a record of how they learn about papers important to their own work, for the next 50 such items.

An extension of the study to include a larger and more representative group of American scientists would seem worthwhile, and if a group of European or other foreign scientists could be made the subjects of a similar survey, the international comparison would be very interesting.

Suggested Citation:"How Scientists Actually Learn of Work Important to Them." National Research Council. 1959. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information: Two Volumes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10866.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"How Scientists Actually Learn of Work Important to Them." National Research Council. 1959. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information: Two Volumes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10866.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"How Scientists Actually Learn of Work Important to Them." National Research Council. 1959. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information: Two Volumes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10866.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"How Scientists Actually Learn of Work Important to Them." National Research Council. 1959. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information: Two Volumes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10866.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"How Scientists Actually Learn of Work Important to Them." National Research Council. 1959. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information: Two Volumes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10866.
×
Page 198
Next: Planned and Unplanned Scientific Information »
Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information: Two Volumes Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The launch of Sputnik caused a flurry of governmental activity in science information. The 1958 International Conference on Scientific Information (ICSI) was held in Washington from Nov.16-21 1958 and sponsored by NSF, NAS, and American Documentation Institute, the predecessor to the American Society for Information Science. In 1959, 20,000 copies of the two volume proceedings were published by NAS and included 75 papers (1600 pages) by dozens of pioneers from seven areas such as:

  • Literature and reference needs of scientists
  • Function and effectiveness of A & I services
  • Effectiveness of Monographs, Compendia, and Specialized Centers
  • Organization of information for storage and search: comparative characteristics of existing systems
  • Organization of information for storage and retrospective search: intellectual problems and equipment considerations
  • Organization of information for storage and retrospective search: possibility for a general theory
  • Responsibilities of Government, Societies, Universities, and industry for improved information services and research.

It is now an out of print classic in the field of science information studies.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!