JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Do Younger Researchers Assess Trustworthiness Differently when Deciding what to Read and Cite and where to Publish?
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Do Younger Researchers Assess Trustworthiness Differently when Deciding what to Read and Cite and where to Publish?
Nicholas, David; Jamali, Hamid R.; Watkinson, Anthony; Herman, Eti; Tenopir, Carol; Volentine, Rachel; Allard, Suzie; Levine, Kenneth;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
An international survey of over 3600 academic researchers examined how trustworthiness is determined when making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing in the digital age and whether social media and open access publications are having an impact on judgements. In general, the study found that traditional scholarly methods and criteria remain important across the board. However, there are significant differences between younger (age 30 & under) and older researchers (over 30). Thus younger researchers: a) expend less effort to obtain information and more likely to compromise on quality in their selections; b) view open access publishing much more positively as it offers them more choices and helps to establish their reputation more quickly; c) compensate for their lack of experience by relying more heavily on trust markers and proxies, such as impact factors; d) use all the outlets available in order to improve the chances of getting their work published and, in this respect, make the most use of the social media with which they are more familiar.
 Keywords
younger researchers;trust;scholarly communications;international survey;digital transition;millennial generation;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Agichtein, E., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A., & Mishne, G. (2008). Finding High-Quality Content in Social Media. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining, 183-194. ACM.

2.
Bauerlein, M., Gad-el-Hak, M., Grody, W., McKelvey, B., & Trimble, S.W. (2014). We Must Stop the Avalanche of Low-Quality Research. The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 2010. Available at: Retrieved 2015.06.20.

3.
Benselin, J. C., & Ragsdell, G. (2015). Information overload: The differences that age makes. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Online before Print, doi: 10.1177/0961000614566341. crossref(new window)

4.
Carr, N. (2010). Is the Internet Making you Stupid? The Times Saturday Review, 14, 1-2.

5.
Casadevall, A. & Fang, F. C. (2014). Reforming Science: Methodological and Cultural Reforms. Infection and Immunity, 80(3) (2012), 891-896.

6.
Carpenter, J., Wetheridge, L., Smith, N., Goodman, M., & Struijve, O. (2012). Researchers of Tomorrow: A Three Year (BL/JISC) Study Tracking the Research Behaviour of 'Generation Y' Doctoral Students. London, Education for Change.

7.
Catalano, C. (2013). Patterns of graduate students' information seeking behavior: a meta-synthesis of the literature. Journal of Documentation, 69(2), 243-274. crossref(new window)

8.
Chudziak, J. (2015). Digital technology vision 2015 and its human dimension. The 3rd Scientific Conference Information Science in an Age of Change, Institute of Information and Book Studies, University of Warsaw.

9.
CIBER. (2014). Available at: Retrieved 2015.06.20.

10.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. Auflage). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

11.
Colquhoun, D. (2014). Publish or Perish: Peer Review and the Corruption of Science. The Guardian, September. Available at: Retrieved 2015.06.20.

12.
Connaway, L. S., Radford, M. L., Dickey, T. J., De Angelis Williams, J., & Confer, P. (2008). Sense-making and synchronicity: Information-seeking behaviors of Millennials and Baby Boomers. Libri, 58(2), 123-135.

13.
Georgas, Helen. (2014). Google vs. the Library (Part II): Student Search Patterns and Behaviors when Using Google and a Federated Search Tool. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(4), 503-532.

14.
Harley, D., Acord, S., Krzys, Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & King, C. (2010). Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Available at: Retrieved 2015.06.20.

15.
Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R. C., & Wulfson, K. (2013). Ithaka S+ R US Faculty Survey 2012. Available at: Retrieved 2015.06.20.

16.
Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Kevine, K., Allard, S., Christian, L., Volentine, R., & Boehm, R. (2014). How scholars implement trust in their reading, citing and publishing activities: geographical differences. Journal of Library and Information Science Research, 36(3-4), 192-202. crossref(new window)

17.
Lariviere, V., Sugimoto, C. R., & Bergeron, P. (2013). In their own image? A comparison of doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1045-1054. crossref(new window)

18.
Mabe, M. & Mulligan, A. (2011). What Journal Authors Want: Ten Years of Results from Elsevier's Author Feedback Programme. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 71-89. crossref(new window)

19.
Nicholas, D. & Rowlands, I. (2011). Social Media Use in the Research Workflow. Information Services and Use, 31(1-2), 61-83.

20.
Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Volentine, A., Allard, S., Levine, K., Tenopir, C., & Herman, E. (2014) Trust and Authority in Scholarly Communications in the Light of the Digital Transition: Setting the Scene for a Major Study. Learned Publishing, 27(2), 121-134. crossref(new window)

21.
PEW (2014). Millennials in Adulthood, Available at Retrieved 2015.06.20.

22.
Ponte, D. & Simon, J. (2011). Scholarly Communication2.0: Exploring Researchers' Opinions on Web 2.0 for Scientific Knowledge Creation, Evaluation and Dissemination. Serials Review, 37(3), 149-56. crossref(new window)

23.
Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010). Adoption and Use of Web 2.0 in Scholarly Communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4039-4056.

24.
Research Information Network (RIN). (2014). Communicating Knowledge: How and Why UK Researchers Publish and Disseminate their Findings. Available at: Retrieved 2015.06.20.

25.
Research Information Network. (2014). If You Build It, Will They Come? How Researchers Perceive and Use Web 2.0. A Research Information Network Report. Available at: Retrieved 2015.06.20.

26.
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, H., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Withey, R., Jamali, H. R., Dobrowolski, T., & Tenopir, C. (2008). The Google Generation: The Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 290-310. crossref(new window)

27.
Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2012) Research Blogs and the Discussion of Scholarly Information. Plos One, 7(5), e35869. crossref(new window)

28.
Tenopir, C., King, D., Spencer, J., & Wu, L. (2009). Variations in Article Seeking and Reading Patterns of Academics: What Makes a Difference? Library & Information Science Research, 31(3), 139-148. crossref(new window)

29.
Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Spencer, J., & Wu, L. (2011). Perceived Value of Scholarly Articles. Learned Publishing, 24, 123-132. crossref(new window)

30.
Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., & King, D. (2013). Social Media and Scholarly Reading. Online Information Review, 37(2), 193-216. crossref(new window)

31.
Thornley, C., Watkinson, A., Nicholas, D., Volentine, R., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Allard, S., Levine, K. J., & Tenopir, C. (2015). The role of tust and authority in the citation behaviour of researchers. Information Research, 20(3), in press.

32.
Voas, J., Hurlburt, G. F., Miller, K. W., Laplante, P. A., & Michael, B. (2011). Thoughts on Higher Education and Scientific Research. IT Professional, 13(2), 6-9.