How students use their libraries: A case study of four academic libraries

The purpose of this study was to explore the similarities and differences in student behavior in or uses of four academic libraries in the greater New York City area. Using on-site observations and semistructured interviews, the authors collected data about resources and tools used by students as well as their academic and nonacademic activities and contributing factors. Across all four libraries, the study identified that students were actively engaged in academic pursuits utilizing multiple library resources while working with print and digital tools. Students were also observed resting, eating, and engaging in other nonacademic activities. The variations in student behaviors across the four libraries can be explained by contextual variables that influence students' behavior in a library, including student demographics, academic requirements, work habits, and disciplinary affiliations.     

Utilization of process improvement to manage change in an academic library

Changing the way that academic libraries operate is necessary to accommodate increasing demands for resources with shrinking materials budgets. This article demonstrates how one library administration is managing change. It also shows that these methods can be adapted to fit the specific needs of other institutions.     

如何管理编辑部的电子函件

随着网络化建设的不断推进,编辑部与外界的网上交流日益增多.如何高效、快速地处理大量的电子函件,提高工作效率,成为编辑部迫切需要解决的问题.以具有较强函件处理功能的软件Foxmail为例,重点介绍日常电子函件管理中一些行之有效的处理方法.     

学术期刊如何防范编辑的学术不端行为

近年来学术界频繁出现学术不端问题,其中学术期刊是学术失信的高发领域,作者缺乏诚信固然是产生学术不端的种子,作为学术期刊诚信的建设者和参与者的编辑也同样负有重要责任。为净化学术环境,本文从分析稿件处理过程中学术期刊编辑可能出现的学术不端行为入手,提出加强编辑道德教育、签订诚信责任书、规范审稿流程、加强对学术不端的抽查和审查、建立编辑成长的良好机制等净化学术期刊编辑行为的措施,系统地防范可能出现的编辑学术不端行为,使得学术期刊编辑成为真正的科学“守门人”。     

学术期刊也能搞多种经营

针对当前许多人认为学术期刊难以开展有效经营的观点，提出以学术引导期刊经营的理念，指出今日学术期刊的生存之道应是依靠学术导向开展多种经营。介绍了作为学术期刊的《中华内科杂志》近年来在经营方面所采取的多种措施，以及所取得的经验。     

Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices

This study presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project, a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. The study recruited 116 science and social science ECRs from seven countries who were subject to in‐depth interviews, and this paper reports on findings regarding publishing and authorship practices and attitudes. A major objective was to determine whether ECRs are taking the myriad opportunities proffered by new digital innovations, developing within the context of open science, open access, and social media, to publish their research. The main finding is that these opportunities are generally not taken because ECRs are constrained by convention and the precarious employment environment they inhabit and know what is best for them, which is to publish (in high impact factor journals) or perish.     

Information workflow of academic researchers in the evolving information environment: an interview study

Digital journals have been widely adopted by academic researchers and have nearly replaced printed journals in many contexts. The adoption of digital books is accelerating. The transition to digital information has changed information workflows of researchers by transforming the methods they use to find, store, retrieve, and use information from monographs, journals, and other sources. It has also changed the needs and expectations of scholars in relation to research information. To investigate these changes, 45 researchers in science, medicine, engineering, social sciences, and humanities at Stanford University were interviewed regarding information workflow and preferences. Results are compared with the findings of the e‐Journal User Study (eJUSt), completed in 2002.     

科技期刊应引导并开展学术争鸣

认为科技期刊编辑应意识到引导并开展学术争鸣的必要性,提出开展学术争鸣所必需的3方面的条件,并阐明引导学术争鸣的若干措施.     

从博物馆职能看如何经营博物馆

一般认为,博物馆的基本职能有收集、整理、保管、研究、展览和教育普及等。已故日本博物馆学家鹤田总一郎则进一步将之概括为内部职能、外部职能和综合职能（见下图）。并认为,仅仅从事文物标本的收集、整理、保管和研究工作的机构不是真正的博物馆,而只能称之为保管所、资料馆、考古研究所或文化研究所。若想使博物馆不成为上述机构而成为真正意义上的博物馆,就必须进一步开展展览和教育普及工作,即将内部职能扩展到外部功能。内部职能是外部职能的基础,而外部职能则是内部职能的目的和结果。博物馆工作是一项系统工程,博物馆追求的…     

Predicting future influence of papers,researchers, and venues in a dynamic academic network

Performance evaluation and prediction of academic achievements is an essential task for scientists, research organizations, research funding bodies, and government agencies alike. Recently, heterogeneous networks have been used to evaluate or predict performance of multi-entities including papers, researchers, and venues with some success. However, only a minimum of effort has been made to predict the future influence of papers, researchers and venues. In this paper, we propose a new framework WMR-Rank for this purpose. Based on the dynamic and heterogeneous network of multiple entities, we extract seven types of relations among them. The framework supports useful features including the refined granularity of relevant entities such as authors and venues, time awareness for published papers and their citations, differentiating the contribution of multiple coauthors to the same paper, amongst others. By leveraging all seven types of relations and fusing the rich information in a mutually reinforcing style, we are able to predict future influence of papers, authors and venues more precisely. Using the ACL dataset, our experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach considerably outperforms state-of-the art competitors.     

How scholars implement trust in their reading,citing and publishing activities: Geographical differences

In an increasingly digital environment, many factors influence how academic researchers decide what to read, what to cite, where to publish their work, and how they assign trust when making these decisions. This study focuses on how this differs according to the geographical location of the researcher, specifically in terms of the country's level of development. Data were collected by a questionnaire survey of 3650 authors who had published articles in international journals. The human development index (HDI) was used to compare authors' scholarly behavior. The findings show that researchers from less developed countries such as India and China (medium HDI) compared to those in developed countries, such as the USA and UK (very high HDI) are more reliant on external factors and those criteria that are related to authority, brand and reputation, such as authors' names, affiliation, country and journal name. Even when deciding where to publish, the publisher of the journal is more important for developing countries than it is for researchers from the US and UK. Scholars from high HDI countries also differ in these aspects: a) they are less discriminatory than authors from developing countries in their citation practices; b) for them the fact that a source is peer reviewed is the most important factor when deciding where to publish; c) they are more negative towards the use of repositories and social media for publishing and more skeptical about their potential for increasing usage or reaching a wider audience.     

科技期刊编辑如何促进学术交流

从以科技期刊为依托,构建学术交流的静态平台;积极主办各种学术会议,构建学术交流的动态平台;做好著作权、专利权相关服务等3个方面论述编辑如何在实际工作中促进学术交流.     

高校图书馆如何防范恶意下载

恶意下载严重影响高校图书馆电子数据资源的正常服务，并可能引起法律纠纷。文章结合案例，从法律、管理、技术三个方面为高校图书馆有效防范恶意下载提出了对策。     

Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes manage a group dilemma

Over a six-month time period a school board and its community discussed their district's strategic plan goals about diversity. This article analyzes that discussion within the practical theory frame articulated by Craig. Meeting talk and documents were analyzed to determine how the group's policy deliberation became an argument over what words to have (or avoid) in the strategic plan document. Proposals about document language were framed as technical editing, as inadvertent changing of a policy, and as wordsmithing. In addition to each frame being used, each was also challenged as to its being used to advance some group members' interests at the expense of others. Moving back and forth between using and resisting wording proposal frames, we suggest, is a reasonable way for groups to manage a dilemma they face in crafting policies about controversial, abstract issues. The paper concludes by identifying implications for dilemma theorizing and future study of groups.     

Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes manage a group dilemma

Over a six-month time period a school board and its community discussed their district's strategic plan goals about diversity. This article analyzes that discussion within the practical theory frame articulated by Craig. Meeting talk and documents were analyzed to determine how the group's policy deliberation became an argument over what words to have (or avoid) in the strategic plan document. Proposals about document language were framed as technical editing, as inadvertent changing of a policy, and as wordsmithing. In addition to each frame being used, each was also challenged as to its being used to advance some group members' interests at the expense of others. Moving back and forth between using and resisting wording proposal frames, we suggest, is a reasonable way for groups to manage a dilemma they face in crafting policies about controversial, abstract issues. The paper concludes by identifying implications for dilemma theorizing and future study of groups.     

How to evaluate rankings of academic entities using test data

In the field of scientometrics, impact indicators and ranking algorithms are frequently evaluated using unlabelled test data comprising relevant entities (e.g., papers, authors, or institutions) that are considered important. The rationale is that the higher some algorithm ranks these entities, the better its performance. To compute a performance score for an algorithm, an evaluation measure is required to translate the rank distribution of the relevant entities into a single-value performance score. Until recently, it was simply assumed that taking the average rank (of the relevant entities) is an appropriate evaluation measure when comparing ranking algorithms or fine-tuning algorithm parameters.With this paper we propose a framework for evaluating the evaluation measures themselves. Using this framework the following questions can now be answered: (1) which evaluation measure should be chosen for an experiment, and (2) given an evaluation measure and corresponding performance scores for the algorithms under investigation, how significant are the observed performance differences?Using two publication databases and four test data sets we demonstrate the functionality of the framework and analyse the stability and discriminative power of the most common information retrieval evaluation measures. We find that there is no clear winner and that the performance of the evaluation measures is highly dependent on the underlying data. Our results show that the average rank is indeed an adequate and stable measure. However, we also show that relatively large performance differences are required to confidently determine if one ranking algorithm is significantly superior to another. Lastly, we list alternative measures that also yield stable results and highlight measures that should not be used in this context.