Information Gathering Habits of - ACS Publications - American

Information Gathering Habits of Workers in Pure and Applied Science SAUL HERNER‘ Applied Physics Laboratoryz, The Johns Hopkins University, Silver Spring, M d .

T

HE upsurge in scientific research since the end of World War I1 has resulted in a pressing documentation problem for working scientists. The rapid growth of scientific publication has, paradoxically, made significant sources of information in the sciences more difficult to locate than ever before. This problem has been a subject of frequent discussion among persons who are in the business of gathering or making available scientific and technical information. What has been overlooked generally is the analysis that must lie between the mere recognition of the existence of a problem and its solution. Librarians, literature scientists, and others, have advanced many solutions to the current problem of obtaining scientific information, but rarely, if ever, have they attempted to define the problem. Urquhart (24) expressed this thought admirably when he stated that “a great deal of discussion is proceeding with regard to the distribution and use of scientific and technical information, and theories and proposals on the subject fill the air, but the facts on which these discussions are based appear to be few, or even nonexistent.” The foregoing quotation is from a report on the informationgathering habits of approximately 350 users of the Library of the Science Museum in London. Another British project, carried out by Bernal(3), attempted much the same thing through a study of 208 scientists in English universities, research foundations, government laboratories, and industrial research laboratories. Scates and Yeomans (18) carried on a somewhat similar study in this country, surveying the manner in which industrial and government scientists supplement their knowledges and keep informed, Recently, Tornudd (fig) made a survey of the professional reading habits of 130 scientists at the Mellon Institute. The four studies were based on questionnaires, diaries, or interviewing techniques. There also have been numerous studies in which the so-called “reference counting” method has been used. This method consists of counting the types and quantities of literature referred to in representative publications. The assumption is that citation in the literature is tantamount to use, and frequency of citation is a measure of extent of use. Three such studies, by Fussler ( 6 ) , Hinta ( I $ ) , and Gross and Gross (8), are particularly noteworthy. Fussler attempted an analysis of the literature used by chemists and physicists. Hintz concerned himself with a comparison of the literature used by botanists in four different countries. Gross and Gross investigated the periodical literature of chemistry. The latter study was the earliest application of the reference counting method to the analysis of scientific literature. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

The work reported is an attempt to analyze and define information-gathering methods as they exist among the scientific personnel in a single institution, The Johns Hopkins University. The study was conducted almost entirely through personal interviews. The purpose of the project was to determine the sources of research information and reference services that are most useful. The project was begun at the University’s Applied Physics Labo1 2

Present address, Atlantic Research Corp., Alexandria, Va. Operating under Contract NOrd 7386 with the Bureau of Ordnance,

ratory in January 1952 and was extended to include other major scientific divisions of the University-The Johns Hopkins Hospital, the School of Medicine, the Operations Research Office, the School of Hygiene and Public Health, the School of Engineering, the various science departments of the Faculty of Philosophy, the Thomas C. Jenkins Department of Biophysics, the McCollumPratt Institute, and the Isaiah Bowman School of Geography. METHOD OF STUDY

The method selected was relatively simple and direct. A list of the professional members of the various scientific divisions of the university was compiled and from this list, 606 persons, representing a cross section of all typical fields in the available scientific population, were interviewed. Fairly detailed schedules were used to guide the interviewers and to ensure uniformity in the questions asked and the answers received (Table I). ‘4s further assurance of uniformity, the schedules were constructed in the form of questionnaires with complete instructions to the interviewers as to how answers were to be written and how questions were to be framed. The interviewers had, in fact, only to read the questions from the schedules. The questions asked had to do with the vocational and educational backgrounds of the scientists studied and with the ways in which they seek and obtain technical information. A11 persons interviewed were asked to estimate the per cent of information they derived from the literature, as opposed to conversations and conferences. The interviewees were also asked which of 22 possible sources of information and which of four reference services they used. The information sources were divided into “direct” sources which could be applied to the solution of a problem without further bibliographic refineqent and “indirect” sources which furnish references or “information about information.” I n addition to the basic questions, certain auxiliary questions were asked. The more important areas covered by the auxiliary questions were the use of foreign periodicals, the relative age of the periodicals used, the number of books and periodicals regularly, purchased or received, the use of libraries, and the significance of society meetings as sources of technical information. A large segment of the interviemees Fa8 also asked for its opinions of the current state of scientific literature and for suggestions for improving it. In the two British surveys, mailed questionnaires were used. In the Bernal study ( 3 ) ,the use of questionnaires caused unrep resentative results. Bernal found that most of his responses came from the systematic users of the literature and that the unsystematic users were poorly represented. This consideration and the stated preference of survey experts ( 1 4 ) for personal interviews as opposed to questionnaires, prompted the use of interviews. The aptness of this choice was corroborated further in a study of survey techniques conducted by the medical indexing project of The Johns Hopkins University Welch Medical Library

(IS). Since the major purpose of our survey was to evaluate all possible vehicles of scientific information, the reference counting method was not considered to be applicable. As Stevens (20)has pointed out, reference counting is best adapted to the analysis of periodical literature. Also, it is indirect and is indicative rather

U.8.

Navy.

228

INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY

January 1954

ASKEDBY TABLE I. DATAOBTAINED 9 N D QUESTIONS INTERVIEWERS I.

Personal Data: a. b. c.

d. 11.

Age........................ Degrees earned .............................. Major field of academic training Chemistry.............................. Engineering ................... Phyqics ................... Earth Sciences (Geophysics, Geography, Geology, Meteorology, etc.) .................................. Agricultural Sciences.............................. Medical Sciences.................................... Biology ................................. Mathematics and Statistics.................................. Psychology.. Other (Please name) ................................................... Years of technical experience ............................

Vocational Data: a. Name of organization ........................................................................ b. Type of organization (Check appropyiate space.) College or university .................................. Privately endowed, nonprofit, research foundation ................ Government agency.................................... Industrial organization .......................... Present field of scientific activity (Check appropriate spaces.) c. Chemistry............................ Engineering ................... Branch ............................................ Physics...................................... Earth Sciences.................................... Agricultural Sciences.................................. Medical Sciences ........................................ Biology ...................................... NIathematics and Statistics.............................. Psychology................................................ Other (Please name) ...................................................................... d. Is your present work in p u r e or a p p l i e d science? (Please fill in appropriate spaces.) Pure ...................................... Applied .................................................. Both (Give approximate percentages) ................ 70Pure ......... 70Applied .............................

111. Information Requirements: a. b.

C.

Is required technical inforniation obtained mainly from conversations and conferences ........................ or scientific literature?._ .................................................. If considerable technical information is obtained from both conversations and conferences and scientific literature. eive anoroximate oercentanes of use of these two sources. conG e n c e s .......... .............. T%; scientific literature ........................ %. Which of the following types of publications do you use? (Please check. Do not mark those types that are not used.) (1) Elementary (undergraduate) textbooke .......................... (2) Advanced (graduate level and above) textbooks and monographs ........................ (3) Periodicals publishing papers based on original research ........................ (4) Technical news, house and trade publications .............. ( 5 ) Review publications .......................... (6) Handbooks ........................ ncyclopedias ..............................

............................

.................................. Theses ....................... (1 1 ) Unclassified research reports ........................ 12) Classified research reports ............................ 13) Patents ............................... 14) Standards, specifications, and test codes........................ (15) Supply catalogs........................... If significant use is made of research periodicals, please estimate the percentage of domestic and, foreign periodicals consulted. Domestic.......................... %; foreign .......................... %. Are the : one periodicals most consulted less than a year old .................... t o five vears old ................ : over five vears old .............. : or in all three categories ...................... ? If significant use is made of scientific publications. are they acquired through (1) Personal ownership, purchase or subscription ................1 (2) Technical libraries.......................... ? ? (3) Both personal collections and libraries ..................... How many subscriptions to research periodicals do you now ? hold ........................ T o technical news, house and trade publications...................... 7 Estimate the number of technical books you purchase annually .................. If significant use is made of unpublished research reports, are the majority of those used written in your own organization or in outside organizations...................... ? . If significant use is made of technical libraries, are libraries within your own organization most consulted .......................... ; or are outside libraries most consulted...................... 1 Remarks .............................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................. How do you become aware of sources of information in your field?. (Please check. Do not mark those items that are not used.) (1) Through conversations a t work or during meetings. (10)

i

d.

e.

f. g.

h.

.........................

(2) By regularly perusing the major publications in the field.

.......................... (3) By consulting indexing and abstracting periodicals. .......................... (4)

By consulting library card catalogs .....................

229

than informative, However, certain valid comparisons may be macle between results obtained from studies utilizing the reference counting method and other techniques and those obtained in the Johns Hopkins survey. Such comparisons, where applicable, are made. METHOD OF SCORING

In the first 200-odd interviews conducted a t the Applied Physics Laboratory, each of the interviewees was asked to rank in the order of their usefulness to him those direct and indirect sources of information and reference services used. The average person used ten direct sources, five indirect sources, and four reference services. These averages were used as bases for scoring the comparative values of the various information aids. The most useful item in each category was given a score equal to the average number of items voted upon. Thus, the most useful direct source was given a weight of ten, the second most useful, a weight of nine, etc. In addition, each score was corrected on the basis of the amount of information derived from written and published as opposed to verbal sources. The scores of persons who obtained none of their information from the literature were multiplied by zero; those who obtained 25% of their information from the literature had their scores multiplied by 0.5; those who obtained 50% of their information from the literature had their scores multiplied by 1.0; those who obtained 75y0 of their information from the literature had their scores multiplied by 1.5; and those who obtained 100% of their information from the literature had their scores multiplied by 2.0. After the scores of the first 200 interviews were tallied, some thought was given to the possibility of eliminating the weighting and correction factors and using instead a simple additive method in which each item receives a vote of either one or zero, depending on whether or not it is used by the interviewee. This possibility was investigated and the per cent scores obtained through weighted and nonweighted methods were compared. The two sets of results were correlated. The coefficient obtained through a

TABLE I. (Continued) 111. Information Requirements (Cont'd.) : ( 5 ) By consulting references given in pertinent books or articles.............................. (6) From hook reviews and publishers' announcements. ......................... (7) By consulting bibliographies .......................... If significant use is made of indexing and abstracting publicai. tions, are these used mainly as a means of keeping abreast of the current literature in your field ........................... or for searches or both .............................. 7 of the past literature ......................... What reference services are most useful t o you? (Please j. check. Do not mark those items that are not used.) (1) Bibliographies compiled for you on your specific request ............................ (2) Library accession lists and current selected reading lists.................................. (3) Translations................................ (4) Guidance by members of the library staff as t o possible sources of information on a specific topic .................................... ( 5 ) Other(s)................................................................................ k. 1.

.......................................................................................................... Is most of your technical reading done in the library of your I n outside libraries?............... organization?........................ I n your office or laboratory? ...................... At home?.................... Are you a member of the major scientific and technical societies Do you regularly attend meetin your Beld?............................ Do you obtain a significant amount of ings?.............................. information in your field from attending meetings?........................ Do you obtain most of your information a t meetings from the papers presented or from informal conversations with your colleagues?......................................................................................... ..........................................................................................................

m.

What is your opinion of the present state of scientific literature? ........................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................. Does the literaturs in its present form and state meet your information needs?............................................................................. .............................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................

Can you recommend improvements which might make the literature more useful t o you?........................................................

............................................................................................................. ..............................................................................................................

230

INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY

TABLE 11. DISTRIBUTION OF INTERVIEWEES BY SCIENTIFIC FIELD Field Biology, pure Chemistry, pure Chemistry, applied Physirs, pure Physics, applied Earth sciences pure Engineering a’pplied Mathematiis, pure Mathematics, applied Medical sciences, applied Psychology, applied Totals

30. 61 60 42

54 85 17 156 17 54 35 25

606

Per Cent 10 10 7 9

14

3 26 3

9 6

4 -

101

product-moment correlation was 0.975, indicating a strong similarity between the results obtained by the two methods. On the basis of this similarity, the weighted scoring method was discarded in favor of the simpler and less subjective additive method. VOCATIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND PERSONAL DATA, AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE

Of the persons interviewed 69% were working in applied science; 31% were in pure science. The definitions of Bush (6) were used to differentiate pure and applied science. Pure science was defined as that in which the sole end and purpose are the creation of new knowledge. Applied science was defined as that in which the primary purpose is the application of existing knowledge or the creation of new knowledge for possible application to specific useful products or goals. The fields of research of the scientists interviewed are given in Table 11. The categories of scientific fields used were adapted from those of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (89). Of the interviewees 50% had doctoral degrees; 21oj, had masters degrees; 24% had bachelors degrees; 5% had no earned degrees. The median age of the group was 35. The range of ages was from 21 to 93. The mode was 30 to 39. Extent of formal education, as indicated by highest earned degree, did not appear to influence the interviewees’ informationgathering habits, except, for physicians, where the academic degree is indicative of a specific profession. These findings agree in essence with those of Bernal (9). There was also reasonable agreement with Bernal and Scates and Yeomans (18) as to the apparently small effect of age on the manner and extent to which scientists obtain and use information. There were no significant differences among persons between the ages of 20 and 50. There was a slight increase in the use of theliteraturein theage brackets above 50. However, it was difficult to evaluate the significance of this increase because the number of persons in the “50-andover” category was quite small. The only factors significantly and definitely affecting the information-gathering habits of the scientists interviewed were their present fields of work, the type of scientific organizations in which they were working, and whether they were working in pure or applied science. DEGREE OF DEPENDENCE UPON SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

-4nalyzing the entire group as to the per cent of information derived from scientific literature as opposed to verbal sources, the median estimate was 60y0. Among the pure scientists, the median was 75%. Among the applied scientists, the median was 5070 (see Table 111). The most probable explanation of the difference in the extent to which workers in pure and applied science use technical literature lies in the fact that the pure scientist is generally given the opportunity to seek the best and most original answer to his problem, while the applied scientist is usually in search of a workable solution-not necessarily the best or most original solution but one that will make whatever he is trying to develop work. As

Vol. 46, No. 1

Shera (19) has suggested, the applied scientist is interested mainly in applicable results, while the pure scientist is interested in facts and data and in the methods or theories upon which they are based. This difference in emphasis is reflected in the fact that, as a rule, pure scientists survey their literature critically and exhaustively, while applied scientists give a relatively small amount of their time to the literature, leaning more on verbal sources of information. Among the various subject groups, workers in the earth sciences (pure), pure mathematics, pure physics, and pure chemistry made the greatest use of the literature. The next greatest users were the applied chemists, engineers, and biologists. The applied physicists, applied mathematicians, and psychologists were next. Workers in the medical sciences were the smallest users of the literature, In order to see if the degree of dependence upon the literature varied significantly with the type of scientific organization, the engineers of the university’s School of Engineering were com-

TABLE

111. ESTIMATED PER CENT FROM

O F INFORMATION

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

All Fields Pure and Applied Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range Pure Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range Applied Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range

Per Cent 80 60 50 30

90 75 50

40 80 50 40

40

Individual Fields PLre Science Earth Sciences Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range Mathematics U p p r quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range Physics Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range Chemistry Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range Biology Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range Applied Science Engineering Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range Mathematics Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range Physics Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range Chemistry Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range Medicine Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Interquartile range

Per Cent 90 85 77

13 90 80 80 30 90 75 55 35 90 75 50 40

75 60 50 25

Per Cent 80

60

50 30

75 50 30 45

75 50 50 25 85 60 50 35 75 40 20 55

OBTAINED

.+

January 1954

231


pared with those of the Applied Physics Laboratory. These two divisions of The Johns Hopkins University are approximately 30 miles apart. The School of Engineering is predominantly a graduate and undergraduate teaching insitution. The Applied Physics Laboratory is a nonteaching institution whose full-time activity is in guided missile develop ment and related research. Among the engineers of the School of Engineering, the median estimate of the per cent of information obtained from the literature was 80%. Among the engineers of the Applied Physics Laboratory, the median was SO%, indicating that type of institution is probably a factor influencing degree of dependence upon the literature, and that comparable scientific workers in nonteaching institutions probably make less use of the literature than those in teaching institutions.

Elementary textbooks Advanced textbooks and monographs Research journals Trade publications Review publications Handbooks Encyclopedias Dictionaries and glossaries Mathematical and physical tables Theses Unclassified research reports Classified research reports Patents Standards, specifications, and test codes

USE OF DIRECT SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Supply catalogs

7 &r;a:-l I I,

Per Cent of Total Vote The relative use made of 15 direct sources of information by the group inFigure 1. Relative Use Made of 15 Direct Sources of Information terviewed is given in Figure 1. Among Pure and applied I all fields, pure and applied, the five most Pure rn useful direct sources were advanced Applied textbooks and monographs, research journals, handbooks, mathematical and dictionaries and glossaries among the first five. All but the physiphysical tables, and unclassified research reports. Elementary cians and psychologists placed mathematical and physical textbooks, review publications, and security-classified reports tables in this category. Unclassified research reports were conwere close behind the first five categories. All of these last sidered among the first five by the applied chemists, earth scienthree types of publications were used with equal frequency. It can be argued with considerable merit that no two types of tists, pure and applied mathematicians, and psychologists. The engineers, applied mathematicians, applied physicists, and psypublications are used for the same purpose, and that to compare, chologists placed security-classified reports among their first five say, a dictionary’s usefulness with that of a textbook gives a false choices. None of the various subject groups considered enimpression. However, the intent of the present study is not to cyclopedias, theses, patents, standards, specifications and test find out why different sources of information are used, but t o find codes, or supply catalogs, to be among their five most important out how much they are used in relation to one another. direct sources of information. Among the pure scientists, the order was practically the same While reprints were not formally included as a primary source of as for the over-all group, the only differences being that they did information in the schedule used by the interviewers, many of the not place unclassified research reports among the five most useful scientists interviewed volunteered the fact that reprints were direct sources, substituting review publications instead. The quite useful. There appeared to be greater appreciation of remajor deviation of the applied scientists from the entire group prints among the biological and medical scientists than among was that they placed security-classified research reports among workers in the physical and mathematical sciences. There was their first five choices. The difference between the pure and agreement with the finding of Tornudd (29) that reprints are applied scientists was that the pure scientists made relatively more heavily used and appreciated by pure than by applied sciengreat use of advanced textbooks and monographs, research tists. periodicals, and review publications, and little use of securityIn order to see whether the types of direct sources of informaclassified research reports. The applied scientists made heavy tion that a scientist uses are a function of the type of organization use of security-classified research reports, ranking them second in which he works, the first five direct sources used by the engiThey made slightly less use of advanced textbooks and mononeers of the School of Engineering were compared with those of the graphs, and research periodicals, than the pure scientists. The Applied Physics Laboratory’s engineers. There was a striking applied scientists made very little use of review publications. difference in the order and content of the first five choices of the ilmong the various subject groups, only the applied chemists two groups. The engineers of the School of Engineering listed placed elementary textbooks among their first five choices All their first five in the following order: advanced textbooks and subject groups placed advanced textbooks and monographs monographs, research journals, mathematical and physical tables, among their first five choices. A11 but the applied mathematicians unclassified research reports, and theses. Among the engineers placed research periodicals among the first five. Only the physia t the Applied Physics Laboratory, the order was: handbooks, cians considered house or news or trade publications to be of prisecurity-classified research reports, advanced textbooks and mary significance. Review publications were placed in the “first monographs, research journals, and trade publications; indicating five” category by the biologists, pure chemists, physicians, pure once again that the type of organization in which a scientist works physicists, and psychologists. Handbooks were considered among is apparently a factor determining the manner in which he acthe first five by all groups except the psychologists. The bioloquires technical information. gists, pure mathematicians, physicians, and psychologists rated

232

Vol. 46,No. 1

INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY Personal recommendations Regularly perusing Indexes and abstracts Library card catalogs Consulting cited references (books,papers)

Book reviews and publishers’ announcements

Per Cent o f Total Vote

P

Figure 2. Relative Use Made of Indirect Sources of Information

=

Pure and applied Pure m Applied 0

USE O F FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC RESEARCH PERIODICALS

Among the users of research periodicals, the median estimate of the amount of information derived from domestic as opposed to

foreign journals was 75%. The pure scientists appeared to make greater use of foreign periodicals than the applied scientists. The pure scientists estimated that 70% of their information came from domestic sources, and 30% from foreign sources. The applied scientists obtained 90% from domestic, and 10% from foreign sources. As a check of the validity of the data obtained, some of the foregoing estimates were broken down by subject and compared with several reference-counting studies of the use of foreign periodical literature in various disciplines. For instance, the engineers in the present study estimated that 90% of the information gotten from periodicals came from domestic sources and 10% from foreign sources. This checks extremely well with the results obtained by Ritchie (16) in a study of the periodical literature used by civil engineers. In the study by Hintz ( l a ) , coveiing botany, the estimated use of foreign literature compared quite closely with the results obtained for biologists in the present study. At The Johns Hopkins University, the median estimate of the biologists r a s 75% from domestic and 25% from foreign sources. Hintz found that source journals in botany cited American publishers 71.3% of the time, and foreign publications 28.7% of the time. Fussler (61,covering chemistry and physics, found that 46.991, of the references cited in chemistry were foreign, while 42.3% of the references cited by physicists were foreign. There is a disparity between the results obtained by Fussler and those obtained at The Johns Hopkins University, where both the chemists and physicists obtained 75% of their information from domestic journals and only 2570 from foreign journals. However, both Hintz and Fussler used 1946 as their latest base year, and, as was demonstrated in their studies, there has been a growing tendency among American scientists to consult American literature. Thifi tendency has been more pronounced in the physical than the biological sciences, and indicates the possibility that by 1953 chemists and physicists may be obtaining as much as 75% of their useful periodical information from domestic souices. In any event, the use of foreign sources is proportional to the use of the literature in general, and as one increases so does the other. Also, while not specifically set forth, the results of the present study appear to confirm the observation of Stevens ( 2 0 ) that

mathematicians are the greatest users of foreign literature, and that they are followed by chemists and physicists. As might be expected, the British were the most often consulted of the foreign publications. The next in importance a p peared to be German, French, Russian, and Italian. Considerable use was made of Japanese and Indian journals, but those consulted were published almost exclusively in English. The pure scientists consulted publications in a much wider variety of languages than the applied scientists. British, French, and German publications were the only ones that the applied scientists consulted, when they used foreign publications at all. The foregoing data on the foreign language publications moat often consulted were derived exclusively from the circulation and interlibrary loan records of the first 300 scientists studied, They did not agree with the results obtained by Fussler (6) and Hintz ( l a ) in that both of these investigators found German language journals referred to more often than English journals in chemistry and botany. Fussler did find that, in 1946, English was the language most referred to in physics. It is possible that the differences encountered are due to the fact that the scientists surveyed in the present study mere mainly in applied fields, while the publications analyzed by Hints and Fussler treated almost exclusively of pure science. Also, there was a broader coverage of subject fields in the present study than there was in the Hinta and Fussler studies. As for the comparative ages of the periodicals consulted, the overwhelming majority of the group surveyed stated that they referred mainly to journals less than 5 years old. Thirty-five per cent consulted mainly journals less than 1 year old. Thirtyseven per cent referred mainly to journals from 1 to 5 years old. The pure scientists made greater use of the older periodical sources than the applied scientists. Thirty-two per cent of the pure scientists used mainly periodicals over 5 years old. Twentytwo per cent of the applied scientists referred to periodicals 5 years and older. USE OF INDIRECT SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The relative use made of seven possible indirect sources of information is given in Figure 2. Five indirect sources appeared to have great significance among all of the interviewees surveyed. These were, in the order of their importance: personal recommendations; consulting references cited in books and papers; regularly

January 1954


perusing the literature; indexes and abstracts; and bibliographies. The two remaining indirect sources, library card catalogs, and book reviews and publishers' announcements, had little apparent usefulness to the group interviewed In the present study, as well as in those performed by Bernal ( 3 ) and Urquhart (24), indexes and abstracts rated high in preference, although not so high as cited references. In both of the British studies, indexes and abstracts were second among the indirect sources of information, In The Johns Hopkins study, they were rated fourth, although there was fairly good statistical agreement with Bernal. At Johns Hopkins, indexes and abEtracts received 15% of the total vote; in the Bernal study, they received 18% of the vote. Of the interviewees who made significant use of indexing and abstracting publications 45% used them as a means of keeping abreast of the current literature; 55% used abstracts primarily for searches of the past literature. These figures compare quite closely with those obtained by Urquhart @ d ) , who found that indexes and abstracts were used half for keeping current and half for retrospective searching. They also conform quite well with those obtained by Gray ( 7 ) , who found in a study of over 1600 physicists that 22% used abstracting publications for keeping abreast of the current literature, 30% used them for retrospective searches, and 48% used them equally for keeping abreast and for past searches. In the Johns Hopkins study, there were differences in the use of indexes and abstracts by the pure and applied scientists. The applied scientists conformed with the results obtained by Urquhart and Gray, using indexes and abstracts equally for current perusal and past searches. The pure scientists made slightly greater use of indexes and abstracts for searches of the past literature. In both of the British studies, references cited in the literature were the most appreciated devices for becoming aware of the existence of sources of scientific information. In The Johns Hopkins survey, two categories were used to describe cited references, One of these, bibliographies, received 14% of the total vote. The second, references cited in books and papers received 19% of the vote. Combining these two categories, we obtain a percentage that is closely comparable to those obtained in England-37% by Bernal and 38% by Urquhart. This indicates that in the present study, as in the two British studies, references cited in the literature are probably the most important of the indirect sources of information. There was near unanimity among all of the scientists interviewed at The Johns Hopkins University as to the order of usefulness of the various indirect sources of information. The only disceinible differences were that the applied scientists placed slightly more reliance on personal recommendations and less on cited references than the pure scientists, and that the applied scientists made slightly more use of the library card catalog than the pure scientists. The greater appreciation of the card catalog by the applied scientists is perhaps understandable, since, as Bradford ( I )and Stevens ( 2 1 ) have demonstrated, the technologies and their literatures cross many subject fields, while the pure sciences tend to stay within narrow subject boundaries. Thus, the applied scientist is more likely to be working in unfamiliar or distantly related fields than the pure scientist. In corroboration of the apparently low level of use of the card catalog among working scientists, Stevens (21) found, in a review of over 50 papers on the general subject, that the catalog has little significance as a subject reference tool among advanced researchers. Stevens observed that the advanced worker in a field either never uses the subject entries in the catalog or does so only in fields where he is not well acquainted. As a rule, the card catalog in a library serving professional scientists is used mainly as a finding list, to locate in the library works whose authors and titles are already known. 2 . comparison of the indirect sources of information used by the engineers of the Applied Physics Laboratory and those of the

233

School of Engineering revealed striking differences and demonstrated still another time the effect of type of organization on methods of gathering technical information. The engineers of the Applied Physics Laboratory showed a much greater appreciation of personal recommendations and the library card catalog as indirect sources of information than did the engineers of the School of Engineering. The engineers of the Applied Physics Laboratory ranked personal recommendations first; consultation of references citedin books, and papers second; regularlyperusing the pertinent literature third; indexes and abstracting publications fourth; library card catalogs fifth; book reviews and publishers announcements sixth; and bibliographies seventh and last. Among the engineers of the School of Engineering, the ranking was as follows: consultation of cited references; regularly perusing the literature; indexing and abstracting publications; bibliographies; personal recommendations; book reviews aed publishers announcements; and library card catalogs, In general, the engineers of the Applied Physics Laboratory followed the pattern of the applied scientists, while the engineers of the School of Engineering veered in the direction of the pure scientists. USE OF LIBRARIES

Of the persons interviewed 42% obtained their published materials primarily through technical libraries; 9% depended mainly on personal collections; the greatest number, 49%, leaned equally on libraries and personal collections. These figures confirm the observation of Bernal ( 3 ) that libraries are by far the most important source of published materials to the working scientist, Among the pure scientists, the use of libraries was somewhat greater than among the applied scientists. Of the pure scientists G4% depended mainly on libraries for their published materials; 7% depended mainly on personal sources; 29% used libraries and personal collections equally. Of the applied scientists 42% used libraries primarily; 10% leaned primarily on their own collections; 48% used libraries and their own collections about equally. Practically all of the scientists interviewed used only the libraries of The Johns Hopkins University. The vast majority used only the libraries of their divisions or departments. When materials outside of the university's collection had to be consulted, they were generally obtained through interlibrary loans. These facts are in agreement with the observation of Waples (25),in a study of Belgian scholars, that pure and applied scientists in a university are likely to find all the reference material they need within their own institution. A relatively small percentage of either the pure or applied scientists interviewed did their technical reading in libraries. The vast majority preferred to borrow published materials from libraries and read them either in their offices, laboratories, or homes. This corroborates the observation of Scatesand Yeomans (I??), who found in a survey of a naval research Organization that even though reading facilities were available in the library scientists preferred to do their reading and studying elsewhere. The pure scientists in the present study did slightly more than twice as much of their reading in the library as the applied scientists. Of the pure scientists 17% did most of their reading in the library, as compared to 8% of the applied scientists. Of the entire group 11% did most of their reading in the library; 51% preferred their offices and laboratories; 38% did most of their technical reading at home. The medical scientists and pure chemists made the greatest use of the library as a reading and studying place. The engineers did the smallest amount of reading in the library. PERSONAL ACQUISITION OF PUBLISHED MATERIALS

For the over-all group, the average number of research journals received through personal subscription was 2. This checks quite well p(.ith the figures obtained by Bernal (3)and Tornudd (5%). As for the number of technical books purchased annually, the average was 6. The only difference between the pure and ap-

234


plied scientists was that the applied scientists subscribed to an average of 3 research journals, while the pure scientists subscribed to only 2. The psychologists purchased the largest number of books; their annual average was 8. The earth scientists bought the fewest books, with an annual average of 1.5. The pure chemists received the most technical news, house, or trade publications, averaging a strong 1, as opposed to an over-all average of practically 0. In addition to books, the psychologists acquired the greatest number of research journals on personal subscription averaging 6.5. The biologists subscribed to the smallest number of research journals averaging less than 1.

Vol. 46, No. 1

tory considered accessiop and selected reading lists first in importance; preparation of bibliographies was second; guidance by members of the library staff third; and translations fourth. In general, the use of reference services by the engineers of the School of Enginering was considerably less than by those of the Applied Physics Laboratory. VERBAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION

For the vast majority of the persons interviewed, informal conversations, both in and out of their own research organizations, constituted the most fruitful of the verbal sources of information. Among the pure researchers there was somewhat more dependence placed upon conversations held outBibliographies on specific request side the university than there was among the applied researchers. Of the pure scientists interviewed 83% were members of the major Accession and selected reading lists scientific and professional societies in their fields; 67% said they attended society Translations m e e t i n g s r e g u l a r l y ; 60% thought they obtained a significant amount of useful Guidance by library staff information from attending meetings. Of this number, the vast majority stated that Per Cent of Total Vote the information gotten at meetings came from informal -~ Figure 3. Relative Use Made of Reference Services c o n v e r s a t i o n s rather than Pure and applied I from hearing papers prePure m sented. As a rule, the inApplied 0 formation obtained at meetings was of an ifzdirect nature, USE OF REFERENCE SERVICES and not immediately applicable to the problems at hand, Scientists attending meetings generally found out who waa doing work The relative use made of four major library reference services related to theirs, and what progress was being made. They is given in Figure 3. For the entire group surveyed, the order were alerted to past and future papers and reports by colleagues was: accession and current selected reading lists, guidance by in similar fields of interest. Little information of any significance members of the library staff, preparation of bibliographies, and was obtained by the pure researchers from verbal sources within translations. their own organization. Among the pure scientists, the order was somewhat different Among the applied researchers, 70% of the persons interviewed than among the applied scientists, although both groups conwere members of the major societies in their fields; 55% attended sidered accession and current selected reading lists to be first in meetings regularly, and 44% said that they obtained a significant importance. The pure scientists placed guidance by members of amount of information from attending meetings. While there the library staff second, translations third, and preparation of was some appreciation of informal conversations at meetings bibliographies fourth. The applied scientists placed preparation among the applied researchers, the great majority stated that they of bibliographies second, guidance by members of the library got most of their information from presented papers. Many said staff third, and translations fourth. that they only attended meetings where papers of scientific inThere was reasonable agreement among the various subject terest to them were to be given. In general, greater stress was groups as to the relative importance of reference services; the placed by the applied scientists upon verbal sources of informaonly demarcation existed between the pure and applied scientists. tion within their own organizations than upon outside sources. In general, the pure scientists made considerably less use of referThis may be explained at least in part by the fact that the work of ence services than the applied scientists. Out of a possible vote many of the applied scientists studied was of a security-classified of 836, the pure Scientists registered only 303, or 35%. The apnature and therefore not discussed readily a t open meetings. plied scientists tallied 1159 out of a possible 1588 votes, or 79%. A comparison of the verbal sources of information used by the The pure scientists, who make greater use of the literature, and various subject groups indicated that the applied chemists and show greater awareness of how to use it, apparently prefer to the earth scientists were the greatest benefiters from meetings, depend upon their own devices for locating sources of technical while the physicians and applied physicists derived the smallest information. benefits from this source, and leaned mainly on conferences and As was the case previously, where the engineers of the School conversations within their own organization. of Engineering were compared with those of the Applied Physics Laboratory, there were differences. The engineers of the School PRESENT STATE OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE of Engineering adhered closely to the pattern of the pure scienIn the latter stages of The Johns Hopkins survey, opinions aB tists. They made translations their most important reference to the present state of scientific literature were solicited. In all, service; guidance by members of the library staff second; aca total of 219 scientists were asked whether the literature in its cession and selected reading lists third; and preparation of bibli-. present form and state is meeting their information requirements, ographies fourth. The engineers of the Applied Physics Labora-

Ill

k

January 1954


and whether they had any suggestions for improving it. Of the total, 129 thought that the literature was meeting their information requirements; 41 thought that it was not, and 49 had no opinion. Of the interviewees 88 made specific comments on the present state of scientific literature. In summary, the comments were that there is too much publication, that publication is too slow, and that helpful sources of information are too difficult to locate. Explanations of the first point-that there is too much publication-were generally twofold. One frequently heard comment was that most scientific journals do not have critical enough editorial policies, and that many papers not worthy of publication are appearing in the literature and burying the worthwhile contributions. Another prevailing comment was that more and more scientists are publishing not because they have something significant to contribute but because they feel that their livelihoods and professional reputations hinge upon frequent publication. As Rirhardson (15) found in the case of chemists, it is rapidly becoming a fact of scientific life that in order to climb in one’s field one must publish often, regardless of the quality of the written output. Many of the interviewees complained also of the briefness of the average p a p e r a result of trying to publish too many papers in a single issue of a journal. The consensus on this pointwas that inmany instances published papers aremeaningless, because they give only results and no hints as to the methods used to obtain them. As might be expected, this sentiment was expressed more often by the pure than by the applied scientists. The second area of complaint-that publication is slow-is, of course, related to the fact that there is too much competition among scientists to get things into print and too little critical editorial selection. The feeling was that slow publication is detrimental to the scientific community, because it delays the announcement of results, fosters needless repetition of research, and deprives working scientists of current information that might improve their researches. These sentiments were applied par. ticularly to the detrimental effect of slow publication on communications with foreign scientists, who cannot be readily contacted a t society meetings. The third point-that helpful sources of information are too difficult to locate-is probably the most complex of the information and communication problems facing the contemporary scientist. Many of the interviewees thought that existing bibliographic tools such as indexing and abstracting journals were now too cumbersome and too slow to be used effectively. This is perhaps reflected in the fact that indexes and abstracts were rated a poor second in the Bernal study, and fourth in the present study, as tools for locating direct sources of information. I t is also reflected in the observation of Henkle (9) that more and more research organizations are supplementing the established indexing and abstracting services with locally prepared selected reading lists. Such lists bridge the time gap between original publication and citation in the indexing and abstracting publication, and present a more highly purified source of pertinent references than is possible in the omnibus indexes and abstracts. Henkle’s observation is corroborated by the fact that in the present study the most appreciated library reference serviw was the issuance of accession and selected reading lists. It is also confirmed by the fact that the journals consulted most often by 35Y0 of the interviewees in The Johns Hopkins study were less than 1 year old. Still further substance is added t o Henkle’s observation by the findings of Urquhart ( 2 4 ) that people preferred to turn to indexing and abstracting publications for searches of references less than 1 year old, using references cited in current papers and books for retrospective searches. These facts place a premium on promptness in abstracting and indexing. Gray (7), in his study of physics abstracting, found this to be the case, and made specific recommendations for speeding the issuance of published abstracts in Physics Abstracts. Similar action is obviously indicated in other scientific fields.

235

I t is perhaps indicative of the need for speed and selectivity that many of the scientists interviewed did their own abstracting and maintained personal reference files. This was particularly prevalent among the pure scientists. As was suggested by Urquhart (W4),by Bernal (S),and by the present study, indexing and abstracting publications are not used by the majority of scientists for retrospective searches. References cited in the literature are most often consulted for such searches. The most frequent recommendation of the scientists interviewed in the present study was for more review publications. This was also formally recommended by the Royal Society Scientific Information Conference ( 1 7 ) , which set forth in its proceedings six specific suggestions for making reviews more universally available. Of particular significance to the present survey was the suggestion by the Conference that more attention be given to the publication of reviews in the applied sciences, where they are not so well developed and used as in the pure sciences, The review paper-or bibliographic essay-serves the dual purpose of reviewing current and past developments in a field, and, in so doing, analyzing critically the literature in which these developments are made known. As a rule, one of the salient features of review papers is their bibliographies of works cited. Such bibliographies, generally compiled by experts, are a boon to the average scientist, who prefers to use cited references in his retrospective searching. Recently, in recognition of this fact, Adams (1) recommended the establishment of an annual subject bibliography of review literature. Such a publication might facilitate the use of scientific literature by the working scientist and by the librarian who attempts to serve the scientist’sreference needs. In connection with the matter of locating helpful sources of information, various scientists complained that the literature is too scattered, and that it is becoming increasingly difficult to know what publications are most likely to contain facts on a given field of science. The fact that references in a given subject may be distributed widely through various subject literatures is demonstrated by Bradford’s “Law of Scattering” (4). However, whether the provincialism and inbreeding that might result from seeing only publications in one’s own immediate field is more or less costly than the time wasted in having to consult many publications is a question worth pondering. Another oft-repeated complaint came from persons doing security-classified research. This was that there should be better vehicles for letting workers in classified research know what their colleagues all over the country, and particularly in foreign countries, are doing. Good communications among scientists, whether in classified or unclassified research, are undoubtedly a basic requirement of scientific progress. However, it is probable that all that can be done is being done to promote communications among scientists in security-clamified research, and that any improvements will hinge upon basic revisions of our present security structure. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

It is improbable that one can draw conclusions from a survey of 606 scientists in a single institution that will hold for the entire scientific community. However, certain implications do emerge rather clearly from the present study. The first and possibly the most compelling implication is the need for continuing analyses, on a quantitative basis, of the manner in which scientific literature and scientific libraries are used. The quantitative approach, whether applied to the information needs of a single scientific organization or to the entire scientific community, is the one which is most likely to furnish a balanced, unbiased picture. Librarians and information officers have been guided for too long by what they think or imagine the scientist requires in the way of information. The result has been that too often the scientist

236


goes in one direction in solving his information problems, and the literature specialist goes in quite another direction. Another fact that emerges from the present study is that it is impossible to evoke bland generalizations to solve the information gathering problems of the entire scientific population. What is good for one group, or field, or type of scientists is not necessarily good for another. For instance, the pure scientists in the present study prefer to do their own bibliographic searches, and in many instances they have developed highly effective techniques for doing them. Indeed, in most instances, the area studied is so technical and so narrow that the pure scientist is much better able to ferret out and evaluate the sources of the facts he needs than the librarian or literature specialist. While the availability of improved searching techniques and tools may make the bibliographic chores of the pure scientist easier and more rewarding, it can hardly be said that he is faced with a critical problem, The conventional research library seems to serve his needs adequately. T o the pure scientist, research in the literature is likely to be as necessary and as routine as his researches in the laboratory; and, just as he encounters occasional difficulty in his laboratory experiments, he is sometimes faced with problems in his use of the literature. I n the case of the applied scientist, the approach is somewhat different. The typical applied scientist generally prefers to have his bibliographic searches done for him, As a rule, he is not interested in raw references. If possible, he wants the references evaluated, extracted, and summarized. He does not frequent libraries, and in fact, he makes relatively little use of written or published materials. The type of library or information setup necessary to serve this type of scientist is going to be different from that required for the pure scientist. I n addition to basic differences in the information requirements of the pure and applied scientist, there are likely to be differences among workers in the various fields of science. There also appear to be differences among scientists in various types of research establishments. The working head of the information disseminating section of a research organization must ascertain, in some quantitative way, what type of scientific personnel he is serving, so that he ran evaluate the types of information services they require. The survey technique outlined is calculated to bring forth this information in a form that is readily applicable to the improvement of a given information disseminating apparatus. There are, for instance, established formulas for predicting annual library expenditures for sdaries, books, and periodicals (9). There exist also formularized methods for establishing the numbers and types of personnel required to carry on the acquisition, circulation, and reference activities that a library is ordinarily called upon to do (10). With the type of analysis outlined, i t is possible to predict what proportionate amounts of the available money, time, and space should he expended in acquiring the various types of technical literature, and in cataloging, processing, and housing them, It is also possible to predict in accurate ratio the types of reference services that may be required in a given research organization. There are also formulas for predicting the amount of floor space that will be required for a given library (11). By understanding the manner and extent to which it is likely to be used, it is possible to arrange the library within this floor space efficiently. But probably more significant than the application of the survey technique to the definition of the information requirements of a single research organization is the possibility of using the technique to define the information gathering habits of scientists in all representative fields and situations. The writer hls, in fact, begun an expanded and refined version of the work done a t The Johns Hopkins University and other institutions. It will consist of a survey of a cross section of the entire scientific population of the United States. Such an extended survey may open new vistas to publishers, librarians, and to other professional groups concerned with the dissemination of scientific informa-

Vol. 46, No. 1

tion. It could furnish a more exact and meaningful basis than now exists for refining and improving the manner in which information is made available t o the working scientist. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to acknowledge the cooperation of the scientists of The Johns Hopkins University who furnished the information upon which the present paper is based, the assistance of Mildred K. Heatwole and James L. Olsen, Jr., who, as members of the staff of the library of The Johns Hopkins University A p plied Physics Laboratory, aided in the organization of the survey, Patricia A. McKenna and Minnie K. Kurrle, who typed the manuscript, and Doris Rubenfeld, who prepared the illustrations. a

LITERATURE CITED

(1) -4dams, S., Special Libraries Association Biological Sciences Reminder, 11, 1 (1953). (2) dmerican Library Association, Chicago, Ill. “Classification and Pay Plans for Libraries in Institutions of Higher Learning,”

Vol. 3, pp, 1-4, 1943-47.

(3) Bernal, J. D., Paper No. 46, Rept. of Royal Society Scientific Information Conference, London, pp. 589-637, 21 June-2

Julv. 1948. (4)Bradfo;d, S. C., “Documentation,” pp. 106-21, Washington, D. C., Public Affairs Press, 1950. ( 5 ) Bush, V., “Science, the Endless Frontier,” pp. 75-7, Washinp-

ton, D. C.. U. S. Government Printing Office, 1945. (6) Fussler, H. R., Library Quarterly, 19, 119-43 (1949). (7) Gray, D. E., “Study of Physics Abstracting,” New York, American Institute of Physics, 1950. (8) Gross, P. L. K., and Gross, E. &I., Science, 66, 385-9 (1927). 19) Henkle, H.H., in Shera, J. H., and Egan, M., ed., “Bibliographic Organization,” pp. 140-60, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1951. (10) Herner, S., and Heatwole, M. K., “The Establishment of Staff Requirements in a Small Research Library,” ACRL Nonographs No. 3, pp. 1-16, Chicago, Association of College and Reference Libraries, 1952. (11) Hertz, D. B., “Theory and Practice of Industrial Research,” pp. 290-1, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1950. (12) Hints, C. W. E., “Internationalism and Scholarship,” Ph.D thesis, Chicago, University of Chicago, 1952. (13) Johns Hopkins University Welch Medical Library, Baltimore Md., “Analysis of Interviews on Indexing of Medical Literature,” 1950. (14) Parten, M., “Surveys, Polls, and Samples,” pp. 79-81, 93-6, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1950. (15) Richardson, A. S., Chem. Eng. N e w s , 29,2134-6 (1951). (16) Ritchie, M. G., “An Analysis of the Documentation of Civil Engineering Research to Determine the Serial Publications Most Frequently Used,” h1.S. thesis, Washington, D. C.. The Catholic University of America‘, 1951. (17) Royal Society Scientific Information Conference, London, Recommendations, p. 201, 21 June-2 July, 1948. (18) Scates, D. E., and Yeomans, A. V., “Activities of Employed Scientists and Engineers for Keeping Currently Informed in Their Fields of Work,” pp. 1-2, 4, 7, 25, Washington, D. C , American Council on Education, 1950. (19) Shera, J. H., Library Quarterly, 21, 13-26 (1951). (20) Stevens, R. E., “Characteristics of Subject Literatures,” ACRL Monographs No. 6, pp. 10-21, Chicago, Association of College and Reference Libraries, 1953. (21) Stevens, R. E., “Summary of the Literature on the Use hIade by the Research Worker of the University Library Catalog,” University of Illinois Library School Occasional Papers No. 13, Urbana, Ill., University of Illinois Library School, 1950. (22) Tornudd, E., “Professional Reading Habits of Scientists Engaged in Research as Revealed by an Analysis of 130 Questionnaires,” M.S. thesis, Pittsburgh, Carnegie Institute of Technology, 1953. U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment, Education, and Earnings of American Men of Science,” p. 6, Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1951. Urquhart, D. C., Paper No. 20, Rept. of Royal Society Scientific Information Conference, London, pp. 75-89,21 June-2 July, 1948.

Waples, D., Library Quarterly, 10, 231-63 (1940). RECEIVEDfor review July 25, 1953. ACCEPTEDOctober 22. 1953. Presented before Division of Chemical Literature a t the 122nd Meeting, AMERICANCHEMICALSOCIETY,Atlantic City, X. J., 1952.

Information Gathering Habits of - ACS Publications - American

Recommend Documents