Search

This study employed content analysis to examine the abilities conveyed in five archival literacy guidelines. Using the User Expertise in Archives (UEA) Model as the basis for content coding, the authors analyzed a total of 157 ability statements from the guidelines and found that all the five guidelines included a good coverage of the three abilities of the UEA model: domain knowledge, artifactual literacy, and archival intelligence. However, the guidelines also contained various abilities not mentioned in the UEA model. They were categorized into five abilities: an overall command of the historical information resources; effective use of primary sources for constructing research theses; appropriate citation and reasonable use of primary sources; ethical interpretation of primary sources; understanding and devotion to the archival profession. Of the guidelines analyzed in this study, two guidelines from professional associations were of good and balanced coverage of all the important abilities extracted from the analyses. The other guidelines, developed out of individual research, were characterized by either an emphasis on artifactual literacy or on broad and extensive understanding of the historical information resources. The analysis may shed light on the use of the guidelines in designing archival literacy instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explored the reuse of existing quantitative data in original social sciences research in Taiwan. Using the 2015 TSSCI List as the basis of journal selection, this study focused on 57 journals listed under the subject divisions of economics, political science, sociology, education, and psychology. Journal issues published between 2001 and 2015 were manually scanned to identify data reuse papers. The characteristics of the reuse papers and the cited data were recorded for the subsequent subject division-level and subject disciplinelevel analyses. A total of 1,484 reuse papers were identified, which accounted for 17.38% of the total empirical study papers. Among the five subject divisions, economics and political science had the highest percentages of data reuse, while psychology had the lowest. Those reuse papers together cited 2,990 datasets. Most of the datasets were used in economics and political science papers. Further, these two subject divisions had noticeably larger proportions of papers that use more than one dataset. In contrast, papers using only one dataset were the majority for the rest. In regards to data source and data type, datasets originated from government agencies as well as data generated from business operations accounted for the majority of the cited data, but significant differences existed among those subjects. As opposed to the frequently used business and series survey data, data generated from independent research projects as well as data that were non-continuous and one-time in nature were rarely reused in social sciences research. Based on the study findings, it is recommended that data services for social sciences research should focus more on large-scaled continuous data generated from governments and research institutions. A service mechanism that bridges users and data providers from public and private sectors would also enhance data reuse and increase the value of existing data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open access (OA) journals emerged in response to library budget cuts and the journal price crisis due to the monopoly of a few major publishers. Today, more and more OA journals have appeared in the landscape of scholarly publishing. However, how do authors who serve an important role in the chain of scholarly communication understand and perceive open access? This study used a multiple case study design to understand twelve biomedical researchers' publishing experiences with OA journals, i.e., how they chose a journal to submit their papers, and how the personal and situational factors influence their selection of OA journals. The major findings include that: 1. the interviewee selected journals based on whether the target journal and the paper to be submitted was a good match, the overall performance of the target journal, and their past experience; 2. interviewees' selection of OA journals could be reinforced or hampered by complicated individual (personal preference or experiences with OA journals) and social factors (subject disciplines or reward mechanism). The findings may shed lights on the promotion of OA journals to scholars in Taiwan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]