Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patterns of authors’ information scattering: towards a causal explanation of information scattering from a scholarly information-seeking behavior perspective

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study primarily aims to reveal the worldwide patterns of authors’ information scattering through illustrating the possible differences among authors based on subject, country, geographic region, institution, economic and scientific level factors. Second, changes in patterns of information scattering during the past 21 years are checked. Finally, a hypothesis aimed at demonstrating a probable relationship among the three research domains including information scattering, scholarly information-seeking behavior and scholarly journal usage is presented. 176,943 authors, who have more than ten papers in WoS from 1990 to 2010 were examined. The findings revealed that patterns of information scattering have changed during the past 21 years, and the number of journals in the core and middle zones has almost doubled. It was also found that authors tend to use a small number of journals to retrieve the majority of their required information, while a small amount of their information needs come from a wide variety of journals. However, with regard to patterns of information scattering, some differences exist among authors based on factors including institutions, countries and subject fields. In addition, this study shows that information-scattering patterns might be affected by scholars’ information-seeking behaviors. A causal explanation of information scattering through scholarly information-seeking behavior has, without a doubt, the potential to provide practical solutions to better meet scholars’ information needs and requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This study uses authors, scholars and readers as proxy for academician.

  2. In this study these factors were classified as country-related.

  3. This factor is classified as time-related.

  4. In this study, references indicate the items offered in the reference section of authors' documents. Among different types of references (ranging from journals, books, monographs, and conference proceedings to technical reports, dissertations, patent literature, and so on), only references to journals were considered for further processing, and only journal titles which were indexed in WoS were counted.

  5. Article, Proceedings Paper, Meeting Abstract, Letter, Review, Editorial Material, Correction, Book Review, News Item, etc.

  6. In this study journal refers to journals indexed in WoS.

  7. http://www.ScienceWatch.com.

  8. http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications.

  9. http://www.scimagojr.com.

  10. 5th question.

  11. First question.

  12. The “% Journals” on x-axis in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 indicates the cumulative percentage of journals out of all journals. For instance, the first 8 journals out of 778 journals form 1 % of journals where no author has used more than 778 journals. Moreover, the "% Journals" is equal to "Percent of the No. of Journals out of all Journals" and "No. of Journals" columns in Table 2 except that the former one shows the values as percentage and both of them have increased accumulatively.

    The " % References" on y-axis in Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6 indicates how many times each percentage of journals is cited, and is computed accumulatively. For example, according to Fig. 2 1 % of an author’s referenced journals form 64.29 % of his/her journals' references and, as another example, 6 % of an author’s referenced journals form 90.66 % of his/her journals' references.

    Figures 3, 7,8, 9, 10, 11 demonstrate the difference in information scattering among various fields, institutions, countries and countries' scientific and economic level according to the total number of referenced journals in each zone. To illustrate the differences these graphs use two measures: 1) computing the difference between the maximum and the minimum value and 2) estimating standard deviation. The difference between the maximum and the minimum value subtracts the highest value from the lowest value in unit of analysis, but standard deviation is calculated for all values. For example, 1 % of cited journals of scholars of the University of Utah form 43 % (Maximum value among all institutions) of their references (of journal type); similarly, 1 % of cited journals of scholars of Karolinska Institute form 15 % (Minimum value among all institutions) of their references (of journal type). Hence, in 1 % point on x-axis (" % Journals") the value of 28 % shows the greatest differences between the two institutions that have the highest and the lowest value among all institutions. In contrast, the Standard Deviation measure examines all institutions not only those with the highest and the lowest value. In summary, Figs. 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 show that the maximum difference in information scattering occurs in core and middle zones according to the number of referenced journals.

  13. 3rd question.

References

  • Basu, A. (1992). Hierarchical distributions and Bradford’s law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(7), 494–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, M. J. (2002a). Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution. In H. Bruce, R. Fidel, R. Ingwersen, & P. Vakkari (Eds.), Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on conceptions of library and information science (CoLIS4) (pp. 137–150). Greenwood Village: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, M. J. (2002b). Toward an integrated model of information seeking and searching. The New Review of Information Behavior Research, 3, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belefant-Miller, H., & King, D. W. (2003). A profile of faculty reading and information-use behaviors on the cusp of the electronic age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(2), 179–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensman, J. S. (2001). Bradford’s law and fuzzy sets: statistical implications for library analyses. International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) Journal, 27, 238–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensman, S. J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Definition and identification of journals as bibliographic and subject entities: librarianship versus ISI journal citation reports methods and their effect on citation measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 1097–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhavnani, S. K. (2005a). The retrieval of highly scattered facts and architectural images: strategies for search and design. Automation in Construction, 14(6), 724–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhavnani, S. K. (2005b). Why is it difficult to find comprehensive information? Implications of information scatter for search and design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(9), 989–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhavnani, S. K., & Wilson, C. S. (2010). Information scattering. Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (3rd Ed.). DOI: 1281291/E-ELIS3-102293033.

  • Bigdeli, Z., & Gazni, A. (2012). Authors’ sources of information: a new dimension in information scattering. Scientometrics, 92(3), 505–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Smith, J. A., & Luce, R. (2005). Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: a comparison of download and citation data. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1419–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonitz, M. (1980). Evidence for the invalidity of the Bradford law for the single scientist. Scientometrics, 2(3), 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bookstein, A. (1990a). Informetric distributions, part I: unified overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(5), 368–375.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bookstein, A. (1990b). Informetric distributions, part II: resilience to Ambiguity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(5), 376–386.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bookstein, A. (1994). Toward a multi-disciplinary Bradford law. Scientometrics, 30(1), 353–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bookstein, A. (1997). Informetric distributions. III. Ambiguity and randomness. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137, 85–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, S. C. (1948). Complete documentation. In The Royal Society Empire Scientific Conference, June–July 1946: Report (Vol. 1, pp. 729–748). London: The Royal Society.

  • Bradford, S. C. (1953). Documentation. London: Crosby, Lockwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, E. E., McCord, S. K., & Galbraith, B. (2006). Print versus electronic journal use in three science/technology disciplines: the cultural shift in process. College & Research Libraries, 67(4), 354–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, M. J., Hurd, J. M., Blecic, D. D., & Weller, A. C. (2002). A snapshot of early adopters of e-journals: challenges to the library. College & Research Libraries, 63(6), 515–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, S., & Foster, W. R. (1995). Impact factor as the best operational measure of medical journals. The Lancet, 346(8985), 1300–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, B. C. (1979). The Bradford law: a new calculus for the social sciences? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 30(4), 233–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burright, M. A., Trudi, B. H., & Antonisse, M. J. (2005). Understanding information use in a multidisciplinary field: a local citation analysis of neuroscience. College & Research Libraries, 66(3), 198–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R. (1938). Logical foundations of the unity of science. International encyclopedia of unified science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Case, D. O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking needs and behavior. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, A. (2009). How useful is journal impact factor? Indian Journal of Dental Research, 20(2), 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-S., & Leimkuhler, F. F. (1986). A relationship between Lotka’s Law, Bradford’s Law, and Zipf’s Law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 37, 307–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrzastowski, T. E. (2003). Making the transition from print to electronic serial collections: a new model for academic chemistry libraries? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(12), 1141–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S. (2000). The role of journals in the growth of scientific knowledge. In B. Cronin & H. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 109–142). Medford: ASIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, T. H., Rogers, S. A., & Diedrichs, C. P. (2005). Ohiolink electronic journal use at Ohio State. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(3), 371–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culnan, M. (1984). The dimensions of accessibility to online information: implications for implementing office automation systems. ACM Transactions on Office Automation Systems, 2(2), 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culnan, M. (1985). The dimensions of perceived accessibility to information: implications for the delivery of information systems and services. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36(5), 302–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darmoni, S. J., Roussel, F., & Benichou, J. (2002). Reading factor: a new bibliometric criterion for managing digital libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(3), 323–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. M. (2004). Information-seeking behavior of chemists: a transaction log analysis of referral URLs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(4), 326–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groote, S. L. (2008). Citation patterns of online and print journals in the digital age. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 96(4), 362–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groote, S. L., & Dorsch, J. L. (2001). Online journals: impact on print journal usage. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 89(4), 372–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groote, S. L., Shultz, M., & Doranski, M. (2005). Online journals’ impact on the citation patterns of medical faculty. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(2), 223–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Didegah, F., & Gazni, A. (2011). The extent of concentration in journal publishing. Learned Publishing, 24(4), 303–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didegah, F., Thelwalla, M. & Gazni, A. (2012). An international comparison of journal publishing and citing behaviors. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 516–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilek-Kayaoglu, H. (2008). Use of electronic journals by faculty at Istanbul University, Turkey: the results of a survey. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 239–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, I. F., & Hann, K. L. (2002). Are researchers ready for the electronic-only journal collection? Results of a survey at the University of Maryland. Libraries and the Academy, 2(3), 375–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duy, J., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Can electronic journal usage data replace citation data as a measure of journal use? An empirical examination. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(5), 512–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Amsterdam: Elsevier science publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioral approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation, 45(2), 171–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, D. (1993). Modeling the information-seeking patterns of academic researchers: a grounded theory approach. The Library Quarterly, 63(4), 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedorowicz, J. (1982). The theoretical foundation of Zipf’s law and its application to the bibliographic database environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 33, 285–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fidel, R. (2008). Are we there yet? Mixed methods research in library and information science. Library and Information Science Research, 30(4), 265–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frandsen, T. (2009). Attracted to open access journals: a bibliometric author analysis in the field of biology. Journal of Documentation, 65(1), 58–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, B. E., Thomsen, C. M., Bias, R. G., & Davis, D. G. (2006). Behavioral citation analysis: toward collection enhancement for users. College and Research Libraries, 67(4), 304–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P. (1998). Image and logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P., & David, S. (1996). The disunity of science: boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1971). The mystery of transposed journal lists—wherein Bradford’s law of scattering is generalized according to Garfield’s law of concentration. Current Contents, 17, 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1980). Bradford’s law and related statistical patterns. Essays of an Information Scientist, 4, 476–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazni, A. (2011). Are the abstracts of high impact articles more readable? Investigating the evidence from top research institutions in the world. Journal of Information Science, 37(3), 273–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2011). Mapping world scientific collaboration: authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorraiz, J., & Gumpenberger, C. (2010). Going beyond citations: SERUM —a new tool provided by a network of libraries. Library Quarterly, 20(1), 80–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, B. C., & Mullins, N. C. (1972). Coherent social groups in scientific change. Science, 177(4053), 959–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbertz, H. B., & Muller-Hill, B. (1995). Quality and efficiency of basic research in molecular biology: a bibliometric analysis of thirteen excellent research institutes. Research Policy, 24(6), 959–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, W., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). The scatter of documents over databases in different subject domains: how many databases are needed? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 52(14), 1242–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubert, J. J. (1978). A Relationship between two forms of Bradford’s law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29(3), 159–161.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, J. M., & Weller, A. C. (1997). From print to electronic: the adoption of information technology by academic chemists. Science and Technology Libraries, 16(3), 147–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2009). Theory construction and model building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, B., Rousseau, R., Suttmeier, R. P., & Cao, C. (2007). The role of ethnic ties in international collaboration: the overseas Chinese phenomenon. In D. Torres-Salinas & H. F. Moed (Eds.), Proceedings of the ISSI 2007: 11th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 427–436). Madrid: CSIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, D. (2009). Methods for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems with users. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 3(1–2), 1–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(14), 1306–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurmis, A. P., & Kurmis, T. P. (2006). Exploring the relationship between impact factor and manuscript rejection rates in radiologic journals. Academic Radiology, 13(1), 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuruppu, P. U. & Moore, D. C. (2008). Information use by PhD students in agriculture and biology: A dissertation citation analysis. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 8(4), 387–405.

  • Lancaster, F. W., & Lee, J. L. (1985). Bibliometric techniques applied to issue management: a case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36(6), 389–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maglaughlin, K. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2005). Factors that impact interdisciplinary natural science research collaboration in academia. In P. Ingwersen & B. Larsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the ISSI 2005—the 10th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Stockholm, Sweden, July 24–28 th (pp. 1–12). Stockholm: Karolinska University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKibbon, K. A., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2004). What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary health care journals? BMC Medicine, 6(2), 33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L. I., & Tibbo, H. R. (2003). Modeling the information-seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis’s study revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 570–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, P. M. (1981). Implications of the exact Bradford distribution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(1), 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mote, L. J. B. (1962). Reasons for the variations in the information needs of scientists. Journal of Documentation, 18(4), 169–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nchinda, T. C. (2002). Research capacity strengthening in the south. Social Science and Medicine, 54(11), 1699–1711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Jamali, H. R. (2007). Diversity in the information-seeking behavior of the virtual scholar: institutional comparisons. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(6), 629–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. R., & Tenopir, C. (2006a). Finding information in (very large) digital libraries: a deep log approach to determining differences in use according to method of access. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(2), 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. R., & Watkinson, A. (2006b). The information-seeking behavior of the users of digital scholarly journals. Information Processing and Management, 42(5), 1345–1365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Watkinson, A. (2005). Scholarly journal usage: the results of deep log analysis. Journal of Documentation, 60(2), 248–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. R., & Salazar, P. H. (2010). Diversity in the e-journal use and information-seeking behavior of UK researchers. Journal of Documentation, 66(3), 409–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaisen, J., & Hjørland, B. (2007). Practical potentials of Bradford’s law: a critical examination of the received view. Journal of Documentation, 63(3), 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohniwaa, R. L., Denawaa, M., Kudob, M., Nakamurab, K., & Takeyasua, K. (2004). Perspective factor: a novel indicator for the assessment of journal quality. Research Evaluation, 13(3), 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ollé, C. & Borrego, Á. (2010). A qualitative study of the impact of electronic journals on scholarly information behavior. Library and Information Science Research, 32 (3), 221–228.

  • Oppenheim, P. & Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In H. Feigl, G. Maxwell & M. Scriven (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (Reprinted In R. Boyd et al. (Ed.), The philosophy of science (Ch. 22). Cambridge (pp 3–36) Mass: MIT Press).

  • O’Reilly, C. (1982). Variation in decision makers’ use of information sources: the impact of quality and accessibility of information. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 756–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Anderson, J. C. (1979) Organizational communication and decision making: laboratory results versus actual organizational settings. Paper presented at the 24th International Meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences, Honolulu.

  • Palmer, C. L., Teffeau, L. C., & Pirmann, C. M. (2009). Scholarly information practices in the online environment: Themes from the literature and implications for library service development. Report Commissioned by OCLC Research. Retrieved on September 13, 2009 from http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2009-02.pdf.

  • Papin-Ramcharan, J., & Dawe, R. A. (2006). The other side of the coin for open access publishing: a developing country view. Libri, 56(1), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, H. (1985). Theories of the middle range. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, W. G. (1988). Of making many books there is no end: bibliometrics and libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 14(4), 238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, R., & Shook, D. (1988). Access to, usage of, and outcomes from an electronic message system. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(3), 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, I. (2007). Electronic journals and user behavior: a review of recent research. Library & Information Science Research, 29(3), 369–396.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2007). The missing link: journal usage metrics. Aslib Proceedings, 59(3), 222–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandstrom, P. E. (1994). An optimal foraging approach to information seeking and use. Library Quarterly, 64(4), 414–449.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sandstrom, P. E. (1998). Information foraging among anthropologists in the invisible college of human behavioral ecology: An author co-citation analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandstrom, P. E. (1999). Scholars as subsistence foragers. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 25(3), 17–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sathe, N. A., Grady, J. L., & Giuse, N. B. (2002). Print versus electronic journals: a preliminary investigation into the effect of journal format on research processes. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(2), 235–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scales, P. A. (1976). Citation analyses as indicators of the use of serials: a comparison of ranked titles lists produced by citation counting and from use data. Journal of Documentation, 32(1), 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlan, B. D. (1987). Coverage by current-contents and the validity of impact factors—ISI from a journal publishers perspectives. Serials Librarian, 13(2–3), 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schloegl, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2011). Global usage versus global citation metrics: the case of pharmacology journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlögl, C., & Stock, W. G. (2004). Impact and relevance of LIS journals: a scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals—citation analysis versus reader survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(13), 1155–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, W. M. (1981). Information theory and scientific communication. Scientometrics, 3(3), 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siatri, R. (1999). The evolution of user studies. Libri, 49(3), 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegelman, S. S. (1998). The genesis of modern science: contributions of scientific societies and scientific journals. Radiology, 208(1), 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, T. D., & Hartley, A. (1989). Co-authorship, social structure and influence within specialties. Social Studies of Science, 19(1), 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tague-Sutcliffe, J. (1992). An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing and Management, 28(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenopir, C. (1982). Evaluation of database coverage: a comparison of two methodologies. Online Information Review, 6(5), 423–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenopir, C. (2003). Use and users of electronic library resources: An overview and analysis of recent research studies. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonta, Y., & Ünal, Y. (2005). Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, R. L. (1969). Some behavioral patterns of library users: the 80/20 rule. Wilson Library Bulletin, 43(5), 458–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsay, M. Y. (1998). The relationship between journal use in a medical library and citation use. Bulletin of Medical Library Association, 86(1), 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, D. J. (1948). The distribution and use of scientific and technical information. Journal of Documentation, 3(4), 222–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, D. J. (1977). Urquhart’s law. Journal of Documentation, 33, 149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vakkari, P. (2006). Trends in the use of digital libraries by scientists in 2000–2005: a case study of FinELib. In A. Grove (Ed.), Proceedings of 69th annual meeting of the American society for information science and technology. (p. 43) Medford, NJ: Information Today.

  • Vaughan, K. T. L. (2003). Changing use patterns of print journals in the digital age: impacts of electronic equivalents on print chemistry journal use. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(12), 1149–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickery, B. C. (1959a). The structure of information retrieval systems. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information, 2, 1275–1290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickery, B. C. (1959b). Subject analysis for information retrieval. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information, 2, 855–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voorbij, H., & Ongering, H. (2006). The use of electronic journals by Dutch researchers: a descriptive and exploratory study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(3), 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., Brahmakulam, I., Jackson, B., Wong, A., & Yoda, T. (2001). Science and technology collaboration: building capacities in developing countries?. Santa Monica: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner-Döbler, R. (1996). Two components of a causal explanation of Bradford’s law. Journal of Information Science, 22(2), 125–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S., & Gregorio, D. I. (1981). Research productivity in academia: a comparative study of the sciences, social sciences and humanities. Sociology of Education, 54(4), 238–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2009). The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journals publishing. Oxford: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D. (2001). Authors as citers over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(2), 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitworth, J. A. G., Kokwaro, G., Kinyanjui, S., Snewin, V. A., Tanner, M., Walport, M., et al. (2008). Strengthening capacity for health research in Africa. Lancet, 372(9649), 1590–1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D. (1994). Information needs and uses: fifty years of progress? In B. C. Vickery (Ed.), Fifty years of information progress: A Journal of Documentation review (pp. 15–51). London: Aslib.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C. S. (1999a). Informetrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 34, 107–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D. (1999b). Models in information behavior research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yablonsky, A. I. (1980). On fundamental regularities of the distribution of scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 2(1), 3–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (1968). Public knowledge: an essay concerning the social dimension of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zipf, G. K. (1936). The psycho-biology of language. An introduction to dynamic philology. London: George Routledge & Sons Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Hafner.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to anonymous reviewers for all their constructive comments; interest and valuable hints, which have truly contributed to enriching the paper and raising its standards. Special thanks go to Thomson Reuters (ISI) for its excellence and valuable databases, which helped us to complete this research successfully.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Islamic World Science Citation Center (ISC), Shiraz, Iran

    Ali Gazni

  2. Department of Library and Information Science, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran

    Zahed Bigdeli, Morteza Kokabi, Gholam Reza Rajabi & Ali Gazni

Authors
  1. Zahed Bigdeli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Morteza Kokabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gholam Reza Rajabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ali Gazni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Gazni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bigdeli, Z., Kokabi, M., Rajabi, G.R. et al. Patterns of authors’ information scattering: towards a causal explanation of information scattering from a scholarly information-seeking behavior perspective. Scientometrics 96, 103–131 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0885-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0885-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation