Current awareness of biological scientists in a digital age

Abstract

This study sought to obtain information from research scientists on how they coped with the task of maintaining current awareness at a time when the transition from print based to digital resources is progressing rapidly. It focused on the information behaviour of the scientists, particularly with regard to the range and format of sources used, the time spent, and their reliance or otherwise on the services of librarians. An anonymous survey questionnaire was used to obtain both quantitative and qualitative data from a population of 146 biological scientists employed by three Crown Research Institutes at Palmerston North. An overall response rate of 70.5% was achieved. Based on overall importance, the highest ranked sources for current awareness were a mix of formal (hard copy journals, electronic abstracts/indexes) and informal sources (conversation, conferences and email). The electronic format was preferred for abstracts/indexes and alerting services, whereas the hard copy format was preferred for journals. The hard copy journal was differentiated from the electronic format primarily by its ease of browsing and the potential for serendipitous findings. Based on the number of users, the rate of uptake of electronic journals was greatest amongst the "harder" sciences (molecular biology, biochemistry, chemistry) compared with the "softer" sciences (plant and animal biology, environmental and food sciences). Current awareness was seen to be important by the majority of scientists, but there was a gap between the perceived importance of the activity and the amount of time spent on it. The overwhelming factor that prevented the scientists from spending more time was the pressure of other work priorities. Demands of research per se and administrative demands were most often cited as impediments. Issues of access, quality or cost were not cited as factors. The scientists were generally dependent on library services and library staff for supporting their current awareness activities, and little evidence was found for the rise of the library-independent researcher.