Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

How Scientists Actually Learn of Work Important to Them
Pages 195-198

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 195...
... The first question was accompanied by an enumeration of the various ways in which experience soon showed the investigators had actually discovered work of importance to them (e.g., in casual conversation; from a formal report at a meeting; in a journal subscribed to by the investigator; in Journal regularly scanned in the library; in an abstract~ng service, in an indexing service; through a reprint received in exchange; from a reference book; from a review article on the subject; from a cross citation in some other article; in a formal discussion group; from a bibliography; or from a co-worker in the same laboratory. The interviews elicited a vigorous response.
From page 196...
... TABLE ~ Ranking of Methods Whereby 50 Representative Scientists Actualir Learned of Work Crucial to Their Own Number Casual conversation From a journal regularly scanned From a journal subscribed to From a cross citation in another paper Can't remember general background common knowledge From a reprint received from the author Through an abstracting service From a co-worker in the same laboratory or department From a reference work or textbook From a review article (old work) Through a formal report at a meeting By chance From a bibliography or material supplied in a course Through an indexing service In a formal discussion group From a book list 78 76 29 24 22 20 18 15 15 14 9 9 6 4 4 3 Percentage 22.6 22.0 8.4 6.9 6.4 5.8 5.2 4.3 4.3 4.0 2.6 2.6 .7 .2 1.2 0,9 It may be of some significance that the animal physiologists and biophysicists never referred to cross citations as valuable to them; the biochemists never reported discoveries in journals they regularly subscribe to (one wonders whys; the biophysicists, embryologists, and geneticists almost without exception eschew abstracting services; and the biophysicists and psychologists fail to use reprints.
From page 197...
... In any future study of this sort, it would be valuable to have a breakdown ofthe distribution of items according to native country, foreign country of same language, and foreign country of different language; and to check this distribution against estimates ofthe amount of work being done in each field in the United States and abroad. Dependence upon the memory of the scientists interviewed constitutes a flaw in the present procedure.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.