Cited by 60Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorLibrary Science and Information LiteracyLibrary Science and Information

Information‐seeking behaviors of computer scientists: Challenges for electronic literature search tools

Athukorala, Kumaripaba, Hoggan, Eve, Lehtiö, Anu, Ruotsalo, Tuukka, Jacucci, Giulio·2013·Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Abstract

Since the recent emergence of electronic literature resources, researchers have begun to adopt new information‐seeking practices. The purpose of this research is to investigate the information needs and searching behaviors of researchers, and their implications for electronic literature search tools. We conducted mixed‐method case studies involving interviews, diary logs, and observations of computer scientists followed by a web‐based survey to validate our findings. The results show that computer science researchers have the following main purposes for seeking information: keeping up to date, exploring new topics, reviewing literature, collaborating, preparing lectures, and recommending material for students. We found that keeping up to date with research is the most frequent purpose and exploring unfamiliar research areas is the most difficult. Furthermore, we found that literature searching is a collaborative process and, depending on the search purpose, different information sources and navigation strategies are used. On the basis of these findings we discuss six design challenges for literature search tools, which are: providing support for keeping up to date with research, exploring unfamiliar topics, browsing user history, collaborating and sharing, performing a federated search that goes beyond scholarly research, and sorting and navigating the results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/meet.14505001041

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Athukorala, K., Hoggan, E., Lehtiö, A., Ruotsalo, T., & Jacucci, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (FI)
Corresponding author
  • Athukorala, Kumaripaba
  • Hoggan, Eve
  • Lehtiö, Anu
  • Ruotsalo, Tuukka
  • Jacucci, Giulio
Venue
Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
1-11
ISSN
  • 0044-7870 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-8390
OpenAlex
W1948935217
Cited by
60
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
12.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
Keywords
information seeking, computer scientists, literature searching, keeping up to date, exploratory research, collaborative information seeking, federated search, information needs, design challenges

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review