Reading
The act of reading is a highly ubiquitous information activity that has rarely been the direct object of study in information behavior research. Thus, surprisingly little is known about the variable and complex reading processes involved in research and scholarship. Aspects of scholarly reading have been reported as part of more general studies of document or e-journal use, with the primitives of scanning, assessing, and rereading emerging in the literature. When information is first encountered, it is scanned in some preliminary way, as when a scholar reviews bibliographic fields while searching the online catalog or segments of pages when flipping through of a volume in a library. Each source is assessed to determine its relevance to the information problem at hand or to a longer term information need, and these interactions differ based on the kind of source and the researcher’s intentions and mode of inquiry. Other reading processes come into play when information is read more thoroughly or kept and reread later or over time.

General reading patterns related to e-journal use have been systematically documented in longitudinal surveys conducted by Tenopir and colleagues, showing differences among disciplines and important changes over time (eg, Tenopir, 2003; Tenopir et al., 2003; Tenopir et al., 2005; Tenopir & King, 2008). Not surprisingly, e-journal use has become the norm in the sciences and mathematics, where the format has been widely available for some time and readily adopted. Strong levels of use have also been documented in business and economics, but history, education and the arts have made a slower transition, due at least in part to lower levels of e-journal availability in disciplines outside the sciences (Education for Change, 2002). Such e-resource trends are suggestive, but they are not direct measures of actual reading activities.

Scanning
Researchers often begin working with documents by scanning them prior to engaging in more thorough reading. This practice has always been common with print materials, and it is accelerating and becoming more dynamic in the digital environment. For example, studies have demonstrated that scientists and engineers tend to skim papers to identify key components, beginning with the abstract, then moving to section headings, lists, summary statements, definitions and illustrations (Schatz et al., 1999). This process has extended to digital documents, where search features make it easier to pinpoint segments for reading, such as descriptions of experimental techniques or application of theories (Bishop, 1999). In particular, more recent large-scale transaction log studies have suggested that scholars are making greater use of abstracts in full-text databases (Nicholas, Huntington, & Jamali, 2007). Analysis of ScienceDirect logs showed that social scientists conducted the highest proportion of abstract-only sessions (41%), followed by mathematicians (40%), computer scientists (35%) economists (33%), life scientists (13%), engineers (13%), and chemists (12%). Supplementary surveys of users clarified that, while abstracts were valued for quick access and downloading, they did not substitute for reading the full article. Other studies have further confirmed that scholars often begin with preliminary parts of a document and then skim the full-text before printing for later reading (Tenopir et al., 2005).

The results from recent studies could be interpreted as evidence that scholars are reading more than in the past. For example, the number of articles read by university medical faculty was over 30% higher in 2006 than in the mid-1990s. At the same time, reading time per article fell, with medical scholars averaging about 24 minutes per article (Tenopir, 2006). However, while scholars are spending less time with more papers, they are also increasingly working through information on the Web by rapidly scanning material, or “bouncing” from site to site, a practice particularly common in medicine and the life sciences (Nicholas et al., 2006). Together these patterns suggest that researchers are not reading more, but rather scanning, exploring and getting exposure to more sources. In fact, they may be practicing active reading avoidance, as they quickly navigate through more material, spending less and less time with each item, attempting to assess and exploit content with as little actual reading as possible (Palmer, 2007; Renear, 2006, 2007).

Assessing
As researchers scan through documents quickly, sources of interest are assessed to determine their relevance and utility. This process of assessing has been described in number of ways—as differentiating, comparing and sifting—in previous studies (Ellis, 1993; Ellis et al., 1993; Foster, 2004; Unsworth, 2000). Bishop (1999) distinguished five separate stages of assessment, which can be distilled into these terms: “orientation” to form an initial impression of a work, “overview” to identify important details, “directing attention” to pinpoint specific document characteristics to skim, “comprehension” to interpret content, and “triggering” to initiate further reading (p. 265). Assessing is not always done item by item. Scholars have also been shown to assess aggregations of materials, such as issues of a journal or groups of sources that assist in keeping up-to-date with developments in their field of expertise (Bronstein, 2007).

A number of studies have focused on factors that influence a scholar’s decision to obtain, read or otherwise use a particular source. Key criteria identified among studies include topicality, originality, perceived quality, timeliness, availability and peer review (Covi, 1999; Houghton, Steele, & Henty, 2004). In a unique longitudinal study of agricultural economists, these and additional features— orientation, depth, reading time and author and journal reputation—were important assessment factors in decisions in the eventual selection and use of materials from sets of search results (Wang & White, 1999). For historians working with archival materials, assessing has been found to involve understanding the context of a source and its relationships to other sources in a collection (Duff & Johnson, 2002). As would be expected, book reviews are an important source of information for decisions about book purchases, according to a study of scholars across the arts, social sciences and sciences (Hartley, 2006).

Rereading
Books, articles, notes and documents of all kinds may be reread once or many times to recall content, increase comprehension and to relate and integrate previous research into a work in progress (eg, Brockman et al., 2001; Palmer, 2005; Tenopir et al., 2005). By revisiting previously read material, scholars also build their baseline of information, identify gaps in their knowledge and develop new research directions (Foster, 2004). Rereading is one of the primary reasons that scholars build personal collections. For humanities scholars, rereading a work is a significant part of interpretation and analysis, and it may be a long-term undertaking over the course of a project, across multiple projects over time or over a career (Palmer & Neumann, 2002). In the sciences, astronomers were found to engage in more rereading activities than other scientists, “which may be due to the ease with which astronomers can retrieve older articles electronically, or they may re-read more because they reuse older articles more than other scientists” (Tenopir et al., 2005, p. 793).

Rereading is closely associated with writing. A study of interdisciplinary humanities scholars found that collected texts were used to “prime” for writing activities (Palmer & Neumann, 2002). Music scholars frequently reread sources throughout the writing-and-revision stages of a project (CD Brown, 2002), and literary critics reread their assembled primary and secondary research materials in order to develop writing strategies (Chu, 1999). On the other hand, for historians, considerable writing may be necessary during an initial reading, especially with primary sources that must be accessed in archives and special collections, compared to journals, which can be reread later at their “leisure” (Case, 1991, p. 74).

Writing
As with reading, writing is another core scholarly activity that has not been studied in depth as an information behavior. The act of assembling information in constructing new scholarly works is one writing primitive discussed in the literature. In addition, co-authoring and disseminating are distinct activities of interest in information research, with dissemination having a strong base of more general, relevant literature that has developed in the area of scholarly communication over a number of decades. Differences in writing structure and style are apparent across disciplines and reflect scholars’ approaches to formulating, articulating, organizing and presenting evidence within the research process (Cronin, 2003). “Writing is not just another aspect of what goes on in the disciplines, it is seen as producing them”; each act of writing reconstructs and reinforces existing practices in a given field (Hyland, 2000, p. 3). A few studies have reported on levels of information use associated with writing processes. Scholars working in literary criticism were found to continue extensive information use throughout writing stages of a research project, while information searching tapers off to moderate or low levels (Chu, 1999). In a study of neuroscientists, both searching and reading were shown to continue during the writing phases in experimental and informatics projects, particularly to judge how to discuss new findings and claims in relation to existing literature (Palmer, Cragin, & Hogan, 2004).

Assembling
During the research process, scholars compose their thoughts through writing. Parts of texts are composed, integrated, revised and refined as the foundation of new publications. Ellis (1993) used the term “assembly” to denote the myriad of processes that are involved in drawing together ideas and results and writing them up for publication. Assembling is practiced in concert with searching, as well as reading, and extends well into the writing phases of a research project. Assembly by interdisciplinary scholars has been described as “picture building”—a set of behaviors scholars perform as they map out “in their minds, and on paper, the disciplines and concepts relevant to achieving an interdisciplinary overview of the topic” (Foster, 2004, p. 234). The cognitive and physical work of assembling a text can produce more than an image or sketch, however. It establishes the base for the scholarly product that will ultimately be disseminated. For humanities scholars, assembling a text is formative and iterative work that involves continual information management, accretion, and refinement. For example, one study described how “each scholar had his or her own way of taking pieces of an idea or passages that were excised for editorial reasons and putting these into new files or documents to feed into new papers” (Brockman et al., 2001, p. 27; Palmer & Neumann, 2002). Literary scholars have been found to write in multiple stages, assembling their analysis into initial drafts followed by further writing and re-articulation before dissemination (Chu, 1999). Multiple, simultaneous processes were observed in the research projects of art historians, who gathered and organized materials as they analyzed sources and structured their own written arguments (Bakewell et al., 1988). Other structuring approaches can assist in assembly, such as with music scholars’ creation of outlines, tables, lists, and chronologies early in the organizing stage of writing a research paper (CD Brown, 2002). Such non-narrative components appear to be especially influential in the sciences, where tables, diagrams and illustrations are a fundamental part of research communication (Hartley, 2006). Needless to say, word processing has altered assembly practices by simplifying integration, revision and formatting, and digital production has allowed for inclusion of multimedia content in assembled “texts.”

Co-authoring
The practice of co-authorship has increased in recent decades, and its escalation in the sciences has been particularly controversial. Cronin and his colleagues have contributed a series of studies on authorship and other kinds of attribution, finding, for instance, that the incidence of co-authored articles in a selected psychology journal increased over 55% from the 1930s to the 1990s, likely due to more quantitative and experimental approaches in the field and the rise of modularized and discrete tasks in research teams. There was a striking increase in co-authorship in chemistry as well, rising from 44% to 99% over the course of the 20 th century. In contrast, for philosophers—who tend to work independently with abstract issues and theories rather than with empirically based subjects, trends and data—only two percent of articles were co-authored in the 20 th century (Cronin, Shaw, & La Barre, 2003, 2004).

The phenomenon of “hyperauthorship” has surfaced in recent years in fields such as high energy physics and biomedicine, where large distributed research projects are common and can produce, in extreme cases, papers assigning over one hundred authors (Biagioli, 2003; Cronin, 2001). However, many of the researchers listed as “authors” on these articles have played a role in the research but not participate in the actual writing of the paper (Cronin, 2001). Preparing a manuscript for publication has been shown to require effective collaboration, and as such, actual writing tends to be handled by a small group (Kim & Eklundh, 2001). For those working in interdisciplinary fields, co-authorship can lead to significant information problems. Spanner (2001) found that differences in vocabularies made it difficult for research partners in computer science and biology to understand each other’s contributions. Construction of a research report by collaborators required many hours on tasks including translating terminologies and negotiating sentence structure and overall format. Palmer (2001b) showed that interdisciplinary writing can be further complicated by the need to explain concepts to new audiences. As observed by Cronin (2001), even when researchers writing a joint paper share a common disciplinary background, scientific writing can result in a “pasteurized prose of collaboration.” (p. 561).

Disseminating
Trends in open access tend to dominate much of the literature on dissemination of scholarly work, but there are other aspects of the dissemination process that have been studied empirically and are closely linked to the practice of research. For example, dissemination includes the work of evaluating appropriate journals and presses for submission of a manuscript and the act of presenting a paper and fielding follow-up questions at a conference. One project may spawn a number of scholarly products that emphasize different facets of the research or need to be crafted for different scholarly audiences or in variant formats. Extensive reshaping and rewriting is often required by referees during the peer review process, and there may be moderate use of new information for these rewriting purposes (Chu, 1999). Generalizations about the prominence of the journal article for scientific dissemination are well supported by research studies. Journal publishing has been documented as the major mode of dissemination in many fields of social sciences as well, with decisions about where to publish influenced by the standing of the journal in the field, followed by distribution and speed of publication, and audience to which the journal is addressed (Francis, 2005). Professional meetings are also considered essential dissemination routes, as seen in geography where “published information is too late” (Borgman et al., 2005, p. 647). Surprisingly, a study of music scholars found that conference proceedings were the most frequent mode of dissemination, followed by journal articles and then monographs (CD Brown, 2002). While more commonly associated with the humanities, books have been shown to be regularly produced in a range of fields, including psychology, linguistics and sociobiology (Varghese & Abraham, 2004). Books are prevalent in the humanities, but perhaps not as optimal as might be expected. A study of history, English and anthropology faculty at large research universities determined that, although departments expect monograph publication prior to consideration for tenure, the majority of faculty did not consider book-length texts necessary for representing or disseminating their scholarship (Estabrook, 2003).

Books can be particularly effective for broader circulation of ideas, however. They are more accessible for some audiences, providing an important means for presenting scientific knowledge to the general public, and they are especially important for the transfer of information across disciplinary boundaries (Palmer & Cragin, 2008). Dissemination of research •ndings to outside fields is challenging, since prestigious academic journals tend to be single subject publications and articles from outside the narrow focus are often rejected (McNicol, 2003). Therefore, scholars have difficulty determining where to publish interdisciplinary works and whether or not “journals outside ones’ immediate field will count for tenure and promotion” (University of Minnesota Libraries, 2006, p. 22). Levels of e-publishing have been rising along with the escalation of e-journal use. Although the sciences are generally associated with early advances in e-publishing, there is evidence that economists and computer scientists have been more reliant on the Web for disseminating information than scientists (Barjak, 2006). In the early RLG reports, psychology and chemistry scholars indicated that they preferred the longer peer-review process for disseminating articles rather than relying on preprint sources (Gould & Handler, 1989; Gould & Pierce, 1991). Since that time, faculty have developed more informed and positive perceptions of open-access and alternative models for publishing, but some scholars still perceive e-publishing to be risky and less rigorously reviewed. Studies have found that senior faculty tend to be more comfortable sharing early stages of work in online venues and that Web presentation and self-archiving is increasing across fields. For example, chemical engineering faculty have been shown to consider digital alternatives highly viable, and some archaeologists are now willing to share field observations on open-access sites (Harley, Earl-Novell, Arter, Lawrence, & King, 2007). As discussed by Kling and McKim (2000), “scholarly societies play a major role in the shaping of communications forums within a field, both because they are typically major publishers within a field, and also because they articulate and disseminate research and publishing standards for a field” (p. 1312). They note that both the American Chemical Society and the American Psychological Association have had policies directing authors not to put publications on the Web at any stage of production. A survey examining scientists’ use of e-print archives for dissemination reported that they were used by a small number of psychology faculty and less so by chemists who indicated it was “against the policy of the publishers.” Nearly one-quarter of psychology scholars also cited publisher policies as a reason for non-use of e-print archives (Lawal, 2002). The dialogue surrounding open access and the American Psychological Association’s position on online distribution of scholarship has deepened over the years (Bullock, 2004; Brehm, 2007). Some disciplines have long relied on pre-print servers for disseminating research results, the most renowned case being arXiv.org for physics, math, and computer science. Recently, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (2008) in the United States mandated that any research conducted on behalf of the National Institutes of Health must be made freely accessible, and other funding agencies like the National Science Foundation have been strong proponents of openly accessible research. Motivated in part by the rising cost of serials and the Web’s influence on scholarship, many universities across the world are developing their own institutional repositories (IRs) to preserve and freely disseminate the work of their scholars. The use of IRs by faculty has been associated with self-archiving behavior (eg, Kim, 2007; Xia & Sun, 2007). But while one international survey of over 1,200 scholars showed that nearly half of the respondents engaged in self-arching behavior (Swan & Brown, 2005), deposit in IRs has been slow in general. A range of factors have been identified, including faculty not understanding potential benefits and continued preference for traditional peer review venues over open access alternatives (Bell, Foster, & Gibbons, 2005; Crow, 2002; Palmer, Teffeau, & Newton, 2008; Park & Qin, 2007). At the same time, librarians and other proponents stress that IRs, author- pay models, and other open access options are “viable alternatives to the problem of unsustainable journal costs” (Harley et al., 2007, p. 8).

Collaborating
Research collaborations can range from two to hundreds of participants, as suggested by the hyperauthorship trends discussed above. They range along a “continuum” of engagement, from basic consultation to fully integrated teamwork, and project management may be loosely coordinated or highly structured and closely administered (Hara, Solomon, Kim, & Sonnenwald, 2003). Information exchange is a key component of successful collaboration (Haythornthwaite, 2006), as is support for administrative coordination and data storage and sharing, which are not yet sufficiently available to academic researchers, especially outside the sciences (University of Minnesota Libraries, 2006). The primitives of coordinating, networking and consulting are discussed, but data practices are covered later as a cross-cutting activity involved in collecting and collaborating. It is worth noting that team based research is most commonly associated with the sciences, in part because there are clearer divisions of labor in scientific research than in the social sciences and humanities (Borgman, 2007). However, studies have not always indicated consistent differences along disciplinary lines. The RLG studies showed that collaboration was highly valued by history and literature scholars, as well as those in chemistry, engineering, and physics. At the same time, scholars in art history, philosophy, anthropology and psychology reported that they did not typically engage in collaborative work (Bakewell et al., 1988; Gould, 1988; Gould & Handler, 1989). However, results of co-authorship studies presented above indicated an escalation of collaboration in psychology.

Coordinating
Collaboration requires coordination of group work, which becomes more complicated as the number of institutional partners and the distance between them grows, as demonstrated in an analysis of projects conducted as part of an interdisciplinary program funded by the National Science Foundation (Cummings & Kiesler, 2005). Coordination problems experienced by scientists and engineers ranged from issues related to software differences across sites to difficulty with relatively simple tasks, such as scheduling meetings. Direct supervision was found to be the most effective coordination mechanism, and, as more institutions became involved in a project, workshops were effective for fostering joint efforts. Although employing more coordination mechanisms generally led to increased success, the study also found that large, multi-institutional projects tended to use fewer coordination procedures, suggesting that “the work arrangements that make these collaborations possible require a deliberate strategy for coordination” (Cummings & Kiesler, 2005, p. 717). McNicol (2003) likewise argued that clear leadership and coordination were vital to successful interdisciplinary work, and both formal and informal communication channels necessary for managing joint activity. Early in a research project, collaborators need to define project boundaries and agree on “the doability of problems” to be addressed (Hara et al., 2003, p. 22). However, decisions on what work needs to be done, who is responsible for execution, and other details are also influenced by the structural, organizational and technological context and must be articulated and refined over the course of a project (Corbin & Strauss, 1993). Studies have suggested that socio-technical infrastructure can compensate, to some degree, for lack of physical proximity. Situation awareness, such as information about who has worked on what when, can be mediated by technology through “contextual, task and process, and socio-emotional information” that facilitates collaboration across physical boundaries (Sonnenwald, Maglaughlin, & Whitton, 2004, p. 990). Innovations in collaborative technology appear to be having an impact on research production, as illustrated by one study of Australian researchers, which reported that approximately 60% of respondents felt new information environments and technologies had changed the way that they collaborated (Houghton et al., 2004).

Networking
Before a collaboration can begin, relationships with colleagues and associates need to be established; and for a collaboration to succeed, those relationships must be strengthened and maintained. Information technologies are making it easier for collaborators to communicate and work together and, of course, e-mail has been the lifeblood of communication among local and distant team members for many years (Walsh, Kucker, Maloney, & Gabbay, 2000). As would be expected, one study documented that collaborating scientists depended on Web-based communication more than those who work independently, and larger teams showed higher levels of use (Barjak, 2006). In an earlier comparative study, networked communication was associated with a dramatic increase in co-authored papers in math, a field known for independent scholarship. In addition, use of electronic mail, bulletin boards and listservs was found to be more common in mathematics and physics than in experimental biology or chemistry (Walsh & Bayma, 1996a, Walsh & Bayma, 1996b, p. 689).

Across one campus, humanities scholars and social scientists considered their colleagues to be everywhere, regardless of discipline, department, institution or even country (University of Minnesota Libraries, 2006). The traditional invisible college (Crane, 1972), or network for exchanging vital information in a research area, has become more of an “invisible constituency”—a heterogeneous, open and loosely organized network that serves more as ad hoc consultation than gatekeeping (Palmer, 2001b). New kinds of digital forums are now increasing engagement among researchers, resulting in online communities that foster collaborative research (Bibliographic Services Task Force, 2005). However, technology should not be considered the sole, or even primary, force producing these changes (Walsh & Bayma, 1996a, 1996b). Which technologies are chosen and how they are implemented is understood to be influenced by social and cultural factors specific to the research community (Hara et al., 2003), and therefore uneven adoption across scholarly communities is to be expected, as researchers gravitate to tools that fit the needs and practices of their collaborative groups.

Consulting
Scholars rely on consultation to assist with a number of scholarly activities. As discussed above, they contact colleagues and other experts for assistance in identifying information in the chaining process, and personal collections can function as a valuable consultative resource for other scholars. Researchers also regularly consult with each other to generate and test out ideas or to verify that they are following a productive and competitive research path. Consultation for stimulating and refining ideas has been observed in studies of scientific fields like molecular biology and neuroscience but also in music, history and the humanities more generally (CD Brown, 2002; Case, 1991; Covi, 1999; Palmer, 2005; Palmer et al., 2007). Historians who work primarily with archival materials consult about specific information sources, conferring with archivists as well as other researchers who have interacted with the materials being studied (Duff & Johnson, 2002; Palmer & Neumann, 2002).

In the networked information environment, scholars are more easily spanning geographic and intellectual space as they consult. The Web has been shown to foster short-term encounters with distant acquaintances or strangers that require little effort but have potentially high returns in access to valuable papers and bibliographies (Kuruppu & Gruber, 2006; Palmer, 2005). These associations are akin to what Cronin (2005) referred to as “cognitive partners,” or the “unwitting, occasionally unseen, and not infrequently sidelined helpers” that support the scholarship of others (p. 110). In the humanities, the high level of dependence on these consultative relationships can “approach joint authorship” in terms of influence on a publication (Brockman et al., 2001, p. 11). For interdisciplinary humanities scholars, consulting with important scholars in outside areas may be necessary for translating ideas from one disciplinary context to another (Palmer & Neumann, 2002).

Cross-cutting primitives
Thus far we have focused on primitives that occur as scholars conduct information work related to a particular activity: searching, collecting, reading, writing or collaborating. Some primitives, however, naturally straddle or cut across two or more information work activities. In this section, we discuss four such cross-cutting primitives. The first three—monitoring, notetaking and translating—are of interest because of their significance in the research process but, unfortunately, there is a limited amount of research from which to draw conclusions. The fourth category, data practices, stands out from the others. It is not a primitive in its own right, but a set of activities around which a growing body of discourse and new research is emerging. The literature does not yet lend itself to identifying discrete primitives. However, it is an area of vital importance, due to the current emphasis on e-science and cyber infrastructure in the information professions, and across fields where support for digital scholarship is a concern for researchers, universities, funders and others with interests in advancing the research enterprise.

Monitoring
Although directed searching, chaining, browsing and probing all play integral roles in scholarly information-seeking, it is also useful for scholars to review new, relevant information on a regular basis. This type of monitoring behavior was defined by Ellis (1993) as “maintaining awareness of developments in a field through the monitoring of particular sources” (p. 482). Another study building on Ellis’s work identified four types of monitoring differentiated by the type of source material (Bronstein, 2007). Monitoring electronic materials involves “performing a periodical literature search on abstracting and indexing databases, library catalogues, or Web sites to keep up-to-date with developments in the field.” Monitoring printed materials involves “periodically looking for new book reviews, or looking through new journals issues.” Networking consists of informal communication with colleagues in order to follow new developments in a research area.

Finally, citation tracking is a “consequence of the different monitoring activities,” and involves chaining activities or accessing other forms of referential materials to locate new sources. These forms of monitoring illustrate its cross-cutting nature: networking with colleagues and citation tracking, or chaining, are primitives associated with collaboration and searching activities, and reviewing journal issues may involve both browsing and scanning, primitives associated with searching and reading activities. Humanities scholars and scientists have consistently reported frustration trying to keep up with information in their fields and the need for monitoring activities to stay current (Borgman et al., 2005; Brockman et al., 2001; CD Brown, 2002; Murphy, 2003; Tenopir et al., 2005). Reading journals received through personal subscriptions has been a traditional strategy (CM Brown, 1999), but, as indicated above, the rate of personal subscriptions has been decreasing in recent years. Nonetheless, studies continue to report that scanning new issues of journals is the most common way scholars monitor developments in their field (eg, Francis, 2005; Vakkari & Talja, 2006), as newer Web-based services such as RSS feeds and citation alerting services are also being adopted. As early as 2000, the SuperJournal Project showed that the majority of users valued alerting features (Eason, Yu, & Harker, 2000). Newer studies have documented increased use by of listservs, RSS feeds and other automated services by scientists (Hemminger et al., 2007). More specifically, Tenopir et al. (2005) found that many astronomers search current awareness resources online, but fewer used services such as the Astrophysical Journal (ApJ) Yellow Pages or emailed tables of contents. A study of scholars at a Malaysian university showed a preference for e-mail alerts linked directly to articles or table of contents of a particular journal (Zainab et al., 2007). Although there is less evidence of wide-scale adoption of alerting services in the humanities, one study indicated that interdisciplinary humanities scholars favored “push services” such as subscriptions, listservs and mailings for keeping up with current trends in research (Palmer & Neumann, 2002). Personal contacts are important sources of information for monitoring. The RLG studies showed that physicists, astronomers, computer scientists, political scientists and anthropologists relied on electronic communication and in-person meetings with colleagues to keep up with research developments (Gould & Handler, 1989; Gould & Pierce, 1991). Other approaches applied by social scientists and humanities scholars included attending scholarly conferences and colloquia, consulting book reviews and scholarly association newsletters, and reviewing preprints or reports of research in progress (Bakewell et al., 1988; Gould, 1988; Gould & Handler, 1989; Gould & Pierce, 1991). Westbrook (2003) found that women’s studies scholars tracked the personal home pages of researchers known to them in the field. Currently, the online communities formed for collaborative purposes (discussed above) are a growing part of the repertoire of sources used in the monitoring strategies applied by scholars.

Notetaking
Discussions of writing practices have often focused on scholarly publishing, with little attention to how writing contributes throughout the scholarly production process. Above, we covered the primitive of assembling, in which notetaking is an important part of the writing done in preliminary stages of constructing a text. Notetaking is also a significant part of searching and reading, and in fact may be practiced together with any scholarly activity. Notes are produced systematically—on paper and online, in lab and field notebooks, and as part of data collection, experimentation and other more informal processes. Scientists record ideas, comments and procedures to accompany data, and scholars in all fields make annotations to articles they read and documents they write. Studies of annotation practices are informing the development of reading devices and writing software (eg, Marshall, 1998; Marshall & Bernheim Brush, 2004; Schilit, Golovchinsky, & Price, 1998) and tools for assisting scholars in documenting their work with digital libraries and other online content (eg, Bradley, 2008). In the Web environment, however, development of annotation systems needs to account for the fact that many individuals expect their notetaking to remain private and that there is a difference between “idealized memory” encoded in an annotation and its actual value (Marshall, 2005).

It has been noted that in the sciences, the “scribbling” and “jotting” of ideas and other informal writing that is performed at the bench may be a better representation of scientific work than the formal writing presented in research papers (Rheinberger, 2003). Notetaking is also widespread in the humanities, produced on all kinds of documents and in the course of managing all aspects of physical and intellectual scholarly work, from coordinating sources materials to generating original new texts (Brockman et al., 2001; Case, 1991; Toms & O’Brien, 2008). Studies have shown that literary scholars use mapping, sketching, and outlining for recording notes; historians develop elaborate personal notetaking systems that emphasize chronology; and music scholars systematically capture explicit musical examples to be used in their written works (CD Brown, 2002; Case, 1991; Chu, 1999). Notetaking done in tandem with other writing tasks can be a largely tacit process that can produce large amounts of structured but informal text (O’Hara, Taylor, Newman, and Sellen, 2002). As discussed above in relation to assembly, when scholars take notes, they “are not just documenting their ideas. The act of writing is formative” (Palmer & Neumann, 2002, p. 100).

Translating
Scholarly work that crosses disciplinary boundaries poses a unique set of challenges. For scholars who are classically trained in a discipline, navigating the literature and research practices of another field requires developing familiarity with new terminology, concepts, theories and methods. For interdisciplinary collaborative groups in the sciences, translating is part of learning about collaborators’ perspectives in relation to mutual research interests, and it is a necessary part of the communication required for making research progress (Palmer, 2001b). In the humanities, collaboration tends to be less formal in nature, but those involved in interdisciplinary scholarship still must translate as they work with sources and people outside their field and as they write for other disciplinary groups (Palmer & Neumann, 2002). In a study of environmental scientists, 89% of respondents indicated that they needed to be somewhat or very familiar with the terminology of another discipline in order to understand literature they were consulting (Murphy, 2003). Similarly, among a small sample of humanities and social science interdisciplinary scholars, the majority indicated that they needed to become familiar with the vocabularies of disciplines outside of their primary field in order to conduct successful research (Spanner, 2001). Additionally, literature written for other disciplinary audiences must be assessed for potential source bias (Meho & Tibbo, 2003).

Colleague networks are essential for making and maintaining the greater number of personal contacts needed to share and validate interdisciplinary information (Foster, 2004; Spanner, 2001). Interdisciplinary humanities scholars, in particular, may depend on local colleagues or outside experts for assistance interpreting ideas and written material encountered from other domains (Palmer & Neumann, 2002). The process of co-authorship is also complicated by the need for continual negotiations and decisions on what needs to be explained to different audiences, the work involved in refining and clarifying terminologies, and agreeing on acceptable reporting structures and formats for different fields (Palmer, 2001b; Spanner, 2001).

Introduction
Research libraries exist to support scholarly work. In recent years, the scholarly literature on practices and information use has been growing, and research libraries should be Prospering from this increased base of knowledge. Unfortunately, the profession has no effective means for Systematically monitoring or synthesizing the published results. This review begins to address the problem by reporting on the state of knowledge on scholarly information behavior, focusing on the information activities involved in the research process and how they differ among disciplines. It provides an empirical basis for identifying promising directions and setting priorities for development of digital information services to support and advance scholarship. Preparing this report required the project team to make decisions about what publications to cover, what results to extract, and how to integrate and present the many valuable purpose often incongruous Findings on scholarly information behavior. Across studies there is considerable variation in how the object of study is defined and in how data is collected and analyzed. The variety of approaches is a natural outcome of the increase in number and sophistication of studies in recent decades and the Complexity of the processes under investigation. The challenges of designing and conducting a solid scholarly study of information behavior are many, but they are rarely apparent when reading the published reports.

Scholars and scientists carry out layers of physical and intellectual activity through a complicated mix of mundane and seemingly idiosyncratic tasks that result in a range of immediate and long-term outcomes. It is difficult to collect data that captures these socio-cognitive processes, and interpreting that data in ways that advance our understanding is even more challenging. The value and uses of information, individual items or entire genres-can change over time, at a micro level as Scholars gather, evaluate, analyze, assimilate and write, and at a more macro level as their ideas evolve, projects move forward and careers unfold. In our studies of scholarly information work, we have seen how a highly influential text a scholar can move into a new research project but then become overshadowed in the course of inquiry, with no trace left in the final, tangible scholarly product. On the other hand, we have also seen how scholars will reference materials from a diverse range of subject areas that reaches far beyond what they can readily recall as part of their directory information. These twists, turns, perceptions and practices are part of the intricate constellation of information activities that generate new scholarship and that we Strive to document and understand through empirical studies of scholarly information behavior. The term “information behavior “has become the field’s preferred term for studies of information needs and uses, but here, and in previous related papers, we use the terms “information practices” and “information work” since they we believe they are a better representation of the social aspects of scholarly activities and the purposeful, Workaday nature of how scholars spend their time.

Scope of the Literature
The scholarly literature on information behavior dates back at least to the reports from the 1948 Royal Society Scientific Information Conference and the 1952 symposium on Chicago School specialized information (Egan, 1954). Since that time, there has been a stream Increasing Steadily of research that has moved beyond the science to address the range of disciplines. By the 1980s,
user research studies Had taken hold as a significant subfield in DSL, and much of the research on scholarly groups produced over the decades is still highly relevant. For example, in the early digital era, RLG released a series of studies that provided a broad examination of information needs across the humanities, social sciences and sciences. The three reports covered a total of 20 disciplines profiling the kind of information, its uses and sources in each field (Gould, 1988 Gould & Handler 1989, Gould & Pearce, 1991). Around the same time, a book-length study of the work processes of Art historians was published by the J. Paul Getty Trust and the Institute for Research in Information and Scholarship at Brown University (Bakewell, Beeman, & Reese, 1988). These two contrasting approaches stand as exemplars of the broad and deep analysis needed to understand how to Develop effective information resources and tools for scholars. The results from these and other earlier works still hold implications for contemporary research libraries. In addition to supplying benchmarks from the past for Assessing Consistency and Change Over time, they contain important insights on information work before it was influenced by current technologies. Some information practices have not been altered in any fundamental way in the digital environment, but many may be advanced or enhanced with new information resources and tools. For example, the table below presents a distillation of results from the reports on the RLG types of information sources found to be of importance across the various disciplines studied. What has changed in the digital environment is not the value of these kinds of sources rather how to they are searched, accessed and used in the scholarly process. Therefore, while recent literature is Emphasized in the review, selected earlier studies have been consulted dating back to 1962.

As suggested above, it is complicated to integrate gold make close comparisons among different kinds of studies. Quantitative and qualitative approaches and make separate contributions together Provide complimentary perspectives and results. For example, ethnographic data provide richer and more nuanced analysis of research as it happens, while quantitative surveys produce more general results on patterns and trends in information behavior. In recent years, qualitative studies have become more common and are strongly represented Therefore in this review. Coverage of bibliometric studies is limited, since they tend to tell us more about the structure and flow of information than the actual work practices of scholars. Across studies the groups of scholars and scientists studied have been scoped in different ways, ranging from very broad classes (eg, science, humanities) to more narrowly defined disciplines (eg, Jewish studies, literary criticism, genomics) and mixed groups of interdisciplinary scholars working in many different research areas. Since it was not possible to align and integrate the results by population studied, our approach was to bring
findings together information on scholarly activities, associating studies of similar domains and Providing loose comparisons where possible.

Most of the literature covered is from newspaper publications in library and information science (LIS) and a number of important books and professional reports have also been included. Selected items from cognate fields in the social sciences and other information science domains, such as computer supported cooperative work (CSCW), are also discussed. Other research areas such as human – computer and internet interaction studies have not been included, partly due to space constraints Because their goal also applying to information services is often less direct. Because of our focus on disciplinary practices, we have not included research from LIS or cognate areas that examines Information behavior Primarily from the perspective of the individual. Many such studies have been Demonstrating how important in the local context information influences behavior, Although the definition of context has been applied Debated and Inconsistently (Courtright, 2007; Talja, Keso, & Pietilainen, 1999). Our focus in gathering literature for review was on more socio-cultural approaches that interpret information behavior as practiced within a discipline or field of study. As suggested by Hjørland and Albrechtsen (1995), since domain based studies of information seeking and use aim to represent consensus among communities of scholars, they are potentially more Those explanatory than that analyze the behavior of discrete individuals.

Table 1: Source Materials by subject reported in RLG reports

Analytical framework
To synthesize the large and diverse body of literature on disciplinary information practices, we have Relating results are concentrated on specific information activities provided by each study. We began by drawing from our previous review of scholarship and disciplinary practices (Palmer & Cragin, 2008), incorporating additional library oriented literature and covering a full range of information activities involved in the process of research. Adapting Unsworth’s (2000) concept of “scholarly primitive, “we derived a framework of scholarly information and primitive activities to guide discussion and to serve as points for comparison across domains. Our aim has been to advance understanding of the information work of scholarly communities, not the behaviors of individual researchers. Scholarship is a dynamic enterprise, however, and scholarly communities can be defined in many ways.

Many studies are designed to investigate standard academic structures and disciplinary categories. However, we know from our previous work on interdisciplinary research processes that it can be counterproductive to assume that formal academic departments are true representations of scholarly affinities (Palmer 1996, 1999a, 2001a, 2005, Palmer & Neumann, 2002). Scholars
regularly cross disciplinary boundaries in their work information, and recent studies have verified The importance and prominence of interdisciplinarity at research universities (eg University of Minnesota Libraries, 2006). Under these conditions, studies of scholarly groups need to take into Account of the “trading zones” that emerge as researchers exchange their expertise and products to solve research problems (Galison, 1996).

The basis of reviewed literature may not Adequately reflect the dynamics of how researchers interact with information and people across fields and specialties, but our activity-based framework is useful foregrounding for information work processes rather than a priori assumptions about disciplinary structures that may be built into the design of individual studies. At the same time, in gathering and discussing the research related to each activity, disciplinary differences across studies can easily be discerned. In addition, the review incorporates the growing body of information on work practices of interdisciplinary scholars and cross-disciplinary collaborations. As a whole, the activity centric narrative offers a landscape view of the many interdependent processes involved in information scholarly work.

Scholarly information activities and primitive
As discussed by Unsworth (2000) Scholarly primitives are basic functions common to scholarly activity across disciplines. He clarified the concept with a list of primitive-discovering, Annotating, comparing, referring, sampling, illustrating and representing-and provided further explanation with examples from humanities computing projects. Our concept of scholarly information activities is related goal emphasizes the explicit role of information in the conduct of research and production of scholarship (Palmer & Cragin, 2008). The concept of the primitive is distinct in that it is meant to refer to activities that are common across disciplines, at least within the humanities where the concept was originally developed and applied, and the examples provided by Unsworth suggest that the activities are relatively discrete in nature. In our implementation, we refine the concept further by Emphasizing a sense of the primitive have something at the base or beginning of a larger process. For example, in our framework, searching for information is interpreted as a scholarly information activity, while the more granular activities of chaining and browsing that contribute to the larger search and discovery process are considered primitive. What qualified strictly as an information activity or a primitive form stands as a basic information science research question in need of further empirical investigation. For example, the
University of Minnesota Libraries (2006) took a different approach in their project to Develop a framework for assessing support for scholarship on their campuses. They identified four general primitive-discover, gather, create and share-that “described the range of Activities Undertaken by scholars throughout the research process “(p. 38). Thus, while firm Criteria for Determining primitives have yet to be developed, the concept has proven valuable and intuitive in both the digital humanities and in DSL. For our purposes, the distinction between more general information primitive and associated activities has been helpful for structuring the array of findings on scholarly information that work currently exist in the literature. Both activities and primitive, we believe, tends to be common across disciplines and integral to how scholars create new works.

Additionally, they can happen at any stage of research, within data collection, analysis, and dissemination processes, or more during the formative stages of a research project. Our activity centric approach is reminiscent of some existing models of information seeking and use in LIS. One of the most well-known, developed by Ellis and colleagues, identified six common processes-starting, chaining, browsing, differentiating, monitoring and extracting, based on qualitative comparative analysis of information seeking in the social sciences, physical sciences, and literature (Ellis 1989, 1993, Ellis, Cox, & Hall, 1993). Competing process models exist (eg,
Foster, 2004; Kuhlthau, 1991), and revisions have been proposed based on new research. In particular, Meho and Tibbo (2003) suggested adding a number of activities to the Ellis model, such ‘re accessing, networking, and verifying, drawing on data from e-mail interviews with social scientists working in the research area of stateless nations. In a multi-method qualitative study, Palmer and Neumann (2002) showed that for interdisciplinary humanities scholars such a model should include exploring and translating the activities involved in working with information and colleagues in outside domains. As the case of Ellis’s model demonstrates, our understanding of the information activities that make up scholarly work, and how they map to scholarly communities, remains questionable and incomplete.

The sections that follow present the literature on scholarly information work framed around five core scholarly activities: searching, collecting, reading, writing and collaborating, with two or more primitive distinguished for each activity. Four cross-cutting primitives that are associated with more than one activity are also covered and serve as an important indicator of how the processes involved in the conduct of research and scholarship overlap and interact. Additionally, in the electronic environment “the flow of seeking, using, and creating information is becoming seamless” and new tools and resources are altering how scholars interact with information (Borgman, 2000). The activity / initial framework Allows us to see the components of this set of fluid Increasingly processes and how they may vary in application by researchers working in different fields. This report does not offer a comprehensive account of all possible primitive activities and involved in scholarly information work. The scheme, outlined below, was derived from the literature and enumerates Those With a basis of findings from empirical studies across multiple disciplines.

Searching
Searching Involves Deciding where and how to look for information. It may be performed with a single query and may result in the retrieval of one bibliographic record or one fact, but more often it is a complex and iterative process. It is A particularly important aspect of the “starting” or “opening” Stages of research identified in process models of information seeking (eg, Ellis 1993, Ellis et al.
1993 Foster, 2004; Meho & Tibbo, 2003). The searching activity in itself may open in a number of ways-with references to a current article or book, advice from a colleague, or keywords Aimed at finding specifics or for exploring a new area. The primitives associated with the activity-searching direct searching, chaining, browsing, probing, accessing, and distinctions are that apply in both the analog and digital information environment. Recent studies have tended to investigate on the Web searching, and searching for information Clearly online is a widespread practice across fields, but the actual impact of the shift to digital search systems remains difficult to Assess in any comprehensive way. One recent campus-wide survey reported that researchers in science and medicine almost exclusively preferred to search using electronic resources (Hemminger, Lu, Vaughan, & Adams, 2007). Approximately half of the interdisciplinary scientists surveyed in another study reported that their clothes were searching
markedly different from five years earlier due to the availability of digital resources (Murphy, 2003). As would be expected, studies of scholars have consistently found high use of search engines, especially Google, Which allow rival search across a wide and diverse array of sources. Has recent study examined decades of citations and the impact of online availability, showing that patterns have shifted as print browsing has become Eclipsed by searching online. It guarantees that scholars appear to be avoiding older, but falling, and literature to be focusing only on previously cited sources, Resulting in the use of a narrower, more homogenized range of literature (Evans, 2008).

Direct searching
Direct searching occurs when a scholar has a well-defined goal. For example, they may be looking for information on a particular chemical compound or trying to find a particular journal article. In most cases, direct searching is conducted with familiar keywords, names or other known terms in databases, online catalogs, search engines and online journals (Foster, 2004). Keyword searching predominates in digital resources, as seen in a survey of users of a Finnish national digital resource that showed a high level of keyword searches in both databases newspaper (63%) and reference databases (53%) (Vakkari & Talja, 2006). Keywords have been found to be important to historians for locating items known to be in an archive (Duff & Johnson, 2002) and for humanities scholars who frequently search for names, places, titles of works, and other proper nouns associated with familiar materials (Bates 1994, Bates 1996a, Bates, 1996b; Bates, Wilde, & Siegfried, 1995 Siegfried, Bates, & Wilde, 1993; Wiberley, 2003). In the humanities, keywords that represent subject – specific terms and other indicators of domain knowledge have also been shown to be important in
Formulating effective search strategies (Buchanan, Cunningham, Blandford, Rimmer, & Warwick, 2005).

Over the course of a research project, scholars use direct searching to confirm and verify their ideas facts. This kind of confirmation searching is used by humanities scholars to solidify their ideas and assist in recall of previous work done in a particular area. Studies of scientists, however, have shown that direct their searching tend to be Aimed at specific issues or a problem at hand when
conducting an experiment or writing up results (Palmer, 2005), or for checking the accuracy of information in hand (Ellis, 1993). Searching to check for accuracy of quotes and references has been Observed in the searching practices of interdisciplinary scholars (Foster, 2004; Meho & Tibbo, 2003) and for women’s studies scholars, identifying gaps in the literature was found to be Particularly
important at the end of a project (Westbrook, 2003). More uniquely, since interdisciplinary researchers often identify information that is “intellectually remote gold from unknown sources,” another layer of confirmation searching may be required “to interpret, verify and anchor the new material “(Palmer, 2005, p. 1144).

In the online environment, searchers tend to work more quickly and less deeply. A search pattern documented in one study of neuroscientists using PubMed is typical. Searchers faced with large retrieval sets only selected items from the first few pages of results, Although some did export result sets into bibliographic software for further review at a later time. Few searchers changed their queries or used the advanced search modes to get better results (Vibert, Rouet, Ros, Ramond, & Deshoullieres, 2007). It is common knowledge that search queries that contain imprecise terminology may result in very large retrieval sets, and misspellings may result in no results at all, yet many databases and online catalogs do not offer users suggestions for improving a query. Humanities scholars have noted their continued appreciation of library card catalogs for being more forgiving of minor terminology issues (Brockman, Neumann, Palmer, & Tidline, 2001). Search system recommendations, based on an evaluation of the University of California’s library services, have included incorporation of multi-lingual spell-checking, increased sensitivity to obscure scholarly terms, and presentation of options for alternative and related terms and topics. Provision of search expansions into other catalogs, like WorldCat, Amazon and other search engines, was also suggested, as well as access to librarian assistance via chat or e-mail reference (Bibliographic Services Task Force, 2005).

Chaining
Scholars depend on bibliographic references found in scholarly books, journal papers and Web sites to identify items to consult or read. This practice of backward chaining, or footnote chasing, has been confirmed as a distinct and prominent searching technique used across scholarly groups, ranging from humanities graduate students to Jewish studies scholars, and from sociologists and
computer scientists to researchers in economics and engineering (Barrett, 2005; Bronstein, 2007; Buchanan et al., 2005; Covi, 1999; Ileperuma, 2002; Vakkari & Talja, 2006; Westbrook, 2003). By following references, scholars are able to trace previous relevant publications. Forward chaining, or citation searching, is the correlate practice for finding subsequent relevant publications.
Bibliographic connections of this kind have been used for centuries to identify relationships among texts, but with networked information technologies, this kind of linking has exploded as scholars more readily chain through digital content (Bates, 2002).
For humanities scholars, chaining provides an important path to secondary materials via books, articles and reviews (Bates, 1994; Bates, 1996a; Bates, 1996b; Bates, Wilde, & Siegfried, 1995; Siegfried, Bates, & Wilde, 1993). But, other kinds of value are inherent in the practice of “mining” the expert bibliographies complied by others. Chaining works to build an understanding of the landscape of a field, shortens research time on a project, and helps in identifying the most important works on a topic (Brockman et al., 2001). One study found that the “seed documents” used for chaining by humanities scholars were particularly valuable for identifying sources not listed in standard indexes (Green, 2000). Among scientists, chaining has been shown as a key strategy for identifying older information for use in both teaching and research (CM Brown, 1999). The notion of chaining can be extended to include sources discovered through personal contacts, where the “link” takes the form of a suggestion from a colleague or collaborator (Meho & Tibbo, 2003). Evidence of this type of interpersonal chaining is found in studies across disciplines, and it is also discussed below as a kind of “consulting,” a primitive associated with collaborating activities. Women’s studies scholars, library and information scientists, graduate students in the humanities, sociologists, interdisciplinary scholars and astronomers have all been shown to rely on their colleagues for recommending relevant materials (Barrett, 2005; Covi, 1999; Spanner, 2001; Tenopir,
King, Boyce, Grayson, & Paulson, 2005; Westbrook, 2003; Zhang, 2001). A recent study reported that “using colleagues as information sources for journals was more typical in humanities than in other fields,” even though the act of chaining in general was a significantly more important approach in economics and engineering compared to humanities and medicine (Vakkari & Talja,
2006). Computer scientists have been relying on e-mail discussion lists to solicit references for some time (Covi, 1999). The practice may be more irregular with interdisciplinary scientists, but it can produce very high quality information. One study documented a case where a scholar sent a “cold contact” e-mail to a high-profile expert in an outside field and received a lengthy and highly
valuable bibliography in response (Palmer, 2005).

Chaining on the Web has been referred to as “quasi-footnote chasing,” since it usually combines linking among various kinds of digital content with search engine queries (Brockman et al., 2001). Studies have shown how geographers move between digital and print resources while chaining, performing iterative cycles of searching and working by following links in Web sites and online
journal articles, tracking citations in book reviews and in print publications, and searching library catalogs (Borgman et al., 2005). A study of how scholars use e-texts suggested that the difference between traditional chaining and browsing disappears in the online environment and is replaced with the practice of “netchaining,” which establishes and shapes “online information chains that
link sources and people” (Sukovic, 2008, p. 274-275).

Browsing
Browsing has long been recognized as an important and widely practiced information behavior (Bates, 2007; Chang & Rice, 1993; O’Connor, 1993). Unlike directed searching and chaining, browsing tends to be open ended with the searcher looking through a body of assembled or accessible information. As with other types of searching, the Web has had a tremendous impact on what and how scholars browse, and on the rate at which they can move through digital material from a diverse array of sources. For example, a study combining deep log analysis and surveys of Web usage found that users often engage in “bouncing” or “flicking,” moving rapidly from site to site and only occasionally returning to explore material in more depth (Nicholas, Huntington, Williams, &
Dobrowolski, 2004). Other studies confirm that print browsing continues to be of value to scholars. One large survey of scholars in the humanities and social sciences reported that approximately 80% considered browsing the library shelves to be an important, although infrequent, activity (University of Minnesota, 2006). Among studies of scholarly information use more generally, browsing has been strongly associated with the humanities and interdisciplinary fields (Bronstein, 2007; Ellis & Oldman, 2005; Meho & Tibbo, 2003). Nearly all the respondents in one small study of interdisciplinary humanities and social science scholars engaged in some kind of browsing as part of their research process (Spanner, 2001). In the sciences, there appears to be more variation. For example, surveys have demonstrated that physicists, chemists and biologists identify up to half their reading material by browsing, but browsing among astronomers was considerably lower, at 20%, possibly due to the more comprehensive and integrated online information systems in the field (Tenopir et al., 2005).

Collections of various kinds lend themselves to browsing. Studies of humanities scholars and geographers have shown that library shelves are valued as a browsing environment, especially sections devoted to new books and journals (Borgman et al., 2005; Brockman et al., 2001). Women’s studies scholars have relied heavily on browsing both publisher catalogs and bookstores, due in part to the less developed base of indexing and reference sources in newer interdisciplinary fields (Westbrook, 2003). Case studies of neuroscience research have demonstrated how the speed and flexibility of digital browsing can encourage review of material that might otherwise be ignored, such as compilations of conference poster abstracts that cover a multitude of very current research
projects (Palmer, Cragin, & Hogan, 2007). Web browsing can also lead scholars to more conventional library resources that might not have been pursued through a library portal or gateway (Zainab, Huzaimah, & Ang, 2007). Moreover, table of contents browsing in journals has been readily adopted in the electronic environment, in conjunction with the follow-on activities of accessing and
assessing, discussed further below (eg, Eason & Harker, 2000; Eason, Yu, & Harker, 2000). More specifically, studies have suggested that social scientists retrieve recent articles of interest through vertical chaining, moving from table of contents, to abstract, to full-text, while scientists browse journal titles and then perform vertical leaping, going directly to the full-text (Tenopir, 2003).

Among searching techniques, browsing is notable for its potential to result in serendipitous discovery. Because browsing tends to be broad and flexible, scholars encounter materials that would not be found through searching or chaining, and the new information may stimulate unexpected and fortuitous intellectual connections. A large survey of scholars in the United Kingdom showed that few scientists valued print collections for serendipitous browsing, but scholars in the arts, humanities, area studies and languages were twice as likely to consider it an essential aspect of browsing (Education for Change, 2002, p. 25). Interdisciplinary researchers have reported that physical libraries are more conducive to serendipitous discovery than digital libraries, and other scholars have reported that the ability to browse is a distinct benefit to having a library in close proximity (Borgman et al., 2005; Engel & Antell, 2004; Foster, 2004). In fact, some humanities scholars have reported that browsing is “difficult” to perform in the electronic environment (Buchanan et al., 2005).

Probing
For scholars seeking information across multiple domains, standard searching and browsing approaches can be inadequate due to the scatter of information and the disparity in vocabularies across fields (Mote, 1962; Weisgerber, 1993; White, 1996). Probing is an exploratory strategy used by interdisciplinary researchers to find relevant information that falls outside their discipline or area of expertise (Palmer, 2001b; Palmer & Neumann, 2002). Similar to browsing, probing may be loosely directed across a topic area, but it is distinct in its investigative nature and aim of identifying information in unfamiliar domains. It encompasses breadth exploration, identified by Foster (2004)—a “deliberate expansion of information horizons to bring within range different information types, sources, concepts, and disciplines” (p. 233). Not all probing is aimed at broadening or expanding the search scope, however. While researchers frequently probe into peripheral areas to increase their breadth of perspective and generate new ideas, probing in an outside field can also be deep and directed at solving a particular problem or locating a particular piece of missing information (Palmer, 1999b).

Cross-disciplinary searching and probing are not practiced exclusively by interdisciplinary researchers. Studies have documented the practice in various academic disciplines. Examples include molecular biologists conducting broad-based searches in databases to learn about unfamiliar areas and to stay current (Covi, 1999), and historians and music scholars searching for materials across a wide range of fields, including philosophy, anthropology, art history, literature, statistics, sociology, criminology and geography (CD Brown, 2002; Case, 1991). Domain-specific searching can also be “probing” in nature, especially when a research focus is not yet well defined or understood. Studies of how domain knowledge is applied by users, or represented in search tools, have implications for the support of scholarly probing. For example, one study of humanities scholars suggested that domain knowledge improved success with conceptual searches, but subject classifications were not useful due to their misalignment with how scholars conceptualized their fields (Buchanan et al., 2005).

While much of the documented probing activity has been associated with exploratory database searching, interesting examples can also be found in studies of archival information work. A study of the research process of historians showed how they probe archival finding aids to discover unknown source material and to identify new keywords for expanding their base of searching (Duff &
Johnson, 2002). This study also gave an account of interpersonal probing, in which the historian engaged the archivist in conversation and deliberately avoided the use of known keywords to better elicit additional terms. Probing far afield to identify keywords or find new information from an outside discipline can, of course, introduce terminology problems. “Translating,” to construct search queries or to interpret content from an outside domain, is one of the cross-cutting primitives discussed below.

Accessing
Information service providers understand that providing “discovery is not enough;” scholars want direct access to the materials they identify (Bibliographic Services Task Force, 2005; Research Information Network, 2006). This expectation may be reflected in a recent report showing that over a three-year period scholars were increasingly less likely to view libraries as a gateway to information, with the trend markedly greater for the sciences and the social sciences compared to the humanities (Houseright & Schonfeld, 2008). Another suggestion of access needs can be seen in a study that showed how chemists at one institution “created and relied upon their own list of relevant e- journals” rather than using those created by the library, showing that personal tools “increase efficient connections to what they consider to be their core literature” (Davis, 2004, p. 331). When full-text digital library content is available, however, scholars across fields have exploited its efficiency and convenience (Barrett, 2005; Brockman et al., 2001; Eason, Richardson, & Yu, 2000; Hallmark, 2004).

The lower levels of production and distribution of digital sources is an important factor in lagging adoption in the humanities. In one large-scale survey, arts and humanities scholars were found to be three times as likely as medical, biological, and physical scientists to consider physical access to library collections essential to their research, and twice as likely as social scientists (Education for
Change, 2002). Studies of humanities scholars have also demonstrated a continued reliance on primary materials held in special collections, archives and museums, coupled with regular travel to work on site with physical resources (Brockman et al., 2001; Case, 1991; Palmer, 2005; Palmer & Neumann, 2002; University of Minnesota Libraries, 2006; Wiberley, 2003).

In the sciences, e-journal use is dominant and strongly preferred over print (Hemminger et al., 2007; Tenopir et al., 2005). Some researchers save electronic copies for later access, but many studies have shown that scholars tend to print out articles or other sources for later reading (CM Brown, 1999; Eason & Harker, 2000; Eason, Richardson, & Yu, 2000; Murphy, 2003; Tenopir et al., 2005). For example, even though astronomers accessed about 80% of their readings from electronic sources, they printed out more than half on paper before reading, and less than one-fourth were read on a computer screen (Tenopir et al., 2005). That study found that HTML was favored for reading online and PDF format was preferred for printing. A “deep log analysis” of scholarly databases indicated that Blackwell Synergy users accessed documents in PDF twice as often as HTML, and Emerald Insight users accessed PDFs 56% of the time (Nicholas, Huntington, Jamali, & Watkinson, 2006). Another study reported that 70% of scholars surveyed preferred PDFs to HTML (Zainab et al., 2007). Print is still considered by many to have a distinct portability advantage, and
improvements are needed in e-text functionality for backward and forward movement through pages within a document and between different documents (Institute for the Future, 2002).

Collecting
As researchers search for and access information, they build personal collections that support their current and long-term research. Gathering and organizing are the primitives associated with scholarly collecting of research materials. Unfortunately, only a few early studies have specifically examined the personal collecting behavior or scholars, and therefore there is limited understanding
of patterns in content and use. The practice seems to be continuing over time with some variation due to e-resource availability. For example, studies ten years apart reported similar use of personal journal collections by medical and biological scientists for locating articles and keeping up with research in their field (Curtis, Weller, & Hurd, 1997; Kuruppu & Gruber, 2006). On the other hand,
longitudinal surveys have tracked a decline in scientists’ annual personal subscriptions, from an average of 5.8 titles in 1977 to 2.2 titles in 2002, with reliance on library collections increasing with the availability of e-journals (Tenopir et al., 2003; Tenopir et al., 2005).

As will be discussed briefly here and again more thoroughly in a later section on data sharing, reuse of data collections is a topic of great interest in LIS and is considered to be particularly important for data-intensive fields in the sciences. Personal scholarly collections, consisting primarily of documents rather than raw data, have also been perceived to have potential value for other users (Spanner, 2001), but there is little evidence of actual sharing practices. One study reported that one-third of fine arts respondents referred their students to resources in their own collections, because of its superiority and relevance over their university’s collection (Reed & Tanner, 2001). Nearly half of the scholars in another survey felt that their personal collections would be of value to other researchers (University of Minnesota Libraries, 2006).

Gathering
Collections may be built due to a need for long-term accessibility, convenience or to support sustained work with a set of resources. An early, broad survey of humanities scholars, social scientists and scientists indicated that some sort of personal collection, consisting mostly of monographs and journals, was maintained by most respondents (Soper, 1976). A later study revealed similar gathering patterns, but showed that social scientists’ collections were more likely to also include items such as bound reports, manuals and loose leaf materials (Case, 1986). The RLG studies reported on collections developed by academic departments tailored to disciplinary needs of their faculty that included materials such as monographs, journals, reports, prepublication papers, maps and photographs. More specifically, engineering labs often collected technical reports and linguistics departments collected significant dissertations in the field (Gould, 1988; Gould & Handler, 1989; Gould & Pierce, 1991).

Among humanities scholars and social scientists participating in a recent study, 37% claimed to have gathered unique research collections, and 56% reported engaging in “personal archiving activities” (University of Minnesota Libraries, 2006). Humanities scholars, in particular, have been shown to cultivate and take pride in their personal collections of books and other print sources
(Brockman et al., 2001). Their collections “are a necessity since rereading is a significant part of their interpretive work. Any number of texts may require periodic or systematic reading, and some may be ‘read’ for years or decades” (Palmer, 2005, p. 1144). Scientists also gather collections of literature in the form of journals, conference proceedings, and individual photocopied and digital papers. Approximately 85 to 95% of the scientists surveyed in one study maintained collections of reprints and article copies, and 63% of chemists reported personal collections of over 500 reprints (CM Brown, 1999). In a more recent survey, 70% of faculty in science and medicine kept both print and electronic article collections (Hemminger et al., 2007). Scientists have reported the high value
of being able to gather together large quantities of digital papers and have them mobile on their laptops (Palmer, 2005). Scientists also collect the data they generate through experimentation and field studies, as well as data produced by other researchers for modeling purposes. In geography, for instance, collections of field notes are maintained, maps are collected in paper and digital forms and serve as both primary and reference resources, and “by mid-career, many have built substantial image collections of their own” (Borgman et al., 2005). With data becoming increasingly digital and more easily mobilized for other purposes, some researchers are becoming involved in data repository and federation efforts (Palmer, 2005), and some agencies are moving toward requirements for long-term data management plans for projects they fund.

Primary materials in the humanities are not generally generated by the researcher, but collected from a range of sources in the form of texts, images, facsimiles and artifacts. Other primary sources frequently collected include manuscripts, letters, plays and photographs (University of Minnesota Libraries, 2006). The qualitative study of art historians, mentioned in the introduction, examined how researchers developed their own collections of art reproductions to “compensate for inaccessible or deficient institutional collections,” and because they “have the advantage of being personally selected and indexed” (Bakewell et al., 1988, p. 19). Fine arts faculty collect books, videos, plays and musical scores (Reed & Tanner, 2001), and literary theorists prefer to purchase the books they analyze, rarely relying on borrowed copies (Covi, 1999). Historians’ collections may be among the most diverse, since they rely heavily on their own data recorded in personal notebooks filled with annotations, facts and references, and collected cultural artifacts, such as items found in junk shops that relate to the time, place, or object of study (Case, 1991).

Organizing
Over time, personal collections become larger and more complex assemblages, and scholars devise organizational systems and tools for storing and managing the content. Accordingly, management of information was one of the activities proposed in Meho and Tibbo’s (2003) extension of Ellis’s model of scholarly information seeking discussed in the introduction. Most of the studies that have examined the organization of personal collections have been focused on the humanities or the social sciences. For example, despite the prevalence of digital materials, 98% of humanities and social science faculty in one university study reported keeping hard copies of print materials because of fear of computer failure, lack of technological skills, and computer storage space limitations (University of Minnesota Libraries, 2006). Much less is currently known about scientists’ approaches to managing their collections of literature and data, possibly because organization is less of a concern or assumed to be more straightforward in the sciences.
Humanities scholars often develop personalized organizational systems for their collections. Arrangement and storage of materials may vary from piles on the floor to structured file folder systems and elaborate databases (Palmer & Neumann, 2002). As described in one study, a historical biographer captured each moment of the life of a person on individual 3×5 cards (Case, 1991). Art historians in another study developed custom approaches to organizing materials in accordance with their needs for both teaching and research, and expressed a need to develop more detailed cataloging systems (Bakewell et al., 1988). Reports have also demonstrated that scholars from various fields have been adopting citation management tools to assist with organizing digital
content (Borgman et al., 2005; Brockman et al., 2001; CM Brown, 1999). At this point in time, scholars have recognized that the materials they collect have potential value to other researchers, but they consider their idiosyncratic organizational systems, as well as copyright restrictions, to be barriers to sharing (University of Minnesota Libraries, 2006). On the other hand, some scholars are
creating highly sophisticated digital collections around their personal scholarly interests that are meant to be shared. For example, the thematic research collections being developed by humanities scholars are scholarly products that that bring together specialized source material, tools and expertise to support inquiry in a specific research area (Palmer, 2004, 2005).