Access to scientific information. A national survey of the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine (SIBioC)
-
Giuseppe Lippi
,
Marcello Ciaccio
Abstract
Background:
Digital libraries are typically used for retrieving and accessing articles in academic journals and repositories. Previous studies have been published about the performance of various biomedical research platforms, but no information is available about access preferences.
Methods:
A six-question survey was designed by the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine (SIBioC) using the platform Google Drive, and made available for 1 month to the members of the society. The information about the survey was published on the website of SIBioC and also disseminated by two sequential newsletters.
Results:
Overall, 165 replies were collected throughout the 1-month survey availability. The largest number of replies were provided by laboratory professionals working in the national healthcare system (44.2%), followed by those working in private facilities (13.9%), university professors (12.7%) and specialization training staff (12.7%). The majority of responders published zero to one articles per year (55.2%), followed by two to five articles per year (37.6%), whereas only 7.3% published more than five articles per year. A total of 34.5% of the responders consulted biomedical research platforms on weekly basis, followed by 33.9% who did so on daily basis. PubMed/Medline was the most accessed scientific database, followed by Scopus, ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar. The impact factor was the leading reason when selecting which journal to publish in. The most consulted journals in the field of laboratory medicine were Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine and Biochimica Clinica.
Conclusions:
This survey provides useful indications about the personal inclination towards access to scientific information in our country.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Hull D, Pettifer SR, Kell DB. Defrosting the digital library: bibliographic tools for the next generation web. PLoS Comput Biol 2008;4:e1000204.10.1201/b14542-2Search in Google Scholar
2. Lippi G, Favaloro EJ, Simundic AM. Biomedical research platforms and their influence on article submissions and journal rankings: an update. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22:7–14.10.11613/BM.2012.002Search in Google Scholar
3. Šubelj L, Bajec M, Boshkoska BM, Kastrin A, Levnajić Z. Quantifying the consistency of scientific databases. PLoS One 2015;10:e0127390.10.1371/journal.pone.0127390Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
4. Oswal SK. Access to digital library databases in higher education: design problems and infrastructural gaps. Work 2014;48:307–17.10.3233/WOR-131791Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Markus T. PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus or Google Scholar – Which is the best search engine for an effective literature research in laser medicine? Med Laser Appl 2001;26:139–44.10.1016/j.mla.2011.05.006Search in Google Scholar
6. Anders ME, Evans DP. Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar literature searches. Respir Care 2010;55:578–83.Search in Google Scholar
7. Freeman MK, Lauderdale SA, Kendrach MG, Woolley TW. Google Scholar versus PubMed in locating primary literature to answer drug-related questions. Ann Pharmacother 2009;43:478–84.10.1345/aph.1L223Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Pinfield S, Cox AM, Smith J. Research data management and libraries: relationships, activities, drivers and influences. PLoS One 2014;9:e114734.10.1371/journal.pone.0114734Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
9. Hightower C, Caldwell C. Shifting sands: science researchers on Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed, with implications for library collections budgets. Issues Sci Technol Librariansh 2010;63. Available at: http://www.istl.org/10-fall/refereed3.html. Accessed July 19, 2016. 10.5062/F4V40S4J.Search in Google Scholar
10. Lippi G, Plebani M. Laboratory medicine does matter in science (and medicine)… yet many seem to ignore it. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1655–6.10.1515/cclm-2015-0719Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Lippi G, Borghi L. A short story on how the H-index may change the fate of scientists and scientific publishing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:e1–3.10.1515/cclm-2013-0715Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Point
- Why is diagnosis not probabilistic in clinical-pathological conference (CPCs): Point
- Counterpoint
- Diagnosis is driven by probabilistic reasoning: counter-point
- Original Articles
- Admissions after discharge from an emergency department for chest symptoms
- Inaccurate or delayed diagnosis of hollow organ perforation by emergency physicians: using a qualitative approach to identify the causes
- Changes in cognitive function after pediatric intensive care unit rounds: a prospective study
- Access to scientific information. A national survey of the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine (SIBioC)
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Point
- Why is diagnosis not probabilistic in clinical-pathological conference (CPCs): Point
- Counterpoint
- Diagnosis is driven by probabilistic reasoning: counter-point
- Original Articles
- Admissions after discharge from an emergency department for chest symptoms
- Inaccurate or delayed diagnosis of hollow organ perforation by emergency physicians: using a qualitative approach to identify the causes
- Changes in cognitive function after pediatric intensive care unit rounds: a prospective study
- Access to scientific information. A national survey of the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine (SIBioC)
