Single-authored Papers Research Articles

TOURISMOS: A Bibliometric Study

It is beyond-doubt that the image of a journal duly depends on its focus, quality, objectivity, citation enriched contributions of the author as well the loyalty of its readers. The study reflects on the merits and weakness of the journals that will help for its fine tuning and further development. The results show that majority of contributions of this journal are joint papers followed by single author papers, it indicates a greater level of synergy caused by energy of multiple authors. This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of the journal titled “TOURISMOS” for the period of 2006 and 2011. It covers mainly the number of articles, authorship pattern, subject wise distribution of articles, average number of references per articles, year wise distribution of cited journals, Special Issues etc.

Bibliometric Analysis of the Journal of Educational Media and Library Science from 2008 to 2012

This study examines the patterns of publications in the Journal of Educational Media and Library Science (JoEMLS) from 2008 to 2012. It is observed that publications of JoEMLS are led by two-author papers, followed by single-author papers and three-author papers. The degree of collaboration in JoEMLS publications is found to be 0.63. Taiwan occupies the top position in the country-wise ranking of publications, followed by China and Malaysia. The frequent occurrences of keywords indexed in the articles, like ‘bibliometrics’, ‘information literacy’ and ‘digital archive’, indicate its research focus on promising areas of librarianship. On examination of citations of all the published articles of JoEMLS, it is found that among the 99 published papers, only 17 have received their relative impact as they have been more or less cited in other different published sources.

A Crisis in Communication

A Crisis in Communication

Erratum to “Irradiance and Developmental Stages of Crown Architecture Affect Shoot Production in <i>Rhododendron reticulatum</i>” [American Journal of Plant Sciences 4 (2013) 69-76

The original online version of this article (Yoshimura, K. (2013) Irradiance and Developmental Stages of Crown Architecture Affect Shoot Production in Rhododendron reticulatum. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 4, 69-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2013.45A011) was published as a single-author paper mistakenly. To reflect the contribution and responsibility of the second author as well as the affiliations of the authors at the time of the study, we have revised the authorship and author affiliations of this article. The author wishes to correct the errors as: Kenichi Yoshimura1,2, Hiroaki Ishii1 1Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan 2Present Address: Center for Ecological Research, Kyoto University, Otsu, Japan Email: y.shimuken@gmail.com

The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship

Gender disparities appear to be decreasing in academia according to a number of metrics, such as grant funding, hiring, acceptance at scholarly journals, and productivity, and it might be tempting to think that gender inequity will soon be a problem of the past. However, a large-scale analysis based on over eight million papers across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities reveals a number of understated and persistent ways in which gender inequities remain. For instance, even where raw publication counts seem to be equal between genders, close inspection reveals that, in certain fields, men predominate in the prestigious first and last author positions. Moreover, women are significantly underrepresented as authors of single-authored papers. Academics should be aware of the subtle ways that gender disparities can occur in scholarly authorship.

The cloning of a frog

It is relatively unusual for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to be made, to a large extent, on the basis of a single author paper, published over 50 years ago, for work carried out by a graduate student. This was largely true of a paper published in 1962 in the journal Development (called at that time the Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology). The main subject of that paper was the production of normal tadpoles from the nuclei of intestinal epithelium cells of Xenopus laevis. In view of this unusual situation, I have been invited to comment on the 1962 paper.

Author manifestation and perceptions of self in Chinese academic discourse

This paper examines the manifestation of authorial identity in research articles by contrasting the phenomenon across two languages (English and Chinese) and three fields (Literature, Education, Chemistry). The study seeks to find patterns governing the use of self-mention devices among native Chinese and English writers, and to explain such patterns in terms of the Chinese perception of self. Based on a corpus-based investigation of pronominal and depersonalized forms of self-mention involving 180 research articles, the paper suggests that Chinese authors have a stronger tendency to use depersonalized forms over pronominal forms than their English counterparts. It is also found that in using first-person pronouns, Chinese authors in single-authored papers have a salient preference for the plural form, in particular the inclusive plural pronoun as compared to English authors. The paper attempts to link the linguistic phenomenon to the concept of the interdependent self inherent in Chinese social psychology, and proposes possible applications to research in bilingual scholarly writing and academic translation.

Medical Students’ Experiences With Authorship in Biomedical Research

To explore authorship issues related to medical students' primary research projects, assess medical students' knowledge about authorship issues in biomedical research, and determine their interest in learning about authorship guidelines. In 2011, the authors developed and conducted an electronic survey of 243 U.S. medical students who attended an educational event at the National Institutes of Health as part of their funded, yearlong research fellowship programs. The authors then analyzed the results using descriptive statistics. Of 243 students, 152 (63%) responded. Most (120/151; 79%) had completed or were in the process of writing a manuscript based on their projects. Of these, most (95/119; 80%) wrote the entire manuscript independently or with guidance. Whereas almost two-thirds (99/152; 65%) indicated that expectations and criteria for authorship were clarified for them, 26% (40/152) indicated that they were not. Most students (108/118; 92%) were in the authorship position they expected and had no concerns about who the other authors were (91/119; 77%). Of those with concerns, 52% (11/21) did not raise the issue for fear of challenging their mentor. Two-thirds (95/145; 66%) never received formal training in authorship guidelines, and 41% (42/103) believed such training would be valuable. Although a majority of students had conversations about authorship and were clear about the guidelines for ethical authorship, additional work is needed. The authors recommend that academic institutions develop a menu of options for teaching students about this important area in research ethics.

Citation patterns of a controversial and high-impact paper: Worm et al. (2006) "Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services".

Citation patterns were examined for Worm et al. 2006 (Science 314∶787–790), a high-impact paper that focused on relationships between marine biodiversity and ecosystem services. This paper sparked much controversy through its projection, highlighted in the press release, that all marine fisheries would be collapsed by 2048. Analysis of 664 citing papers revealed that only a small percentage (11%) referred to the 2048 projection, while 39% referred to fisheries collapse in general, and 40% to biodiversity and ecosystem services. The 2048 projection was mentioned more often in papers published soon after the original paper, in low-impact journals, and in journals outside of fields that would be expected to focus on biodiversity. Citing papers also mentioned the 2048 projection more often if they had few authors (28% of single-author papers vs. 2% of papers with 10 or more authors). These factors suggest that the more knowledgeable the authors of citing papers were about the controversy over the 2048 projection, the less likely they were to refer to it. A noteworthy finding was that if the original authors were also involved in the citing papers, they rarely (1 of 55 papers, 2%) mentioned the 2048 projection. Thus the original authors have emphasized the broader concerns about biodiversity loss, rather than the 2048 projection, as the key result of their study.

Editors’ Pick: mad and genius in the same gene?

In the current world of genetic publishing and multi-author papers, where sometimes it is possible that several hundreds of co-authors are listed on a single article (and yes, I am thinking of genome-wide association studies here), I am always intrigued by single author papers. Hence, a not too recent paper by Szabolcs Keri from Semmelweis University in Budapest drew my attention, also because of the interesting title ‘Genes for psychosis and creativity’ [1]. This reminded me of the German saying, ‘Genie und Wahnsinn liegen oft dicht beieinander,’ which translates as: genius and madness are often at close quarters, and is similar, but not quite the same as the English phrase, ‘There is a fine line between genius and madness.’ Does this study provide one of the not so frequent cases where a layman observation that led to commonly used phrases, even in different languages, eventually receives scientific proof? Previous studies had suggested that the neuregulin I gene, which is involved in neuronal development, synaptic plasticity, glutamateric neurotransmission and glial function, serves as a candidate gene for psychosis [2]. In particular, the T/T genotype of the functional promoter polymorphism SNP8NRG243177 or rs6994992, which leads to increased neuregulin I gene expression, is associated with an increased risk of psychosis and other psychological and neurological phenotypes [3,4]. Keri investigated whether this particular DNA variant also has an advantageous effect. He studied 200 healthy volunteers with high intellectual performance as measured via a battery of tests and questionnaires, who were genotyped at the neuregulin 1 promoter DNA variant rs6994992. Grouping these 200 high intellectual achievers according to rs6994992 genotypes revealed that the T/T carriers had statistically significantly higher creativity measures compared with the C/C and the C/T carriers, with the C/T heterozygotes usually performing at an intermediate level relative to the T/T and the C/C homozygotes. No significant differences between individuals belonging to these three genotype groups were observed for other parameters tested, such as age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, intelligence quotient (IQ), employment, marriage, and so on. Two additional DNA variants from the neuregulin I gene that are not implicated in psychosis and do not affect gene expression were also tested and did not indicate similar associations. Based on these data, Keri argues that the neuregulin I gene, previously implicated in psychosis and altered brain structure and function, has a significant impact on human creativity. Is this evidence enough to support the conclusion that genius and madness are indeed related to each other because they are determined by the same gene? The author himself already admits some caveats in his study, such as that the findings were obtained from a selected group of people with high intellectual performance. It may be (as was not tested) that the observed effect is not found in an intellectually less-prominent sample. He also points out that in the general population rs6994992 is not associated with schizotypical traits as reported previously [5]. Furthermore, genetic evidence on the involvement of neuregulin 1 in psychotic conditions appears not without doubt. For instance, while some candidate gene studies reported the association of neuregulin-1 DNA variants with schizophrenia (for example [6]) and a genome-wide linkage analysis highlighted a candidate region for schizophrenia that includes the neuregulin-1 gene [7], several genome-wide association studies highlighted genes other than neuregulin-1 to be involved in schizophrenia (for example [8,9]). If Keri’s findings indeed reflect a general trend and if, indeed, the neuregulin 1 gene determines psychotic conditions, the question on how the rs6994992T/T genotype leads to higher creativity will be of interest. The author suggests that reduced cognitive inhibition, known to be related to schizotypical features and associated with increased creativity in people with high intelligence, may be the key here, but data on the direct role of rs6994992 in reduced cognitive inhibition is missing thus far. Clearly, much further work needs to be done before scientific data allow us to conclude whether madness and genius indeed share biological determination and, thus, can be considered to be at close quarters, or not. Until this is achieved, we may keep using the saying ‘Genie und Wahnsinn liegen oft dicht beieinander,’ but need to be aware that scientific evidence clearly supporting it is still lacking.

A Young Scientist to Watch

There are many rewards associated with serving as the Editor of the Journal of Environmental Quality (JEQ), but I have experienced very few that compare with the pleasure associated with writing this Letter from the Editor introducing you to a new young scientist that you should keep an eye on. On 7 September 2010, I received an e-mail from ASA Editor-in-Chief Dr. Warren Dick containing a PDF file of a manuscript that he enthusiastically asked me to read. The manuscript had been sent to Warren from an 11-year-old, seventh-grade girl who had conducted experiments concerning pharmaceutical adsorption on resins, prepared a manuscript, and wished to have the manuscript considered for publication in JEQ. In Warren's words, “The manuscript is quite good, and the amazing thing is that this is a single-author paper.” I was astounded when I read the manuscript. I tried to picture an 11 year old with extremely limited laboratory resources conducting experiments and preparing a manuscript that surpassed the majority of papers that I have read over the years from graduate students and young scientists from universities with state-of-the-art laboratories. I passed the manuscript to one of JEQ's technical editors, Dr. Baoshan Xing, without indicating the age of the author, and asked for Baoshan's impression. Baoshan commented that even though the manuscript was not up to JEQ rigorous standards, it had potential for publication after revision and additional analyses. When I informed Baoshan of the author's age, he was equally as impressed as I. We agreed that with some minor mentorship and guidance, this work could be brought up to JEQ standards. Baoshan recommended Dr. Hui Li, an Associate Editor for JEQ, as a mentor. After nearly 18 months of diligent and persistent work with minimal resources, the research was submitted to JEQ on 29 May 2012 and accepted for publication on 28 August 2012. During the review process, only the Technical Editor and I knew the age of the sole author; the Associate Editor and reviewers were completely unaware. It is my sincere pleasure to introduce this remarkable young scientist, Maria Elena Grimmett from Palm Beach Gardens, FL, to the environmental science community. Maria is the youngest scientist to publish in JEQ. It is every young scientist's dream to publish their research. Maria has realized a dream that most scientists first achieve at an age twice that of Maria's. Maria has all of the qualities needed to become an exceptional scientist: enthusiasm, persistence, conscientiousness, curiosity, intelligence, and diligence. I have no doubt that she will have an impact in science throughout her life. I invite you to read her published paper titled “Removal of Sulfamethazine by Hypercrosslinked Adsorbents in Aquatic Systems” (this issue).

Authorship, Collaboration, and Gender: Fifteen Years of Publication Productivity in Selected Geography Journals

In academia, publication productivity, defined as the number of peer-reviewed articles published and the frequency of citations, is a primary factor in the assessment of tenure and promotion. One of the most cited gender differences in academia is the “productivity puzzle,” which suggests that women publish less than men, thereby affecting every aspect of a woman's academic career. Peer-reviewed articles published in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers (Annals) and The Professional Geographer (PG) between 1995 and 2006, and in four subdisciplinary journals between 2005 and 2009, as well as citation reports, were used to explore whether gender differences are present in publication productivity. Gender differences were evident in the proportion of women authors, the frequency of collaboration, and the number of citations across a broad range of prestigious geographic journals. For all journals studied, women were underrepresented, especially in the authorship positions that equate to notions of respect and merit. Although the number of collaborative articles increased during the study period, single-authored papers are the dominant mode of publication for both men and women for most geographic journals. The authorship patterns for frequently cited articles generally mirror those for all articles. Because the frequency of collaborative publication was high for women, the dual trends of a general increase in publication collaboration and increasing participation of women in academic geography bodes well for increased female productivity as it relates to publishing. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, currently, males as lead or single authors represent the predominant voice of geography within the journals examined in this study.

The origins of Austin Bradford Hill's classic textbook of medical statistics

Between January and April 1937 The Lancet published a series of seventeen articles on medical statistics by Austin Bradford Hill. The series was suggested by Dr MH (Pamela) Kettle, an assistant editor at The Lancet, and Hill was paid £3.3.0 (three pounds, three shillings, and no pence – roughly equivalent to £135 today) for each ‘installment’. The seventeen articles formed the chapters of Principles of Medical Statistics,1 which was also published in 1937. Over the next fifty-five years, the book was to run through twelve editions, and become renowned worldwide amongst physicians, epidemiologists, and medical statisticians. Hill had a very distinguished ancestry. ‘From James (b. 1724) and Sarah Hill (∼1733–1801) descended one of the most intellectual families that has ever arisen in England’2 (Gun, quoted by Hill). The family included Thomas Wright Hill (Hill's great-great grandfather, 1763–1851), an educational reformer who devised a system of shorthand, and wrote on the hexadecimal system of counting and proportional representation in parliamentary elections; Sir Rowland Hill (1795–1879), who introduced ‘the penny post’; Matthew Davenport Hill (1792–1872), a criminal-law reformer; George Birkbeck Hill (Hill's grandfather, 1835–1903), writer and critic renowned for his edition of Boswell's Life of Johnson; Rosamund Davenport Hill (1825–1902), a prominent member of the old London School Board; Sir Maurice Hill (1862–1934), a High Court judge; and Sir Leslie Scott (1869–1950), a politician and judge who was briefly the Solicitor General. (He was the eldest son of Sir John Scott (1841–1904), another distinguished judge, whose sister, Annie (1830–1902), was the wife of George Birkbeck Hill; George's sister, Laura, was the second wife of Edward Scott, Sir John's father). Hill's father, Sir Leonard Erskine Hill (1866–1952), became professor of physiology at the London Hospital (where he recruited Major Greenwood, widely regarded as the first medical statistician in Britain, in 1905), and, from 1914, head of the Department of Applied Physiology of the newly-formed Medical Research Committee (fore-runner of the Medical Research Council). Unfortunately there is no biography of Austin Bradford Hill, although brief descriptions of aspects of his life, career, and contributions to statistical and medical research are available, for example, Doll,3,4, Farewell and Johnson,5–7 Gehan and Lemak,8 Keating,9 and Statistics in Medicine.2 In 1927 Hill joined Major Greenwood's department at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), having obtained an honours degree in economics at University College London in 1922, and then a grant from the Medical Research Council to examine the high mortality in young adults in rural areas of England. While carrying out this study he attended Karl Pearson's course on statistics at London University. Hill's first four papers, for all of which he was the sole author, were published in 1925. The following year he was awarded a PhD by the University of London with a thesis entitled 'A physiological and economic study of the diets of workers in rural areas as compared with those of workers resident in urban areas,’ which consisted of these four papers (we have not been able to trace the identity of Hill's examiners). In 1930 Hill obtained a DSc from the University of London, with a thesis entitled 'An investigation of sickness in various industrial occupations.’ This comprised eight (single-authored) papers published between 1925 and 1929, including the four submitted for his PhD degree. His external DSc examiner was WP Elderton, author of Frequency curves and correlation (1906) and Primer of statistics (1906). Major Greenwood was the internal examiner. By 1936 Hill had published thirty-nine book reviews, eight research reports, and sixteen papers, including nine in the British Medical Journal or The Lancet, and four in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Many of the reviews were of books about population, poverty, industrial working conditions, migration, mortality, and the social conditions in London, subjects of obvious central interest at the LSHTM. However Hill also reviewed Hartshorne and May's Studies in Deceit, Burgess's Introduction to the Mathematics of Statistics, Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, and the second edition of Pearl's Introduction to Medical Biometry and Statistics, thus demonstrating an interest extending into statistics, genetics, and beyond. Most of Hill's papers also reflected a focus on mortality, longevity, social conditions, and industrial working conditions (including those of nurses), reflecting the rapid development of analyses of vital statistics which had occurred over the previous one hundred years. But his interests extended beyond mortality to cricket, experimental epidemiology, and medical practice.

The unbalanced performance and regional differences in scientific and technological collaboration in the field of solar cells

This study attempts to explore collaborations in the field of solar cell science and technology, focusing on the productivity and citations of papers and patents at the global and country levels. This study finds that most papers and patents are collaborative efforts, however, the rate of collaboration is higher for papers. In particular, international collaboration is not common in patents. In terms of performance, international collaborations have shown the best performance overall if looking at trends that cover the 30 years from 1980 to 2009, but the performance of single-authored papers has been better in the more recent ten-year period, 2000---2009. At the country level, we found that most countries have higher rates of international collaboration with greater numbers in papers and patents. Asian countries such as Japan, Taiwan and India have significant citation performance with high ratios for domestic collaboration; the rates are even greater than the average ratio for international collaboration.

Redesigning a library-based genetics class research project through instructional theory and authentic experience

How can the library-based research project of a genetics course be reinvigorated and made sustainable without sacrificing educational integrity? The University of Florida's Health Science Center Library provides the case study. Since 1996, the librarian has codeveloped, supported, and graded all components of the project. In 2009, the project evolved from a single-authored paper to a group-work poster, with graded presentations hosted by the library. In 2010, students were surveyed regarding class enhancements. Responses indicated a preference for collaborative work and the poster format and suggested the changes facilitated learning. Instructors reported that the poster format more clearly documented students' understanding of genetics. Results suggest project enhancements contributed to greater appreciation, understanding, and application of classroom material and offered a unique and authentic learning experience, without compromising educational integrity. The library benefitted through increased visibility as a partner in the educational mission and development of a sustainable instructional collaboration.

Authorship and Characteristics of Articles in Pharmacy Journals: Changes Over a 20-Year Interval

To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated authorship patterns and characteristics of articles in pharmacy journals. To investigate changes over a 20-year period in authorship and characteristics of articles in pharmacy journals. All articles published in the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, and Pharmacotherapy in 1989, 1999, and 2009 were reviewed. Data collected for each article included article type, number of authors, number of physician authors, whether any author was affiliated with a pharmaceutical company, and source of funding. The number of articles included was 574 in 1989, 659 in 1999, and 589 in 2009. The mean number of authors per article increased from 2.5 in 1989 to 2.8 in 1999 and 3.6 in 2009 (p<0.001). Conversely, the proportion of articles with a single author decreased from 35% in 1989 to 23% in 1999 and 11% in 2009 (p<0.001), while the proportion of multi-authored articles (>6 authors) increased from 2% in 1989 to 3% in 1999 and 9% in 2009 (p<0.001). A physician author was listed on 25% of papers in 1989, which increased to 38% in 1999 and 41% in 2009 (p<0.001). Among research articles with declared funding from industry, there was an increase over time in reported author affiliation with an industry sponsor (10% of articles in 1989, 17% in 1999, and 66% in 2009; p<0.001). Significant changes in authorship patterns and characteristics of articles were observed from 1989 to 2009. We found an increase in the number of authors per article over time, with fewer single-author papers now published. The explanations for the changes are likely multifactorial, including increased pressure to publish, increased research complexity, and inappropriate authorship. To prevent inappropriate author-number inflation and to preserve authorship's meaning and value, authors should adhere to the criteria for authorship from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

The effects of coauthorship on the quality of financial research papers

This paper analyzes whether formal collaboration in terms of coauthorship enhances paper quality in financial research. Analyzing all papers presented at DGF annual meetings in the period from 1996 to 2005, we report the following major findings: First, we find superior paper quality of coauthored papers compared to single-authored papers. This holds true for two quality proxies, publication probability and publication quality (as measured by the original and the updated Jourqual rating). Second, the capability of scholars, measured by a citation measure derived from citations in Google Scholar, shows to be an additional important factor for explaining paper quality. Third, the employed methodology of a paper (e.g., empirical analysis, theoretical analysis) does not systematically affect paper quality. However, it is important to differentiate between empirical and theoretical papers. Whereas coauthorship shows to be a quality enhancing factor for empirical papers, this does not hold true for theoretical papers. Fourth, the origin of data is a crucial determinant of the publication success for empirical papers. In particular, papers which exclusively analyze data from Germany are published in less reputable journals.

Charlie Ellington FRS retires

In 1973, a young student from Duke University arrived at the Department of Zoology in the University of Cambridge to begin his PhD with Torkel Weis-Fogh. The young student was Charlie Ellington, and he was destined to ‘rewrite the book’ on insect flight aerodynamics. Charlie recalls his arrival

Mathematics 1868–2008: a bibliometric analysis

This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of the literature published in the field of mathematics from 1868 to date. The data originate from the Zentralblatt MATH database. The increase rate of publications per year reflects the growth of the mathematics community and both can well be represented by exponential or linear functions, the latter especially after the Second World War. The distribution of publications follows Bradford?s law but in contrast to many other disciplines there is no strong domination of a small number of journals. The productivity of authors follows two inverse power laws of the Lotka form with different parameters, one in the range of low productivity and the other in the range of high productivity. The average productivity has changed only slightly since the year 1870. As far as multiple authorship is concerned the distribution of the number of authors per publication can be described quite well by a Gamma Distribution. The average number of authors per publication has been increasing steadily; while it was close to 1 up to the first quarter of the last century it has now reached a value of 2 in the last few years. This means that the percentage of single-authored papers has fallen from over 95% in the years before 1930 to about 30% today.

How Scholars Work

Numerous articles have been written about the impact of today's simplified, remote access to information on the research habits of scholars, but few have probed the research process from the germination of an idea through the steps that bring it to fruition in this era. This article, part current study and part retrospective, does just that. Here Judith M. Nixon lends her insight into how liberal arts scholars engage in the research process. Sharing outcomes discovered through a recent workshop series offered by the Purdue University Libraries, Nixon suggests that the previously held notion of what made liberal arts scholars tick no longer holds in today's information environment--at least not entirely. She likens scholars' current approach to information seeking to panning for gold. The immediate past editor of this column, Nixon once again demonstrates the value of gathering and assessing user data to inform management decisions. In describing how humanities and social sciences scholars now work, she ably articulates a recommendation for how libraries can interact more effectively with them and help facilitate their approach to research as it continues to change.--Editor How do liberal arts scholars work? For example, where do they get their ideas? When beginning a research project, do they start with a Google search, or the library's homepage? How and when do scholars use libraries and library resources--especially library-funded databases? How has research changed since the explosion of the Web? These are questions that I and the other social science and humanities librarians at Purdue University Libraries have been asking. The answers would help us provide the necessary resources for scholarly pursuits and improve interaction between researchers and librarians. To begin to find answers, we invited selected faculty members and students to a How Scholars Work series. Every Thursday afternoon in October 2008 we held a panel discussion asking three to four scholars to share their research methods. We listened. Participants included undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty from accounting, classical field archaeology, art history, English, foreign languages and literature, history, philosophy, and sociology. To kick off the series we invited Carole Palmer, associate professor of library and information science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and director of the Graduate School of Library and Information Science's Center for Informatics, to be our keynote speaker. Palmer's presentation was directly tied to her emerging research into how scholars in the humanities and the social sciences are working.(1) Her findings, corroborated by the research of Carol Tenopir,(2) reveal that today's scholars are looking at more articles than in the past--about 230 per year--but spending less time with each article. However, they are analytically engaged even if they are not reading. Palmer identified such nonreading activities as scanning, exploring, and looking at indexes and abstract tools, but not actually reading the article from beginning to the end. She also identified other activities that are similar to reading: probing, rereading, monitoring, and reading around. She noted that researchers in the humanities read around, collect, and reread while scientists, who are more fast-paced and horizontal, tend to scan more frequently. Additionally, Palmer identified a behavior called chaining in which one thing leads to another and another. She also mentioned that scholars are collecting articles to own and to reread in the future. They are building thematic collections of research resources, including manuscripts, published research, and data. With Palmer's research results in mind, we were motivated to listen to what our scholars had to tell us about their unique searching methods. WHERE DO SCHOLARS GETTHEIR IDEAS? We tend to think of the liberal arts scholar, especially, the humanities researcher, as a solitary, person sitting quietly in a study carrel reading and getting ideas from reading, then writing single-authored papers. …