ABSTRACT. The article presents one of the main fi ndings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is

No abstract

An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed.

ABSTRACT. The paper provides the results of the fi rst phase of the research project Trust and Authority in Scholarly Communications

This exploratory study examines how design engineers and technical professionals (hereafter referred to as engineers) in innovative high-tech firms in the United States and India use information in their daily work activities including research, development, and management. The researchers used naturalistic observation to conduct a series of daylong workplace observations with 103 engineers engaged in product design and testing in four U.S.-and two India-based firms. A key finding is that engineers spend about one fourth of their day engaged in some type of information event, which was somewhat lower than the percentage identified in previous research. The explanation may be rooted in the significant change in the information environment and corporate expectations in the last 15 years, which is the time of the original study. Searching technology has improved, making searching less time consuming, and engineers are choosing the Internet as a primary source even though information may not be as focused, as timely, or as authoritative. The study extends our understanding of the engineering workplace, and the information environment in the workplace, and provides information useful for improving methods for accessing and using information, which could ultimately lead to better job performance, facilitate innovation, and encourage economic growth.

No abstract

An international survey of over 3600 academic researchers examined how trustworthiness is determined when making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing in the digital age and whether social media and open access publications are having an impact on judgements. In general, the study found that traditional scholarly methods and criteria remain important across the board. However, there are significant differences between younger (age 30 & under) and older researchers (over 30). Thus younger researchers: a) expend less effort to obtain information and more likely to compromise on quality in their selections; b) view open access publishing much more positively as it offers them more choices and helps to establish their reputation more quickly; c) compensate for their lack of experience by relying more heavily on trust markers and proxies, such as impact factors; d) use all the outlets available in order to improve the chances of getting their work published and, in this respect, make the most use of the social media with which they are more familiar.

Aim: Speaking up about medical errors is an essential behaviour for nurses in pursuit of their goal of maintaining patient safety. This study was designed to understand how a hospital's culture and climate can impact a nurse's active behaviour in this important health care activity.Background: Research shows that while medical errors happen frequently, there is great variability on whether these errors are reported. As such, organizational culture, climate and commitment as well as employee perceptions associated with the reporting process were investigated to determine their impact on participants' intentions to speak up about medical errors. Methods:Focus groups and one-on-one interviews were used to collect these data and were analysed using content analysis. Results/KeyIssues: Nurses in the hospital perceive and understand both the benefits and barriers to reporting medical errors. Commonly reported benefits include patient safety, promoting education and awareness, and the improvement of internal processes or systems. Barriers include an inefficient reporting system and organizational influences such as perceived consequences and unequal status/position of the individual who made the error and the person reporting the error. Participants are aware that the organization believes that the responsibility to report medical errors falls to everyone. Conclusions: Results indicate that the organization's existing culture does not facilitate the reporting of medical errors and that the organizational climate interferes with the reporting process. Lastly, organizational commitment is not related to the perception of importance given to the reporting of medical errors by the hospital. Implications for Nursing Management: Nurses and nurse managers are an essential part of any hospital. In their role, they can effect change on the organization's culture and climate, but often do not realize the connection between organizational culture and patient safety. Results indicate that promoting organizational commitment to speaking up through the creation of a positive organizational culture can both promote speaking up about medical errors and increase patient safety. K E Y W O R D S organizational culture, patient safety, speaking up | 131 LEVINE Et aL.