Information monitoring and keeping abreast of research trends is essential for researchers. However, as the volume of information and the number of tools for staying up to date continue to grow, researchers struggle to continuously monitor and filter scholarly articles. This is particularly true for researchers working in complex multidisciplinary fields like Patient Oriented Research, who need to cast their nets wide to identify relevant high-quality studies. The proposed multiple case study will explore and analyze the use and user perceptions regarding a collaborative research trend monitoring system, called eSRAP. This research will advance knowledge on processes and outcomes of collaborative monitoring of research publications. The findings will be significant to those providing monitoring services, studying collaborative information behaviour, training future researchers and information professionals, as well as to system designers.
AdamsA.BlandfordA.BuddD., & BaileyN. (2005). Organizational communication and awareness: a novel solution for health informatics. Health Informatics Journal, 11(3), 163-178.
2.
Al ShboulM.K., & AbrizahA. (2016). Modes of information seeking. Information Development, 32(5), 1786-1805.
3.
BarrD. (2006). Staying alert: the wild new world of current awareness services. College & Research Libraries News, 67(1), 14-17.
4.
Bates,M.J. (1996). Learning about the information seeking of interdisciplinary scholars and students. Library Trends, 45(2), 155-164.
5.
Bates,M.J. (2002). Toward an Integrated Model of Information Seeking and Searching. Paper presented at the Fourth international Conference on Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, Lisbon, Portugal.
6.
BeamishA. (2010). Contributors and Lurkers: Obstacles to Content Creation in a Professional Online Community. In Collaborative Information Behavior: User Engagement and Communication Sharing, pp. 36-54. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
7.
BlummerB., & M. KentonJ. (2014). Reducing patron information overload in academic libraries. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21(2), 115-135.
8.
Brown,A.W., & AllisonD.B. (2014). Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: methods and example. PLoS One, 9(7), e100647.
9.
Canadian Institutes of Health Reasearch. (2017). Canada’s Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR). Retrieved from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html.
10.
CarrollC.Booth,A., & CooperK. (2011). A worked example of “best fit” framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(29), 1-9.
11.
Carroll,C.BoothA.LeavissJ., & Rick,J. (2013). Best fit framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 1-16.
12.
CaseD., & Given,L. (2016). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior (4th ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
13.
ChooC.W. (1998). Information management for the intelligent organization: The art of scanning the environment. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
14.
ChooC.W. (1999). The art of scanning the environment. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 25(3), 21-24.
15.
Choo,C.W. (2001). Environmental scanning as information seeking and organizational learning. Information Research, 7(1), 7-1.
16.
Courtright,C. (2007). Context in information behavior research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 273-306.
17.
CreswellJ., & Plano ClarkV. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
18.
EldredgeJ.D. (2014). The evolution of evidence based library and information practice part III: revitalizing the profession through EBLIP. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(1), 62-73.
19.
Fereday,J., & Muir-Cochrane,E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
20.
FlanaganJ.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358.
21.
FosterA. (2004). A nonlinear model of information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(3), 228-237.
22.
FosterJ. (2006). Collaborative information seeking and retrieval. In: Vol. 40. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, pp. 329-356.
23.
Foster,J. (2010). Collaborative information behavior: User engagement and communication sharing. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
24.
FrancqP. (2011). Collaborative search and communities of interest: Trends in knowledge sharing and assessment. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
25.
GainorR., & BouthillierF. (2014). An evaluation framework for outcome and impact measures. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1-8.
26.
HaraN.Solomon,P.Kim,S.L., & SonnenwaldD.H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952-965.
27.
HongQ.N., & PluyeP. (2018). Systematic reviews: a brief historical overview. Education for Information, 34(4), 261-276.
28.
HyldegårdJ. (2006). Collaborative information behaviour – Exploring Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process model in a group-based educational setting. Information Processing and Management, 42(1), 276-298.
29.
KaramuftuogluM. (1998). Collaborative information retrieval: toward a social informatics view of IR interaction. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(12), 1070-1080.
30.
KarunakaranA.ReddyM.C., & Spence,P.R. (2013). Toward a model of collaborative information behavior in organizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2437-2451.
31.
Kaur,N., & PluyeP. (2019). Delineating and operationalizing the definition of patient-oriented research: a modified e-Delphi study. Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews, 6(1), 7-16.
32.
McKeeS.KoltutskyL., & Vaska,M. (2009). Introducing RefAware: a unique current awareness product. Library Hi Tech News, 26(9), 1-6.
33.
McNeeseN.J., & ReddyM.C. (2017). The role of team cognition in collaborative information seeking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1), 129-140.
34.
MehoL.I., & TibboH.R. (2003). Modeling the information-seeking behavior of social scientists: ellis’s study revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 570-587.
35.
Morris,M.R., & TeevanJ. (2010). Collaborative Web search: Who, what, where, when, and why. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
36.
Nielsen Norman Group. (2018). Journey Mapping 101. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/journey-mapping-101/.
37.
Pain,E. (2016). How to keep up with the scientific literature. Science. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/11/how-keep-scientific-literature.
PettigrewK.E.FidelR., & BruceH. (2000). Conceptual frameworks in information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 35, 43-78.
40.
PickardA.J. (2013). Research methods in information: Facet publishing.
41.
PluyeP.HongQ.N.BushP.L., & Vedel,I. (2016). Opening-up the definition of systematic literature review: the plurality of worldviews, methodologies and methods for reviews and syntheses. Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 2-5.
42.
PolitD.F., & BeckC.T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(11), 1451-1458.
43.
PollR. (2012). Can we quantify the library’s influence? Creating an ISO standard for impact assessment. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 13(2), 121-130.
44.
Poll,R., & Payne,P. (2006). Impact measures for libraries and information services. Library Hi Tech, 24(4), 547-562.
45.
PontisS.BlandfordA.GreifenederE.Attalla,H., & Neal,D. (2017). Keeping up to date: an academic researcher’s information journey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1), 22-35.
46.
ReddyM.C.JansenB.J., & SpenceP.R. (2010). Collaborative Information Behavior: Exploring Collaboration and Coordination during Information Seeking and Retrieval Activities. In Foster,J. (Ed.), Collaborative Information Behavior: User Engagement and Communication Sharing, pp. 73-88. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
47.
SamsonS.GranathK., & AlgerA. (2017). Journey mapping the user experience. College & Research Libraries, 78(4), 459.
48.
Shah,C. (2010). Collaborative information seeking: a literature review. Advances in Librarianship, 32, 3-33.
49.
ShahC. (2013). Effects of awareness on coordination in collaborative information seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(6), 1122-1143.
50.
ShahC. (2014). Collaborative information seeking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 215-236.
51.
SonnenwaldD.H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643-681.
52.
StaceyD.Wentzell,C., & HumphreysL. (2010). How effective are online services in keeping students and staff up to date with the latest research? Current awareness and the sciences at the university of bath. SCONUL Focus, (50), 22-24.
53.
TaljaS. (2002). Information sharing in academic communities: types and levels of collaboration in information seeking and use. New Review of Information Behavior Research, 3(1), 143-159.
Wang,P.DervosD.A.ZhangY., & WuL. (2007). Information-seeking behaviors of academic researchers in the internet age: a user study in the united states, China and Greece. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 1-29.
56.
WestbrookJ.I.CoieraE.W.Sophie GoslingA., & BraithwaiteJ. (2007). Critical incidents and journey mapping as techniques to evaluate the impact of online evidence retrieval systems on health care delivery and patient outcomes. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(2-3), 234-245.
57.
WilsonT.D. (1997). Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective. Inf. Process. Manage., 33(4), 551-572.
58.
YinR.K. (2013). Case study research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
