The information analyst as a quality filter in the scientific communication process

Abstract

There are two major problems in the field of information use today—the quantity of material produced and its quality. Quality is of two kinds—innovation or newness of the results, and the validity of the results. This paper is concerned with the problem of validity and how to screen the literature using this criterion as a filter. Various quality filtering systems are discussed, including peer review and expert panels, and the problems associated with them delineated. It is proposed that the information analyst (defined anew herein) be used as a filter to identify quality research papers, especially using the validity criterion. A discussion of the pros and cons of the recommendation is initiated. The paper has two objectives: (1) to establish a definition of one of the jobs in the information field, and (2) to present an idea that will increase our ability to identify and control the quality scientific literature. The growth of literature and the question of qualityGoffman and Warren's [13] Scientific Injormation Systems and the Principle of Selectivity addresses two issues in the study of the nature of knowledge that are rarely if ever touched on by historians and philosophers of science. These two issues are peculiarly in the field of study of librarianship and information science; of librarianship because of the implications for practice, and of information science because it is information scientists who are responsible for discovering, testing, and describing solutions to problematic phenomena in the use of information and knowledge. The issues are: (1) the growth patterns of the knowledge record, that is, of the literature, and (2) the quality of the collection, or the library, gathered from that record for use.To study the growth of the record, information scientists have developed the apparatus of biblio-metrics. To ensure the quality of collections, librarians have identified general criteria such as those delineated in Sheehy [31] and Higgins [16].Our concerns about the record have two bases.One is the responsibility that librarianship has always felt, as an ideal, to collect and store the complete output of recorded thought regardless of quality (because future usefulness and values are unknown), in order to preserve the cultural heritage. Of course, that ideal is impossible to reach. The problem is twofold: (1) storage space, and (2) the discovery and control of all publications. The second concern is to select from the known record, on some criteria of quality, for current use. The problem here is not only deciding on the criteria, but also applying them.The information we need regarding the growth of the literature is the number of items that presently exist and that we will be facing in the future, and what patterns, if any, growth follows. The information we need regarding quality is how to make judgments about quality that will enhance the success of a user's personal programme. This

Evolução dos centros de informação e o surgimento dos observatórios de transporte e logística

“…Um CAI se constitui na forma de uma unidade organizacional, estruturada e estabelecida, responsável por reunir e organizar informações em um campo específico de conhecimento, de forma sistemática, por meio da sua aquisição, seleção, armazenamento e recuperação, visando avaliar, analisar e sintetizar um corpo de informação pertinente de forma tempestiva e útil para os usuários interessados, criando conhecimento e divulgando conteúdo (Brady 1968;Hornig 1968). (Carroll and Maskewitz 1980;Neill 1989;SATCOM 1969;Weisman 1973).…”