IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/jikmxx/v18y2019i03ns021964921950031x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Awareness and Usage of Reference Management Software (RMS) Among Researchers of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Ghana

Author

Listed:
  • Kwabena Asiedu Bugyei

    (CSIR — Food Research Institute, P. O. Box M 20, Accra, Ghana)

  • Raphael Kwame Kavi

    (CSIR — Food Research Institute, P. O. Box M 20, Accra, Ghana)

  • Grace Obeng-Koranteng

    (CSIR — Institute for Scientific and Technological Information, P. O. Box M 32, Accra, Ghana)

Abstract

The study seeks to ascertain the levels of awareness and usage of reference management software (RMS) among researchers of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Ghana. The purpose and benefits as well as challenges associated with the use of these tools were also discussed. Descriptive survey methodology was employed for this study. A web-based questionnaire consisting of both multiple-choice and open-ended questions was used to collect data from 110 scientists in 13 research institutes of the CSIR, Ghana. Results show that overwhelming majority of scientists (80%) are aware and know about RMS. However, the adoption and usage of these tools are low. The percentage of non-usage was higher among the older scientists (22% for over 51 years) as against the younger researchers (9% for 31 to 40 years). Overall, 33.6% do not use RMS at all, and scientists occasionally used RMS. Mendeley was the most popularly used software among respondents. Results also show that most of the respondents got to know about RMS through training workshops and seminars. Most of the respondents had not received any training and for those who had attended a training workshop or seminar, majority of them noted that it was very easy to use. The main purpose of using these tools was for research work and literature review. Major benefits of using RMS packages are automatic generation of references list, electronic creation of bibliographies and changing of referencing style by a click of a button. Challenges associated with the use of these tools were slow internet connection, lack of training, and technical support. The study recommended that CSIR should make the effort to acquire these tools. Scientists should also be given the necessary training and technical support in order to effectively use these softwares.

Suggested Citation

  • Kwabena Asiedu Bugyei & Raphael Kwame Kavi & Grace Obeng-Koranteng, 2019. "Assessing the Awareness and Usage of Reference Management Software (RMS) Among Researchers of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Ghana," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(03), pages 1-24, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:jikmxx:v:18:y:2019:i:03:n:s021964921950031x
    DOI: 10.1142/S021964921950031X
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021964921950031X
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S021964921950031X?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sujit Kumar Basak, 2014. "Comparison of Researcher’s Reference Management Software: Refworks, Mendeley, and EndNote," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 6(7), pages 561-568.
    2. Eichorn, P. & Yankauer, A., 1987. "Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 77(8), pages 1011-1012.
    3. Xi Niu & Bradley M. Hemminger & Cory Lown & Stephanie Adams & Cecelia Brown & Allison Level & Merinda McLure & Audrey Powers & Michele R. Tennant & Tara Cataldo, 2010. "National study of information seeking behavior of academic researchers in the United States," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(5), pages 869-890, May.
    4. Xi Niu & Bradley M. Hemminger & Cory Lown & Stephanie Adams & Cecelia Brown & Allison Level & Merinda McLure & Audrey Powers & Michele R. Tennant & Tara Cataldo, 2010. "National study of information seeking behavior of academic researchers in the United States," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(5), pages 869-890, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gabriela Meșniță & Dumitru Oprea & Florin Dumitriu, 2011. "Research Projects And Web 2.0: Challenges And Effects," Analele Stiintifice ale Universitatii "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" din Iasi - Stiinte Economice (1954-2015), Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 2011, pages 265-277, july.
    2. S. Ravikumar & Bidyut Bikash Boruah & M. N. Ravikumar, 2022. "Correlation study between citation count and Mendeley readership of the articles of Sri Lankan authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4873-4885, August.
    3. Elizabeth Martín-Mora & Shari Ellis & Lawrence M Page, 2020. "Use of web-based species occurrence information systems by academics and government professionals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-41, July.
    4. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2016. "Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1198-1209, May.
    5. Charlene L. Al-Qallaf, 2003. "Citation patterns in the Kuwaiti journal Medical Principles and Practice: The first 12 years, 1989-2000," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 369-382, March.
    6. Michał Krawczyk, 2017. "Are all researchers male? Gender misattributions in citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1397-1402, March.
    7. Mehrbakhsh Nilashi & Othman Ibrahim & Shamila Sohaei & Hossein Ahmadi & Alireza Almaee, 2016. "Features Influencing Researchers’ Selection of Reference Management Software," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 1-23, September.
    8. P Sage Anderson & Aubrey R Odom & Hunter M Gray & Jordan B Jones & William F Christensen & Todd Hollingshead & Joseph G Hadfield & Alyssa Evans-Pickett & Megan Frost & Christopher Wilson & Lance E Dav, 2020. "A case study exploring associations between popular media attention of scientific research and scientific citations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    9. Malcolm Wright & J. Scott Armstrong, 2008. "The Ombudsman: Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge?," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 125-139, April.
    10. Valentin Păuna & Andrei Cristian Buzoianu & Ana Maria Bolohan & Laurentiu-Dorel Coroban, 2022. "Comparative Approaches between the North American and European Management System," REVISTA DE MANAGEMENT COMPARAT INTERNATIONAL/REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 23(1), pages 163-174, March.
    11. Carmen Valentina RADULESCU & Ovidiu Andrei Cristian BUZOIANU & Ana-Maria CALIN & Petrut Cristian VASILACHE & Ileana Mircioi VALIMAREANU, 2022. "Comparative Approaches regarding the Management of Japan and the USA," REVISTA DE MANAGEMENT COMPARAT INTERNATIONAL/REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 23(5), pages 656-667, December.
    12. Wright, Malcolm & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Verification of Citations: Fawlty Towers of Knowledge?," MPRA Paper 4149, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2003. "Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 69-84, January.
    14. Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich & Grösche, Peter, 2005. "The Performance of Peer Review and a Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals/," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 23, pages 505-551, Diciembre.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsi:jikmxx:v:18:y:2019:i:03:n:s021964921950031x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/jikm/jikm.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.