J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Owens, F. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Owens, F. N.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 75, Issue 2 331-338, Copyright © 1997 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Sources of animal science research information: usefulness and reliability

F. N. Owens
Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Animal Science Department, Stillwater 74078, USA.

Fifty-two animal scientists (8 private consultants, 22 feed industry representatives, 22 university personnel) were surveyed regarding frequency of use and reliability of information from 27 different publications and information sources. Among the information sources, these scientists (6 dairy specialists, 25 beef cattle specialists, 17 swine specialists, 4 dealing with multiple species) most frequently scanned Feedstuffs, the Journal of Animal Science, National Research Council (NRC) species bulletins, abstracts from regional and national meetings of either ASAS or ADSA, annual reports from experiment stations, and proceedings from state nutrition conferences. Differences among species specialties were detected: dairy specialists read the Journal of Dairy Science, abstracts from ADSA meetings, Dairy Herd Management, Hoard's Dairyman quite extensively; beef specialists read Beef and National Cattleman frequently; and swine specialists used the Pfizer Conference, National Hog Farmer, and Pork 95. Frequency of use rankings of publications were surprisingly similar for feed industry and university specialists; however, private consultants tended to use certain publications (Professional Animal Scientist, Feed Management, Beef Today) to a greater degree. For reliability, Journal of Animal Science, Journal of Dairy Science, NRC bulletins, the Professional Animal Scientist, Pfizer Report, and reports from ASAS and ADSA meetings received the highest rankings, and university workers ranked reliability of NRC publications and Animal Feed Science and Technology higher than feed industry personnel. Regarding timeliness of information, Feedstuffs, National Hog Farmer, Pork 95, and reports from state nutrition conferences ranked best, and NRC bulletins, Journal of Animal Science, and Journal of Dairy Science ranked lowest. Applicability of information was correlated with frequency of use (r = .38**) and presumed reliability (r = .59**). Asked whether some formal appraisal of articles appearing in the popular press by a panel of specialists would be desirable, 88% of the scientists, especially private consultants and university personnel, favored or were neutral toward pre- or postpublication appraisal. Mechanisms to institute such an appraisal system are outlined and ethical responsibilities of researchers, reviewers, administrators, and societies related to research information are discussed.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Society of Animal Science.