Online Information Review

The Internet as a new medium for the sciences? The effects of Internet use on traditional scientific
communication media among social scientists in Germany
Martin Eisend
Article information:
To cite this document:
Martin Eisend, (2002),"The Internet as a new medium for the sciences? The effects of Internet use on traditional scientific
communication media among social scientists in Germany", Online Information Review, Vol. 26 Iss 5 pp. 307 - 317
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520210447877
Downloaded on: 15 May 2015, At: 02:01 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 21 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1186 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Manfred Bruhn, Verena Schoenmueller, Daniela B. Schäfer, (2012),"Are social media replacing traditional
media in terms of brand equity creation?", Management Research Review, Vol. 35 Iss 9 pp. 770-790 http://
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)

dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409171211255948
Daniel D. Cox, Scott McLeod, (2014),"Social media marketing and communications strategies for school superintendents",
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 52 Iss 6 pp. 850-868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2012-0117
Androniki Kavoura, (2014),"Social media, online imagined communities and communication research", Library Review, Vol.
63 Iss 6/7 pp. 490-504 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LR-06-2014-0076

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 231834 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


The Internet as a new
medium for the sciences?
The effects of Internet
use on traditional
scientific communication
media among social
scientists in Germany
Martin Eisend
The author
Martin Eisend is a PhD Student at the Institute of
Marketing at the Free University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)
Keywords
Internet, Communications, Publishing,
Electronic publishing
Abstract
Scientific communication takes place within two main
fields: research and publication. Whereas twentieth
century audio-visual media did not become established in
the scientific communication system, the Internet, with its
variety of communication options, is able to enter both
fields of communication and has even revolutionised this
communication system to some extent. The investigation
of this relationship is based on data from a study of social
scientists taken in Berlin in autumn 1999. The Internet
substitutes written communication media and
complements forms of spoken communication in the field
of research. It also complements traditional publisher-
oriented forms of publication and is even a substitute for
works that have previously avoided publication.
Therefore, the Internet should not be regarded as a new
alternative to traditional and institutionalised structures of
communication of scientific publications, as it has already
become institutionalised in the field of research as a
medium of interpersonal communication.
Electronic access
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm
Online Information Review
Volume 26 . Number 5 . 2002 . pp. 307±317
# MCB UP Limited . ISSN 1468-4527
DOI 1001108/14684520210447877
307
Introduction
Whereas cognition is tied to an individual,
scientific cognition is tied to communicative
interaction between scientists. Only when
knowledge is communicated and made
available to the scientific community for
validation and further research can this
cognition become scientifically proved
knowledge. Therefore, science depends on
communication (Stichweh, 1990). Like all
other forms of communication scientific
communication exists on at least two
dimensions ± one dimension related to
content and the other related to the social
function of communication (Watzlawick,
1967). Scientific communication can be
defined as communication that:
transmits scientific knowledge (the
.
dimension related to content); and
. takes place between scientists (the social
dimension).
If both of these conditions are met we have
what is called intern scientific communication,
whereas when communication meets only the
first condition we have extern scientific
communication. An example of extern
scientific communication can be found when
journalists report on scientific research and its
results. The present study is restricted to intern
scientific communication, which takes place in
the scientific field of research and in the
formalised discourse of publications. In all
other scientific fields of activity (scientific
policy and research planning, teaching, any
kind of exertion of influence on practice and
discourse in the public sphere) extern scientific
communication primarily takes place (Krohn
and KuÈppers, 1990).
Media of scientific communication
Forms of communication and the exchange of
knowledge have changed greatly throughout
the course of history. Usually, four phases are
distinguished:
(1) the phase of primary orality;
(2) the writing phase;
(3) the phase of typography; and
(4) the phase of electronic information
processing (Ong, 1982).
Refereed article received 10 June 2002
Approved for publication 2 July 2002
 The Internet as a new medium for the sciences?
Martin Eisend
Whereas medieval scholasticism was able to
process knowledge by hand writing, modern
science could only develop with the help of
typography. Only with typographies were
scientists able to collect, classify, taxonomise,
cite and discuss knowledge. Therefore
modern scientific knowledge is extensively
tied to media. Media of scientific
communication are primarily books and
journals using a peer-review process, but also
papers and reports that are usually not subject
to a peer-review process and focus on the
informative rather than the qualitative aspect
of scientific communication. Additionally,
scientists exchange preprints or drafts of
articles in informal ways.
Whereas scientific communication of
publications is public, the communication in
research between scientists is interpersonal.
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)
More than 300 years ago the only possibilities
of direct communication for scientists were
through face-to-face dialogues or writing
letters. Over the years the spectrum of
technically mediated communication has
vastly increased through the use of telephone
and fax. At present, the science system is
confronted with the new age of electronic
communication systems, or ``New Media'',
the most important and intriguing of which is
the Internet. The apologists of the Internet
expect far-reaching changes in the public
sphere due to this new medium. According to
McLuhan (1962) they note the end of the
Gutenberg Galaxy ± a digital revolution or a
new culture determined by computers.
Whereas audio-visual media of the twentieth
century could not become established in the
more conservative scientific communication
system, the Internet is more than able to do
so. This may be due to the variety of
communication options offered by this new
medium.
The Internet as medium
The use of a medium is not only determined
by its technique, but also above all, by its
actual use. This use is characterised by the
experiences of the users with other media
(Ball-Rokeach and Reardon, 1988). The
medium gets its meaning depending on its
use, and is subsequently ``domesticated'' and
institutionalised. This kind of social
appropriation has also recently happened to
the Internet, for example when newsgroups
308
Online Information Review
Volume 26 . Number 5 . 2002 . 307±317
are used as a platform to communicate. This
use is not only determined by technique
because the technique of newsgroups also
enables a simple retrieval of information. As a
consequence of this appropriation, social
rules for using a medium emerge which
provide an obligatory, regular and reliable
process of communication. According to this
social appropriation, a medium can be
described as an institutionalised social
communication and behaviour process.
Media are never totally consolidated, and are
subject to changing ways of appropriation in
everyday life. According to Goffman (1974)
we denote these ways of use as ``media
frames''. A media frame describes the
structure and organisation of experiences
made by a user of the medium, or, in
simplified terms, the ways of using a medium
from the user's perspective. These frames are
not distinctly Internet based since the Internet
can change from one form of mediated
communication to another (Reardon and
Rogers, 1988). Analytically, there are three
different frames of Internet use to be
distinguished, which also serve as frames for
scientific communication on the Internet (see
also HoÈflich, 1998):
(1) Frame of distribution ± the use of the
Internet as a medium for information and
data retrieval (e.g. access to databases,
news or services, or as platform to offer
personally authorised data).
(2) Frame of public discourse ± the use of the
Internet as forum and as a medium for
discourse (e.g. in newsgroups or mailing
lists).
(3) Frame of technically mediated
interpersonal communication (e.g.
e-mails or chat).
The Internet as medium for scientific
communication
Taking our definition of intern scientific
communication we can now analyse how the
Internet, as a medium for scientific
communication, distinguishes between the
field of research and the field of publications.
Scientific communication on the Internet in
the field of research belongs within the frame
of technically mediated interpersonal
communication that takes place primarily via
e-mail (OECD, 1999, p. 20). In comparison,
the frame of public discourse (e.g. scientific
 The Internet as a new medium for the sciences?
Martin Eisend
newsgroups) seems to play a less important
role at the moment. The Internet is in
constant and direct competition with other
media and forms of interpersonal
communication, and we can assume both a
complementary and a substitutional
relationship between the Internet and other
forms of interpersonal communication. Since
different forms of communication have
different qualities, the relevance of different
forms of communication for different
purposes might be an explanation for these
relationships. Theories of rational media
choice distinguish between rich and poor
media depending on the ability of a medium
to guarantee comprehensibility between the
communicating parties within a certain time,
or to create social presence within the
communication process (Short et al., 1976;
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)
Daft and Lengel, 1984). One such example is
the media richness theory, which describes
the richness of a medium with different
variables. These include dealing with content
ambiguity, the fullness of symbolism, the
distance of the communication partners and
the time pressure of the message (Trevino
et al., 1987, 1990). According to these
variables, a face-to-face dialogue is the richest
form, followed by telephone, letters, faxes and
finally e-mail. Because of its characteristics,
online communication seems to be
appropriate for several of the scientist's tasks,
including the search and quick exchange of
information, factual discourse and simple
forms of teamwork.
In addition to technically mediated
interpersonal communication between
research colleagues, the Internet increases
in importance within the frame of
distribution as a source and platform for
exchange of data, literature or other relevant
information. According to our definition,
this form of communication is not
exclusively intern scientific communication,
but has to be considered because of the
increased presence of databases on the
Internet and the subsequent increase in the
relevance of this use for scientists (OECD,
1999, p. 27). We must distinguish between
the search for literature or data and the
availability of personally authorised data.
Additionally, scientists can use the Internet
as a method to collect data, for example
through online surveys or through
observations in newsgroups or virtual
communities.
309
Online Information Review
Volume 26 . Number 5 . 2002 . 307±317
We can distinguish between three forms of
scientific publishing on the Internet (Harter
and Kim, 1996). First, scientists can publish
in online journals on the Internet, which
usually offer well-known scientific standards
(e.g. peer review processes). A distinction
has to be made between online journals that
are published exclusively on the Internet,
and the branch of conventional journals that
offers some information, abstracts or even
the full text of an article on the Internet in
addition to the offline journal (Coakley and
Doyle, 1996, 1997). Second, scientists can
publish documents on the Internet that are
personally authorised and bypass the
institutionalised processes of publishers of
scientific literature. Once again we must
distinguish between an original online
publication and the copy of an existing
offline publication. The final possibility is
the publishing of preprints and articles
prepared for publication in newsgroups,
mailing lists, on a personal homepage or on
specialised preprint servers. According to the
public aspects of scientific publishing, we
can assume the frame of distribution as being
a medial frame for the scientific field of
publication. The option of electronic
publishing of preprints for discussion and
evaluation offers the users ± the author as
well as the recipient ± the opportunity to
change the frame of public discourse. The
distribution of preprints also takes place
within the frame of technically mediated
interpersonal communication via e-mail,
which can be described as communication
between researchers in the field. Since the
Internet seems to be appropriate for quick
publishing of texts, it should be used
primarily for papers and abstracts, followed
by journal articles, while it seems to be
inappropriate for book publications. Here
there might also be complementary and
substitutional relationships between
conventional forms of publishing and
new forms of online publishing. Table I gives
an overview of the different ways of using the
Internet for intern scientific communication.
The study
Research question
The survey conducted deals with the
relationship between the Internet and other
 The Internet as a new medium for the sciences?
Martin Eisend
Table I Ways of using the Internet for intern scientific communication
Fields of scientific Technically mediated
communication interpersonal communication
Research Direct communication with
colleagues (e-mail, chats)
Publications Personal transmission of preprints Offering of reprints to
(e-mail)
a
Note: The Internet use as information medium is not exclusively intern scientific communication
scientific communication media. In the
fields of research and publications, we
must investigate how scientists use the
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)
Internet, for which purposes they use it and
what effect the Internet has on the
traditional media connected to scientific
communication.
Method
The survey was conducted in autumn 1999
and took place in two phases, with a postal
survey in the first phase and an additional
e-mail survey in the second phase. The
participants of the survey were social
scientists in Berlin who were employees or
associates of scientific institutions in Berlin.
The restriction of the group to social scientists
seems reasonable since one can assume an
average use of the Internet by social scientists.
For example, where natural scientists show
above average use of new communication
technologies, arts scholars seem to use them
far less intensively (Scholl et al., 1996,
p. 338). In total 1,348 social scientists in
Berlin were studied, of whom 859 worked at
universities, 256 worked at universities in
applied science and 233 worked at other
research institutions. Of a random sample of
500 persons, 247 of the scientists replied,
which gives a 49.4 percent return or a dropout
rate of 50.6 percent.
Results
Scientific communication on the Internet in the
field of research
Almost all of the scientists questioned use the
Internet for communication with research
colleagues, as only 4 percent of the
participants do not use any Internet
application for this purpose. Therefore, the
310
Online Information Review
Volume 26 . Number 5 . 2002 . 307±317
Media frames
Public discourse Distribution
Discussion with colleagues Searching for and offering
(newsgroups, mailing lists, of information ! Internet
chats) as information mediuma
(www, ftp, Telnet)
Publishing of articles in
discussion (newsgroups, online journals, on personal
mailing lists) homepages or publishing of
preprints (www, ftp)
following analysis excludes non-users and
focuses on the intensity of Internet use and its
applications as a variable. For reasons of
comparability an index of use intensity was
constructed (see Appendix).
All scientists using the Internet for
communication with research colleagues use
e-mail. Other ways to communicate on the
Internet, such as chat, computer conferences
or newsgroups play a more secondary role.
Figure 1 shows the frequencies of use
intensity for each Internet application.
Only 11.8 percent of the scientists who
communicate online with their colleagues use
synchronous discussion via chats or computer
conferences, and only a quarter participate
once every two weeks or more often.
Asynchronous communication in newsgroups
is used more often, with 27.3 percent using
newsgroups and 63 percent of them using
these communication platforms over the same
period. In comparison, every fourth Internet
user uses e-mail several times a week to
communicate with research colleagues, and in
total more than 32 percent use it at least once
a day.
Obviously, the communication with
research colleagues takes place primarily
within the frame of technically mediated
communication, and the frame of public
discourse subsequently plays a secondary
role. Therefore, we can now focus upon the
application of e-mail, which competes directly
with other methods of communication.
Complementary and substitutional
relationships can emerge, for which we should
investigate the use intensities of face-to-face
dialogues, telephones, letters and faxes and
correlate these with the use intensity of
e-mail. Table II shows the resulting
 The Internet as a new medium for the sciences? Online Information Review
Martin Eisend Volume 26 . Number 5 . 2002 . 307±317

Figure 1 Frequencies of use intensities of Internet applications for communication with research colleagues
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)

Table II Correlation between the use of intensity of e-mail and the use intensities of other forms of communication
with research colleagues (Pearson's correlation coefficient)
Use intensity of
face-to-face Use intensity of Use intensity of Use intensity of
dialogues telephone letters faxes
Use intensity of
e-mail ±0.063 ±0.53 ±0.147* ±0.182**
Notes: * = Significance for p < 0.05; ** = Significance for p < 0.01; n = 201

correlation coefficients (for applied statistics
see the Appendix).
Since each correlation is negative we can
assume a tendency for substitutional
relationships between e-mail and other forms
of communication. However, the correlations
between e-mail and face-to-face dialogues as
well as between e-mail and telephone are
insignificant. Obviously, substitution takes
place between e-mail and similar written
communication media such as faxes and
letters.
Since each form of communication has
varying medial and communicative qualities
each form of communication is appropriate
for varying purposes and communication
tasks. Table III shows the average ranges as
rated by the scientists, indicating the
appropriateness of different communication
forms for varying purposes or
communication tasks. The range used is
from one to five, where one indicates the
most used communication form for a specific
311
task and five the least. Since the standard
deviation for the overall mean for each
communication form is fairly constant a
comparison of the average ranges would be
most appropriate.
Communication via the Internet is
preferred to inform colleagues quickly, to find
information, and to get in contact with
research colleagues. Face-to-face dialogues
are preferred for teamwork on publications,
for research field specialised discussions or for
personal messages, and every time the
face-to-face option is followed by
communication via the Internet. Face-to-face
dialogues and telephone communication are
more important than communication via the
Internet for organisational tasks, but letters
and faxes play a subordinate role on each
occasion.
When applied to the assumptions of media
richness theory (Trevino et al., 1987), which
rates communication forms according to
their situational appropriateness and their
 The Internet as a new medium for the sciences? Online Information Review
Martin Eisend Volume 26 . Number 5 . 2002 . 307±317

Table III Average range of communication form use for varying tasks and reasons
Face-to-face Letters/ Internet
Tasks/purposes of communication dialogues Telephone faxes (e-mail, etc.)
Organisational arrangements with colleagues 1.76 1.97 3.55 2.26
Personal messages to colleagues 1.80 2.03 3.61 1.99
Research field specialised discussion with colleagues 1.37 2.47 3.23 2.26
Teamwork on publications 1.65 2.61 3.17 1.94
To get in contact with research colleagues 2.06 2.41 2.72 1.88
To find research field specific information 2.55 2.20 3.08 1.45
To inform colleagues quickly 2.93 1.78 3.25 1.46
Total mean of ranges 2.07 2.24 3.39 1.93
Standard deviation 0.57 0.55 0.53 0.61

ability to cope with content-related
ambiguity and symbolism, Internet
communication seems to be richer than the
theory suggests. One of the assumptions of
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)
do not use it for such enquiries, and only 2
percent indicate that they do not use it for
enquiries about literature alone. In
comparison, only 51 percent claim to offer

Trevino et al. (1987) regarding the
preference of e-mail for communication over
long distances can be confirmed, as the
correlation between the proportion of
colleagues abroad to all colleagues and the
use intensity of e-mail is 0.19 and significant
for p < 0.05. However, scientists also prefer
to use the Internet to communicate quickly,
whereas Trevino et al. (1987) assume a
preference for telephones in this instance.
Furthermore, we can assume a high degree
of symbolism in messages when contacting
unknown research colleagues. In this case,
Trevino et al. (1987) assume formal written
communication to be the most appropriate
form of communication. However, in this
case, scientists prefer online communication
to written communication. The preferred use
of face-to-face dialogues for organisational
arrangements confirms the assumption of
media richness theory that high instances of
content ambiguity lead to a preference for
face-to-face dialogues. However, the fairly
high mean range of communication via the
Internet for this purpose is inconsistent with
the postulated ``poorness'' of the medium.
On average, online communication is,
overall, the preferred option of
communication for research colleagues for a
variety of tasks and purposes.
In the field of research the Internet also plays
an important role as medium in the frame of
distribution. Figure 2 illustrates the frequency
of use intensities for various purposes in this
frame. Scientists use the Internet primarily to
enquire about data or literature ± only 4.9
percent of the respondents indicate that they
312
their own data and statistics, and more than
half do this occasionally. Of respondents, 24.3
percent use the Internet also as a method, for
example when performing online surveys or
making observations in chats or newsgroups.
Since methods of online research are seldom
discussed in the scientific community, and
considered a contentious issue for many
sociological research questions, the percentage
of respondents seems relatively huge.
Overall, the distribution of information
seems to be one-sided since there appears to
be a small number of social scientists who
supply information on the Internet, but a
relatively huge number who use this
information. Therefore, the use of the
Internet as a medium in the frame of
distribution can be considered as being not
so advanced for social scientists in Berlin.
In addition, a significant relationship
between the use of the Internet for
interpersonal communication and
information retrieval exists. The index of
use intensity of the Internet to
communicate with colleagues correlates
with the sum variables of the use of the
Internet as medium for information
retrieval with 0.27 (Pearson's correlation
coefficient) and is significant for p < 0.05.
Thus, the more often the Internet is used
for communication within the field of
research, the more likely the Internet is also
used as a medium for information retrieval.
Scientific communication on the Internet in the
field of formalised discourse
Within the field of formalised discourse of
publications scientists are communicators as
 The Internet as a new medium for the sciences?
Martin Eisend
Figure 2 Frequency of use intensities of the Internet as a distribution medium
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)
well as receivers, although the majority of
scientists only use the Internet as receivers.
Only 8.5 percent of the respondents indicate
that they do not use the Internet to receive
and read scientific publications, compared
with the 53.1 percent who sometimes use it
and the 36 percent who use it on a regular
basis. In comparison, only 30.4 percent of the
respondents indicate that they have already
published some kind of scientific publication
on the Internet. Additionally, there exists a
statistical dependency between the variables
publishing online and receiving and reading
online (CC and CramerÂs V = 0.21, for p <
0.01; see Appendix). This means that
scientists who have already published online
seem regularly to receive articles on the
Internet far more often than scientists who
have not yet published online (see Table IV).
The following analysis is restricted to
scientists who have already published online,
and therefore also use the Internet regularly to
receive and read scientific publications. From
this subgroup of respondents more specific
Table IV Cross tabs for receiving/reading online and publishing online
Not receiving/reading online
Receiving/reading online seldom/sometimes
Receiving/reading online regularly/often
Total
Note: n = 241
313
Online Information Review
Volume 26 . Number 5 . 2002 . 307±317
and extensive information on scientific
publishing using the Internet can be expected.
For analysis, data from the e-mail survey were
primarily used. Since the number of
respondents is small the analysis is mainly
descriptive, and the results have to be
interpreted very carefully.
The small number of scientists who use the
Internet as a publication platform leads us to
assume that online publishing experiences are
on a short-term basis. In fact, online
publishing is a quite new experience for most
of the scientists, as more than half of the
scientists have published online for the first
time during the last two years. Scientists who
have already published online have released,
on average, five publications on the Internet.
Surprisingly, scientists with more online
publishing experience do not necessarily
publish more often on the Internet than their
comparatively inexperienced colleagues.
Those who made their first online publication
more than four years ago publish about 38
percent of their publications online, where
Already published online Not yet published online
(percent) (percent)
2.7 11.4
47.3 57.5
50.0 31.1
100 100
 The Internet as a new medium for the sciences?
Martin Eisend
scientists who made their first online
publication about three years ago also publish
24 percent online, and scientists with a
short-term online publishing experience (less
than two years ago) also publish as many as
40 percent online. Since these results seem to
be ambiguous and unclear, no conclusion can
be made about the relationship between
duration of online publishing experience and
the frequency of online publishing, or the
percentage of online publications on all
publications made.
There are different ways for scientists to
publish online: publications can be in online
journals, personally authorised or preprints.
Every publication can be an online
publication or a copy of a publication that is
also available offline. Scientists use the
Internet primarily for publishing preprints,
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)
followed by publications on one's own
authority and finally for publications in online
journals. This order remains the same for
copied and simple online publications.
The Internet seems to be a complementary
platform for publications as well as a
substitutional platform, depending on the
kind of publication. This indicates the
percentage of simple online publications
compared with all publications on the
Internet. In total 46 percent of all
publications on the Internet are simple online
publications. This percentage varies regarding
the different methods of online publishing as
67 percent of preprints, 57 percent of
personally authorised publications and only 3
percent of publications in online journals are
simple online publications. Therefore, we can
assume a substitution for preprints and for
personally authorised publications. In
comparison, the Internet seems to be a
complementary platform for publications in
journals.
Preprints can be published online in a
variety of ways. Eight out of ten scientists
indicate that they publish their preprints on
the Internet, and four out of ten also publish
them on an online server available for
download. No one distributes preprints in
mailing lists or newsgroups. As in the field of
research, the frame of public discourse plays
no role for online publications made by social
scientists in Berlin ± the Internet as a platform
for publication is used exclusively in the frame
of distribution.
The next question is to which traditional
form of publication can online publications be
314
Online Information Review
Volume 26 . Number 5 . 2002 . 307±317
compared? Table V shows the frequencies of
the forms of publications published online by
the surveyed scientists. Furthermore, this
number was weighted with an importance
ranking given by the users for each traditional
form of publication. The form of publication
considered most important was ranked with a
four, the second important with a three and so
on. The relation between the number of
publications and weight of rankings can be
seen as another indication of the relevance of
the Internet for each publication form.
Overall, the Internet is preferred for the
publishing of papers, followed by journal
articles and abstracts, and finally books.
Taking into account the qualities of the
Internet and each form of publication, the
Internet seems to be used primarily for quick
and easy publishing.
Surprisingly, the factual publishing of
abstracts is only ranked third, despite
scientists in the main survey assessing the
Internet as being most appropriate for the
publishing of abstracts, followed by papers,
then journal articles and finally books. There
seems to be a discrepancy between the
assessment of the Internet as platform for
publications and the actual use of the Internet
itself, since all scientists expect the Internet to
be most appropriate for scientific content that
is actual and transitory and has to be
published quite quickly. However, the
scientists actually using the Internet for
publishing online use a variety of content that
can also be regarded as permanent and not
exclusively transitory.
Relationship between the scientific communication
on the Internet in both fields
The relationship between the uses of the
Internet in both scientific fields was
investigated by comparing the intensity of
Internet use for research communication by
scientists using the Internet as platform for
publications to those who do not publish
online. The mean intensity of use is slightly
higher in the first group but the difference in
means is not significant. Another result occurs
in the relationship between the frequency of
publishing online and the intensity of Internet
use as a medium for communication in the
field of research. There we can see a
significant correlation of 0.40 that is
significant for p < 0.05 (partial correlation,
controlling the number of the total amount
publications since 1996). Therefore, we can
 The Internet as a new medium for the sciences?
Martin Eisend
Table V Forms of publication on the Internet
Numbers (abs)
Papers 15
Journal articles 13
Abstracts 10
Books 8 14
assume an interrelation between the intensity
of use of the Internet in the field of research
and in the field of publications. More obvious
is the interrelation between the use for
publications and the use of the Internet as
information medium. Users and non-users of
the Internet as a publication platform are
clearly differentiated regarding the frequency
of Internet use as an information medium in
the field of research. The difference of means
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)
is significant for p < 0.01 (temp = 4,1) and
indicates a higher use intensity of the Internet
as an information medium for scientists who
have already published online.
Overall we can ascertain some ambiguous
correlations. The frequency of use of the
Internet as a medium for communication in
the field of research as well as in the field of
publications correlates positively with the
intensity of use of the Internet as a medium
for information retrieval. Furthermore,
positive correlations exist between the
frequency of use in the field of research and
in the field of publications, in that the more
often a user publishes online the more
intensively they use the Internet for
communication and vice versa. However,
no difference exists between users and
non-users of the Internet as a publication
platform with regards use intensity in the
field of research.
Summary and discussion
The Internet medium has become established
in the existing communication methods of
scientists, and it is here that the first
interrelations emerge. In the field of research
e-mail is used primarily. The use of e-mail
substitutes certain written communication
media (e.g. letters, faxes) but not face-to-face
dialogue or the telephone. The Internet is
preferred for a variety of scientific
communication purposes. Scientists only
prefer face-to-face dialogue to the Internet
when there is a high degree of ambiguity in
315
Online Information Review
Volume 26 . Number 5 . 2002 . 307±317
Weighted importance Relation: numbers to
rankings importance ranking
53 1:3.5
39 1:3
23 1:2.3
1:1.75
the content discussed. Therefore, the Internet
can be described as being a rich medium for
scientific communication in the field of
research. Here the Internet is also used as
medium for information retrieval concerning
literature, statistics and so on, but not to
distribute this kind of information
individually.
In the field of publication the Internet is
used in the frame of distribution, but not in
the frame of discourse, and is used as a
complementary platform for traditional ways
of publishing. In using preprints and
personally authorised publications the first
substitutional relations can be ascertained.
The Internet is mostly used for preprints,
followed by personally authorised
publications and finally for publications on
behalf of the publishers themselves.
Obviously, scientists avoid traditional
publishing methods by publishing on the
Internet, where the form of publication is
primarily papers and articles, occasionally
abstracts, and, on a few occasions, books.
Using the Internet as a platform for
publications supplements traditional forms of
publications by publishers and partially
substitutes offline copies of personally
authorised publications, and, most clearly,
preprints.
We can therefore assume that the Internet is
able to break up traditional communication
structures in the field of research, whereas in
the field of publication the Internet
supplements the traditional and
institutionalised forms of scientific
communications dominated by publishers.
However, the results of the study are
restricted to the situation of social scientists in
Germany at the end of the twentieth century
and cannot be applied unreservedly to other
countries or other sciences. Future research
should focus on comparisons across countries
and scientific disciplines, as well as changes
over time.
The Internet is likely to become an essential
characteristic of the work environment of
 The Internet as a new medium for the sciences?
Martin Eisend
scholars. However, there are not only
benefits, but also problems with the Internet
as a medium for the sciences (Jacob, 1996).
Nevertheless, the Internet has a potential to
change the science system that goes beyond
the change of the communication structure.
We assume that the Internet can further
specialisation of scientists by offering a
flexible communication platform even for
small groups of people. At the same time,
scientists can use the Internet to go public and
to draw attention to scientific knowledge. By
this means, the Internet might be able to
further the connection between intern and
extern scientific communication.
References
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)
Ball-Rokeach, S.J. and Reardon, K.K. (1988), ``Monologue,
dialogue and telelog. comparing an emergent form
of communication with traditional forms'', in
Hawkins, R.P., Wieman, J. and Pingree, S. (Eds),
Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass
and Interpersonal Processes, Sage, Newbury Park,
CA, pp. 135-61.
Coakley, J. and Doyle, J. (1996), ``Developments in
West European political science journal literature
during 1995'', European Journal of Political
Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 509-50.
Coakley, J. and Doyle, J. (1997), ``Developments in West
European political science journal and electronic
literature during 1996'', European Journal of
Political Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 535-55.
Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1984), ``Organizational
information requirements, media richness and
structural design'', Management Science, Vol. 32
No. 5, pp. 554-71.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1997),
Taking the Fear out of Data Analysis, The Dryden
Press, London.
Goffman, E. (1974), Frame Analysis. An Essay on the
Organization of Experience, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Harter, S.P. and Kim, H.J. (1996), ``Electronic journals and
scholarly communication: a citation and reference
study'', available at: http://php.indiana.edu/~harter/
harter-asis96midyear.html
HoÈflich, J.R. (1998), ``Computerrahmen und
Kommunikation'', in Prommer, E. and Vowe, G.
(Eds), Computervermittelte Kommunikation.
OÈffentlichkeit im Wandel, UVK Medien, Konstanz,
pp. 141-74.
Jaccard, J. (1983), Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences,
Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Jacob, H. (1996), ``The future is electronic'', Social Science
Quarterly, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 204-8.
Krohn, W. and KuÈppers, G. (1990), ``Science as a
self-organizing system: outline of a theoretical
model'', in Krohn, W., KuÈppers, G. and Nowotny, H.
(Eds), Self Organization: Portrait of a Scientific
316
Online Information Review
Volume 26 . Number 5 . 2002 . 307±317
Revolution, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
pp. 208-22.
McLuhan, H.M. (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy. The
Making of Typographic Man, University of Toronto
Press, Toronto.
Ong, W.J. (1982), Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing
of the World, Methuen, London.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) (1999), ``The global research village: how
information and communication technologies affect
the science system'', available at: www.oecd/org/
dsti/sti/s_t/scs/prod/global.pdf
Reardon, K.K. and Rogers, E.M. (1988), ``Interpersonal
versus mass media communication. a false
dichotomy'', Human Communication Research,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 284-303.
Scholl, W., Pelz, J. and Rade, J. (1996),
Computervermittelte Kommunikation in der
Wissenschaft, Waxmann, MuÈnster.
Short, J., Williams, E. and Christie, B (1976), The Social
Psychology of Telecommunication, John Wiley,
London.
Stichweh, R. (1990), ``Self-organization and autopoiesis
in the development of modern science'', in
Krohn, W., KuÈppers, G. and Nowotny, H. (Eds),
Self Organization: Portrait of a Scientific Revolution,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
pp. 195-207.
Trevino, L.K., Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1990),
``Understanding managers' media choices: a
symbolic interactionist perspective'', in Fulk, J. and
Steinfield, C.W. (Eds), Organizations and
Communication Technology, Sage, Newbury Park,
CA, pp. 71-94.
Trevino, L.K., Lengel, R.H. and Daft, R.L. (1987), ``Media
symbolism, media richness, and media choice in
organizations. a symbolic interactionist perspective'',
Communication Research, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 553-74.
Watzlawick, P. (1967), Pragmatics of the Human
Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns,
Pathologies, and Paradoxes, W.W. Norton,
New York, NY.
Appendix
In order to guarantee comparability, a
scientist's use intensity of each
communication form was weighted against
the total extent of communication intensities
in all forms of communication by this person,
and an index was constructed. For example,
when constructing the index of use intensities
of Internet applications, we added up the
frequency of use of e-mail, chats and
computer conferences, and newsgroups and
divided the sum through the sum of
frequencies of use of all communication forms
(Internet applications as well as face-to-face
dialogues, telephone, letters and faxes). In
order to obtain a normal distribution of the
index values, non-users were excluded. The
 The Internet as a new medium for the sciences?
Martin Eisend
reliability of the index of use intensity of
Internet applications accounts for 0.78
(Cronbach's Alpha).
In order to guarantee independency of the
correlated variables in the correlation analysis
in Table II, we excluded the frequency of
each variable (communication form) under
investigation from below the line in the
fraction of the index of use intensity of e-mail.
For example, for the correlation between use
intensity of face-to-face dialogues and the use
intensity of e-mail the frequency of face-to-
face dialogues was excluded from the index of
use intensity of e-mail.
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)
317
Online Information Review
Volume 26 . Number 5 . 2002 . 307±317
In order to test the relationship
between two variables measured by
Pearson's correlation coefficient, an
expression was applied that has been
shown to be distributed as a t-distribution
(Jaccard, 1983, p. 270). For the test
procedure in Table IV a 2 -test was
applied since both variables are qualitative
in nature and measured on a nominal
or ordinal level (Jaccard, 1983, p. 288-307).
For a quick and comprehensible
introduction to test procedures
see Diamantopoulos and Schlegelmilch
(1997).
 This article has been cited by:

1. Feng Gu, Gunilla Widén‐Wulff. 2011. Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media. The
Electronic Library 29:6, 762-776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Ali Al‐Aufi, Paul Genoni. 2010. An investigation of digital scholarship and disciplinary culture in Oman. Library Hi Tech
28:3, 414-432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Intesar Mahmood, Jennifer Rowley, Richard Hartley. 2009. Scientific publishing: a case study of Libyan scientists. Aslib
Proceedings 61:4, 380-393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Luisa M. Doldi, Erwin Bratengeyer. 2005. The web as a free source for scientific information: a comparison with fee‐based
databases. Online Information Review 29:4, 400-411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 02:01 15 May 2015 (PT)