MaxMustermann part 1
===


### General Questions ###


investigator: Recording in progress. Okay. Thank you so far. Now click continue to the next section or however it's called in your screen. 

MaxMustermann: Yeah, I did. 


##### GQ1 #####


investigator: Okay. Now you should see general questions regarding usage of digital libraries. Yes okay. Yeah. And the first one of the two questions is: Which tasks do you usually use a digital library for, please take all answers, which apply and complete your own tasks.

Please give oral examples of the tasks you are taking. So, for example, if you would tick person search, you could say, okay, I tick "person search" because I like to keep track of myself. So, yeah. What tasks do you usually use at digital library for, and how? 

MaxMustermann: For me that would be paper search especially to find papers that I need for what I'm doing then to get BibTeX data, I think that's self-explanatory and to get full text papers if I need them just let me finish reading. 

Yeah, that would be it. 

investigator: Okay. No other stuff?

MaxMustermann: I did do person search once or twice to, to check colleagues, but not on a regular basis. 

investigator: Okay. But nothing that's not mentioned here. I mean, as an additional task?

MaxMustermann: No. No.


##### GQ2 #####


investigator: Okay, perfect. So, then let's continue with the next question. Which system or digital library you usually use to solve these tasks?

Please tick all answers, which apply and name others, which also apply, but which are not listed here. And please give a short oral description, why you like, or why you use the system or digital library?

MaxMustermann: So, for me that would be DBLP and Google. And the reasoning why I use those two is, so I think Google is very self-explanatory and DBLP I got in contact with while I was studying, and I really like the interface of it and what it provides. And for me, that fits all my, what did fit all my needs in the past. 

investigator: Okay. Thanks. Great. So, then we can continue to the next page. And now you should see task one. 

MaxMustermann: Wait a sec. I just want to add, I used research gate, but not research gate as the library itself, but there are full text published. So, I used research gate when I found it over Google.

So, I don't know if that fits into last question?

investigator: Yes, it does. 

MaxMustermann: Yeah. Then we put that also in, and then the next page again. 

investigator: Okay. But there were no other systems or digital library that you did use, which were mentioned here? 

MaxMustermann: I mean, there will be some, so ACM, digital library, you can't get around when you use full text, but also, I don't use it as a library.

So, if we include that, I don't use it as a library, but when DBLP links to there, I just take the full paper from there or stuff like that. So, I can put them also in, but then there should also be Springer included. The rest is not of relevance to me. So, should I put these two in as well?

investigator: Yeah, would be great. 

MaxMustermann: So, then we have those two. Yeah. 

investigator: Okay. Thanks. So, then we can continue? 

MaxMustermann: Yes. 


### TASK 1 ###


investigator: Okay. So, we continue with the first task. Consider the following task, find two experts on a topic of your liking. Example topics could be for example, "domain specific query languages" or "hashing functions", but the topics should be from the general area of computer and information science.


##### TASK 1.1 #####


The topic that you choose yeah, you can pick whatever you like, and you do not really have to do the following task or the questions. but we will talk about how you would solve the task so you can choose whatever topic you like. And the first question is what is your chosen topic? 

MaxMustermann: Mm, I think I stick with "hash functions” actually.


##### TASK 1.2 #####


investigator: Okay. That's great. And how familiar are you with this topic?

MaxMustermann: It depends on which hashing functions we're talking about. So, if you talk about cryptographic hashing functions, I know stuff about it. And had been working with them in the past on a scientific level. Or on low scientific level if we talk about hashing that is used for databases, I'm not that familiar with it.

But I think the separation between those two is also kind of interesting or might be kind of interesting. 


##### TASK 1.3 #####


investigator: Okay. So, how would you define an expert?

MaxMustermann: An expert to me would be somebody who, I mean, it's in the scientific context, I guess. So, to me, an expert would be someone, who is working with the stuff publishing on the stuff and maybe teaching on the stuff to students. 

So, I think it's important that the person has publications regarding the topic. So, that he is active in this field and knows the field very well. And yeah, teaching to me is just an added bonus, I think. 


##### TASK 1.4 #####


investigator: Okay. Great. So, then question four. How would you solve the task with your chosen topic? How would you find two experts on a topic of hashing functions? How would you do that? 

MaxMustermann: For me generally, I think I would, because I have knowledge in this field, I would search for papers regarding the stuff and then check the authors manually. So, if I can find papers that are recently published, I would check the authors pages of these authors and check what they do otherwise.

So, to eliminate candidates that did only publish one paper with, because they are a mathematician, but don't actually work in this field for daily feed and stuff. So, therefore, I would check the author pages and then check what these people do otherwise and see if they are really part of the field or if they just published one paper, because they were co-author with somebody and did like the math part or something like that.

investigator: Okay. And how and where would you check the papers regarding hashing? And where would you or which type of author page would you access? So, on which system, or would you Google it or how would you do that? 

MaxMustermann: I think for the first part, accessing a pool of papers, I would use Google. And for the second part, like author pages and comparison, I would use DBLP.

But only because DBLP is very computer science focused and these are computer science topics. So, if you have something that is more on the border, I would on the border to some other topic, like for example, math or physics or whatever, I would consider using another source in addition to DBLP as well.

investigator: Okay. And how do you go from the paper in Google to the person's author page in DBLP or in another thing? 

MaxMustermann: That's a funny question. Maybe, so I have, or I see two options maybe over the title and then checking what or if this refers to the correct paper I mean, I would use Google because Google is in the front end more user friendly in terms of finding knowledge when you don't have the exact stuff. But DBLP provides the better ecosystem in order to check what's connected with this author and better data quality, I'd say. Yeah, and that's why I would do this transition over either the author name or the title. 

investigator: Okay. And you mentioned that you would determine if a person or author is an expert in a topic if they are really part of the field. Could you maybe define this more specifically or give a more quantifiable definition of this?

MaxMustermann: So, you mean formalizing in terms of number of papers?

investigator: Not really... yeah. You can formalize it in like if they have written a number of papers, but... how would you check this? Would you like check the number of papers? Would you check the conferences? Would you, …?

MaxMustermann: I would check the paper, the conference and maybe also the co-authors of the person. So, who is working with in all that. So, I mean, I should find two experts. And the thing is co-authors are experts as well, but I don't think you want people...

If you want to find two experts, you want a bit of diversity, so you don't want to find an author and it's some co-author. So, in order to exclude people, then again, and then compare these people or the set of resulting people and check who would be the best fit so that you don't have people that co-authored that much stuff, but also have two persons in the same field. That would be my goal. 

investigator: Okay. 

MaxMustermann: Or that would be criteria I would look for and yeah. Conferences as well. But I'm not that familiar yet with what are the better and what are the worst conferences? So, I can't say anything about that.

investigator: Okay. How would you check which conferences are good, even if you do not know now, how would your procedure be to find an estimation for this one?

MaxMustermann: I would ask supervisors. And stuff like that. 

investigator: Okay. Nice. Okay. do you have anything to add for this question then? 

MaxMustermann: Mm, I don't think so. 

investigator: Okay. Perfect. Then let's continue to task number two on the next page. Yeah?

MaxMustermann: Yeah. 


### TASK 2 ###


investigator: Consider the following task, find relevant papers from a topic. If you're liking, which appeared after 2017. Example topics could be "paper recommendation" or "author disambiguation", but should be from the broader area of computer and information science.


##### TASK 2.1 #####


But you can also use the "hashing functions” topic that you have chosen for the previous task. So, my first question would be what is your chosen topic? 

MaxMustermann: I think I would go with the second example as well. So, I would say "author disambiguation”. 


##### TASK 2.2 #####


investigator: Okay. And how familiar were you with the topic?

MaxMustermann: Not that familiar, so I know what the question is. And I know what it's concerned about, but I haven't really been working with this topic yet. So, I did not look at at it from a scientific basis.

investigator: Okay. But you choose any topic, that you know?

MaxMustermann: Yeah. I know that, but as I said, so I could go with "hashing functions” as well, but I think, ...

investigator: Or you could go with whatever you like.

MaxMustermann: Yeah. But it's fine for me. I would take that. 


##### TASK 2.3 #####


investigator: Okay, perfect. So, then third question. How would you define relevancy? 

MaxMustermann: Relevancy. That's good question. I think. You would look at the top conference or not at the top conferences, you would look at the publications that go through and check how much of a player this topic is.

So, I mean, if there are, is a growing number of publications regarding the topic, then this topic would, in my opinion, be more relevant than a topic, which is barely seen. 

investigator: Okay. And how would you define relevancy of a paper? 

MaxMustermann: Okay. Relevancy of a paper is the impact, which is quite hard to measure, I guess.

So, because you can only see or you, we only see the impact after something has been published and then you can check how much citations it got. So, that would be one indication, but that takes time in order to wait for, or give it a time that it can be cited. But yeah, I would say incoming citations are one measurement of relevancy.

investigator: Okay. do you want to add anything to that, or should we continue with the next question?

MaxMustermann: Let me go over this one more time. Relevancy, it can also be determined by the conference. So, based on what we discussed before, if you have major conference that takes in the paper and says or takes in the paper they have many things that they can reject.

And if they choose this over something else, there could also be a relevancy measurement be included. That's the second thing I would suggest or would say, but that's it so more I can't think of now. 


##### TASK 2.4 #####


investigator: Okay, perfect. Then let's continue with the fourth question. How would you solve the task of finding relevant papers for author disambiguation, which appeared after 2017?

MaxMustermann: I mean, it's kind of the same process then before I would start googling for, for buzzwords I know from this domain and then try to get a hang of this domain or get entry points of this domain in DBLP. And then check for co-authors, maybe search also for a survey. So, surveys are great places to start with, I think.

So, if I can find a survey I would start with the survey and then check what those people cited and check out what the people that we are cited in the survey did afterwards. That would be one approach that I would take. the other thing is asking an expert. If I know someone who I know that works with this topic very frequently.

But yeah, if it's a new topic you don't necessarily have one. That's the problem with this approach. Yeah, but those where are my two go-tos I think. 

investigator: Okay. could you maybe say something more about the, get the hang of the domain? how would you know you have gotten a hang of the domain if you are googling for buzzwords?

MaxMustermann: So, the problem is you don't necessarily know that because you're trying to get into a field, which you don't know and you won't, or you can't say, okay, now I got to hang of the domain, but I think starting out and then doing try and error. So, checking, if you find something with what you found.

And if that suits your needs, I mean, you can see which conferences they published and who they co-author with and how often they publish stuff in this domain. And I think those are good indications as discussed before. If you have a person that you find one paper that the person published in this domain and the person does something else, I would not dive deeper into that person. Checking, where are boundaries and where do I get out of the field? again, and as I said, surveys, in my opinion, survey is the best place to start. If you can find one, so, and surveys open up the field way faster than, yeah, searching for individual papers.

So, relying on surveys would be my first go-to. 

investigator: Okay. And how do you find the survey or where do you find the surveys? 

MaxMustermann: I think that would be googling. 

investigator: Okay. Perfect. And then I think last question for me is you said you want to find entry points. For DBLP how would you transfer what you've found on Google or the buzzwords? How would you put paper, titles, whatever define this as an entry point in DBLP?

MaxMustermann: Yeah, I would do or apply the same process as before I would use, or either the author, which is funny when talking about author disambiguation saying to use the author name or the paper title in order to find the author pages on DBLP or the specific paper as well and then from there use the tools provided.

So, the co-author graph and their publication list. So, that's, again, the point of, for going to DBLP is the data quality which is in my opinion, better than the data quality that Google gives you especially with disambiguated authors and stuff like that. yeah, that's the only reasoning why I go to DBLP and not stick with Google.

investigator: Okay. do you have anything more to add to this question? 

MaxMustermann: Nope. Okay. I think that's it. 


### Thank you ###


investigator: Then I think we are finished with that one and I will stop the recording.

