SchlauerFuchs part 1
===


### General Questions ###


##### GQ1 #####


investigator: Okay, recording in progress. Now, that you finished answering the first few questions let's get to the usage of digital libraries part. So, the first question asks, which tasks do you usually use a digital library for? Please tick all answers, which apply and complete your own tasks. Please give oral examples of the tasks you're ticking.

So, for example, if you tick person search you could say something like, okay, I'm ticking person search because I want to keep track of myself. yeah. So, what are your tasks that you're ticking? And please give examples how you conduct this task. 

SchlauerFuchs: Okay. I take paper search to find the most relevant papers on my topic, which I'm researching on and... okay. What should I explain how?

investigator: No, that's okay. That's perfect, fine. Yeah. 

SchlauerFuchs: I'm also looking at venue search and I use this to find relevant papers that were currently published at the newest venue. And I tick "get BibTeX data" to site publications in my own papers. I tick also "get full text papers" to read the papers I found earlier at venues or in the paper search. And

I also take person search to find more papers from an author from whom I already read papers or I've find this work interesting. Okay. I think that's all. 

investigator: Okay. So, no "Sonstiges"? 

SchlauerFuchs: Yes. 


##### GQ2 #####


investigator: Okay, perfect. Then let's continue with the next question. which system or digital library do you usually use to solve these tasks? please tick all answers, which apply and name others, which are not given here. and please give a short oral explanation while you like or why you use the system.

SchlauerFuchs: I use the DBLP. Especially for getting the BibTeX entry. I use Google scholar to find relevant papers about a topic and I also use usual search engines. Like Google to inform myself about basics or to find other relevant information, which isn't necessarily in the paper.

investigator: Okay. That's great. So, no others that are not given here, maybe? 

SchlauerFuchs: No. 


### TASK 1 ###


investigator: Okay. Then let's continue to the next page and let's start with task one. 

Consider the following task. Find two experts. Oh, are you on, on the next page? 

SchlauerFuchs: Yes, I am. 

investigator: Okay. Yeah. The task is find two experts on a topic of your liking example topics could be for example, "domain specific query languages" or "hashing functions", but they should come from the general area of computer and information science.



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


You do not have to do these tasks right now, but we are going to talk about how you would do these tasks. So, the first question is what would be your chosen topic? 

SchlauerFuchs: My chosen topic would be "conversational information retrieval". 


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


investigator: Perfect. And how familiar are you with this topic? 

SchlauerFuchs: I think, I'm quite familiar with this topic, because I read a lot of papers concerning this topic and went to a conference the SIGIR conference. Where also a lot of presentations were held about this topic. 


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


investigator: Okay. And how would you define an expert?

SchlauerFuchs: I would define an expert of this topic as someone who knows all the basics, which are necessary to understand to define this topic and who knows also all different subtopics, but is not necessarily an expert for all subtopics, but he knows what the subtopics are about. And… I think that's it. 


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


investigator: Okay, great. So, now that you have your definition of an expert and you have found a topic that you would want to find experts for, how would you solve this task for your topic? 

SchlauerFuchs: I would look at conferences, if I know the conferences, which which are related to this topic. 

investigator: Where would you look at these conferences or how would you look at the conferences?

SchlauerFuchs: I would do it via the Google search. And there, I would look at the papers which have been accepted and there I can find already the experts, some experts in the authors of those papers, but I can also look at the papers cited in the papers to find papers which have been cited multiple times.

Uh, so that, those papers are important for this topic. And then I would consider maybe the authors of those papers as an expert, but I would also take a look at the Google scholar profile page of those authors and check what other publications they have published and what the topics of those are. 

investigator: Okay. So, you said you would look at authors of papers?

SchlauerFuchs: Yes. 

investigator: Who exactly would you look at and how you also mentioned Google scholar profiles? That's okay. But how would you look at the authors of the papers in the first step?

Who, which authors do you look at? Do you look at all authors of papers or...?

SchlauerFuchs: I would look at all authors, but at first, I would look at the first author mentioned and then the next and so on. 

investigator: Okay. And you also mentioned that you would look at authors and you look at citations of papers. do you do this at the same time? And at which point do you look at the Google scholar profiles? So, in which order would you do this, or would you do this at the same time or sequentially? 

SchlauerFuchs: I would do it sequentially, but I think I would do this process for each paper and then for the next paper. So, for the first paper, I would look at the authors and then at the Google scholar profile page. And then I would do this for the authors of the second paper. 

investigator: Okay. And then what is your decision criteria or deciding if a person is an author is an expert, sorry?

SchlauerFuchs: It's difficult to assign which author is also an expert, but for me, an author has to be in the field for some time. So, maybe five years, and also published in those five years about the topic. And so, someone who has only published one paper about this topic is not an expert for me and also …

Okay. I forgot what was about to say. 

investigator: Okay. But yeah. This could be it if you are okay with this answer to this question? 

SchlauerFuchs: Yes. 


### TASK 2 ###


investigator: Okay, perfect. Thanks then let's continue with the next page. Yeah, task two. consider the following task, find relevant papers from a topic of your liking, which appear after 2017 example topics could be "paper recommendation" or "author disambiguation" but should be from the broader area of computer and information science, you can use the same topic that you have chosen for the previous task, or you can choose another topic. 


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


So, question one is what is your chosen topic? 

SchlauerFuchs: Okay. I would choose the same topic from the previous task. 


##### TASK 2.2 #####
##### TASK 2.3 #####


investigator: Okay. So, then we can also skip question two. Question two, only ask you how familiar you are with the topic. And this is the same as before. So, let's continue with question three. How would you define relevancy of paper? 

SchlauerFuchs: I would define relevancy of a paper and the paper… Is it in general or is it only for papers which appeared after 2017? 

investigator: Just follow your definition. Only ask how would you define relevancy? So, how would you define relevancy if you want to define it specifically for the topic, you can do that and you can also do it for the topic specific and for the timeframe specific. So, whatever you want to answer here, you can. 

SchlauerFuchs: Okay. So, in general, so not only for my topic, I would define a paper relevant if it's it moves the research forward in this field. So, maybe it presents new state of the art. Or it also shows limitations. Or maybe it's an overview, like survey paper. It gives a good overview for all people new to the topic, then it, I would also consider it relevant. And think that's it. 


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


investigator: Okay. Perfect. Thanks. So, then we could continue with question four. How would you solve the task for your chosen topic? How would you find relevant papers or conversational information systems, which appeared after 2017. 

SchlauerFuchs: So, for myself, I already know which conferences are relevant for this topic. So, I would look at the accepted papers of the conferences after 2017. 

investigator: Where would you look at for this information? So, would you look at it in Google or search engine or a digital library or the webpage of the conference?

SchlauerFuchs: I would look at the I would take a look at the conference webpage and then I would also look at the abstracts of those papers. And this I would do by downloading the PDF from Google scholar. 

investigator: And how would you find a PDF on Google scholar? 

SchlauerFuchs: I would copy the title of the paper from the conference page and paste it into Google scholar search. 

investigator: Okay. And now that you have to abstract of the paper, what do you do? 

SchlauerFuchs: I would read the abstract and decide if the paper is relevant for my research or for the topic. I like to inform myself and if it's relevant, then I would read the whole paper.

investigator: Okay. So, this is your process or is there another secret, hidden component to it? 

SchlauerFuchs: So, if I might find also other papers in the related research section of this paper. And I would also take a look at the abstracts of those. but there, I have to pay attention if they appeared after 2017 or not.

investigator: Okay. So, yeah, that's it?

SchlauerFuchs: Yeah. 


### Thank you ###


investigator: Okay. Then I think you can press send. 

SchlauerFuchs: Okay.

investigator: Okay. And now I will stop the recording.

