This thesis studies web based services for researchers, what kind of services are provided and how they are presented on the web, at five Swedish universities. In the digital age, the academic libraries have got to review how they reach researchers and what kind of services they can present to them. Since most of the resources used by researchers are available through the web, web based support services for the universities researchers can be a way to market the campus library as relevant. The study is conducted using a User Experience framework to explain the users way from the universities main home page to the services specifically aimed at the researchers. The services provided through the web page specifically for researchers are then analyzed with the help of a theory regarding primary and secondary services for researchers. The findings are that the services for researchers vary slightly, both in presentation and content. The web pages specifically aimed at researchers are similar but can be divided into three groups of different design and interface. Services that are provided on four of five of the universities library web pages are services regarding reference service programmes, information seeking, open access and publishing.

This thesis takes its point of departure in how the digitization of research libraries has changed how researchers search for information. The study examines how digitization has affected the library and librarians. It investigates the information seeking and information needs of researchers within a specific context i.e. the Institute of Biomedicine at the University of Gothenburg. It explores how researchers search for relevant information and whether the support provided by the Gothenburg University Library is sufficient for their (information) needs. Interviews were conducted with seven researchers at different stages of their career. This was complemented with a review of user studies research in library and information science (LIS) as well as reports from different universities.The results show that on one hand the researchers are satisfied with the information they retrieve from searching in PubMed and Google and do not want assistance from the library regarding this. On the other hand they do want support with other specific tasks i.e. data curation, making graphic figures, registration of information in the university’s repository. The study concludes by discussing how librarians have become invisible to the researchers due to digitization of the research library and to gain visibility the library needs to proactively seek the researchers’ attention and create places to interact.

The aim of this study was to explore bibliometrics for evaluation and research support, with emphasis on humanities and social sciences. A literature review was combined with an empirical evaluation of qualitative interviews with librarians and bibliometricians from selected academic libraries. Dahler-Larsen’s theories on the evaluation society were applied, as well as Abbott’s theoretical models of the professionalization of librarians. The first part of the analysis consists of a qualitative content analysis of the interview material. The second part investigates the competencies of librarians and bibliometricians and the challenging aspects of bibliometric analysis for the humanities and social sciences, within Abbott’s framework. The majority of the studied universities used the Norwegian model for bibliometric evaluation of the humanities and social sciences. The respondents found the coverage in the citation databases to be lower for these fields, compared with others. Still, it remained the best available indicator. Furthermore, three of seven universities allocated no funds based on bibliometric analyses. The librarians and bibliometricians in the study mentioned the following competencies as important with regard to working with bibliometrics: insight into research and publication practises, knowledge about databases and systems, analytic thinking and ability to understand contexts as well as to handle different bibliometric indicators. Future perspectives for bibliometrics include the use of the new Swedish list, development of altmetrics as well as investment in open access and increasing digitalization of the society.

Introduction: Researcher support is often written in the perspective of researchers, and few examine it from the perspective of archivists and librarians, the aim of this study is to change that. In this study we examine how archivists and librarians within Data Access Units (DAU) use their knowledge and how said knowledge is used to achieve the requirements set for making research data available at higher education institutions in Sweden. Method: In this study we have chosen to interview librarians and archivists at DAU:s since their goal is to be there for researchers and create access to data. A qualitative method was used to generate deeper understanding about the subjects. Theories: By applying two theories, Wiig’s Knowledge Management Cycle and Patrick Wilson’s cognitive authority, we aim to show the cycle from beginning of knowledge to the use of knowledge and a deeper understanding of why DAU are to be trusted, both by themselves and by researchers. Analysis and results: Within DAU archivist are unseen next to librarians, often left out and are therefore not assigned cognitive authority compared to the librarians who are often the first that researchers contact when they need help with their data. Problems arise when librarians answer questions meant for archivists, further reducing the archivist’s cognitive authority and highlights the wedge between the professions. However, we have found that many trusts DAU, and that the colleagues trust each other. Conclusions: DAU:s builds and pools knowledge to combine and give a complete coverage in the support they provide for researchers. This allows the different professions in DAU to share their knowledge and their strengths, helping them overcome the increasing demands from the scientific world. This is aided by the fact that archivists and librarians respect each other and assign each other cognitive authority over their specific knowledge domains. However, archivists do not gain the same amount of it from researchers, as librarians do.