13 pages., Via online journal., Agricultural research in developing countries often involves collaboration between dispersed multicultural teams of scientists from developed and developing countries. The teams use information and computing technologies (ICTs) to communicate between team members, who originate from different cultures using different languages. This paper investigates the usability and utility of a range of ICTs used for communication between team members from different cultures. The research used an intercultural heuristic evaluation tool, or I‐CHET, to evaluate nine ICTs used by Australian and Lao scientists for team communication. The evaluation showed that asynchronous ICTs (e.g., e‐mail) were preferred by non‐native English speakers, while synchronous media (e.g., audio conferencing, instant messaging, Skype) presented considerable problems between team members from different cultures. Most ICTs evaluated in the study demonstrated little consideration for non‐native English speakers and for inexperienced ICTs users. However, all evaluated ICTs demonstrated the ability to transmit information and encourage communication between information users in scientific collaborations. The I‐CHET assessment tool highlights the ongoing need for a “toolbox” of communication ICTs for research collaborations that can be adapted to suit the cultural and professional needs of multinational teams, worldwide.
21 pages, This paper examines (1) the role of professional journals in research and (2) the perceived criteria for journal publication in the sciences utilizing national surveys of agricultural journal editors and agricultural scientists in thirteen disciplines. Results indicate that agricultural scientists view professional journals as the most important published resource in their research, the major outlet for their findings, and a key criterion in their choice of research problems. In addition, both journal editors and scientists generally agree that scientists' submitted articles are primarily judged against the normative criteria of scientific craftsmanship rather than by particularistic standards. The most important criterion for journal publication as seen by both editors and scientists is the value of the author's findings to the field. However, unlike other scientists, agricultural scientists appear to associate this universalistic criterion of value to the field with (1) the potential contribution of the article to increased agricultural productivity and (2) the value of the article's findings to clientele groups. Furthermore, these two criteria of productivity and clientele needs that stress the practical value of the research are more important for publishing decisions among journals reporting applied emphases and to scientists in applied disciplines.
