Information Capture and Knowledge Sharing Systems in the Field of

Library and Information Science: The Case of MEDLIB-L in

Medicine

Antonio Muñoz-Cañavate

, M. Rosario Fernández-Falero

and María Antonia Hurtado-Guapo

Department Information and Communication, University of Extremadura,

Plazuela Ibw Marwan s/n 06071 Badajoz, Spain

Computer Service, University of Extremadura, Avda. de Elvas s/n, 06071 Badajoz, Spain

Keywords: Social Media, Email, Distribution List, Discussion List, Alert Systems, Knowledge Management, Medicine.

Abstract: Professionals using the Internet have various tools with which to capture and share information. Email

discussion lists, despite their age, are still one of the main applications that telematic networks use for

information to be shared in the social media field. They have not lost their validity even though the arrival

of numerous applications associated with other types of social media, such as social networks,

microblogging networks, wikis, etc., was often thought to augur their demise. Also, the new culture of

Knowledge management, in which people share data, knowledge, and experiences, has, with its

technological bases, become an indispensable tool for human interaction. This paper presents the results of a

study applied to the medical sector which surveyed the MEDLIB-L discussion list users - specialists in

medical information. The primary aim was to determine the usefulness of the various tools they use (social

media, literature alert systems, syndication RSS, search engine alerts, new content trackers) to capture and

share information of interest and to serve as means of training and learning. A further aim was to determine

the quality and usefulness of the messages sent by the professionals of information management in medicine

to the list and the usefulness of its message archiving system.

1 INTRODUCTION

The process of communication as the transmission

of signals and codes between an transmitter and a

receiver has undergone alterations throughout

history. Technological advances have transformed

the spatiotemporal concept of this process deriving

from the medium used to establish the transmission.

In the first place, the arrival of the telegraph and the

telephone changed the form of communication,

surpassing postal communication on paper,

multiplying the interactions between human beings

while reducing the space between them as physical

presence was no longer necessary. The telephone

allowed speed and efficiency that no other medium

had before.

Telematic networks, such as the Internet, have

probably had the greatest impact of all on

communication between people. The emergence of

various applications on these telematic networks,

such as e-mail and Web 2.0, have considerably

broadened the core of people who can be contacted

more quickly and economically. As a consequence

of e-mail, there arose electronic discussion lists

which represented a qualitative leap in this

communication process. Suddenly a person could

get into contact with thousands of people all over the

world and generate a dialogue with them in a that

had been impossible before. At the same time,

newsgroups appeared as another way of putting

people into contact who were located in very distant

places but were interested in the same subjects.

The arrival of the World Wide Web and of Web

2.0 making it easy for people to insert content into

Web platforms meant another radical change in

communication by means of technological media.

Social media, whose content is generated by their

users, have multiplied in the form of social

networks, blogs, microblogging platforms (such as

Twitter), wikis, etc. However, distribution lists, one

of the first social media and which seemed destined

to be obscured by this new Web 2.0 reality, have not

MuÃ

soz-CaÃ

savate A., FernÃ ˛andez-Falero M. and Hurtado-Guapo M.

Information Capture and Knowledge Sharing Systems in the Field of Library and Information Science: The Case of MEDLIB-L in Medicine.

DOI: 10.5220/0006506601810188

In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (KMIS 2017), pages 181-188

ISBN: 978-989-758-273-8

disappeared, and in many cases continue to remain

in full force.

1.1 Email Distribution Lists

Distribution lists are groups of e-mail users who use

in their work software that allows messages to be

sent so that all the subscribers to the list receive the

same message simultaneously (Merlo, 1999).

Discussion lists in particular have been operating for

several decades, but have rarely been studied. The

Scopus database has only sixty records with the

descriptor "discussion lists" in the title field. The

first studies date from the 1980s. They are related to

the technical and descriptive aspects of the system

(Deutsch, 1984; Kirstein, 1986). Later studies deal

with the informative potential of specific discussion

lists (Ste-Marie, 1998), and with their use as an

educational tool (Wen et al., 2000). Also interesting

are experiences in specific sectors such as the health

sector. Wakabayashi et al. (2000) published a paper

that highlighted the Japanese national transplant

system mailing list as a very suitable tool for

communication among medical professionals,

patients, and family members. Ramos, Rai-

Chaudhuri & Neill published a paper about a list for

Chronic Myelogenous Leukaemia (2004).

The literature includes many studies dedicated to

analysing the content of the messages sent to the

lists (Waseleski, 2006; Tonta & Karabulut, 2010).

More recently, Pujar, Mahesh & Jayakanth

(2014) demonstrate with an Indian list how this

system is still fully valid for Library and Information

Science professionals.

Distribution lists can be of different types. Apart

from the so-called discussion lists which are

dedicated to encouraging subscriber participation,

there are also notification lists whose only objective

is to serve as a channel for the distribution of news

from some type of organism. Although they may

use the same software, their objectives are very

different.

Lists may be open to anyone who wants to

participate or closed to certain people and/or groups.

They may also be moderated or un-moderated. In

the former case, there are moderators who read the

messages before they are distributed, thus endowing

the list with greater quality. In 1994, a survey was

conducted of several discussion lists, including the

moderated PACS-L (Public-Access Computer

Services) list which has since disappeared, and the

un-moderated ASIS-L (American Society for

Information Science) list. Although the respondents

indicated that both lists were satisfactory, the quality

of the messages and their usefulness in everyday

work was greater in the PACS-L moderated list than

in the ASIS-L (Castro & Muñoz-Cañavate, 1994).

In discussion lists, not all subscribers participate

in active discussions. Irvine-Smith (2010) pointed

out that many subscribers simply search the lists

with the general purpose of gathering information

that can be summarized as "keeping abreast of

current trends", specifically, to know what others'

thoughts and opinions are..

1.2 Knowledge Management

Knowledge management is a culture, possible in all

types of organizations, in which human resources

play a fundamental role. People can share

information, knowledge, and experiences to achieve

their objectives through interaction with their peers.

Knowledge management needs four components:

people, processes, organization, and tools (Cannon,

2016).

We find that knowledge management, as a

process for collecting and sharing intellectual

capital, whether tacit or explicit, among the staff of

an organization or between organizations to promote

their collaboration, needs tools that may

technological or non-technological. Information and

communication technologies are at the heart of

discussions on knowledge management. Indeed,

technological advances in this field facilitate the

exchange, diffusion, and integration of knowledge,

and allow information to be easily codified,

communicated, assimilated, and stored. Computer

and communication infrastructures allow the

exchange, integration, and creation of knowledge.

The technologies that support knowledge

management can be grouped into four main areas:

(a) content management; (b) collaboration tools; (c)

business information; and (d) databases and

repositories.

The Internet has multiple tools and applications

that serve both to transfer knowledge and to preserve

it.

Distribution lists are a good example of such

tools. They serve as a platform for people to

communicate, collaborate, and transfer knowledge

quickly, regardless of distance. They are also

sources that contain data, information, knowledge,

and experiences of all kinds, and the content can be

stored for later retrieval.

Lists can serve for learning, although, as noted

by Cavialem & Bruillard (2010) in a study of several

French lists managed by France's Ministry of

Education, for this to take place it requires a climate

of freedom without the rigidity of an official

institution behind the list.

2 OBJETIVES

The objectives of the present study were to

determine:

a) The current usefulness of discussion lists

with respect to other systems such as social

media, e-mail alert systems, search, that

allow professionals and researchers to

receive information useful for their

everyday work.

b) Subscribers' opinion on the usefulness of all

these types of systems, not just discussion

lists, for them to be able to share

knowledge with their peers.

c) The usefulness of ten bibliographic alert

systems.

d) The level of quality and utility of the

MEDLIB-L list for its users, and their use

of its message archive system.

3 MATERIAL AND METHOD

To obtain the MEDLIB-L subscribers's opinions, a

questionnaire was prepared and distributed online

through the Google Drive platform. It was

distributed in the first half of May 2017. First the

list editor was informed of the intention to send the

questionnaire. After a message explaining the study

to all the subscribers with a link to the online

questionnaire, they were all sent two reminder

messages during the following week.

A Likert scale of 1 to 5 was used for all the items

of the questionnaire, with option 6 left for "do not

know" or "no response".

The questionnaire was divided into seven blocks,

as will be described below. In blocks two, three, and

four, the options 1 to 5 ranged from "Not at all

satisfied" to "Fully satisfied". In block five, they

ranged from "Poor" to "Very good", and in blocks

six and seven, from "Never" to "Very often".

3.1 Online Questionnaire

The online questionnaire was structured into seven

blocks:

a) 1st block. Respondent's data (nationality and

profession).

b) 2nd block. Utility of the following electronic

media as means of receiving information of use for

everyday professional work. In this case, they were

asked to value their satisfaction with the following

systems for receiving information: distribution list,

Facebook groups or individuals on Facebook,

LinkedIn groups or individuals on LinkedIn,

Twitter, External lists of other Twitter users,

discussion groups (e.g., groups.google.com),

syndication RSS, E-mail alerts of new items and

updates to websites, publications, repositories,

Search engine alerts (e.g. Google Alerts), New

content trackers (e.g., Copernic Tracker). The

options were from "Not at all satisfied" to "Fully

satisfied".

c) 3rd block. The above electronic media and

knowledge management. In this case, the

respondents were asked to value their satisfaction on

five questions related to knowledge management,

learning, and peer-to-peer contact using the

applications of the previous block. The choices

were from "Not at all satisfied" to "Fully satisfied".

d) 4th block. Utility of the following literature

alert systems for receiving information in everyday

professional work. The respondents were asked for

their satisfaction with the following bibliographic

alert systems for receiving information in their

everyday professional work: Google Scholar, Web

of Science, Scopus, Mendeley, PubMed, Journal

Tocs, F1000 Prime, Sparrho, and Research Gate.

The options were from "Not at all satisfied" to

"Fully satisfied".

e) 5th block. Quality of the MEDLIB-L list

messages. They were asked to value the quality of

MEDLIB-L messages, from "Poor" to "Very good".

f) 6th block. Utility of the Medlib-L list's

messages for the respondent's everyday work. They

were asked to value the usefulness of the MEDLIB-

L messages for their everyday work, from "Never"

to "Very often".

g) 7th block. Utility of the MEDLIB-L archives

via the Web interface. They were asked to value the

use of the MEDLIB-L message archive system, from

"Never" to "Very often".

3.2 MEDLIB-L

Nancy Start created the MEDLIB-L discussion list

in 1991. In August 1995, she transferred it to the

Medical Library Association (MLA). The list,

which had been housed at the University of Buffalo,

was transferred to the University of Vermont in

2007. Its purpose is to provide support and help to

the health information management community and

to the medical library sector (James, 2016).

It is an un-moderated list, meaning that all the

messages sent to this forum may be distributed to all

the subscribers. This may cause dysfunction in the

quality of the content (textual errors or irrelevant

messages). But communication is faster since there

are no intermediaries. Despite this, there are some

list rules and a policy that subscribers must comply

with. Indeed, the coordinators of the list may expel

a subscriber who does not comply. The norms are

available at http://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=377.

Schoch & Shooshan carried out a survey in

MEDLIB-L in 1997. They found that most

participants claimed to read at least 41% of the

messages, fewer than 20% claimed to read from

91% to 100% of them. Some respondents reported

feeling overwhelmed by the number of messages,

and considered that there was a need for a moderated

list (Schoch & Shooshan, 1997; James, 2016). This

is in line with the results of the study by Castro &

Muñoz-Cañavate (1994) on several moderated and

un-moderated lists.

The MEDLIB-L norms imply some principles

that allow a certain management of the content by

the subscribers themselves. For example, it is

expected that those who send a request for help to

the list in solving some problem should then publish

a summary of the responses they received.

The profile of MEDLIB-L subscribers is

primarily from English-speaking countries. And,

although the number of subscribers has declined by

18% from 1997 (with 2700 subscribers) to 2016

(with 1970 subscribers) which may be due in part to

the omnipresence of other social media such as

Facebook and Twitter, their activity is still clearly

present (James, 2016).

4 RESULTS

The survey received 52 responses, whose results will

be presented below following the same structure as

the seven blocks of the survey.

4.1 General Data of the Respondents

Regarding nationality, as is shown in Figure 1, the

majority are from the United States (77% of the

respondents), although there are users from other

countries such as United Kingdom, Canada, New

Zealand, Brazil, Belgium, Spain, and Morocco.

Figure 1: Nationality of respondents.

Regarding the respondents' professions, they

were mostly medical librarians (94.2%), although

3.8% were teachers, and 2% were of other

professions, such as information scientist.

4.2 Utility of the Electronic Media as

Means of Receiving Information

One of the main objectives was to determine the role

of discussion lists as a medium for the reception of

information in a professional environment in

comparison with other systems. The results are

presented in Table 1. They point to discussion lists

such as MEDLIB-L as being one of the most useful

media. It is obvious that the respondents were active

list users, since the questionnaire was sent out

through the mailing list itself.

Table 1: Means of receiving information of use in

everyday professional work.

1. Not at all

satisfied

2. Not very

satisfied

3. Moderately

satisfied

4. Very

satisfied

5. Fully

satisfied

6. No response

or do not use

Distribution list

(email) (Ej. Medlib-l)

0.0% 3.8% 13.5

38.5

44.2

0.0%

Facebook groups or

individuals on

Facebook

11.5% 9.6% 17.3

11.5

3.8% 46.2%

LinkedIn groups or

individuals on

15.4% 11.5

19.2

7.7% 1.9% 44.2%

Twitter 0.0% 13.5

23.1

5.8% 5.8% 51.9%

External lists of other

Twitter users

1.9% 5.8% 7.7% 1.9% 5.8% 76.9%

Discussion groups

(e.g.,

groups.google.com)

13.5% 1.9% 15.4

1.9% 7.7% 59.6%

Syndication (RSS) 9.6% 3.8% 19.2

7.7% 3.8% 55.8%

E-mail alerts of new

items and updates to

websites, publications,

repositories

1.9% 7.7% 19.2

34.6

32.7

3.8%

Search engine alerts

(e.g., Google Alerts)

3.8% 3.8% 17.3

11.5

51.9%

New content trackers

(e.g., Copernic

Tracker)

7.7% 1.9% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 84.6%

United States

78%

Spain

Morocco

Brazil

Australia

New

Zealand

Canada

Belgium

United

Kingdom

No response

Thus, 96.5% of the users were satisfied with

discussion lists when the three options "Moderately

satisfied", "Very satisfied", and "Fully satisfied" are

added together.

In decreasing order, and with these three options

merged thus reflecting users' satisfaction with the

different tools, the other media are ranked as

follows: notification lists (e-mail alerts and news

from websites, journals, etc.) (86.5%); search engine

alerts (40.3%); Twitter (34.6%); Facebook (32.6%);

content syndication (30.7%); LinkedIn (28.8%);

discussion groups (25%); lists created on Twitter

(15.3%); and new content trackers (5.7%).

4.3 Electronic Media and Knowledge

Management

As presented in the introduction of this paper,

Internet tools have made it possible to dynamize

knowledge management processes, with what this

means for knowledge transfer and learning. In

recent years, a number of studies have been

published that demonstrate the relationship between

employees' use of social media and their creativity

from adopting a knowledge management approach

(Hemsley & Mason, 2011; Bharati, Zhang &

Chaudhury, 2015; Sigala & Chalkiti, 2015).

The questionnaire included five explicit items

about the usefulness of the media included in the

previous section for decision-making in their

everyday work, capturing the experience of their

peers or transmitting their own, establishing contact

with peers to carry out joint projects, and training

and learning. The results are presented in Table 2,

and are described below.

Table 2: The above electronic media and knowledge

management.

1. Not at all

satisfied

2. Not very

satisfied

3. Moderately

satisfied

4. Very satisfied

5. Fully

satisfied

6. No response

or do not use

Question 1 0.0% 5.8% 17.3% 44.2% 26.9% 5.8%

Question 2 0.0% 3.8% 9.6% 42.3% 36.5% 7.7%

Question 3 0.0% 7.7% 9.6% 40.4% 32.7% 9.6%

Question 4 9.6% 5.8% 17.3% 25.0% 7.7% 34.6%

Question 5 3.8% 9.6% 19.2% 36.5% 23.1% 7.7%

The questions were as follows:

- Question 1 "The above electronic media provide

me with the appropriate information for me to make

decisions in my everyday (professional or academic)

work".

- Question 2 "The above electronic media allow me

to capture the experience of other colleagues".

- Question 3 “The above electronic media allow me

to pass on my experience to other colleagues”.

- Question 4 “The above electronic media, have

allowed me to make contact with other colleagues to

develop joint projects”.

- Question “The above electronic media, serve me

for day-by-day training and learning”.

This block of questions highlights the importance

that MEDLIB-L users give to the group of tools set

out in the questionnaire, most of them being social

media (distribution lists, social networks,

microblogging), and search and alert systems. The

sum of the options "Very satisfied" and "Fully

satisfied" confirms this: 71.1% of those surveyed

consider that these tools provide them with adequate

information for decision making; 78.8% said that

they allow them to capture the experience of their

peers; 73.1% state that they also allow them to

transmit their own experience to peers; and 59.6%

that they are useful for training and everyday

learning. Only the use of the tool to establish

contact with people oriented to developing joint

projects had a lower figure – 32.7%.

4.4 Literature Alert Systems

Regarding the bibliographic alerts that were

represented by ten different tools, the conclusion to

be drawn is that they are very little used except for

PubMed, a search system developed by the National

Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) in the

National Library of Medicine (NLM). It has access

to the bibliographic databases compiled by the

NLM. This exception is logical since it has a direct

thematic relation with the profile of MEDLIB-L

users.

Table 3: Utility of alert systems for everyday professional

work.

1. Not at all

satisfied

2. Not very

satisfied

3. Moderately

satisfied

4. Very

satisfied

5. Fully

satisfied

6. No

response

or do not

Google Scholar

alerts

1.9% 0.0% 11.5% 15.4% 11.5% 59.6%

Web of Science

alerts

3.8% 1.9% 7.7% 0.0% 3.8% 82.7%

Scopus alerts 1.9% 0.0% 5.8% 1.9% 5.8% 84.6%

Mendeley alerts 1.9% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 92.3%

PubMED alerts 0.0% 5.8% 5.8% 28.8% 25.0% 34.6%

Journal TOC alerts 3.8% 1.9% 13.5% 26.9% 13.5% 40.4%

F1000Prime alerts 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 96.2%

Sparrho alerts 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 96.2%

Research Gate alerts 5,8% 3,8% 11,5% 15,4% 1,9% 61,5%

4.5 Quality of the MEDLIB-L

Messages

Regarding the quality of messages sent to this list,

although 30% of the users did not respond to this

question, it should be noted that more than 50%

chose options 4 and 5 which reflect satisfaction with

the messages. However, one would have to consider

whether the lack of moderation in this list, and

therefore the absence of filters to prevent certain

messages from being forwarded to all the

subscribers, may be the reason why the number of

respondents satisfied with the quality of the

messages is not higher. This finding is in line with

the study by Schoch & Shoosham (1997) of

MEDLIB-L and the aforementioned study by Castro

& Muñoz-Cañavate (1994).

Figure 2: Quality of the messages of MEDLIB-L.

4.6 Utility of the MEDLIB-L Messages

The results and reflections from the previous section

can be applied to this block of the questionnaire

(Figure 3) concerning the usefulness of the

MEDLIB-L messages for everyday work. Thus,

while we understand that the existence of

moderation in discussion lists is likely to contribute

to an improvement in their quality and usefulness as

an information tool, MEDLIB-L is still clearly seen

as being useful.

Figure 3: Utility of the Medlib-L list's messages for the

respondent's everyday work.

4.7 Utility of the MEDLIB-L Archives

Most discussion list management software has

storage systems for the messages sent to the list,

sometimes accompanied by a search engine. These

tools convert the knowledge accumulated in the

messages into information of interest for the future,

not only for the immediate moment of their sending,

distribution, and reception. The survey result was

that 73% of the users use this system, thus

demonstrating its usefulness.

Figure 4: Utility of the MEDLIB-L archives.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The users surveyed were mostly US librarians.

Their opinion thus prevails over that of other

countries. With respect to the usefulness of the

various media for the reception of information,

discussion lists such as MEDLIB-L stand out as

being the most highly valued, although there may

have been a direct relationship of this result with the

channel through which the questionnaire was

distributed (the MEDLIB-L discussion list) because

all the respondents were direct users of this tool.

(1,9%)

(3,8%)

(9,6%)

(40,4%)

(13,5%)

(30,8%)

123456

Quality of the messages of MEDLIB-L

1(1,9%)

7(13,5%)

14(26,9%)

11(21,2%)

6(11,5%)

13(25,0%)

123456

Utility of the MEDLIB-L archives via the Web interface

at http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=MEDLIB-

1(1,9%)

7(13,5%)

14(26,9%)

11(21,2%)

6(11,5%)

13(25,0%)

123456

Utility of the MEDLIB-L archives via the Web interface

at http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=MEDLIB-

The result is not without its relevance however,

since the massive arrival of the new Web 2.0 social

media was seen by many to augur the progressive

disappearance of discussion lists as a tool,

something which has not occurred. The social

media Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn are also

used, but their importance is less. The "search

engine alerts" (e.g., Google Alerts) are highly

valued, but the importance of "new content trackers"

such as Copernic Tracker is just residual.

With regard to the usefulness of this group of

social media (distribution lists, social networks,

microblogging, etc.) as technological tools that

favour knowledge management and learning, the

respondents were mostly satisfied with them. They

especially considered that these tools provide

adequate information for decision making, and allow

them to capture the experience of their peers and to

pass on their own experience. They also note these

tools' usefulness for training and everyday learning,

albeit to a lesser extent.

PubMed is the most used bibliographic alert tool,

which fits in with the thematic profile of the list's

subscribers – professionals of information

management in the medical field.

Finally, the respondents approved of the quality

of the MEDLIB-L messages and their usefulness,

albeit at percentages which suggest that if MEDLIB-

L were a moderated list then the degree of

satisfaction would be greater. They make moderate

use of a tool which allows the knowledge generated

by the discussion list to be saved: its archive system.

Thus, distribution lists should not be contrasted

with other applications based on social networks.

Each is a different way of communicating and

interacting, but they all permit the transmission of

information and knowledge. They can all form

communities of practice, that is to say, groups

dedicated to sharing knowledge and the learning this

implies through the interaction among their

members. Wenger et al. (2002), in their paper

entitled Cultivating Communities of Practice,

defined different roles for the users of these

communities, from the figure of the coordinator to

the more active members and others who are

peripheral. Likewise, subscribers to discussion lists

acquire similar roles, from list administrator to the

more active users who ask, write, and respond, and

those who only read but can not do without a source

of knowledge such as that provided by the

distribution lists corresponding to a thematic area.

Such a list is in all cases a platform for collective

learning.

Distribution lists not only transmit formalized

and structured information from individuals or

institutions, but also non-formalized information,

simple comments, which can generate feedback with

the interaction of subscribers, and the result can be

stored as if it were a memory in the file system of

the software that manages the distribution list.

This paper aims to revindicate distribution lists

which seem to have been relegated as against the

new media corresponding to the so-called Web 2.0.

Indeed, due to their simplicity and ease of use, we

believe distribution lists will survive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We appreciate the collaboration of all the MEDLIB-

L subscribers who responded to the questionnaire

sent to the list, and especially to the list's editor,

Richard James, for the assistance provided.

REFERENCES

Bharati, P., Zhang, W., Chaudhury, A. (2015). Better

knowledge with social media? Exploring the roles of

social capital and organizational knowledge

management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19

(3), pp. 456-475.

Cannon, C. (2016). Knoledge management in a

combined/joint environment. International Journal of

Computer, Electrical, Automation, Control and

Information Engineering, 10 (10).

Castro Castro, C. y Muñoz-Cañavate, A. (1994). Recursos

informativos en Internet: Foros electrónicos de

discusión. En IV Jornadas Españolas de

Documentación Automatizada. octubre, 6-8, Gijón, pp.

63-75.

Caviale, O., Bruillard, E. (2009). Can teachers' discussion

lists be a tool for in-service collaborative learning?

What reveals a three years analysis? Computer

Supported Collaborative Learning Practices, CSCL

2009 Community Events Proceedings - 9th

International Conference, 2, pp. 82-84.

Deutsch, D. P. (1984). Implementing distribution lists in

computer-based message systems. Computer-based

message services: proceedings of the IFIP WG 6.5

Working Conference on Computer-Based Message

Services, Nottingham, England, 1-4 May.

Hemsley, J., Mason, R.M. (2011). The nature of

knowledge in the social media age: Implications for

knowledge management models. Proceedings of the

Annual Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences, pp. 3928-3937.

Irvine-Smith, S. (2010). A series of encounters: The

information behaviour of participants in a subject-

based electronic discussion list. Journal of Information

and Knowledge Management, 9 (3), pp. 183-201.

James, R., Paulls, L., & Brown Epstein, H-A. (2016).

MEDLIB-L: March 2011–March 2016, Journal of

Hospital Librarianship, 16 (3), pp. 224-232.

Kirstein, P. 1986. Computer based message services.

Computer Communications, 9 (2), pp. 60-66.

Merlo-Vega, J.A., Sorli Rojo, Á. 1999. Las Listas de

distribución como herramienta profesional. Métodos

de Información (MEI), 31, pp. 52-61.

Pujar, S.M., Mahesh, G., Jayakanth, F. (2014). An

exploratory analysis of messages on a prominent LIS

electronic discussion list from India. DESIDOC

Journal of Library and Information Technology, 34

(1), pp. 23-27.

Ramos, J.D., Rai-Chaudhuri, A., Neill, R.W. (2004).

International online discussion lists on chronic

myelogenous leukaemia. British Medical Journal, 328

(7449), pp. 1177-1178.

Schoch NA, Shooshan SE. (1997). Communication on a

listserv for health information professionals: uses and

users of MEDLIB-L. Bulletin of the Medical Library

Association. 85 (1), pp. 23–32.

Sigala, M., Chalkiti, K. (2015). Knowledge management,

social media and employee creativity. International

Journal of Hospitality Management, 45, pp. 44-58.

Ste-Marie, F. 1998. Les listes de distribution. Une

nouvelle source d'information. L'Infirmière du

Québec: revue officielle de l'Ordre des infirmières et

infirmiers du Québec, 6 (2), pp. 44-46.

Tonta, Y., Karabulut, D.(2010). The anatomy of an

electronic discussion list for librarians, KUTUP-L:

Bibliometric and content analyses of postings. ELPUB

2010 - Publishing in the Networked World:

Transforming the Nature of Communication, 14th

International Conference on Electronic Publishing,

pp. 234-244.

Wakabayashi, T., Takada, K., Somei, J. & Kita, I. 2000.

The role of an e-mail list system for communication

among medical professionals, transplant candidates,

recipients, and their families in Japan. Transplantation

Proceedings, 7, pp. 1613-1614.

Waseleski, C. (2006). Gender and the use of exclamation

points in computer-mediated communication: An

analysis of exclamations posted to two electronic

discussion lists. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 11 (4), pp. 1012-1024.

Wen, C.L., Panse Silveira, P.S., Soares Azevedo, R.,

Böhm, G.M. (2000). Internet discussion lists as an

educational tool. Journal of Telemedicine and

Telecare, 6 (5), pp. 302-304.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder W. (2002).

Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to

Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.