Special report

FREE WEB SEARCHvs.

PAID SEARCH TOOLS

A COMPARISON OF PRODUCTIVITY

IN THE RESEARCH PROCESS

An independent study conducted by Martin Akel & Associates

Sponsored by Elsevier

1In response to pressures to conduct research more quickly andaccurately, engineers and scientists have woven internet searchesinto the very fabric of the research process.

2While the free web suffices for simple searches, it is deemed to beless than effective for more complex searches, such as accessingthe experiences and results of other researchers.

3As a search tool for technical information, paid search is 325% moreproductive than the free web.*

And 62% report that paid tools give them more confidence that thesearch results will have a meaningful impact on their work.*

4Thus, it is in the best interests of companies that conduct R&D, tosupport their researchers with appropriate paid search tools – thosethat enable the research process to move forward more efficiently,thereby helping accelerate R&D activities.

*Among respondents having access to both paid and free search tools.

Study Conclusions

Respondents’ Demographics

Involvement In R&D: 100% of the study’s respondents were “researchers” personally engagedin or responsible for research and/or development activities.

Respondents’ Titles: Corporate Management 18%R&D Management 16%Engineering Management 13%Technical Management 13%Subtotal Management 60%

Engineer 23%Scientist 11%Subtotal Staff 34%

Other 6%

Types Of Businesses:Processed Products Manufacturers 33%Discrete Products Manufacturers 50%Other Businesses 17%

Sales Revenue: Average: $1.74 billionMedian: $47 million

Annual R&D Budget: Average: $59.5 millionMedian: $730,000

This independent study was prepared and conducted by Martin Akel& Associates at the request of Elsevier, a publisher of peer-reviewed, printand electronic journals and Web databases for scientists and engineers.

Based on a random sample of U.S. researchers working incorporate/industrial markets, it sought to:

Objectives

Section A page 5Determine the pressures faced by researchersand their desire to access the work of theirpeers.

Section B page 6 - 7Gauge the use of the internet in the researchprocess.

Section C page 8 - 11Determine the complexity of searches and thestrengths/weaknesses of the free web.

Section D & E page 12 - 15Discover how researchers rate free vs. paidsearch on productivity/efficiency.

A COMPARISON OF PRODUCTIVITY IN THE RESEARCH PROCESSFREE WEB SEARCH VS. PAID SEARCH TOOLS

5

In response to pressuresto conduct research more quicklyand accurately, engineers andscientists have woven internetsearches into the very fabric ofthe research process.

2005 = 88% greater pressure

2005 = 74% less room for error

2005 = 98% vital + important

Greater pressure

About the same

Less pressure

84%

15%

1%

Researchers must achieve the right results on their first attempt.74% say there’s now “Less room for error.”

Less room for error

About the same

More room

74%

25%

1%

And to execute their responsibilities in this pressurized environment,professionals are seeking access to the work and experiences oftheir peers.

Access is vital

Somewhat important

Not important

68%

29%

3%

Compared To 4 - 5 years ago, there’s greater pressure to achieveobjectives more rapidly.

Section A

Increasing pressure to work more quicklyis driving researchers to seek out theexperiences of other engineers and scientists

97% vital and important

76

There is a dramatic increase in the use of the internet as aninformation search tool for research activities.

Section B

To conduct projects more quickly, engineersand scientists have woven internet searchesinto the very fabric of the research process

Average time per week invested in searching for engineering/scientific information:

• 5.0 hours a week

• 3.3 out of 5 working days (66%)

Researchers’ specific objectives when searching online

The majority rated each of the 19 different objectives as ‘Important’Not very

Objective Important important

To stay current with trends, advances and breakthroughs 94% 6%

To discover processes/approaches relevant to our work 92% 8%

To find a specific article or document 92% 8%

To understand a new area we’ve become involved with 92% 8%

To learn the principles of a process, material, concept, etc. 91% 9%

To learn if experiments/studies have already been conducted 89% 12%

To learn the fundamentals of a related field 87% 13%

To determine standards for a process, product, etc. 87% 14%

To stimulate thinking for new products or processes 86% 14%

To search for formulas, properties, structures or specifications 85% 15%

To learn how to proceed with a process or approach 83% 17%

To locate the work done by a specific author or researcher 81% 19%

To discover whether others are working on similar projects 79% 21%

To search for intelligence on competitors 77% 23%

To search out existing patents 76% 24%

To learn the evolution of a process/product & then move forward 75% 25%

To learn about safety issues: reactions, hazards, interactions, etc. 72% 28%

To determine the reaction of chemicals, substances, etc. 59% 41%

To find partners/collaborators for current or upcoming projects 56% 44%

Significant increase

Increase

No change

Decrease

Do not use

44%

40%

11%

0%

4%

84%increase

83%increase

Likely within the next two years

Significant increase

Increase

No change

Decrease

Do not use

35%

48%

13%

0%

4%

Compared to two years ago

98

Section C

For complex engineering/scientific searches, the free web* has significant limitations

4 out of every 10 searches conducted by engineers andscientists are “Complex & Detailed”.

The more complex the search problem, the less effective the freeweb* becomes.

* “Free Web”: The use of broad internet search engines/products that are available at no cost (e.g., Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask.com, etc.).

While the free Web suffices forsimple searches, it is deemedto be less effective for morecomplex searches.

59%of searchesare simple

41%of searchesare complexand detailed

71%

32%

16%

88%

Sim

ple

Mod

erat

ely

com

plex

Com

plex

Ext

rem

ely

com

plex

1110

Researchers commented on the limitations of the free web:How engineers/scientists rate the free web:Somewhat

Very Effective/ Somewhat Not Very + Not VeryCapability Effective Effective Effective Effective

Providing sufficientinformation with the 52% 40% 8% 48%initial search result

The speed at which results can be 45% 38% 17% 55%screened

Revealing resultsnot previously 42% 45% 13% 58%considered

Not missing meaningful 34% 45% 21% 66%sources or the latest information

The ability to refine results for sharper 28% 45% 27% 72%decision-making

Avoiding irrelevant search results

26% 37% 37% 74%

The effort necessary to sort through results

26% 48% 26% 74%

Organizing results for easy evaluation

25% 43% 32% 75%

Providing a deep understanding of what 23% 48% 29% 77%the results contain

“More complex is not the focus of free. Free is general.”

“Content usually not detailed enough.”

“Complex info can be difficult to locate.”

“Broad and sometimes lacks detail to answer specific questions.”

“Free searches often do not turn up more complex information.”

“Not comprehensive, possible biased.”

“Easy, but results not always relevant.”

“Results are muddled by general internet content.”

“Too much commercial junk.”

“Reliability low.”

“Not developed for engineering, scientific research.”

“Uses word searching rather than knowledge search.”

“Usually requires far more time to sift through.”

Section C

For complex engineering/scientific searches, the free web has significant limitations

1312

Section D

Paid search is judged to be superior on scope andquality of results, search functionalities, and overallproductivity/efficiency

Definitions given to survey respondents

“Free Web Searches”: The use of broad internet search engines/products that are available at no cost (e.g.,Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask.com, etc.).

“Paid Web Searches”: Engineering/scientific search engines or products fully dedicated to presentingscientific and technical results to queries from researchers. Search results may include technical articles,abstracts, backfiles, patents, standards, reference information, book content, news and peer-reviewed journals.

These “vertical” search engines are paid-for by you or your organization (e.g., ISI Web of Science, Elsevier’sScopus and Engineering Village, IEEE Explorer, SciFinder, or others).

On 20 of 22 productivity factors, paid searches are rated superiorto the free web*.

Free Both PaidSearches About SearchesSuperior The Same Superiora. Scope Of Information

Breadth of applicable engineering/scientific information 27% 29% 45%

In-depth/detailed scientific/technical search results 7% 16% 77%

Inclusive of more types of media: Web, journals, etc. 33% 34% 33%

Reflects global sources of engineering/scientific information 21% 49% 30%

Presents content that goes back decades 7% 20% 73%

New sources of results added on an ongoing basis 21% 40% 39%

b. Quality Of Results

Results that are relevant and accurate 11% 29% 60%

Results that are authoritative and credible 6% 25% 69%

Confidence that meaningful information isn’t missing 8% 35% 57%

Information that is up-to-date 20% 39% 42%

Free Both PaidSearches About SearchesSuperior The Same Superiorc. Search Functionalities

Functionalities that reflect a researchers’ needs 13% 37% 49%

Ability to refine/customize results for greater relevancy 13% 30% 58%

Intuitive/user-friendly system for “deep browsing” of detailed info. 20% 43% 37%

Results properly organized for greater productivity 12% 29% 59%

Flexibility in sorting: by year, author, key words, article titles, etc. 8% 28% 63%

Rankings of results in a manner relevant to researchers 9% 30% 61%

Organization of results into appropriate categories 7% 26% 68%

Direct links to info. being sought (a few “clicks”) 19% 37% 45%

d. Overall Productivity/Efficiency

Productivity in conducting simple technical searches 50% 35% 14%

Productivity in conducting complex technical searches 9% 23% 68%

Saves time searching for specific engineering/scientific info. 14% 34% 52%

Minimizes effort in searching for technical content 16% 32% 53%

*Among engineers/scientists who have access to both free and paid search tools.

1514

Section E

Researchers believe paid search tools offermajor advantages in “confidence”, “time savings”and “accountability” for the investment

All factors (see pages 12 & 13) were combined into a “Search Productivity Index.” By far,engineers and scientists believe paid searches are more productive than the free web*

Search Productivity Index (Based on average “far superior”+ “superior” scores)

*Among engineers/scientists who have access to both free and paid search tools.

*Among engineers/scientists who have access to both free andpaid search tools.

The free web About the same Paid search tools

Scope of information

Quality of results

Search functionalities

Overall productivity/efficiency

All 22 productivity factors combined

19% 31% 50%

+263% vs. free web

11% 32%

13% 32%

22% 31%

16% 32% Researchers commented on the advantages of paid search toolsfor more complex searches

“To the target, no wasting time.” • “Limits hits to discipline being searched.” • “Allows more

precise search information and credibility.” • “Paid search is less far reaching and more specific/

confined.” • “Deep knowledge.” • “More in-depth/complete in a technical field.” • “Better yield.”

• “Highly complex searches can be conducted.” • “Paid searches provide more verifiable info.” •

“Paid – usually more accurate/dependable.” • “Paid is thorough, faster, more accurate.”

Section D

As a search tool for technical information, paid searchis 325% more productive than the free Web.

10% free

Paid search tools give researchers moreconfidence that results will have ameaningful impact on their work*

Paid search tools are accountable ...accelerating the research process in excessof the cost*

Paid search tools save more time inconducting complex searches*

5% free

33%equal

62%paid

34%equal

56%paid

15% not very accountable

85%accountable

57%

+518% vs. free web

55%

+423% vs. free web

47%

+214% vs. free web

52%

+325% vs. free web

FREE WEB SEARCHvs.

PAID SEARCH TOOLS

KEY CONCLUSIONSAs a search tool for technical information, paid search is325% more productive than the free Web.*

62% report that paid tools give them more confidencethat the search results will have a meaningful impact ontheir work.*

SURVEY METHODOLOGY• Date Conducted: June, 2007• The Research Organization: Martin Akel & Associates, Chester, New Jersey.• Universe Studied: 2,500 U.S. researchers in the corporate (industrial) market

selected from the audience of R&D Magazine on a random nth name basis.• Market Segments: Names were selected from all types of corporate markets,

including process manufacturing, discrete manufacturing, and private researchfirms. Pharmaceutical companies were excluded.

• Titles Selected: Research/laboratory management and scientific/engineering staff.• Medium Used; Identification: Mail survey. This blind survey was sent out over the

name Martin Akel & Associates.• Incentives: A $5.00 check was sent with the first of two waves.• Response Rate: 415 usable returns= 18%;

margin of error (95% confidence level)= ± 5.0%.

*Among respondents having access to both paid and free search tools.

To find out more about the productivity of paid information tools contact:

ElsevierP.O. Box 2111000 AE Amsterdam,the NetherlandsTel + 31 20 485 3258Fax +31 20 485 3375Email corporate.sales@elsevier.com

Elsevier360 Park Avenue SouthNew YorkNY 10010-1710USATel. 212-633-3755 Fax 212-633-3880Email r.bausch@elsevier.comwww.ei.org/research