Pairwise comparisons of discipline categories found engineering researchers to have higher ratings for the Support Evaluation than did humanities researchers. This result could be an indicator of the differences in the scholarly communication and evaluation models used by the two disciplines. Researchers in the humanities favor publishing books and monographs and their evaluation models are often book based, whereas those in engineering fields of study use scholarly communication and evaluation models based more on conference and journal papers . Traditionally, books and monographs have received scant coverage in the index databases used in bibliographic analysis of research impact. Hence, compared with the engineering field, the humanities field may rely less on citation-based metrics when evaluating research output and researchers for impact . Furthermore, providing open access to books and monographs has been challenging . Thus, one would expect that the humanities field would rely less than the engineering field on the evaluation models of research impact and the services provided by RIMSs. Similarly, engineers had higher ratings for the Quality of Recommendations scale than did social scientists. One can theorize that researchers in the social sciences might rely more on other means of communication and information sharing (e.g., personal networks) to stay current in their literature than those in engineering. These findings can be used to prioritize RIMS evaluation and recommendation services by discipline. In addition, further research could shed light on alternative models and the means of evaluation and literature monitoring that these disciplines use and could inform the design of RIMS services.