Diversity in the e‐journal use and information‐seeking behaviour of UK researchers

Author:

Nicholas David,Rowlands Ian,Huntington Paul,Jamali Hamid R.,Hernández Salazar Patricia

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present some of the results of the project “Evaluating the usage and impact of e‐journals in the UK”. The particular research reported here evaluated the use of the ScienceDirect journals database with regard to Life Sciences, Economics, Chemistry, Earth & Environmental Sciences and Physics by ten major UK research institutions. The aim of the study is to investigate researchers' digital behaviour, and to ascertain whether their use and behaviours varied by subjects and disciplines, or in relation to the institutions in which they worked.Design/methodology/approachRaw logs for ScienceDirect were obtained for the period January to April 2007, were subject to deep log techniques and analysed using the Software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).FindingsTypically, 5 per cent of the ScienceDirect journals viewed accounted for a third to half of all use. A high proportion of researchers entered the ScienceDirect site via a third‐party site, and this was especially so in the case of the Life Sciences and in the highest‐ranked research institutions. There were significant institutional and subject differences in information‐seeking behaviour. In the most research‐intensive institutions, per capita journal use was highest and their users spent much less time on each visit. There were significant differences of the order of 100‐300 per cent in the age of material viewed between subjects and institutions. Just four months after ScienceDirect content was opened to Google indexing, a third of traffic to the site's Physics journals came via that route.Originality/valueThe research is one of the very few studies to investigate subject and institutional differences with regard to the information seeking and use of UK researchers, something UK academic librarians should particularly welcome.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems

Reference35 articles.

1. Boyce, P., King, D.W., Montgomery, C. and Tenopir, C. (2004), “How electronic journals are changing patterns of use”, Serials Librarian, Vol. 46 Nos 1‐2, pp. 121‐41.

2. Brockman, W.S., Neumann, L., Palmer, C.L. and Tidline, T.J. (2001), Scholarly Work in the Humanities and the Evolving Information Environment, Digital Library Federation, Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC.

3. CIBER (2007), CIBER OhioLINK Deep Log Study 2: Case Study of 4 Universities, CIBER University College, London.

4. CIBER (2009), “Evaluating the usage and impact of e‐journals in the UK”, Working Paper No. 5, Information usage and seeking behaviour: subject and institutional profiles, UCL, London, available at: www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/ (accessed 13 March 2009).

5. Covi, L.M. and Kling, R. (1996), “Organizational dimensions of effective digital library use: closed rational and open natural systems model”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 672‐89.

Cited by 29 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3