Online use and information seeking behaviour: institutional and subject comparisons of UK researchers

Author:

Nicholas David1,Clark David1,Rowlands Ian1,Jamali Hamid R.2

Affiliation:

1. CIBER: Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research, University College London, London

2. Department of Library and Information Studies, Tarbiat Moallem University, Tehran, Iran, CIBER: Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research, University College London, London,

Abstract

The paper reports on the results of the project ‘Evaluating the usage and impact of e-journals in the UK’. Using deep log analysis techniques, we evaluated the use of the Oxford Journals database in regard to life sciences, economics and history by 10 major UK research institutions. The aim of the study was to investigate researchers’ digital behaviour, and to ascertain whether it varied by subjects and disciplines, or in relation to the institutions. The findings revealed significant subject and institutional differences. Life scientists were the biggest users. Economists made the greatest use of abstracts. Historians proved to be the most active searchers. Research intensive universities were characterized by high volume use and short session times, light sessions, and sessions which utilized few of the search functions available. Open access journals featured strongly in the ranked lists of life sciences and history; and Google was an extremely popular means of accessing journal content, especially so in the case of historians.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems

Reference10 articles.

1. Use of electronic science journals in the undergraduate curriculum: An observational study

2. Diversity in the Information Seeking Behaviour of the Virtual Scholar: Institutional Comparisons

3. User diversity: as demonstrated by deep log analysis

4. T.A. Finholt and J. Brooks, Analysis of JSTOR: the impact on scholarly practice of access to on-line journal archives. In: R. Ekman and R.E. Quandt (eds), Technology and Scholarly Communication (University of California Press, Berkely, 1999) 177-94.

Cited by 26 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