Is there a usage gap? The effects of online access to journals on the usage of print-based collections
Mar 27, 2015
Is there a usage gap?
The effects of online access to journals on the usage of print-
based collections
Introduction Karen R. Harker, MLS
UT Southwestern Medical Center Library
Large academic medical library (basic information)
Growth of Electronic Journal Collection
161250
405
1374
3101
4128
FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Print-Only Journals 942 journals still not available
online 75% (approx.) – no full-text content
available 25% (approx.) – full-text is available
How has usage of these journals been affected by online availability of other journals?
Book Circulations
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01
Photocopy use
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01
Least-Effort Principle Zipf, 1949: ease of access ranks high
in source selection Research in 1960’s supported
principle Continues today
“The relevant literature overwhelmingly favors accessibility as the single important (variable) determinant of use.” Pinelli, et al. 1993.
2001. Hertzum, Morten. The importance of trust in software engineers’ assessment and choice of information soruces. Information and Organization, vol. 12(1):1-18.
Methodology Two groups of journals examined:
Print-only (PO): titles not available online
Print and Electronic (PE): titles available in both electronic and print formats
Measurements taken: Journal Usage Survey: local use of print
journals Impact Factors: global use affected by
citations
Journal Usage Survey Measures print usage
All loose issues and bound volumes are scanned into ILS system prior to being re-shelved.
In use since 1995.
Comparison of Journal Use per Title
Print and Electronic
Titles
Print Only Titles
0
50
100
150
200
250
FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01
Expected: Found:total use decrease steadily decreased, then increaseddifference increase decreased, then increased
Impact Factor Measure citation rates of journals:
# of citations in 2000 to articles published in 1998 and
1999 # of articles published in 1998-1999
Controversial Accepted objective standard of the
importance of a journal in science
Impact Factors as measurements of usage Assumption: most, if not all,
articles cited have been read by the author.
Local usage vs. impact factor – not closely related
Impact Factors vary year-to-year.
Comparison of Impact Factors for Two Groups
Print and Electronic Titles
Print Only Titles
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Expected: Found:Increase in area of difference Increase was not significant
Conclusions It is too early to
tell. Variations or
trends? Need more in-
depth statistical analysis
Need more time Need cleaner data
Future Studies Usage of electronic versus print
formats Who? Why? When? How? Where?
Measurements of electronic usage Impact Factors as a measure of
global usage
Contact Karen R. Harker, MLS
www.utsouthwestern.edu/cfdocs/library/presentations/mlapaper2002.ppt