Michel Roland's Library tagged e-journals → View Popular

Filter:
All
Annotated

03 Aug 09

Electronic Journals and Changes in Scholarly Article Seeking and Reading Patterns

www.dlib.org/...11tenopir.html - Preview

scholars reading e-journals citations serendipity

Readings from library-provided electronic journals has increased substantially, while readings of older articles have recently increased somewhat. Ironically, reading patterns have broadened with electronic journals at the same time citing patterns have narrowed.
6 more annotations...
- While the average number of article readings per scientist is increasing, the average time spent per reading is declining. In the 2005 surveys, scientists reported spending an average of 31 minutes per reading, down from 48 minutes in 1977. Multiplying the average time spent per reading by the number of article readings shows that the total commitment to reading by U.S. science faculty increases from approximately 120 hours annually in 1977 to 144 hours annually in 2005. It appears that the amount of time available for reading scientific articles may be reaching a maximum capacity.
- The number of readings increased by an estimated 130 readings per scientist from 1977 to 2005. The "other sources" increased by about 20 readings (from 23 to 43), which might be attributable to open access initiatives since the current 43 readings are 11 from preprints; 19 copies provided by authors, colleagues, etc.; 4 from an author website and 2 from other websites (plus 7 from an unspecified source). Reading from personal subscriptions decreased about 27 readings per faculty scientist. Some of the decrease represents a drop in personal subscriptions, but most is attributable to less reading per subscription (i.e., about 21 readings per subscription in 1977 to 15 in 2005). Most remarkable is that readings from library-provided articles increased by 137 readings, which is comparable to the net increase in readings overall (130 readings). Much of this increase is due to electronic journal or aggregation collections in libraries.
- Over half of readings in 2005 are from electronic sources (59.5% vs. 40.5% from print sources). However, as shown in Figure 3, personal subscription readings frequently continue to be from print issues. On the other hand, most library-provided articles and other sources are read from electronic versions.
- The most frequent principal purpose of reading is research (48.5% of readings), followed by teaching (22.5%), writing (articles, reports, proposals, etc. – 10.8%), and current awareness/keeping up (8.0%).
- Articles published in 2005 (prior to October/November when the surveys were done) were largely identified through browsing (52.6%), but as the articles became older, readers more frequently became aware of them by other means. Articles published prior to 1996 were mostly identified through citations (46.9%) and searching (32.8%).
- While citing patterns may be narrowing, reading patterns are not. This is due to several differences between why scientists read and why they cite articles.
  
  Reading is done for many purposes: current awareness, teaching, and administrative in addition to research and writing. Only those readings for research and writing are cited.
  Scientists read many articles for every one that they cite. Choosing the best article to cite may be subject to peer pressure in the form of choosing more often to cite those that are cited by others. Following citation links in electronic journal articles may have proportionately more influence on citation behavior than reading behavior.

Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship -- Evans 321 (5887): 395 -- Science

www.sciencemag.org/...395 - Preview

e-journals scholars citations serendipity

The forcedbrowsing of print archives may have stretched scientists andscholars to anchor findings deeply into past and present scholarship.Searching online is more efficient and following hyperlinksquickly puts researchers in touch with prevailing opinion, butthis may accelerate consensus and narrow the range of findingsand ideas built upon.
the three most common practicesused by scientists and scholars who publish. First, most expertsbrowse or briefly scan a small number of core journals in printor online to build awareness of current research (6). Afterrelevant articles are discovered online, these are often printedand perused in depth on paper (7). A second practice is to searchby topic in an online article database. In recent years, thepercentage of papers read as a result of browsing has droppedand been replaced by the results of online searches, especiallyfor the most productive scientists and scholars (8). Finally,subject experts use hyperlinks in online articles to view referencedor related articles (6). Disciplinary differences exist. Forexample, biologists prefer to browse online, whereas medicalprofessionals place a premium on purchasing and browsing inprint. In sum, researchers peruse in print, browse in printor online (9), and search and follow citations online.
3 more annotations...
- Collectively, the models presented illustrate that as journalarchives came online, either through commercial vendors or freely,citation patterns shifted. As deeper backfiles became available,more recent articles were referenced; as more articles becameavailable, fewer were cited and citations became more concentratedwithin fewer articles. These changes likely mean that the shiftfrom browsing in print to searching online facilitates avoidanceof older and less relevant literature. Moreover, hyperlinkingthrough an online archive puts experts in touch with consensusabout what is the most important prior work—what workis broadly discussed and referenced. With both strategies, expertsonline bypass many of the marginally related articles that printresearchers skim. If online researchers can more easily findprevailing opinion, they are more likely to follow it, leadingto more citations referencing fewer articles.
- Agents viewothers' choices as relevant information—a signal of quality—andfactor them into their own reading and citation selections.By enabling scientists to quickly reach and converge with prevailingopinion, electronic journals hasten scientific consensus. Buthaste may cost more than the subscription to an online archive:Findings and ideas that do not become consensus quickly willbe forgotten quickly.
- This research ironically intimates that one of the chief valuesof print library research is poor indexing.

Open Reading Frame

www.sennoma.net/...open_access_partisans_view.php - Preview

e-journals evans serendipity

What this suggests to me is that the driving force in Evans' suggested "narrow[ing of] the range of findings and ideas built upon" is not online access per se but in fact commercial access, with its attendant question of who can afford to read what. Evans' own data indicate that if the online access in question is free of charge, the apparent narrowing effect is significantly reduced or even reversed. Moreover, the commercially available corpus is and has always been much larger than the freely available body of knowledge (for instance, DOAJ currently lists around 3500 journals, approximately 10-15% of the total number of scholarly journals). This indicates that if all of the online access that went into Evans' model had been free all along, the anti-narrowing effect of Open Access would be considerably amplified.
A great deal of work was done in the 1970s, which is now completely ignored. Researchers rediscover wheels again and again, when a search of the earlier literature would have revealed that what they think of as novel, was novel 50 years ago!

Are Online and Free Online Access Broadening or Narrowing Research? - Open Access Archivangelism

openaccess.eprints.org/index.php - Preview

e-journals evans open_access serendipity

If I had to choose between the explanation of the Evans effect as a recency/bandwagon effect, as Evans interprets it, or as an increased overall quality/selectivity effect, I'd choose the latter (though I don't doubt there is a bandwagon effect too). And that is even without going on to point out that Tenopir & King, Gingras and others have shown that -- with or without OA -- there is still a good deal of usage and citation of the legacy literature (though it differs from field to field).

I wouldn't set much store by "skimming serendipity" (the discovery of adjacent work while skimming through print issues), since online search and retrieval has at least as much scope for serendipity. (And one would expect more likelihood of a bandwagon effect without OA, where authors may tend to cite already cited but inaccessible references "cite unseen.")

13 Nov 07

CAIS - Journal

www.cais-acsi.ca/...journal.htm - Preview

e-journals lis sib

The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science
was established in 1976 and continues the Canadian Journal of Information
Science. Its purpose is to contribute to the advancement of information
and library science in Canada.

20 Oct 06