is there a usage gap? the effects of online access to journals on the usage of print- based...

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

karen.harker@utsouthwestern.edu214-648-1698

www.utsouthwestern.edu/cfdocs/library/presentations/mlapaper2002.ppt