Perceived value of scholarly articles

Learned Publishing

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 123-132

  Tenopir, Carol ^a   Allard, Suzie ^a   Bates, Benjamin J ^a   Levine, Kenneth J ^a   King, Donald W ^a   Birch, Ben ^a   Mays, Regina ^a   Caldwell, Chris ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80555133268     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/20110207     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Rowlands, I. 2007. Electronic journals and user behavior: a review of recent research. Library and Information Science Research, 29: 369-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.03.005
2. Tenopir, C. et al. 2003. Patterns of journal use by scientists through three evolutionary phases. D-Lib, 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/may2003-king
3. Tenopir, C. and King, D. W. 2000. Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians, and Publishers. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association. Available at http://www.sla.org/marketplace/stores/1/PRINT_-_Towards_Electronic_Jou_P15.cfm
4. Schamber, L. 1994. Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 29: 3-48.
5. Larivière, V. and Gringas, Y. 2009. The Impact Factor's Matthew Effect: A Natural Experiment in Bibliometrics. Montréal, Université du Québec à Montréal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002//asi.21232
6. Green, P. E. and Wind, Y. 1975. New ways to measure consumers' judgments. Harvard Business Review, 53: 107-117. Available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=13&sid=659adade-6f47-40c0-bc51-85d620123e7b%40sessionmgr14
7. Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., and Wind, Y. 2001. Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31: S56-S73. Available at http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/0102_Thirty_Years_of_Conjoint_Analysis.pdf
8. Wittink, D. and Cattin, P. 1989. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. Journal of Marketing, 53: 91-96.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251345
9. Wittink, D., Vriens, M., and Burhenne, W. 1994. Commercial use of conjoint in Europe: results and critical reflections. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11: 41-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(94)90033-7
10. Green, P. and Srinivasan, V. 1978. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new development with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54: 3-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251756
11. Ramsing, K.D. and Wish, J.R. 1982. What do library users want? A conjoint measurement technique may yield the answer. Information Processing & Management, 18: 237-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(82)90002-4
12. Griffiths, J.-M. and King, D.W. 1991. Relating information center performance to effectiveness. In A Manual on the Evaluation of Information Centers and Services: Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA237321
13. Griffiths, J.-M. and King, D.W. 1993. Special Libraries: Increasing the Information Edge. Washington, DC, Special Libraries Association. Available at http://www.sla.org/marketplace/stores/1/PDF_-_Special_Libraries_Incre_P119C2.cfm
14. Beckett, C. and Inger, S. 2006. Self-archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Co-existence or Competition? London, Publishing Research Consortium. Available at http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/Self-archiving_report.pdf
15. Schonfeld, R.C. and Housewright, R. 2010. Faculty Survey 2009: Strategic Insights for Librarians, Publishers, and Societies. ITHAKA S+R. Available at http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/faculty-survey-2009
16. Tenopir, C. et al. 2009. Variations in article seeking and reading patterns of academics: what makes a difference? Library & Information Science Research, 31: 139-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.02.002