Scholarly article seeking, reading, and use: A continuing evolution from print to electronic in the sciences and social sciences

Learned Publishing

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 93-105

  Tenopir, Carol ^a   King, Donald W ^a   Christian, Lisa ^b   Volentine, Rachel ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^b University of Tennessee   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929500891     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: 17414857     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/20150203     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. E-preferred subscription policy [Internet]. Blacksburg, VA, Virginia Tech University Libraries, 2012 [cited 6 November 2013]. Available at http://www.lib.vt.edu/collmgmt/policies/e-preferred.html
2. Penn Libraries adopt e-preferred journal policy [Internet]. 2009. Philadelphia, PA, Penn Libraries, 2009 [cited 6 November 2013]. Available at http://www.library.upenn.edu/news/626
3. Teper, T. 2011. Print and digital collections. Available at http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/stratplantf/docs/Strategic_Planning_Forum_Collections_Final_PDF.pdf (accessed 6 November 2013).
4. Directory of Open Access Journals [Internet]. United Kingdom: Infrastructure Services for Open Access, 2013 [cited 24 October 2013]. Available at http://www.doaj. org/
5. Tenopir, C. and King, D.W. Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians, and Publishers. Washington, DC, Special Libraries Association, 2000.
6. Tenopir, C., King, D.W., Edwards, S., and Wu, L. 2009. Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 61: 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530910932267
7. King, D.W., McDonald, D.D., and Roderer, N.K. Scientific Journals in the United States: Their Production, Use and Economics. Stroudsburg, PA, Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, 1981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0143-6236(82)90046-1
8. Tenopir, C., Wilson, C.S., Vakkari, P., Talja, S., and King, D.W. 2010. Cross country comparison of scholarly e-reading patterns in Australia, Finland, and the United States. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 41: 26–41. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA233124082&v=2.1&u=tel_a_utl&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=8a1f54ee5b46f99ea270fceed3933c0b (accessed 6 November 2013).
9. Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., and King, D.W. UK Scholarly Reading and the Value of Library Resources: Summary Results of the Study Conducted Spring 2011. Study on behalf of JISC Collections, 2012. Available at http://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Reports/ukscholarlyreadingreport/(accessed 6 November 2013).
10. King, D.W. and Tenopir, C. Using and reading scholarly literature. In Williams, M. (ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, vol. 34, pp. 423–477. Medford, NJ, Information Today, Inc., 2001.
11. Belefant-Miller, H. and King, D.W. 2001. How, what, and why science faculty read. Science and Technology Libraries, 19: 91–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J122v19n02_08
12. Newman, M.L. and Sack, J. 2013. Information workflow of academic researchers in the evolving information environment: An interview study. Learned Publishing, 26: 123–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20130208
13. Ge, X. 2010. Information-seeking behavior in the digital age: a multidisciplinary study of academic researchers. College & Research Libraries, 71: 435–455. Available at http://crl.acrl.org/content/71/5/435.full.pdf (accessed 6 November 2013).
14. Jankowska, M.A. 2004. Identifying university professors’ information needs in the challenging environment of information and communication technologies. Journal of Academic Librarianship,30: 51–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2003.11.007
15. Smith, E.T. 2003. Changes in faculty reading behaviours: the impact of electronic journals on the University of Georgia. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29: 162–168.
16. Maughan, P.D. 1999. Library resources and services: a cross-disciplinary survey of faculty and graduate student use and satisfaction. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25: 354–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(99)80054-8
17. Healy, L.W., Dagar, L., and Wilkie, K.M. Custom report prepared for the Digital Library Federation/Council on Library and Information Resources. Burlingame, CA, Outsell, 2002.
18. Talja, S. and Maula, H. 2003. Reasons for the use and non-use of electronic journals and databases: a domain analytic study in four scholarly disciplines. Journal of Documentation, 59: 673−691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410310506312
19. Fry, J. and Talja, S. 2004. The cultural shaping of scholarly communication: explaining e-journal use within and across academic fields. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41: 20–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450410103
20. Brown, C.M. 2003. The role of electronic preprints in chemical communication: analysis of citation, usage, and acceptance in the journal literature. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 54: 362–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.10223
21. Vakkari, P. 2006. Trends in the use of digital libraries by scientists in 2000–2005: a case study of Finelib. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43:1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450430132
22. King, D.W., Tenopir, C., Choemprayong, S., and Wu, L. 2009. Scholarly journal information seeking and reading patterns of faculty at five US universities. Learned Publishing, 22: 126–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/2009208
23. Burrows, S. 2006. A review of electronic journal acquisition, management, and use in health sciences libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94: 67. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1324774/#!po=2.94118 (accessed 6 November 2013).
24. Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., and Williams, P. 2011. E-journals, researchers-and the new librarians. Learned Publishing, 24: 15–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20110104
25. Prabha, C. 2007. Shifting from print to electronic journals in ARL university libraries. Serials Review, 33: 4–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2006.12.001
26. Since 1977, Tenopir and King have periodically surveyed scientists and social scientists throughout the United States in order to study their article reading patterns in academic and non-academic settings. More recently, humanities faculty members have also been included.
27. Flanagan, J.C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51: 327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
28. Radford, M.L. 2006. The critical incident technique and the qualitative evaluation of the connecting libraries and schools project. Library Trends, 55: 46–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0051
29. Andrews, J. 1991. An exploration of students’ library use problems. Library Review, 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00242539110143096
30. Griffiths, J.-M. and King, D.W.A Manual on the Evaluation of Information Centers and Services. New York, NY, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1991.
31. Machlup, Fritz, 1979. Uses, value, and benefits of knowledge. Reprinted 1993 in Knowledge, Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 14:448–466.
32. Rovai, A.P., Baker, J.D., and Ponton, M.K. 2013. Social Science Research Design and Statistics. Chesapeake, VA, Watertree Press.
33. King, D.W., Tenopir, C., Montgomery, C.H., and Aerni, S.E. 2003. Patterns of journal use by faculty at three diverse universities. D-Lib Magazine, 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/october2003-king
34. Guthrie, Kevin. Revitalizing older published literature: preliminary lessons from the use of JSTOR. In MacKie-Mason, J. and Lougee, W.P. (eds), Economics and Usage of Digital Library Collections Conference. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2000.
35. Odlyzko, A.M. The rapid evolution of scholarly communication. Conference on the Economics and Usage of Digital Library Collections. Ann Arbor, MI, 23–24 March 2000. Available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/s/spobooks/5621225.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext (accessed 7 November 2013).
36. Herman, E. 2004. Research in progress: Some preliminary and key insights into the information needs of the contemporary academic researcher, part 2. Aslib Proceedings, 56: 118–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530410529495
37. SD = 21.297, median = 15.00, SEM = 0.725, excluding 11 outliers over 125; including the outliers, mean = 23.46, median = 15.00, SD = 34.205, SEM = 1.157.
38. 38 SD = 27.581, median = 25.00, SEM = 1.101, excluding three outliers over 180; including the outliers, mean = 34.22, median = 25.00, SD = 48.687, SEM = 1.938.
39. SD = 27.205, median = 20.00, SEM = 1.313, excluding three outliers over 180; including the outliers, mean = 34.22, median = 25.00, SD = 48.687, SEM=1.938.
40. Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., and King, D.W. 2013. Social media and reading. Online Information Review, 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2012-0062