Perceived value of scholarly articles
Abstract
ABSTRACT When faced with an abundance of articles, readers must weigh the relative importance of various characteristics to select which articles to read. Over 400 researchers in 12 countries responded to a questionnaire that asked them to rank seven article characteristics and rate 16 article profiles. After article topic, the next most highly ranked characteristics were online accessibility and source of article. Conjoint analysis revealed the highest rated profiles to be (i) article written by a top‐tier author, in a top peer‐reviewed journal, available online at no personal cost to the reader; and (ii) article written by a top‐tier author, in a peer‐reviewed journal not in the top tier, available online at no personal cost to the reader. There were significant differences in characteristic rankings by discipline and geographic location.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Tenopir et al. looked at factors that influence readers when deciding which articles to read.
“Tenopir et al. looked at factors that influence readers when deciding which articles to read [35].”
From Seeking, Reading, and Use of Scholarly Articles: An International Study of Perceptions and Behavior of Researchers (2019) · cites this paper as [35]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences
Billig, M. S. (2015) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1177/0094306115599352 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
The Handbook of Journal Publishing
Morris, S., Barnas, E., LaFrenier, D., & Reich, M. M. (2013) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139107860 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Tenopir, C., Dalton, E., Fish, A., Christian, L., Jones, M., & Smith, M. (2016) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications4030022 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Self-citationTenopir, C., Levine, K. J., Allard, S. L., Christian, L., Volentine, R., Boehm, R., Nichols, F. R., Nicholas, D., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., et al. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23598 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
“…2346 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECH OLOGY—October 2016 DOI: 10.1002/asi Tenopir et al.’s studies of scholarly reading (Tenopir et al., 2010, 2011) have documented the reading behaviors of scientists and social scientists in the last three decades, with…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationNicholas, D., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Watkinson, A., Abrizah, A., Bravo, B. R., Boukacem‐Zeghmouri, C., Xu, J., Świgoń, M., & Polezhaeva, T. (2020) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.1286 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“Indeed, when researchers weigh the relative importance of various characteristics to select which articles to read, the second most highly ranked characteristic after topic is convenience in terms of online accessibility (Tenopir et al., 2011).”
BackgroundJamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Levine, K., Allard, S., Christian, L., Volentine, R., Boehm, R., et al. (2014) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2014.08.002 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Self-citationTenopir, C., Christian, L., & Kaufman, J. (2019) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications7010018 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Self-citationNicholas, D., Jamali, H. R., Watkinson, A., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., Allard, S. L., & Levine, K. J. (2015) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE CONTENT DEVELOPMENT & TECHNOLOGY · doi:10.5865/ijkct.2015.5.2.045 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“In particular it has been found that for them ease of access is an important factor in determining choice (Tenopir et al., 2011; Catalano, 2013).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe growth of journals publishing
Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2014) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1533/9781780634647.159 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Self-citationRons, N. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.12.003 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“…used in deciding what to read from the available literature and related document information elements providing most clues (Wang and Soergel, 1998; Tenopir et al., 2011) are a publication's topical relevance, scientific orientation/level and novelty (informed primarily by its title) and a…”
BackgroundNew web services that help authors choose journals
Forrester, A., Björk, B., & Tenopir, C. (2017) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.1112 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationLemke, S., Mazarakis, A., & Peters, I. (2021) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24445 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“If we compare the rankings Tenopir et al. (2011) obtained through their conjoint analysis with the frequencies with which individual characteristics came up in our free text responses, we can see differences: while the respondents of Tenopir et al. (2011) put particular emphases on articles' topics…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialAbrizah, A., Xu, J., & Nicholas, D. (2017) · Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science · doi:10.22452/mjlis.vol22no3.5 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“Tenopir et al. (2010; 2011) reported that the highest rated articles are those written by: (a) a top-tier author, in a peer reviewed journal, available online at no personal cost to the reader; (b) by a top-tier author, in a peer-reviewed journal not in the top tier, available online at no personal…”
BackgroundLog Usage Analysis: What it Discloses about Use, Information Seeking and Trustworthiness
Nicholas, D. M., Clark, D., Jamali, H. R., et al. (2014) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE CONTENT DEVELOPMENT & TECHNOLOGY · doi:10.5865/ijkct.2014.4.1.023 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Information behaviour of scholars
Vilar, P. (2015) · Libellarium journal for research in the field of information and related sciences · doi:10.15291/libellarium.v7i1.194 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Bravo, B. R., Fernández-Ramos, A., & Rodríguez, C. T. (2021) · Revista española de Documentación Científica · doi:10.3989/redc.2021.3.1806 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Desired Affordances of Scholarly E-Articles: Views from Scholars Based on Open-Ended Answers
Talja, S., Tenopir, C., & Late, E. (2021) · Libri · doi:10.1515/libri-2021-0012 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationDeception Through Manipulated Citations and References as a Growing Problem in Scientific Publishing
Joshi, P. B., & Pandey, M. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-4060-4_17 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Scholarly Communication Practice and Strategies in Institutions of Higher Learning in Africa
Adakawa, M. I. (2022) · Advances in knowledge acquisition, transfer, and management book series/Advances in knowledge acquisition, transfer and management book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-9805-4.ch005 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Pepper, A., & Jantti, M. H. (2015) · Research Online (University of Wollongong) · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Factors influencing the citation behavior of Pakistani novice LIS researchers
Warraich, N. F., Ali, I., Tahira, M., & Raza, S. N. (2022) · Journal of Librarianship and Information Science · doi:10.1177/09610006221090675 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Tenopir et al. (2011) identified characteristics that researchers of 12 countries prefer while selecting articles for reading.”
BackgroundBennett, L. L. M., & Loveland, Z. (2013) · Insights the UKSG journal · doi:10.1629/2048-7754.67 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Broer, I., Lemke, S., Mazarakis, A., Peters, I., & Zinke-Wehlmann, C. (2023) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110776546 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Morris, S., Barnas, E., LaFrenier, D., et al. (2013) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139107860.009
4. What drives researchers to look up research publications they found in the news?
Brede, M., Mazarakis, A., & Peters, I. (2023) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110776546-004
HYDRA: Bridging Dynamic and Static User Modeling for Scientific Article Recommendation
Elayadi, K., & Yanes, N. (2025) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2025.09.537
Communication pathways and vaccine demand following the emergence of RHDV2 in the UK
Rolfe, N. C., Wills, A., & Dumbell, L. (2026) · Companion animal · doi:10.12968/coan.2026.0012
- Authors
- TENOPIR, C., ALLARD, S., BATES, B. J., LEVINE, K. J., KING, D. W., BIRCH, B., MAYS, R., & CALDWELL, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
- Corresponding author
- TENOPIR, Carol
- ALLARD, Suzie
- BATES, Benjamin J.
- LEVINE, Kenneth J.
- KING, Donald W.
- BIRCH, Ben
- MAYS, Regina
- CALDWELL, Chris
- Venue
- Learned Publishing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-132
- ISSN
- 0953-1513 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-4857
- OpenAlex
- W2065623431
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 12.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Learned Publishing (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Publishing Research Consortium
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- article characteristics, article selection, web accessibility, open access, peer review, journal prestige, disciplinary differences, geographic differences
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
