CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 314Library Collection Development and Digital ResourcesLibrary Science and InformationLibrary Science and Information Literacy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns

Tenopir, Carol, King, Donald W., Edwards, Sheri, Wu, Lei·2009·Aslib Proceedings
DOI 10.1108/00012530910932267
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: By tracking the information‐seeking and reading patterns of science, technology, medical and social science faculty members from 1977 to the present, this paper seeks to examine how faculty members locate, obtain, read, and use scholarly articles and how this has changed with the widespread availability of electronic journals and journal alternatives. Design/methodology/approach: Data were gathered using questionnaire surveys of university faculty and other researchers periodically since 1977. Many questions used the critical incident of the last article reading to allow analysis of the characteristics of readings in addition to characteristics of readers. Findings: The paper finds that the average number of readings per year per science faculty member continues to increase, while the average time spent per reading is decreasing. Electronic articles now account for the majority of readings, though most readings are still printed on paper for final reading. Scientists report reading a higher proportion of older articles from a wider range of journal titles and more articles from library e‐collections. Articles are read for many purposes and readings are valuable to those purposes. Originality/value: The paper draws on data collected in a consistent way over 30 years. It provides a unique look at how electronic journals and other developments have influenced changes in reading behavior over three decades. The use of critical incidence provides evidence of the value of reading in addition to reading patterns.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/00012530910932267

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 66 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Andrews, J. (1991), “The use of the critical incident research technique in an academic library”, Library & Information Research News, Vol. 14 No. 50, pp. 22‐7.
  2. Cakir, A., Hart, D.J. and Stewart, T.F.M. (1980), Visual Display Terminals, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
  3. Dervin, B. (1992), “From the mind's eye of the ‘user’: the sense‐making qualitative‐quantitative methodology”, in Glazier, J.D. and Powell, R.R. (Eds), Qualitative Research in Information Management, Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO, pp. 61‐84.
  4. Meadows, A.J. (1998), Communicating Research, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
  5. Tenopir, C. (2003b), “Electronic publishing: research issues for librarians and users”, Library Trends, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 614‐35.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–313 of 313

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Edwards, S., & Wu, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
ORCID
Tenopir, Carol
Venue
Aslib Proceedings
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2009-01-16
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
5-32
ISSN
0001-253X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/00012530910932267
OpenAlex
W2135649938
Cited by
314
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 30
FWCI
86.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
Aslib Journal of Information Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Collection Development and Digital Resources
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
electronic journals, information seeking, reading patterns, university faculty, critical incident technique, reading time

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