O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Proving the Value of Library Collections Part II: An Interdisciplinary Study Using Citation Analysis

189 visualizações

Publicada em

Amalia Monroe-Gullick (speaker), Lea Currie (speaker)

Publicada em: Tecnologia, Educação
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Proving the Value of Library Collections Part II: An Interdisciplinary Study Using Citation Analysis

  1. 1. PROVING THE VALUE OF LIBRARY COLLECTIONS PART II: An Interdisciplinary Study Using Citation Analysis Lea Currie, Head of Content Development, University of Kansas Libraries lcurrie@ku.edu Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Strategy & Assessment Librarian, University of Kansas Libraries almonroe@ku.edu
  2. 2. Project Objectives: 1. Prove the value of the KU Libraries by demonstrating that the Libraries provide access to the necessary resources that faculty use to conduct their research. 2. Identify weaknesses in the library collections that could be corrected
  3. 3. Research Questions: 1. What formats are used by faculty? 2. Items available electronically, in print, or both? 3. What is the age of the cited items? 4. How are the cited journals purchased? 5. What are the most frequently cited publishers? 6. Do citation patterns vary among the disciplines?
  4. 4. Methodology: 1. Journal articles published 2005 to the present were used as parameters for inclusion in the analysis 2.Each citation was analyzed to record the following data: • Publisher • Publication date • Format (journal article, book, report, etc.) • Call number • KU availability • Print access • Electronic access • Journal package access • Aggregator database access
  5. 5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: SCIENCES
  6. 6. Sciences: KU Access 100% 90% 80% 70% % Items Owned by KU (print and/or electronic) 60% % Items Owned by KU (print only) 50% % Items Owned by KU (electronic only) 40% % Items Owned by KU (print and electronic duplication) 30% 20% 10% 0% EEB Geology Physics
  7. 7. Sciences: No KU Access 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% % Citations Not Owned by KU 50% % Citations Not Owned (Books) % Citations Not Owned (Journal Articles) 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% EEB Geology Physics
  8. 8. Sciences: Journal Citations 100% 90% 80% 70% % of Total Citations 60% % Journal Citations with Print or Electronic Coverage % Journal Citations KU Owned with Electronic Coverage Only 50% % Journal Citations KU Owned with Print Coverage Only 40% % Journal Citations KU Owned Electronic & Print Coverage (duplication) 30% 20% 10% 0% EEB Geology Physics
  9. 9. Sciences: Electronic Journal Access 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% % Journal Citations in a Journal Package % Journal Citations in Aggregators 50% % Journal Citations in 1 Aggregator % Journal Citations in 2 or more Aggregators 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% EEB Geology Physics
  10. 10. Sciences: Book Citations 100% 90% 80% 70% % Book Citations with Print or Electronic Coverage 60% % Book Citations with Electronic Coverage Only 50% % Book Citations with Print Coverage Only 40% % Book Citations Electronic & Print Coverage (duplication) 30% 20% 10% 0% EEB Geology Physics
  11. 11. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: SOCIAL SCIENCES
  12. 12. Social Sciences: KU Access 100% 90% 80% 70% % Items Owned by KU (print and/or electronic) 60% % Items Owned by KU (print only) 50% % Items Owned by KU (electronic only) 40% % Items Owned by KU (print and electronic duplication) 30% 20% 10% 0% Economics Political Science Psychology
  13. 13. Social Sciences: No KU Access 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% % Citations Not Owned by KU 50% % Citations Not Owned (Books) % Citations Not Owned (Journal Articles) 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Economics Political Science Psychology
  14. 14. Social Sciences: Journal Citations 100% 90% 80% % of Total Citations 70% 60% % Journal Citations with Print or Electronic Coverage 50% % Journal Citations KU Owned with Electronic Coverage Only 40% % Journal Citations KU Owned with Print Coverage Only % Journal Citations KU Owned Electronic & Print Coverage (duplication) 30% 20% 10% 0% Economics Political Science Psychology
  15. 15. Social Sciences: Electronic Journal Access 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% % Journal Citations in a Journal Package 50% % Journal Citations in Aggregators % Journal Citations in 1 Aggregator 40% % Journal Citations in 2 or more Aggregators 30% 20% 10% 0% Economics Political Science Psychology
  16. 16. Social Sciences: Book Citations 100% 90% 80% 70% % Book Citations with Print or Electronic Coverage 60% % Book Citations with Electronic Coverage Only 50% % Book Citations with Print Coverage Only 40% % Book Citations Electronic & Print Coverage (duplication) 30% 20% 10% 0% Economics Political Science Psychology
  17. 17. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: HUMANITIES
  18. 18. Humanities: KU Access 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% % Citations Not Owned by KU % Citations Not Owned (Books) 50% % Citations Not Owned (Journal Articles) % Citations Not Owned (Works of art) 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Art History English Philosophy
  19. 19. Humanities: Journal Citations 100% 90% 80% 70% % of Total Citations 60% % Journal Citations with Print or Electronic Coverage 50% % Journal Citations KU Owned with Electronic Coverage Only 40% % Journal Citations KU Owned with Print Coverage Only 30% % Journal Citations KU Owned Electronic & Print Coverage (duplication) 20% 10% 0% Art History English Philosophy
  20. 20. Humanities: Electronic Journal Access 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% % Journal Citations in a Journal Package % Journal Citations in Aggregators 50% % Journal Citations in 1 Aggregator % Journal Citations in 2 or more Aggregators 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Art History English Philosophy
  21. 21. Humanities: Book Citations 100% 90% 80% 70% % Book Citations with Print or Electronic Coverage 60% % Book Citations with Electronic Coverage Only 50% % Book Citations with Print Coverage Only 40% % Book Citations Electronic & Print Coverage (duplication) 30% 20% 10% 0% Art History English Philosophy
  22. 22. Discussion & Conclusions: • Overall, we provided 92% of the journals and 80% of the • • • • • • • • books. We provided 85% humanities, 89% social sciences, and 85% of the sciences citations. 52% overlap in print and electronic formats 26% overlap in the humanities, 65% in the social sciences, and 97% in the sciences. 67% of the journals were in packages. 38% in aggregator databases. 1991 overall average publication date. Some faculty cited little in their own disciplines. Top publishers were Wiley-Blackwell, Elsevier, Oxford, and Cambridge.
  23. 23. Questions? • Currie, Lea and Amalia Monroe-Gulick, “What do our faculty use? An Interdisciplinary Citation Analysis Study,” Journal of Academic Librarianship (Available online, September 26, 2013).

×