1C. Tenopir

Quality in the Online Environment

Carol TenopirUniversity of Tennessee

ctenopir@utk.edu

2C. Tenopir

Oral Communication

Written Reports

Secondary Publications Articles

Rev

iew

s

Discussions

Communication Means

3C. Tenopir

Changes in the last Decade

1. Emergence of new communication channels

2. Increasing difficulty in judging quality

4C. Tenopir

Introduction

Number of online refereed journals ~11,000

Number of refereed active journals

~21,000

Total number of active periodicals ~180,000

5C. Tenopir

Not All “E-Journals” are the Same

• Full Journal Titles

• Database of Journal Articles

• Separates in E-print Servers

• Authors’ Website

• Institutional Repositories

6C. Tenopir

Not All Readers Are the Same

• Variations by subject area

• Variations by workplace

• Variations by level/work role

• Variations by task/purpose of search

7C. Tenopir

Data From:

• 1977-present

• 16,000+ scientists and social scientists

• University and non-university settings

• Mainly North America

8C. Tenopir

Explicit Value of Reading Articles

• Readers report improved productivity, quality, and timeliness of work

• Readers report many purposes of reading

• Readings influence purposes in a positive way

• Hardly ever report a reading “wasted my time”

9C. Tenopir

Implicit Value of Reading Articles

• Users are “willing to pay” with their time

• Achievers read more than others

• Peer review is valued

10C. Tenopir

Valued Attributes of Journals

• Authority (peer review)

• Quality (editorial)

• Accessibility (distribution)

• Longevity (archiving)

• Priority of discoveries and recognition (from author’s perspective)

11C. Tenopir

Value of Readings to Medical Faculty

• Inspired new thinking or ideas (55%)

• Improved the result of the purpose (55%)

• Narrowed, broadened, or changed their views (30%)

• Saved time or other resources (16%)

• Resolved problems (12%)

12C. Tenopir

What Scientists Are Reading

• Approx. 50% of readings contain information that is new to the reader

• Over 35% of readings are of articles older than one year

• Older articles tend to be more valuable to scientists’ work

13C. Tenopir

Studies of User Groups

• University faculty (1977 to present)

• University students (2001 to present)

• Engineers (1977 to present)

• Medical faculty (1977 to present)

• Doctors (pediatricians) (2004)

• Astronomers (2001-2002)

14C. Tenopir

Perceived value of Resource Percent Rating Resource as Critical or Very Useful

for Keeping Up with Recent Developments

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Non-Productive

Average Productive

Journals

e-prints

15C. Tenopir

Perceived value of Resource Percent Rating Resource as Critical or Very Useful

for Obtaining Definitive Information

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Non-Productive

Average Productive

Journals

eprints

16C. Tenopir

Subject Experts vs. Novices

17C. Tenopir

Increasing Effective Student Use of the Scientific Journal Literature

http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir/nsf/presentations.html

18C. Tenopir

Novices (Students)

• Rely on Internet Search Engines

• Cannot always recognize quality by traditional criteria

• Invent quality criteria

19C. Tenopir

Student Comments

•“If something is from .edu it has credibility.”

•“I did a web tutorial a year ago but don’t remember any of it.”

•“If I can't find it in 30 seconds, it's not worth finding.”

•“The professor gave us an article that no one in the group, including the professor, could understand.”

•“It’s very important for an article to be edited.”

20C. Tenopir

Summary

• Experts use a wide variety of resources

• Quality judgments important

• Librarians and instructors have important role

• Subject experts judge journal name, authors, etc.

• Novices may not know how to judgequality