proving the value of library collections part ii: an interdisciplinary study using citation analysis

PROVING THE VALUE OF LIBRARY COLLECTIONS PART II:

An Interdisciplinary Study Using Citation Analysis

Lea Currie, Head of Content Development, University of Kansas [email protected]

Amalia Monroe-Gulick, Strategy & Assessment Librarian, University of Kansas [email protected]

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

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?

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

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: SCIENCES

Sciences: KU Access

EEB Geology Physics0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% Items Owned by KU (print and/or elec-tronic)

% Items Owned by KU (print only)

% Items Owned by KU (electronic only)

% Items Owned by KU (print and electronic duplication)

Sciences: No KU Access


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% Citations Not Owned by KU

% Citations Not Owned (Books)

% Citations Not Owned (Journal Articles)

Sciences: Journal Citations


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% of Total Citations

% Journal Citations with Print or Electronic Cov-erage

% Journal Citations KU Owned with Electronic Coverage Only

% Journal Citations KU Owned with Print Coverage Only

% Journal Citations KU Owned Electronic & Print Coverage (duplication)

Sciences: Electronic Journal Access


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% Journal Citations in a Journal Package

% Journal Citations in Aggregators

% Journal Citations in 1 Aggregator

% Journal Citations in 2 or more Aggregators

Sciences: Book Citations


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% Book Citations with Print or Electronic Coverage

% Book Citations with Electronic Coverage Only

% Book Citations with Print Coverage Only

% Book Citations Electronic & Print Coverage (duplication)

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: SOCIAL SCIENCES

Social Sciences: KU Access

Economics Political Science Psychology0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% Items Owned by KU (print and/or electronic)

% Items Owned by KU (print only)

% Items Owned by KU (electronic only)

% Items Owned by KU (print and electronic duplication)

Social Sciences: No KU Access


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Social Sciences: Journal Citations


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


% Journal Citations with Print or Electronic Coverage


% Journal Citations KU Owned with Print Cov-erage Only


Social Sciences: Electronic Journal Access


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





Social Sciences: Book Citations


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: HUMANITIES

Humanities: KU Access

Art History English Philosophy0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




% Citations Not Owned (Works of art)

Humanities: Journal Citations


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


% Journal Citations with Print or Electronic Coverage


% Journal Citations KU Owned with Print Coverage Only


Humanities: Electronic Journal Access


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





Humanities: Book Citations


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





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.

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).

proving the value of library collections part ii: an interdisciplinary study using citation analysis

Technology

journal citations ku

electronic journal access

owned journal articles40

ku electronic only40

ku access

ku print only50

electronic coverage

electronic coverage