• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
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

on

  • 129 views

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

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

Statistics

Views

Total Views
129
Views on SlideShare
115
Embed Views
14

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 14

http://2013charlestonconference.sched.org 14

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Consulted departmental web sites and randomly selected faculty. Student assistants downloaded the faculty CV’s and copied and pasted the list of citations in each of their publications into a spreadsheet. The sample size was different for each broad area because of the large variance in the number of citations in the broad subject areas. The citations were randomized in Excel and 22% of the citations collected were actually analyzed. (3222 out of 14,541). WE concentrated our analysis on journals and books. Each citation was searched in WorldCat and this data was collected. Limitations were noted – We had no way of knowing if the materials in the sample were accessible during the time the research was actually conducted, so we agreed that currently available publications would be recorded as accessible. We were also concerned that the CV’s may not be current, which could also skew the results of our study.
  • EEB – 354 citations analyzed – 86% were provided by the KU Libraries24% available in print-only, 27% in electronic only, 49% were duplicated in print and electronic formatGeology – 493 citations were analyzed, 82% were provided by the KU Libraries33% were print-only, 18% were electronic-only, 50% were dupicatedPhysics – 547 citations were analyzed, KU Libraries provided 87%25% were print-only, 36% were electronic only, 39% were duplicated
  • EEB- of the 14% not owned by KU, 28% were books, while 56% were journalsGeology – of the 18% no owned by KU, 33% were books and 53% were journalsPhysics – of the 13% not owned by KU, 35% were books and 3% were journals
  • EEB – 75% were from journals90% were available in print and/or electronic formats28% were available in electronic-only and 14% were available in only in print58% were available in both formats88% of the citations could be found in the Q call number range and the top publishers were Wiley-Blackwell and Elsevier. The average publication date was 1992.Geology – 82% of the citations were from journalsKU provided access to 88%, 18% available e-only, 27% in print-only, 55% were duplicated in print and electronic formats88% were found in the Q call number range, the top publishers were the Geologic Society of America, Wiley-Blackwell, and ElsevierThe average publication date was 1990.Physics – 74% of the citations were from journals, KU provided access to 95%, 39% were from e-only, 12% from print-only, 49% duplication94% could be found in the Q call number range and Elsevier and the American Physical Society were the top publishers. The average publication date was 1996.
  • EEB – 70% were available in large journal packages, 50% were available in aggregator databasesGeology – 69% were available in large journal packages, 21% were available in aggregator databasesPhysics – 85% were available in large journal packages, 21% were available in aggregator databases
  • EEB- 75% were in print or electronic formats, 7% were e-books, 80% were print, 13% were in both formatsThe top publishers were Cambridge and Wiley-Blackwell. 88% were in the Q call number range. The average publication date was 1991.Geology – 50% of the books were in were in electronic format while 86% were in print, 8% were in both formats. There were no dominant publisher in Geology, 76% were in the Q call number range, and the average publication date was 1990.Physics – 11% were e-books, 89% were in print-only, and there was no duplication in formats. 89% were located in the Q call number range, Cambridge and Wiley-Blackwell were the lead publishers, and 1997 was the average publication date.
  • Economics – 277 citations were analyzed. KU owned 86% of them, 20% in print-only, and 18% e-only. 62% were duplicated in print and electronic formatsPolitical Science – 446 citations were analyzed. KU provided access to 90% of them. 43% in print, 15% in e-only. 42% were duplicated.Psychology – 523 citations were analyzed. KU provided access to 89%. 29% in print, 20% e-only. 51% were duplcated.
  • Economics – Of the 14% not owned by KU, 28% were books and 49% were journals.Political Science – 10% were not accessible at KU. 50% were books and 11% were journalsPsychology – 11% not owned, 30% were books, while 61% were journals
  • Economics – 81% of the citations were from journals. 92% were accessible from KU, 17% e-only, 13% print-only, 71% duplicationElsevier, Oxford, and Springer were the top publishers, 86% could be found in the H call number range, and 1996 was the average publication date.Political Science – Only 42% of the citations were from journals. KU supplied 97%, 22% e-only, 5% in print. 73% were duplicatedWiley-Blackwell, Cambridge, and Springer were the top publishers. The top call numbers were J (5%), D (13%), and H (12%). The average publication date was 1995.Psychology – 81% of the citations were from journals. KU provided 82% of these, 20% e-only, 22% print, 59% were duplicated.Plenum Press, American Psychological Association, and Sage were the dominant presses. The top call number ranges were R (26%), B (25%), and H (23%). 1996 was the average publication date.
  • Economics – 58% were from large journal packages, 39% in aggregator databasesPolitical Sciences – 42% were from journal packages, 86% in aggregator databasesPsychology – 67% were from journal packages, 27% were from aggregator databases
  • Economics – KU owned 67% of the books cited. 95% were available in print and 5% were duplicated in print and electronic formats. None were e-only.The top publisher was Elsevier. The most popular call number ranges were H (7%) and Q (21%). The average publication date was 1999.Political Science – KU owned 89% of the books cited. 2% e-only, 86% print. 12% duplication. University Presses were dominant. J (61%) and H (14%). 1995 was the average publication date.Psychology – KU owned 80% of the books cited. 6% e-only, 85% print. 9% duplication. Top publishers were Wiley-Blackwell and Lawrence Erlbaum. Call number ranges were R (26%), B (25%), and H (23%). The average publication date was 1996.
  • Art History – 105 citations were analyzed. KU owned 67%. 80% were in print, 11% e-only. 9% were duplicated in print and electronic formats.Of the 33% not owned, 43% were books and 11% were books. 43% were works of art.English – 285 citations were analyzed. KU provided 88%. 70% print-only, 7% e-only. 23% duplication. Of the 12% not owned, 85% books and 15% journals.Philosophy – 75 citations were analyzed. KU owned 97%, 34% print and 11% e-only. 55% were duplicated in both formats. Of the 3% no owned by KU, 100% were books.
  • Art History – Only 12% of the citations were from journals. KU provided 69%. None of them were available in e-only format and there was no duplication.University of London Press was the top publisher. The dominant call number range was N (38%). The average publication date was 1959.English – 23% of the citations were from journals. KU provided 92%. 20% e-only, 22% print. 58% duplication.The top presses were Sage and National Council of Teachers of English. 34% in P call number range and 18% in the L’s. The average publication date was 1990.Philosophy – 61% of the citation in Philosophy were for journals. KU provided 100%. 17% e-only, 4% print. 78% duplication. Oxford and Wiley-Blackwell were the top publishers. The top call numbers were H (39%), K (33%), L (15%), and B (11%). The average publication date was 2001.
  • Art History – none of the journals were available in a package. 56% were available from an aggregator.English – 46% were available in a package, 52% in an aggregator.Philosophy – 46% were available in a package, 87% in aggegators.
  • Art History – 71% of the citations were for books. None of these were available electronically and there was no duplication.The top presses were Cambridge and Routledge. 62% were found in the N call number range. The average publication date was 1966.English – 77% of the citations were books, 19% e-only, 87% in only print. 12% duplication. Routledge, Oxford, and Lawrence Erlbaum were the top publishers and 56% could be found in the P’s. 1989 was the average publication date.Philosophy – Ku owns 93% of the books cited. None in e-only, 88% in print-only, and 12% were duplicated in both formats. Cambridge and Wiley-Blackwell were the dominant publishers, and the call numbers replicated those of the journals. 1999 was the average publication date.
  • We were gratified to find out we provided satisfactory coverage in all subject areas.We were a little mortified to find some much overlap in formats, since we have made a concerted effort to de-duplicate print and electronic journals. This is probably due to publishers’ policies not to allow cancellation of print without losing access to electronic journals. Happy to see that expensive packages and aggregators are being used.Surprised at the older publication dates, especially in the sciences.Surprised to see that faculty in the social sciences still use quite a few books.Happy that given the amount of money we spend on the top publishers, they are widely used by all of the disciplines.

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 Presentation Transcript

  • 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
  • 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 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: SOCIAL SCIENCES
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: HUMANITIES
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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).