Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Tenopir, C."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Tenopir, C.; King, D.W.; Boyce, P.; Grayson, M.; Paulson, K.-L.: Relying an electronic journals : reading patterns of astronomers (2005) 0.04
    0.042699903 = product of:
      0.08539981 = sum of:
        0.08539981 = product of:
          0.17079961 = sum of:
            0.17079961 = weight(_text_:journals in 3558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.17079961 = score(doc=3558,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05109862 = queryNorm
                0.66570526 = fieldWeight in 3558, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3558)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Surveys of the members of the American Astronomical Society identify how astronomers use journals and what features and formats they prefer. While every work field is distinct, the patterns of use by astronomers may provide a glimpse of what to expect of journal patterns and use by other scientists. Astronomers, like other scientists, continue to invest a large amount of their time in reading articles and place a high level of importance an journal articles. They use a wide variety of formats and means to get access to materials that are essential to their work in teaching, service, and research. They select access means that are convenient-whether those means be print, electronic, or both. The availability of a mature electronic journals system from their primary professional society has surely influenced their early adoption of e-journals.
  2. Nicholas, D.; Huntington, P.; Jamali, H.R.; Tenopir, C.: What deep log analysis tells us about the impact of big deals : case study OhioLINK (2006) 0.03
    0.030816004 = product of:
      0.061632007 = sum of:
        0.061632007 = product of:
          0.123264015 = sum of:
            0.123264015 = weight(_text_:journals in 5605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.123264015 = score(doc=5605,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05109862 = queryNorm
                0.48043144 = fieldWeight in 5605, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5605)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This article presents the early findings of an exploratory deep log analysis of journal usage on OhioLINK, conducted as part of the MaxData project funded by the US Institute of Museum and Library Services. OhioLINK, the original "big deal", provides a single digital platform of nearly 6,000 full-text journal for more than 600,000 people in the state of Ohio. The purpose of the paper is not only to present findings from the deep log analysis of journal usage on OhioLINK, but, arguably more importantly, to try test a new method of analysing online information user behaviour - deep log analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The raw server logs were obtained for the period June 2004 to December 2004. For this exploratory study one month (October) of the on-campus usage logs and seven months of the off-campus transaction logs were analysed. Findings - During this period approximately 1,215,000 items were viewed on campus in October 2004 and 1,894,000 items viewed off campus between June and December 2004. The paper presents a number of usage analyses including: number of journals used, titles of journals used, use over time, a returnee analysis and a special analysis of subject, date and method of access. Practical implications - The research findings help libraries evaluate the efficiency of big deal and one-stop shopping for scholarly journals and also investigate their users' information seeking behaviours. Originality/value - The research is a part of efforts to test the applications of a new methodology, deep log analysis, for use and user studies. It also represents the most substantial independent analysis of, possibly, the most important and significant of the journal big deals ever conducted.
  3. Tenopir, C.; King, D.W.; Edwards, S.; Wu, L.: Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns : the paradox of control (2009) 0.03
    0.030816004 = product of:
      0.061632007 = sum of:
        0.061632007 = product of:
          0.123264015 = sum of:
            0.123264015 = weight(_text_:journals in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.123264015 = score(doc=2960,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05109862 = queryNorm
                0.48043144 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.
  4. Wilson, C.S.; Tenopir, C.: Local citation analysis, publishing and reading patterns : using multiple methods to evaluate faculty use of an academic library's research collection (2008) 0.03
    0.025161162 = product of:
      0.050322324 = sum of:
        0.050322324 = product of:
          0.10064465 = sum of:
            0.10064465 = weight(_text_:journals in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10064465 = score(doc=1960,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05109862 = queryNorm
                0.39227062 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.
  5. Huntington, P.; Nicholas, D.; Jamali, H.R.; Tenopir, C.: Article decay in the digital environment : an analysis of usage of OhioLINK by date of publication, employing deep log methods (2006) 0.02
    0.017791625 = product of:
      0.03558325 = sum of:
        0.03558325 = product of:
          0.0711665 = sum of:
            0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0711665 = score(doc=214,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05109862 = queryNorm
                0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 214, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=214)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The article presents the early findings of an exploratory deep log analysis of journal usage on OhioLINK, conducted as part of the MaxData project, funded by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services. OhioLINK, the original Big Deal, provides a single digital platform of nearly 6,000 full-text journals for more than 600,000 people; for the purposes of the analysis, the raw logs were obtained from OhioLINK for the period June 2004 to December 2004. During this period approximately 1,215,000 items were viewed on campus in October 2004 and 1,894,000 items viewed off campus between June and December 2004. This article provides an analysis of the age of material that users consulted. From a methodological point of view OhioLINK offered an attractive platform to conduct age of publication usage studies because it is one of the oldest e-journal libraries and thus offered a relatively long archive and stable platform to conduct the studies. The project sought to determine whether the subject, the search approach adopted, and the type of journal item viewed (contents page, abstract, full-text article, etc.) was a factor in regard to the age of articles used.
  6. Allard, S.; Levine, K.J.; Tenopir, C.: Design engineers and technical professionals at work : observing information usage in the workplace (2009) 0.01
    0.008653947 = product of:
      0.017307894 = sum of:
        0.017307894 = product of:
          0.03461579 = sum of:
            0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03461579 = score(doc=2735,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05109862 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 12:43:37