Start Date
19-11-2020 2:12 PM
End Date
19-11-2020 2:26 PM
Type of Work
Presentation
Description
OBJECTIVE: To determine faculty and researcher journal usage levels and their implications on library’s journal collection and access models for the past five years and compare to previous usage and implications.
1. The librarians would like to investigate changes made in the journal collection as we moved to fewer print based resources through a comparison of usage levels prior to the changes to usage levels after the changes. We had sought to seek optimum pathways for supporting the school’s curricula, research agendas, and health care enterprise. Our ultimate question is ‘How have changes correlated and compared to previous usage and needs of our users?’
2. METHODS: Using counter statistics (resources such as ScienceDirect, Ovid, Wiley, Nature, and others), ILL records, in-house usage statistics, and interviews, librarians will determine for the past five years (2016-2020) and compare to the previous five years (2011-2015) the:
1. 20 most and 20 least used journals by department and major subject division;
2. 20 most needed, but not owned, journals by department and major subject area;
3. Emerging areas of interest among faculty and researchers;
4. A short survey is to be released to all patrons to determine their preferred resources;
5. Two focus group sessions will be held with faculty and researchers and two with students to solicit additional feedback;
6. Descriptive statistics will be used to show patterns of usage;
7. Comparisons of levels of usage and costs will be made using analyses of variance in mean levels of usage and mean costs;
8. Correlations (Pearson’s r) will be determined between relative costs and usage;
9. Level of MSM related published articles.
RESULTS:
FY2011-15: 20 journals with the highest numbers of successfully retrieved articles over past 5 years included 2 that were on the list for all 5 years (Journal of Virology and Nature), accounting for 10 of the 20 slots.
FY2016-20: All journals in the top 20 used in FY2016 remained for each of the 5 years.
FY2011-15 successful use trend was up and down, while for FY2016-20, the trend generally increased until 2020.
The sum of the usage of the top 20 journals for each year trended in different ways for 2011-2015 and 2016 and 2020:
FY2011-15 successful use trend was up and down,
FY2016-20, the trend generally increased until 2020.
FY2011-2015 averaged 52,044 successful retrievals per year, while FY2016-2020 averaged 68,549 successful retrievals per year.
The sums of the usage of the top 20 journals for 2015 and 2020 totaled 11,776 and 18,908, respectively, representing a 60.51% increase.
For FY2019-2020 there were 8 publishers for the 20 most used journals.
From FY2010-2011 to FY2019-2020 the fluctuating pattern of faculty publications appear to loosely follow the pattern of journal usage as reflected in the JR1reports. Correlation of publication to use was moderate at .666 and significant at .036.
Data shows successful retrievals declined over time for top 20 for FY2011-15, but tended to increase for FY 2016-20 until FY2020.
FY2011-2015 averaged 52,044 successful retrievals per year, while FY2016-2020 averaged 68,549 successful retrievals per year.
When looking for a relationship between journal cost and usage, only moderate correlations of .406, .638, and .407 were found for FY2016, FY2018, and FY2020, respectively. However, none of the correlations were statistically significant (p = .177, .065, and .133, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS:
Data shows successful retrievals declined over time for top 20 for FY2011-15, but tended to increase for FY2016-20 until AY2020.
FY2011-2015 averaged 52,044 successful retrievals per year, while FY2016-2020 averaged 68,549 successful retrievals per year.
When looking for a relationship between journal cost and usage, only moderate correlations of .406, .638, and .407 were found for FY2016, FY2018, and FY2020, respectively. However, none of the correlations were statistically significant (p = .177, .065, and .133, respectively).
A significant (p= .036) and devilishly moderate correlation (r=.666) between faculty publication levels and journal use levels was found.
Included in
Collection Development and Management Commons, Health Sciences and Medical Librarianship Commons
Journal Usage Level Changes at Morehouse School of Medicine Library 2011-2020
OBJECTIVE: To determine faculty and researcher journal usage levels and their implications on library’s journal collection and access models for the past five years and compare to previous usage and implications.
1. The librarians would like to investigate changes made in the journal collection as we moved to fewer print based resources through a comparison of usage levels prior to the changes to usage levels after the changes. We had sought to seek optimum pathways for supporting the school’s curricula, research agendas, and health care enterprise. Our ultimate question is ‘How have changes correlated and compared to previous usage and needs of our users?’
2. METHODS: Using counter statistics (resources such as ScienceDirect, Ovid, Wiley, Nature, and others), ILL records, in-house usage statistics, and interviews, librarians will determine for the past five years (2016-2020) and compare to the previous five years (2011-2015) the:
1. 20 most and 20 least used journals by department and major subject division;
2. 20 most needed, but not owned, journals by department and major subject area;
3. Emerging areas of interest among faculty and researchers;
4. A short survey is to be released to all patrons to determine their preferred resources;
5. Two focus group sessions will be held with faculty and researchers and two with students to solicit additional feedback;
6. Descriptive statistics will be used to show patterns of usage;
7. Comparisons of levels of usage and costs will be made using analyses of variance in mean levels of usage and mean costs;
8. Correlations (Pearson’s r) will be determined between relative costs and usage;
9. Level of MSM related published articles.
RESULTS:
FY2011-15: 20 journals with the highest numbers of successfully retrieved articles over past 5 years included 2 that were on the list for all 5 years (Journal of Virology and Nature), accounting for 10 of the 20 slots.
FY2016-20: All journals in the top 20 used in FY2016 remained for each of the 5 years.
FY2011-15 successful use trend was up and down, while for FY2016-20, the trend generally increased until 2020.
The sum of the usage of the top 20 journals for each year trended in different ways for 2011-2015 and 2016 and 2020:
FY2011-15 successful use trend was up and down,
FY2016-20, the trend generally increased until 2020.
FY2011-2015 averaged 52,044 successful retrievals per year, while FY2016-2020 averaged 68,549 successful retrievals per year.
The sums of the usage of the top 20 journals for 2015 and 2020 totaled 11,776 and 18,908, respectively, representing a 60.51% increase.
For FY2019-2020 there were 8 publishers for the 20 most used journals.
From FY2010-2011 to FY2019-2020 the fluctuating pattern of faculty publications appear to loosely follow the pattern of journal usage as reflected in the JR1reports. Correlation of publication to use was moderate at .666 and significant at .036.
Data shows successful retrievals declined over time for top 20 for FY2011-15, but tended to increase for FY 2016-20 until FY2020.
FY2011-2015 averaged 52,044 successful retrievals per year, while FY2016-2020 averaged 68,549 successful retrievals per year.
When looking for a relationship between journal cost and usage, only moderate correlations of .406, .638, and .407 were found for FY2016, FY2018, and FY2020, respectively. However, none of the correlations were statistically significant (p = .177, .065, and .133, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS:
Data shows successful retrievals declined over time for top 20 for FY2011-15, but tended to increase for FY2016-20 until AY2020.
FY2011-2015 averaged 52,044 successful retrievals per year, while FY2016-2020 averaged 68,549 successful retrievals per year.
When looking for a relationship between journal cost and usage, only moderate correlations of .406, .638, and .407 were found for FY2016, FY2018, and FY2020, respectively. However, none of the correlations were statistically significant (p = .177, .065, and .133, respectively).
A significant (p= .036) and devilishly moderate correlation (r=.666) between faculty publication levels and journal use levels was found.