Quality in the Online Environment

1
Quality in the Online Environment

• Carol Tenopir
• University of Tennessee
• ctenopir_at_utk.edu

2
Communication Means
Oral Communication
Written Reports
Secondary Publications
3
Changes in the last Decade

1. Emergence of new communication channels
2. Increasing difficulty in judging quality

4
Introduction
Total number of active periodicals 180,000
Number of refereed active journals 21,000

• Number of online refereed journals
  11,000

5
Not All E-Journals are the Same

• Full Journal Titles
• Database of Journal Articles
• Separates in E-print Servers
• Authors Website
• Institutional Repositories

6
Not All Readers Are the Same

• Variations by subject area
• Variations by workplace
• Variations by level/work role
• Variations by task/purpose of search

7
Data From

• 1977-present
• 16,000 scientists and social scientists
• University and non-university settings
• Mainly North America

8
Use and Users of Electronic Library Resources An
Overview and Analysis of Recent Research Studies.
Tenopir, Carol www.clir.org/pub/reports/pub120/pu
b120.pdf
9
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

10
Implicit Value of Reading Articles

• Users are willing to pay with their time
• Achievers read more than others
• Peer review is valued

11
Valued Attributes of Journals

• Authority (peer review)
• Quality (editorial)
• Accessibility (distribution)
• Longevity (archiving)
• Priority of discoveries and recognition (from
  authors perspective)

12
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)

13
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

14
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)

15
Perceived value of Resource Percent Rating
Resource as Critical or Very Useful for Keeping
Up with Recent Developments
16
Perceived value of Resource Percent Rating
Resource as Critical or Very Useful for Obtaining
Definitive Information
17
Subject Experts vs. Novices
18
Increasing Effective Student Use of the
Scientific Journal Literature http//web.utk.edu/
tenopir/nsf/presentations.html
19
Novices (Students)

• Rely on Internet Search Engines
• Cannot always recognize quality by traditional
  criteria
• Invent quality criteria

20
Student Comments

• If something is from .edu it has credibility.

• I did a web tutorial a year ago but dont
  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.

• Its very important for an article to be edited.

21
Summary

• Experts use a wide variety of resources

• Quality judgments important

• Librarians and instructors have important role