How users behave (and what libraries should do) ‏

1. David Nicholas CIBER, UCL Centre for Publishing, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies University College London david.nicholas@ucl.ac.uk www.ucl.ac.uk/slais/research/ciber How users behave(and what libraries should do)‏

2. Massive changes to information environment From mediated to non mediated From bibliographic systems to full-text, visual, interactive and on to social networks From a few searchers to everybody From little choice to massive choice From little growth to massive growth From stability to volatility From user to consumer

3. Things moved up a gear and libraries beginning to feel it Libraries have historically done well in adapting to the needs of the user. However, there are now many competitors and the absence of a user based approach and user intelligence beginning to tell. Threat from a combination of search engines, social network sites and publishers

4. Virtual Scholar programme Success comes through understanding the user - share the results of 5 years work monitoring information seeking of the virtual scholar Interestingly, mostly funded by publishers. Evidence-based It’s surprising and, possibly, disturbing Three CIBER studies inform this paper: 1) The Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future; 2) SuperBook ; 3) OhioLINK

5. Key characteristics of the virtual scholar and implications for libraries

6. 1. They have big and growing appetites Massive demand for scholarly information and improved access the main driver. Not only are more people being drawn into the scholarly net, but existing users can search much more freely & flexibly. That is the good news. However, this is the bad news, while librarians have been responsible for many access initiatives, their contribution not always recognised.

7. 2. They are bouncers and flickers Widespread, pronounced and endemic form of digital information seeking in which half of users to any site view only a few pages from vast number available and a similar proportion (usually same ones) do not return to the same website often, if at all. A good proportion of scholarly users are promiscuous and to keep them need constantly to raise awareness through enhanced digital visibility, especially on search engines, social network sites.

8. 3. They are navigators Navigating towards content in very large digital spaces is a major activity as demonstrated by the number of views to menus, lists and search pages. Exploded contents, numerous search/browse opportunities fuel this. Especially the case with e-books. Big question whether being given massive choice to navigate towards content sowing seeds of confusion and leading to high bouncer rates. Do younger users understand what is being offered?

9. 4. They are viewers Not surprising because Internet is theatre. Evidence : Half of all cases saw an article viewed for less than 2 minutes, insufficient time to read them [Ohio] Spend moretime ‘reading’ short articles online than long ones [ScienceDirect]. As length of article increases greater chance it will only be viewed as an abstract and less chance that it will be viewed full text [ScienceDirect]. Power browsing substituting for reading. Are people reading offline? What of the full-text download as the gold-standard outcome/satisfaction metric?

10. Interim conclusions Suggests, at best, a checking-comparing, pick and mix sort of behaviour that is a result of search engines, shortage of time and huge digital choice. Shift to horizontal rather than vertical information seeking. Or, at worse, a ‘dumbing down’ in searching and failure at the terminal. Possibly the new digital audience for scholarly products includes people who have little experience of searching and the virtual information world. If the latter this is worrying in a world where virtually all transactions – life and academic, are undertaken. And whose responsibility for digital literacy etc.

11. 5. They are diverse Need to move from hits to users (and then outcomes). COUNTER provides activity indicators and some activity questionable. Real differences between various types of user, especially in regard to their subject field, academic status and geographical location. We have also found differences - according to gender, type of organisation worked for, type of university, and attitudes towards scholarly communication.

12. Diversity examples By academic status (staff/student) Usage. Staff view more pages in a session than students [Ohio] Type of page. Staff more likely to view an abstract [Ohio]. Viewing of articles as PDFs increased as users moved up the academic scale, from undergraduate to professor/teacher [Synergy]. Reading online. Students more likely to undertake sessions lasting more than 15 minutes, evidence, of greater online reading [Ohio] Subject diversity. Staff accounted for a high proportion of Social Science use but a very low proportion of Science use [Ohio]. Currency. Students prefer more current material [Ohio]

13. Diversity examples By age Abstract use. Increased markedly with age of users [ScienceDirect] Repeat visits increased with age [ScienceDirect] By nationality Americans appeared to be ‘successful’ searchers – three-quarters of their searches resulted in one or more matches. However, overall, Germans most ‘successful searchers - more hits, less zero searches [ScienceDirect]. Scholars from Spain and China more likely to view current journals [ScienceDirect].

14. Diversity examples By subject Mathematicians most frequent visitors, with two-fifths coming back 15+ times over a year. Engineers made least returns, with over a half making just 1 visit. [ScienceDirect] Users from Economics and Engineering made most views to current (one-year old) material in session – nearly three quarters of views. Material Science and Mathematics users the current literature least – accounting for just over half of all views.

15. 6. They like search engines And people using search engine were: far more likely to conduct a session that included a view to an older article; more likely to view more subject areas, more journal titles, and also viewed more articles and abstracts too. Libraries have woken-up to this and are providing their own but what of the significance of above in regard to archiving/retention policies, for instance

16. 7. They are brand-aware Authority and relevance to be won (and checked – hence bouncing). Personal recommendation increasingly important as a result of the growth of social networks. Determining responsibility/authority a problem in a digital environment, take the example of a researcher working from office. Decisions about who is authoritative not quite what you might expect and there are differences between age groups. Supermarket example. Walled garden. Google association. Brand by reflection.

17. 8. They are changing (GoogleGeneration)‏ A looming crisis in information literacy Shovelware no longer works as a publishing concept A sea change in attitudes to intellectual property Growth in digital dissidence?

18. The really big challenges for digital libraries

19. The decoupling scenario From users. Library increasingly anonymous third parties, as users work remotely and e-books will accelerate this. Publishers moved closer to the user as the Virtual Scholar programme has shown. Transactions now go on in their neck of the woods. COUNTER, but not enough. National E-books Observatory Project could way. From publishers; they own powerful virtual libraries and they are increasingly moving into your territory. OUP example. Librarians have alienated their old ‘mates’, the publishers, over OA and IR. From faculty. As library ‘tax’ increases and information is seen to be ‘free’ and ubiquitous. Impact and outcome data will be demanded and increase access arguments alone will not win the day. The car park question.

20. Getting closer to the user Have been bleating on about users for years, but have not made much progress. How many libraries a department dedicated to following the users every move and relating that to academic outcomes and impacts? RIN Big challenge here is understanding/accommodating the concept of the digital information consumer and dealing with questions arising from the logs.

21. E-books Online reading lists with direct links to e-textbooks, where contents laid out for the bouncing user are surely a powerful cocktail. Sure to result in students deserting the physical library space. E-monographs might have a similar impact on humanities and social science scholars as e-journals had on their scientific colleagues

22. Conclusion Badly need leaders, demonstrating best practice through a genuinely evidence-based, user-focussed, consumer-friendly, Google-compatible services. Flexibility, innovation and change through e-observatories