What we know about academic users of e-journals (Virtual Scholar)

1. What we know about academic users of e-journals (Virtual Scholar) Professor David Nicholas CIBER, UCL Centre for Publishing School of Library, Archive and Information Studies University College London david.nicholas@ucl.ac.uk www.publishing.ucl.ac.uk

2. Massive environmental changes • From control to no-control, from mediated to non mediated • From bibliographic systems to full-text, visual, interactive ones • From niche to universal systems • From a few searchers to everybody • From little choice to massive choice • From little growth to massive growth • From stability to volatility

3. Paradigm shift, no grip, floundering • Existing knowledge base obsolescent, flawed, wholly inadequate. Hard-copy paradigms • We don’t even know what questions to ask anymore • We are left generalising about too many people • Should be spending lots of time and money researching the user…but [still] are not

4. What is going on then? • Came from the Media and Heath fields with a proven methodology deep log analysis

5. Deep log analysis: attractions • Size and reach. Enormous data set; no samples • Direct/immediate record of what people have done: not what they say they might, or would, do; not what they were prompted to say, not what they thought they did • Data are unfiltered and provide a reality check sometimes missing from questionnaire and focus group • Data real-time and continuous. Creates a digital lab environment for innovation and the monitoring of change • Raises the questions that need to be asked by questionnaire, focus group and interview. These methodologies are an essential part of DLA

6. Virtual Scholar programme • Emerald Insight • Blackwell Synergy • ScienceDirect • OhioLINK • Oxford University Journals

7. Key characteristics of the virtual scholar -big and growing appetite • Seemingly massive demand for scholarly information, and rising – improved access the driver. That is the good news. • Not only are more people being drawn into the scholarly net, also existing users can search much more freely & flexibly. However, this is the bad news, while librarians have been responsible for many access initiatives, their contribution has not been widely recognised (to put it mildly).

8. Key characteristics of the virtual scholar - bouncing • Widespread, pronounced and endemic form of digital information seeking in which a high proportion of users view only few web pages from vast number available and a high proportion (usually same ones) do not return to the same website often, if at all. • Suggests, at best, a checking-comparing, dipping sort of behaviour that is a result of search engines, shortage of time and huge digital choice; or, at worse, massive failure at the terminal.

9. Key characteristics of the virtual scholar - ‘reading’ • People appear to be skimming rather than reading. Download a devalued currency? • Fact 1. People do not ‘read’ online. However, users spend moretime ‘reading’ shorter articles online than longer ones. Neither of times, respectively, 42 and 32 seconds, suggested anyone was doing anything more than scanning. • Fact 2. 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. • Implications. a) shorter articles have better chance of being read; b) users must be downloading and reading offline, but all the time? Digital osmosis? • Fact 3. In answer to Q ‘Do you always read the full paper before you cite it in your work’, over half of researchers said it depended/didn’t. • Implication. Seems to support usage data

10. Key characteristics of the virtual scholar - diversity • Move away from hits to users. Nobody works with millions of diverse users. Real differences between various types of user, especially in regard to their subject field; academic status and geographical location. We have also found, in some cases, big differences - according to gender, type of organisation worked for, type of university, and attitudes towards scholarly communication. We should rejoice in this.

11. Some diversity examples • Age of material. Users from Economics (71%) and Engineering (71%), made most views to current (one-year old) material in session; Material Science (51%) and Mathematics (52%) users the least. Scholars from Spain and China more likely to view current material. Increased visibility has meant a large increase in usage of older material • Return visits (over 5 months). Mathematicians most frequent visitors, with 41% coming back 15+ times. Engineers made least returns, with 54% making 1 visit. Repeat visits increased with age.

12. More diversity • Abstract use. Increased markedly with age of users - 14% of those aged 36-45 undertook an abstract-only session, which was half that recorded for those aged over 56. • Searching. E. Europeans (47%) recorded a relatively high % of searches resulting in zero returns. N. Americans appeared to be ‘successful’ searchers - 74% of their searches resulted in one or more matches. However, overall, Germans most ‘successful searchers (more hits, less zero searches).

13. Key characteristics of the virtual scholar - trust Authority and relevance to be won (and checked). Determining responsibility/authority a problem, take a researcher working from office: • Conducting Google search to find Synergy. On connection cookie identifies them and full text access provided. Now that researcher used a Microsoft Browser, then Google, then Synergy and then arrived at Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Might or might not have known that: a) the Library had paid the subscription, hence full-text access; b) Synergy came from Blackwell and journal was published on behalf of International Communication Association. Where does authority lie and what does it mean? Differences between age groups. Tesco example.

14. Key characteristics of the virtual scholar – increasing dominance of search engine searching Big implications • Key usage driver – Nucleic Acids Research • 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. • Undergraduates most likely to have used the search facility: 46% had compared to 26% of postgraduates, 19% of researchers and 15% of professors or teachers.

15. Nucleic Acids Research: article views 2003-2005

16. Challenges - decoupling • From users. Anonymous, work remotely. Not even conscious of library involvement. Publishers have got closer. We have COUNTER, but not enough • From Faculty. As the library ‘tax’ increases and information seen to be ‘free’ and ubiquitous, impact and outcome data increasingly demanded. The car park question. • From publishers. Librarians have alienated their old mates, the publishers, over OA and repositories. Had such a cosy relationship. Between rock and a hard place somehow comes to mind

17. Challenges – getting closer to the user • Have been bleating on about users for years, but have not made anywhere near as much progress here as we have with technology • Libraries full of technological & processing people. How many have a department dedicated to following the users every move and relating that to academic outcomes and impacts? • Even in face of a possible melt down (for some) there is a sense that only technological innovation is the answer –federated searching the latest solution or the last hurrah? • The big challenge is understanding/accommodating the concept of the digital information consumer and dealing with questions arising from the logs

18. Challenges – information literacy, brand etc • Problems in information seeking suggests that information literacy programmes could be evidence-led and outcomes tested • People searching horizontally – implications for information providers? • Accreditation, trust, brand, authority – what can be done and is federated searching the answer?

19. Conclusion • Warning. What I have been talking about does not come from the opinions/perceptions of small numbers of people. Not talking it up, just sharing data and ideas with you. • It is not too late, still more to be won than lost • But not much time, e-books (and we are studying the impact) could be the tipping point • Need leaders, demonstrating best practice through a genuinely evidence-based, user-focussed, consumer-friendly, Google-compatible and flexible service

20. Some illustrative readingswww.publishing.ucl.ac.uk • Huntington P, Nicholas D, Jamali HR , Rowlands I. Article decay in the digital environment: a usage analysis by date of publication employing deep log methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science Technology, 57(13) 2006, pp1840-1851.Nicholas D and Huntington P. Digital journals: are they really used? Interlending and Document Supply, 34(2), June 2006, pp74-77Nicholas D and Huntington P. The virtual scholar. Online Information 2006, 19-22 • Nicholas D, Huntington P, Jamali HR, Dobrowolski T. Characterising and evaluating information seeking behaviour in a digital environment: spotlight on the 'bouncer' Information Processing & Management 43, 2007, pp [in press]Nicholas D, Huntington P, Jamali HR, Tenopir, C. Finding information in (very large) digital libraries: a deep log approach to determining differences in use according to method of access. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32 (2), March 2006, pp119-126Nicholas D, Huntington P, Jamali HR , Tenopir C. OhioLINK – ten years on: what deep log analysis tells us about the impact of Big Deals. Journal of Documentation, 62 (4) July 2006, 482-508Nicholas D, Huntington P, Jamali HR, Watkinson A. The information seeking behaviour of the users of digital scholarly journals. Information Processing & Management, 42(5), 2006, pp1345-1365.Nicholas D and Rowlands I. Towards evidence-based publishing. Science in Parliament, 63(4), Autumn 2006.