1 / 21

Quality in the Online Environment

Quality in the Online Environment. Carol Tenopir University of Tennessee ctenopir@utk.edu. Discussions. Reviews. Articles. Communication Means. Oral Communication. Written Reports. Secondary Publications. Changes in the last Decade. Emergence of new communication channels

sorena
Download Presentation

Quality in the Online Environment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality in the Online Environment Carol Tenopir University of Tennessee ctenopir@utk.edu C. Tenopir

  2. Discussions Reviews Articles Communication Means Oral Communication Written Reports Secondary Publications C. Tenopir

  3. Changes in the last Decade • Emergence of new communication channels • Increasing difficulty in judging quality C. Tenopir

  4. Introduction Total number of active periodicals ~180,000 Number of refereed active journals ~21,000 Number of online refereed journals ~11,000 C. Tenopir

  5. Not All “E-Journals” are the Same • Full Journal Titles • Database of Journal Articles • Separates in E-print Servers • Authors’ Website • Institutional Repositories C. Tenopir

  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 C. Tenopir

  7. Data From: • 1977-present • 16,000+ scientists and social scientists • University and non-university settings • Mainly North America C. Tenopir

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

  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” C. Tenopir

  10. Implicit Value of Reading Articles • Users are “willing to pay” with their time • Achievers read more than others • Peer review is valued C. Tenopir

  11. Valued Attributes of Journals • Authority (peer review) • Quality (editorial) • Accessibility (distribution) • Longevity (archiving) • Priority of discoveries and recognition (from author’s perspective) C. Tenopir

  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%) C. Tenopir

  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 C. Tenopir

  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) C. Tenopir

  15. Perceived value of Resource Percent Rating Resource as Critical or Very Useful for Keeping Up with Recent Developments C. Tenopir

  16. Perceived value of Resource Percent Rating Resource as Critical or Very Useful for Obtaining Definitive Information C. Tenopir

  17. Subject Experts vs. Novices C. Tenopir

  18. Increasing Effective Student Use of the Scientific Journal Literature http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir/nsf/presentations.html C. Tenopir

  19. Novices (Students) • Rely on Internet Search Engines • Cannot always recognize quality by traditional criteria • Invent quality criteria C. Tenopir

  20. Student Comments • “If something is from .edu it has credibility.” • “I did a web tutorial a year ago but don’t 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.” • “It’s very important for an article to be edited.” C. Tenopir

  21. Subject experts judge journal name, authors, etc. • Novices may not know how to judge quality Summary • Experts use a wide variety of resources • Quality judgments important • Librarians and instructors have important role C. Tenopir

More Related