Electronic journals and user behavior: A review of recent research

A study of non-users of digital libraries: the case of the Capes digital library in Brazil

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to understand the reasons that hinder the use of digital libraries.

Design/methodology/approach

This study analyzed data obtained through a web survey sent to 14,763 faculty members in Brazilian universities. Of the 6,689 respondents, 1,075 (16.1%) reported not using the Capes digital library and 1,017 answered the questionnaire for non-users.

Findings

Results showed that the main reasons for non-use are lack of knowledge of the existence of the Capes digital library, use of other resources, preference for printed journals and difficulty of access. Eight factors of non-use were elicited: insufficient dissemination, inadequacies in contents, in infrastructure, in access policy, in training and in the interface, personal constraints and personal attitude. The reasons and factors for non-use were categorized as intrinsic and extrinsic to the digital library. Intrinsic reasons relate to characteristics of the Capes digital library. Extrinsic factors are influenced by user characteristics. The chi-square test demonstrated that the variables: area of knowledge, age, hours dedicated to research and computer skills influence non-use.

Originality/value

This study has contributed to research about non-users of digital libraries, differing from previous research by surveying a large-scale population and by investigating in a single work the reasons for non-use, other electronic sources used by non-users, advantages of using the digital library and intention of non-users to become users if barriers were removed. Qualitative data complemented the quantitative data collected which allowed a more complete picture of the respondent’s positions.

Reading practices in scholarly work: from articles and books to blogs

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of reading in scholarly work among academics in Finland. This study analyzes readings from a variety of publication types including books, conference proceedings, research reports, magazines, newspapers, blogs, non-fiction and fiction.

Design/methodology/approach

An online survey was developed and distributed in Finland in 2016–2017 (n=528). Participants were asked their finding and use of scholarly information resources of all types.

Findings

Scholars read from a variety of publications. Different types of publications are read and used differently. Reading also varies between disciplines, ranks, work responsibilities and type of research performed.

Research limitations/implications

The study was a nationwide study of researchers in Finland; therefore, all findings are within the context of researchers in a single country. All results are self-reported; therefore, the authors assume but cannot be sure that respondents accurately recollect the specifics of their use of scholarly information.

Practical implications

The results of this study are relevant to publishers, research librarians, editors and others who serve consumers of scholarly information resources, design information products and services for those scholars, and seek to better understand the information needs and use of a variety of types of scholarly publications.

Originality/value

This study replicates previous studies in a variety of countries and provides a more up-to-date and single-country contextualized overview of how researchers find and use scholarly information in their work.

Chen S. Cognitive styles and the use of electronic journals in a mobile context

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to examine how different cognitive style groups use electronic journals via mobile devices, with an emphasis on the use of search mechanisms, the approaches to judge the relevance and to refine the results, the use of horizontal screens, and on the influence of negative emotions.

Design/methodology/approach

– Participants’ cognitive styles were identified as Holists and Serialists with Ford's Study Preference Questionnaire. The behaviour of the participants interacting with the ScienceDirect was observed and was analysed with both traditional statistics and data mining.

Findings

– Holists prefer to use multiple searches when undertaking the Expert Search only, which is a complex search mechanism. Conversely, Serialists have a tendency to use multiple searches, irrespective of the complexity of search mechanisms. Additionally, the Expert Search may be helpful for Serialists while the Basic Search seems beneficial to Holists. Regarding the judgement of relevance, Holists tend to use a variety of approaches while Serialists prefer to use a single approach. In general, the major results of this study confirm those of Vilar and Žumer (2008).

Originality/value

– The novelty of this study covers two aspects. One is to examine the behaviour of Holists and Serialists in the mobile context of electronic journals and the other is to analyse data with an integrative approach that combines both traditional statistics and data mining. The former contributes to the understandings of how to design mobile electronic journals that can accommodate the needs of different cognitive style groups. The latter can not only strengthen the reliability of the results obtained from traditional statistics, but also discover findings neglected by traditional statistics.

Academic opinions of Wikipedia and Open Access publishing

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to examine academics’ awareness of and attitudes towards Wikipedia and Open Access journals for academic publishing to better understand the perceived benefits and challenges of these models.

Design/methodology/approach

– Bases for analysis include comparison of the models, enumeration of their advantages and disadvantages, and investigation of Wikipedia's web structure in terms of potential for academic publishing. A web survey was administered via department-based invitations and listservs.

Findings

– The survey results show that: Wikipedia has perceived advantages and challenges in comparison to the Open Access model; the academic researchers’ increased familiarity is associated with increased comfort with these models; and the academic researchers’ attitudes towards these models are associated with their familiarity, academic environment, and professional status.

Research limitations/implications

– The major limitation of the study is sample size. The result of a power analysis with GPower shows that authors could only detect big effects in this study at statistical power 0.95. The authors call for larger sample studies that look further into this topic.

Originality/value

– This study contributes to the increasing interest in adjusting methods of creating and disseminating academic knowledge by providing empirical evidence of the academics’ experiences and attitudes towards the Open Access and Wikipedia publishing models. This paper provides a resource for researchers interested in scholarly communication and academic publishing, for research librarians, and for the academic community in general.