Are e‐readers suitable tools for scholarly work? Results from a user test

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to offer insights into the usability, acceptance and limitations of e-readers with regard to the specific requirements of scholarly text work. To fit into the academic workflow non-linear reading, bookmarking, commenting, extracting text or the integration of non-textual elements must be supported. Design/methodology/approach -A group of social science students were questioned about their experiences with electronic publications for study purposes. This same group executed several text-related tasks with the digitized material presented to them in two different file formats on four different e-readers. Their performances were subsequently evaluated by means of frequency analyses in detail.Findingse-Publications have made advances in the academic world; however ereaders do not yet fit seamlessly into the established chain of scholarly textprocessing focusing on how readers use material during and after reading. Our tests revealed major deficiencies in these techniques. Research limitations -With a small number of participants (n=26) qualitative insights can be obtained, not representative results. Further testing with participants from various disciplines and of varying academic status is required to arrive at more broadly applicable results. Practical implications -Our test results help to optimize file conversion routines for scholarly texts. We evaluated our data on the basis of descriptive statistics and abstained from any statistical significance test. Originality/value -The usability test of e-readers in a scientific context aligns with both studies on the prevalence of e-books in the sciences and technical test reports of portable reading devices. Still, it takes a distinctive angle in focusing on the characteristics and procedures of textual work in the social sciences and measures the usability of e-readers and file-features against these standards.

Emotional attachment and multidimensional self-efficacy: extension of innovation diffusion theory in the context of eBook reader

“…This confirms that users with high emotional attachments showed a decrease in the relationship between attitude and adoption. The influence of emotional attachment on eBook reader adoption can be controlled; for example, provision of the eBook reader with pre-loaded text material and enhanced flexibility may diminish the effect of emotional attachment to paper books (Schomisch, Zens, and Mayr 2013). Users experience feelings of delight and fascination when reading paper books.…”

Use and Perceptions of E-books by Academic Staff in Further Education

“…They can also be "born digital". E-books can have features that include: search options, cross reference functions, multimedia features and links within the text to external online sources (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al, 2013;Schomisch et al, 2013), and as Tucker (2012, p. 40) states, the e-book environment is "rapidly and constantly evolving". For a useful summary of current e-book formats and capabilities see JISC (2012).…”

“…Findings show academic staff, like students, prefer to read a few pages, or surf through a chapter, rather than read the entire e-book (Lenares et al, 2013;McLure and Hoseth, 2012;Schomisch et al, 2013;Springer, 2010). The global survey conducted by ebrary (2007) found 79% of faculty stated they prefer traditional print format when reading a whole book, while Schomisch et al (2013) in their study found that essential parts of e-books texts are printed out rather than read on screen.…”

Academic E-Books : Publishers, Librarians, and Users

“…This is not to say that e-books marketed to end users are trouble-free; famously, Amazon retroactively removed purchased copies of 1984 from customers' Kindles (Stone, 2009) and the Kindle edition of J. K. Rowling's The Casual Vacancy was initially unreadable (Owen, 2012). Such incidents are, however, acknowledged problems, and users who encounter them can expect a refund or a solution when they complain.…”

“…For scholars seeking to engage with a text, such restrictions are seldom acceptable. As Schomisch, Zens, and Mayr (2013) put it, "'Read only' appears insufficient in a scholarly context; additional features for printing, marking, annotating, and excerpting are crucial for textual work in academia" (p. 389). Librarians also routinely field questions from users who want a print copy of an e-book, particularly tech-related titles such as programming textbooks.…”