Comparing Usage Patterns Recorded between an Electronic Reference and an Electronic Monograph Collection: The Differences in Searches and Full-Text Content Viewings

2015

2015),"Optimizing KBART guidelines to restore perpetual access", Collection Building, Vol. 34 Iss 1 pp. 13-16 http:// dx. Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:448207 [] For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to present the results from a quantitative analysis comparing usage levels between an e-monograph collection that has experienced continual growth and an e-monograph collection that has not experienced any recent growth whatsoever. The aim of the study was to determine quantitatively if e-monograph collections with dynamic content experience greater levels of usage compared to e-monograph collections that are static in both size and content. Design/methodology/approach -E-monograph data were separated into a Dynamic and a Static Collection. Usage for e-monographs belonging to the Dynamic Collection was compared to usage of e-monographs belonging to the Static Collection. The number of e-monographs was obtained by simple count. Additional statistics tracked include the number of viewings. A linear regression analysis was used to determine the strength of the linear relationship between collection size and usage. Findings -Results indicate that e-monograph collections that continue to grow in both size and content also continue to experience year-to-year increases in usage, whereas e-monograph collections that remain static in size and content experience a decline in usage. A linear regression analysis indicates the existence of a very strong linear relationship that exists between Dynamic Collection size and usage. A weaker linear relationship was calculated for Static Collection size and usage. Originality/value -This research is one of very few studies systematically and quantitatively comparing usage levels between e-monographs from growing collections to collections that have not had any new titles added recently.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing usage between a Dynamic and a Static e-monograph Collection

2015

“…Since 2007, the number of viewings recorded for NetLibrary books at Laurentian University had dropped by 52 percent whereas individually purchased titles on MyiLibrary experienced nearly a 1000 percent increase in viewings over the same period of time. Added to this, Lamothe (2012) reported a steady drop in “viewings per e‐book” ratio value for NetLibrary titles. And in a previous 2010 study, Kimball et al (2010) noted some concern with the currency of the content of their NetLibrary collection, which had been stagnating since 2005.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Usage from electronic reference titles was not included whatsoever. Since patrons will use electronic reference books differently compared to electronic monographs (Lamothe, 2012, 2010), distinguishing usage between the two types of e‐books is important because combining usage from one type to the other might skewer overall results (Staiger, 2012). For this reason and for the sake of simplicity, the term “e‐book” will be used to represent e‐monographs from this point onward.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing usage between selective and bundled e‐monograph purchases

2013

Self Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present the results from a quantitative analysis comparing usage between collections of individually purchased e‐books and collections of e‐books purchased as part of large consortially negotiated bundles. The aim of this study is to determine if individually purchased e‐books have recorded a greater level of usage than e‐books purchased in large packages and, consequently, which of the two acquisition models is best suited for the library.Design/methodology/approachUsage rates of e‐books purchased individually from NetLibrary and MyiLibrary were compared to usage rates of e‐books purchased in large bundles from the same aggregators. Usage of e‐books purchased in large bundles directly from SpringerLink was compared to usage of e‐books on NetLibrary and MyiLibrary. The number of e‐books was obtained by simple count. Additional statistics tracked include the number of viewings.FindingsInitial results indicate that individually purchased titles from both NetLibrary and MyiLibrary have consistently recorded a greater level of usage than the bundled titles on their respective platforms. A second quantitative analysis comparing two aggregated collections of individually selected titles to a very large bundled collection acquired directly from SpringerLink yielded somewhat different results. For the most part, SpringerLink bundled e‐books have recorded a greater level of usage when compared to bundled titles on NetLibrary and MyiLibrary.Originality/valueThis research is one of very few studies systematically and quantitatively comparing usage levels between e‐monographs individually selected and acquired as large bundles by a Canadian academic library.

“…Previous studies have reported clear differences in e-reference and e-monographs use by patrons (Corlett-Rivera and Hackman, 2014;Lamothe, 2013c;Lamothe, 2012). Performing a quantitative comparison on e-reference usage would answer several questions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…E-reference have been demonstrated to record higher levels of usage compared to their e-monograph counterparts, mostly because library patrons seem to feel more comfortable using them rather than their print equivalent (Husted and Czechowski, 2012;King, 2012;Lamothe, 2012;Reid et al, 2006). Corlett-Rivera and Hackman (2014) found that students and faculty at the University of Maryland heavily favored e-reference.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing usage between dynamic and static e-reference collections

2015

2015),"Serials use in post graduates' dissertations of pharmaceutical sciences: collection building by citation analysis", Collection Building, Vol. 34 Iss 3 pp. 94-101 http://dx.(2015),"A collection explosion: finding our collection roots and examining how we got from there to here", Collection Building, Vol. 34 Iss 4 pp. 136-143 http://dx.Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:226685 [] For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this article was to present the results of a quantitative analysis that compared usage levels between an e-reference collection that has experienced continual updated content and growth and an e-reference collection that has not experienced any recent changes. The aim of the study was to determine quantitatively if e-reference collections with dynamic content experience greater levels of usage compared to e-reference collections that are static in both size and content. Design/methodology/approach -E-reference data were separated into a dynamic collection and a static collection. Usage for e-reference belonging to the dynamic collection was compared to usage of e-reference belonging to the static collection. The number of e-reference was obtained by simple count. Additional statistics tracked include the number of viewings. A linear regression analysis was used to determine the strength of the linear relationship between collection size and usage. Findings -Results indicate that e-reference collections that continue to grow in both size and content also continue to experience year-to-year increases in usage. E-reference collections that remain static in size and content experienced a decline in usage. A linear regression analysis indicates the existence of an extremely strong linear relationship between dynamic content and usage. A weaker linear relationship was calculated for static content. Originality/value -To this author's knowledge, this research is the first to systematically and quantitatively compare usage levels between e-reference titles from growing collections to collections that have not had any new titles added recently.