2006
DOI: 10.1300/j111v45n03_03
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Summit Union Catalog Borrowing and Interlibrary Loan Returnables at Eastern Washington University

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
1
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Bollen and Van de Sompel (2008), in an ambitious study, gathered OpenURL clickthrough data from the entire California State University system for a period of about a year and nine months and used the data in the creation of a usage-based journal impact factor. Studies of user behavior with regard to ILL services have employed a variety of types of data over the years, including locally compiled ILL request data (Chmelir, 2005;Foote and Person, 1995;Page and Kuehn, 2009;Williams and Bailey, 2007;Williams and Woolwine, 2011), survey instruments (Frank and Bothmann, 2007;Porat and Fine, 2009), locally tabulated circulation data (Munson, 2006a), data from user account settings in ILLiad (Herrera, 2003), and OCLC resource sharing statistics (Leykam, 2008). Some studies have begun to incorporate the OpenURL resolver as a dimension in the study of user behavior with ILL. Frank and Bothmann (2007), in a study of undergraduate use of ILL, found that use increased with the implementation of an OpenURL resolver and that three out of four ILL requests by undergraduates began from the link resolver.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bollen and Van de Sompel (2008), in an ambitious study, gathered OpenURL clickthrough data from the entire California State University system for a period of about a year and nine months and used the data in the creation of a usage-based journal impact factor. Studies of user behavior with regard to ILL services have employed a variety of types of data over the years, including locally compiled ILL request data (Chmelir, 2005;Foote and Person, 1995;Page and Kuehn, 2009;Williams and Bailey, 2007;Williams and Woolwine, 2011), survey instruments (Frank and Bothmann, 2007;Porat and Fine, 2009), locally tabulated circulation data (Munson, 2006a), data from user account settings in ILLiad (Herrera, 2003), and OCLC resource sharing statistics (Leykam, 2008). Some studies have begun to incorporate the OpenURL resolver as a dimension in the study of user behavior with ILL. Frank and Bothmann (2007), in a study of undergraduate use of ILL, found that use increased with the implementation of an OpenURL resolver and that three out of four ILL requests by undergraduates began from the link resolver.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sin embargo, aunque el PI sea cuantitativamente menor que otros servicios, su impacto cualitativo es muy alto, ya que los usuarios valoran mucho poder conseguir un documento que no forma parte de la colección de su biblioteca. En 1994 el consorcio OhioLINK fue el primero en ofrecer el préstamo interbibliotecario bajo una modalidad innovadora (Munson, 2006 Cuando se inició el servicio y durante bastantes años se dio la misma prioridad en servir a una institución consorciada que a otra externa al consorcio. Esto cambió en 2009 cuando se acordó que las peticiones que se recibían de bibliotecas del consorcio y de las demás instituciones colaboradoras del CCUC tenían prioridad respecto a las demás uso de un mismo sistema de gestión integrada permitieron a las bibliotecas extender el servicio de préstamo no sólo a la colección propia sino a todas las de las demás bibliotecas.…”
Section: Introductionunclassified