1. What Does Usage Data Tell Us? Carol Tenopir University of Tennessee ctenopir@utk.edu

2. Logs and opinion surveys give much useful data, but… Logs don’t show why Sessions may be difficult to differentiate or compare across vendors Logs show only a fraction of total use Opinion and general surveys don’t give outcomes or values of specific readings

3. Critical Incident Added to General Surveys and Logs Specific (last incident of reading) Includes all reading--e & print, library & personal Purpose, motivation, outcomes Last reading=random sample of readings Has been show to match logs

4. Tenopir & King Data From: 25,000+ scientists, engineers, physicians, and social scientists 1977 to the present University and non-university settings Surveys use critical incident plus demographic and some recollection

5. Recollection and demographic questions only go so far… …add longitudinal to get a picture of trends …add critical incident and you get a more detailed picture

6. Scholarly Article Reading Work FieldArticles Read (Per Year) Time Spent (Hours) Time Per Article (Min) Univ. Med.~32211822 Chemists~27619843 Life Scientists~23910426 Physicists~20415345 Soc Sci/Psych~19112138 Engineers~1118144 Updated June 2004

7. Average Time Spent and Number of Articles Read Per Year Per Scientist

8. Sources of Readings Astronomers Medical Faculty University Faculty 42.9 % 21.4 % 35.7 % 22.1 % 15.6 % 62.3% 49 % 36 % 15 %

9. Print or Electronic Astronomers Medical Faculty University faculty 80 % 20 % 75 % 25 % 63 % 37 %

10. 62.3% 20.8% 16.9% Means of Learning About Articles Read Medical Faculty 39% 21% 37% Astronomers 17.6 32.3 % 50% Engineering Faculty

11. Source of Readings of Scholarly Articles

12. How Scientists Learned About Articles Early Evolving Advanced Browsing Online Search Citations Colleagues 58% 46% 21% 16% 22% 21% 6% 13% 16% 9% 14% 39% 1990-1995 2000-2001 2001- 11% 5% 3% Other

13. Older Readings on Average are Judged to be More Valuable Sample Size: Total = 397, Scientists = 300, Non-Scientists = 97 Source: University of Tennessee (2000), Drexel University (2002), University of Pittsburgh (2003) Source of Article1 st Year2-5 YearsOver 5 Years Library33.553.273.3 Personal56.328.89.2 Separate10.318.117.5 Total100.1 100.0

14. Primary Research32% Background18% Teaching18% Current Awareness22% Writing10% #2 #4 #5 #3 #1 Purpose and Ranking of Importance: Pittsburgh

15. Primary Research30% Current Awareness22% Teaching17% Writing12% Consulting4% #3 #5 #4 #2 #1 Purpose and Ranking of Importance: Medical Faculty (UT)

16. Usefulness & Value of Reading Library provided and older articles more valuable Articles affect the principal purpose in many ways Achievers read more from library collections Readers are more productive than non-readers

17. Subject experts (overall): read more in not much more time use many sources to locate and read information rely more on library provided articles prefer convenience Differ in choice of print or electronic, personal or library by field and workplace

18. Learning About Users and Usage Opinions, preferences (individual) Usage logs Critical incident (readings), Experimental

19. Tenopir, Use and Users of Electronic Library Resources, 2003. www.clir.org/pub/reports/pub120/pub120. pdf Tenopir & King, Communication Patterns of Engineers, 2004. IEEE/Wiley and Towards Electronic Journals, 2000. SLA.

20. New Three-Year Project Maximizing Library Investments in Digital Collections Through Better Data Gathering Analysis (MaxData) Funded by U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) (2005-2007) With David Nicholas, Ciber, University College, London