1. 1 C. Tenopir Quality in the Online Environment Carol Tenopir University of Tennessee ctenopir@utk.edu

2. 2 C. Tenopir Oral Communication Written Reports Secondary Publications Articles Reviews Discussions Communication Means

3. 3 C. Tenopir Changes in the last Decade 1.Emergence of new communication channels 2.Increasing difficulty in judging quality

4. 4 C. Tenopir Introduction Number of online refereed journals ~11,000 Number of refereed active journals ~21,000 Total number of active periodicals ~180,000

5. 5 C. Tenopir Not All “E-Journals” are the Same Full Journal Titles Database of Journal Articles Separates in E-print Servers Authors’ Website Institutional Repositories

6. 6 C. Tenopir Not All Readers Are the Same Variations by subject area Variations by workplace Variations by level/work role Variations by task/purpose of search

7. 7 C. Tenopir Data From: 1977-present 16,000 + scientists and social scientists University and non-university settings Mainly North America

8. 8 C. Tenopir Explicit Value of Reading Articles Readers report improved productivity, quality, and timeliness of work Readers report many purposes of reading Readings influence purposes in a positive way Hardly ever report a reading “wasted my time”

9. 9 C. Tenopir Implicit Value of Reading Articles Users are “willing to pay” with their time Achievers read more than others Peer review is valued

10. 10 C. Tenopir Valued Attributes of Journals Authority (peer review) Quality (editorial) Accessibility (distribution) Longevity (archiving) Priority of discoveries and recognition (from author’s perspective)

11. 11 C. Tenopir Value of Readings to Medical Faculty Inspired new thinking or ideas (55%) Improved the result of the purpose (55%) Narrowed, broadened, or changed their views (30%) Saved time or other resources (16%) Resolved problems (12%)

12. 12 C. Tenopir What Scientists Are Reading Approx. 50% of readings contain information that is new to the reader Over 35% of readings are of articles older than one year Older articles tend to be more valuable to scientists’ work

13. 13 C. Tenopir Studies of User Groups University faculty (1977 to present) University students (2001 to present) Engineers (1977 to present) Medical faculty (1977 to present) Doctors (pediatricians) (2004) Astronomers (2001-2002)

14. 14 C. Tenopir Perceived value of Resource Percent Rating Resource as Critical or Very Useful for Keeping Up with Recent Developments

15. 15 C. Tenopir Perceived value of Resource Percent Rating Resource as Critical or Very Useful for Obtaining Definitive Information

16. 16 C. Tenopir Subject Experts vs. Novices

17. 17 C. Tenopir Increasing Effective Student Use of the Scientific Journal Literature http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir/nsf/presentat ions.html

18. 18 C. Tenopir Novices (Students) Rely on Internet Search Engines Cannot always recognize quality by traditional criteria Invent quality criteria

19. 19 C. Tenopir Student Comments “If something is from.edu it has credibility.” “I did a web tutorial a year ago but don’t remember any of it.” “If I can't find it in 30 seconds, it's not worth finding.” “The professor gave us an article that no one in the group, including the professor, could understand.” “It’s very important for an article to be edited.”

20. 20 C. Tenopir Summary Experts use a wide variety of resources Quality judgments important Librarians and instructors have important role Subject experts judge journal name, authors, etc. Novices may not know how to judge quality