Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (Journal)
Not a member yet
1552 research outputs found
Sort by
Academic Librarians’ Knowledge of Bibliometrics and Altmetrics
No full textObjective – To measure the knowledge and opinions that academic librarians have of established and emerging research metrics.
Methods – An online survey was distributed to all academic librarians in Oklahoma during Summer 2015.
Results – Librarians were less familiar with altmetrics than with bibliometrics, but they viewed altmetrics as effective and were interested in receiving training to learn more about them. Librarians who had been in the profession for over five years knew more about both bibliometrics and altmetrics than newer librarians.
Conclusions – Technological advances and changes in the ways that research products are shared have led to the possibility of and need for new ways of measuring research impact. Altmetrics have emerged to fill this need, but academic librarians need more familiarity and training to be able to fulfill a role as providers of these metrics
Call for Applicants: Concordia University Library’s Researcher-in-Residence Program
No full textNo abstract
Public Librarians Reflect Belief in Intellectual Freedom through Collection Development Activities
No full textA Review of:
Oltmann, S. M. (2016). Public Librarians\u27 Views on Collection Development and Censorship. Collection Management, 41(1), 23-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2015.1117998
Objective – To examine public librarians’ perspectives on censorship and intellectual freedom in relation to collection development activities.
Design – Survey combining questions from previous studies by Moody (2004) and Harkovitch, Hirst and Loomis (2003) with additional questions regarding intellectual freedom and demographics.
Setting – Public libraries in the State of Ohio.
Subjects – 251 directors and librarians responsible for collection development.
Methods – The researcher created a survey in Qualtrics, a software that supports online data collection and analysis. It contained thirty-two structured and open-ended questions and took approximately 15-25 minutes to complete. To recruit participants, an explanatory letter and survey link were sent to every public library director in the State of Ohio. Directors were also asked to share the survey with librarians under their leadership who were responsible for collection development. To analyze the data set, cross-tabulations were run to identify statistically significant correlations between demographic and community variables.
Main Results – The response rate was 43% (108 out of 251). Participants agreed with the American Library Association’s (ALA) definition of intellectual freedom, and to build collections that neither promote nor suppress specific ideas or beliefs. Only 3.7% of respondents reported decisions not to purchase materials due to fear of negative feedback from the community. Nearly 40% of participants reported conflict between personal and professional values at some time. All said that this dilemma had no bearing on professional collection development decisions. Contrary to anecdotal evidence that suggests librarians in rural or conservative communities are less likely to purchase controversial materials, the researcher found that community and political variables were not statistically significant; across the board, participants were most concerned with building balanced, well-developed collections. Gender, however, was statistically significant in terms of pressures felt to restrict access to materials; male librarians reported a higher number of instances where they felt internal or external pressures of this nature. However, as the number of male respondents was relatively low (15 out of 108 participants), the researcher did not draw concrete conclusions as to why this discrepancy exists.
Conclusion – Study findings demonstrate a strong professional allegiance to intellectual freedom as defined by the ALA. In a practical sense, the participant group applied the principles of intellectual freedom to collection development activities regardless of demographic, community, or political variables
Faculty Still Rely on Library Resources and Services for their Research
No full textA Review of:
Borrego, Á., & Anglada, L. (2016). Faculty information behaviour in the electronic environment: Attitudes towards searching, publishing and libraries. New Library World, 117(3/4): 173-185. doi:10.1108/NLW-11-2015-0089
Objective – To determine faculty’s information behaviour and their perception of academic libraries in the current transition between print and electronic scholarly communication.
Design – Online survey.
Setting – A consortium of 12 large universities in Spain.
Subjects – More than 17,380 faculty members.
Methods – The researchers used a questionnaire based on a subset of the questionnaire used for the Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey, with 20 closed and 2 open-ended questions. The survey was implemented via Google Forms and sent through mailing lists. The number of recipients was not known, but university statistics for 11 of the 12 universities list 17,380 faculty (statistics were not available for one university, located in a different administrative area). The questions aimed to identify the types of documents used by scholars for teaching and research, the search tools used, the strategies used to keep up-to-date in their disciplines, preferences for print or electronic books, the sources used to access documents, their preferred channels to disseminate their own research, and their views regarding library services.
Main Results – The response rate was 12.7%. Based on the results, scholarly journals were the most used information resource for research across all academic disciplines, with 94% of respondents rating them as important. For teaching, faculty preferred to use textbooks for undergraduates, and journal articles for Master’s students. To search the literature, faculty chose bibliographic databases and Internet search engines over the library catalog and physical collections, although the catalog was the first choice for known-item searches. Respondents favored print to read entire books or chapters but preferred the electronic format for skimming. Of the respondents, 78% rated the library as an important channel to access resources, while 61% also considered free online materials important. If the material was not available at their library, 71% frequently chose to search for a free online version and 42% used the inter-library loan service. For their own research, faculty have published in scholarly journals more often than other channels and have selected the journal based on its impact factor (77.5% ranked it as important) and on its area of coverage (73.4%). When asked to rank library services, faculty placed paying for resources highest, with 86.2% identifying it as important. Next were facilitating teaching and helping students develop information literacy skills. Finally, a majority of faculty considered themselves highly dependent on the library.
Conclusion – Journal articles are the most widely used information resource for research and teaching purposes, regardless of discipline. This includes arts and humanities, which are known for heavy monograph usage. Articles are also scholars’ preferred channel for publishing. With regards to books, faculty have mixed feelings about print and electronic formats. Spanish faculty display information behaviours similar to their British and American counterparts, as documented in the Ithaka S+R 2012 surveys. Blogs and social networks are not widely used in spite of growing attention to such channels for research output and altmetrics. Open access is also relatively unimportant for faculty when they choose where to publish. A majority of respondents still consider library services as important, for collections as well as teaching and learning support, which may present opportunities for librarians
Determining Gate Count Reliability in a Library Setting
No full textObjective – Patron counts are a common form of measurement for library assessment. To develop accurate library statistics, it is necessary to determine any differences between various counting devices. A yearlong comparison between card reader turnstiles and laser gate counters in a university library sought to offer a standard percentage of variance and provide suggestions to increase the precision of counts.
Methods – The collection of library exit counts identified the differences between turnstile and laser gate counter data. Statistical software helped to eliminate any inaccuracies in the collection of turnstile data, allowing this data set to be the base for comparison. Collection intervals were randomly determined and demonstrated periods of slow, average, and heavy traffic.
Results – After analyzing 1,039,766 patron visits throughout a year, the final totals only showed a difference of .43% (.0043) between the two devices. The majority of collection periods did not exceed a difference of 3% between the counting instruments.
Conclusion – Turnstiles card readers and laser gate counters provide similar levels of reliability when measuring patron activity. Each system has potential counting inaccuracies, but several methods exist to create more precise totals. Turnstile card readers are capable of offering greater detail involving patron identity, but their high cost makes them inaccessible for libraries with lower budgets. This makes laser gate counters an affordable alternative for reliable patron counting in an academic library
Facilitating Global Art Conversations: Availability of Art Scholarship in Latin America
No full textObjective – As art history becomes an increasingly global discipline, the question of geographically equitable access to the scholarly knowledge produced at universities in Europe and North America remains unexamined. This study aims to begin to answer that question by investigating the availability of art scholarship in Latin America.
Methods – Sixty university libraries in Latin America were checked for various kinds of access to two major art history journals.
Results – The study found that access rates were low, and that the types of access available were suboptimal.
Conclusion – The results suggest that the current level of access is insufficient to support global scholarly conversations in art history and that current modes of dissemination of scholarship are not reaching key audiences
