Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (Journal)
Not a member yet
1552 research outputs found
Sort by
Obtaining Journal Titles via Big Deals Most Cost Effective Compared to Individual Subscriptions, Pay-Per-View, and Interlibrary Loan
No full textA Review of:
Lemley, T., & Li, J. (2015). "Big deal” journal subscription packages: Are they worth the cost? Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 12(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2015.1001959
Abstract
Objective – To determine if “Big Deal” journal subscription packages are a cost-effective way to provide electronic journal access to academic library users versus individual subscriptions, pay-per-view, and interlibrary loans (ILL).
Design – Cost-per-article-use analysis.
Setting – Public research university in the United States of America.
Subjects – Cost-per-use data from 1) journals in seven Big Deal packages, 2) individually subscribed journals, 3) pay-per-view from publishers’ websites, and 4) interlibrary loans.
Methods – The authors determined cost-per-use for Big Deal titles by utilizing COUNTER JR1 metric Successful Full-Text Article Request (SFTAR) reports. Individual journal subscription cost-per-use data were obtained from individual publishers or platforms. Pay-per-view cost was determined by recording the price listed on publishers’ websites. ILL cost-per-use was established by reviewing cost-per-article obtained from libraries outside of reciprocal borrowing agreement networks. With the exception of pay-per-view numbers, title cost-per-use was averaged over a three-year period from 2010 through 2012.
Main Results – Cost-per-article use for journals from Big Deals varied from 9.42. For individually subscribed journals, the average cost-per-article ranged from 84.00. Pay-per-view charges ranged from 80.00, with an average cost of $37.72.
Conclusion – The authors conclude that Big Deals are cost effective, but that they consume such a large amount of funds that they limit the purchase of other resources. The authors go on to outline the options for libraries thinking about Big Deal packages. First, libraries should keep Big Deal packages in place if the average cost-per-article is less than individual subscriptions. Second, libraries could subscribe only to the most-used journals in Big Deals, cancel the packages, and rely on ILL and pay-per-view access. Third, consortia could be joined to favourably negotiate Big Deal package prices. Fourth, Big Deals could be dropped completely. Fifth, individual libraries armed with JR1 reports can negotiate with publishers for better deals
Low-Level Evidence Suggests that Perceived Ability to Evaluate and Trust Online Health Information is Associated with Low Health Literacy
No full textObjective – To review, based on research evidence, the correlation between low health literacy and four outcomes of interest: (1) the ability to evaluate online health information based on (2) perceived reliability and accuracy, (3) trust in the Internet as an information source, and (4) the application of established evaluation criteria.
Design – Systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Setting –MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Communication and Mass-media Complete as well as articles discovered through the snowball method.
Subjects – 38 studies identified through a systematic literature search.
Methods – An exhaustive list of potential articles was gathered through searching five online databases and Google Scholar, and hand searching of references. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied in a two-phase screening process in which two researchers participated to address reliability. Data, including study characteristics and metadata, predictors, assessment methods, and outcomes, were extracted from relevant studies, and then synthesized narratively.
Main Results – Following duplication removal 13,632 records were retrieved, 254 of which were identified for full-text assessment. Thirty-eight studies met the eligibility criteria. All studies were non-experimental and therefore graded as a low level of evidence; 35 were cross-sectional designs, 1 a focus group, and 2 were observational studies. Studies varied widely in population definition and sample size and were published between 2001 and 2013, primarily in North America.
Overall, a positive association was identified between health literacy and outcomes related to the ability to evaluate or trust Internet health information, while findings were inconsistent related to perceived quality of information and the application of evaluative criteria. Four studies examined the impact of health literacy levels on one or more of the outcomes of interest.
The most prevalent outcome measure studied was trust in online health information, and the least prevalent was the use of evaluative criteria. The ability to trust online health information was assessed primarily through self-reporting, half of which utilized the eHealth Literacy scale, the majority of which indicated a positive correlation between education level or low health literacy and the perceived or actual ability to evaluate online health information.
No studies on perceived information quality were found to utilize health literacy as an indicator. A positive association between educational level and trust in health information on the Internet was reported in ten studies, while two articles noted a similar correlation based on proxies for health literacy, including English language proficiency and comprehension comfort. In terms of the use of evaluation criteria, only one study focused on health literacy, indicating that those with low health literacy evaluate online health information based on search result placement, celebrity endorsement, image quality, and site authorship, and that they trust university researchers more than government or religious authorities to provide health information.
No association was shown between readability or physician-provided online information and evaluation criteria while one study demonstrated that study participants with higher education tended to check author credentials more often when evaluating a website.
Conclusion – Effective and informed evaluation of online health information is impacted by low health literacy
Some LIS Faculty Indicate Reservations about Open Access
No full textA Review of:
Peekhaus, W., & Proferes, N. (2015). How library and information science faculty perceive and engage with open access. Journal of Information Science, 41(5), 640-661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551515587855
Objective – To examine the awareness of, attitudes toward, and engagement with open access (OA) publishing, based on rank and tenure status among library and information science (LIS) faculty in North America.
Design – Web-based survey distributed via email.
Setting – Accredited library and information science (LIS) programs in North America.
Subjects – 276 professors and professors emeriti.
Methods – Researchers collected email addresses for 1,017 tenure-track, tenured, and emeriti professors from the public websites of the LIS programs. Researchers sent an email invitation to participate in the survey by accessing a URL, with the survey itself delivered using Qualtrics software. The survey included 51 total questions, some with additional sub-questions, and most items used Likert-type rating scale. The researchers analysed the data using SPSS software, and indicated using chi-square tests to measure significance, with a stated intent to get beyond the descriptive statistics commonly seen in other publications.
Main Results – This study’s results draw on 276 completed responses, for a response rate of 27%. Researchers reported that 53% of respondents had some experience with publishing in a peer-reviewed OA format. When asked whether they agreed that scholarly articles should be free to access for everyone, pre-tenure assistant professors were most likely to agree (74%), followed by tenured associate professors (62%), full professors (59%) and then emeriti professors (8%). However, they found less likelihood that associate professors would have actually published in an OA format, highlighting a “disconnect between beliefs about accessibility of research and actual practice with open access” (p. 646). Researchers also discovered a connection between faculty awareness of institutional and disciplinary repositories and faculty publishing in OA journals, though a relatively low number (35%) had deposited their output in a repository within the previous year. That increases to 50% of respondents when timeframe is ignored.
Faculty who had never published in OA journals ranked several barriers to doing so, barriers common across disciplinary boundaries. These include objections to paying OA fees; perceptions of slow time to publish, low research impact, and venue prestige when compared to traditional subscription journals; an inability to identify an appropriate OA journal; and an inability to pay OA fees. However, the researchers note that a majority of these respondents who had never published in an OA format would do so if these barriers were removed. Those participants who had some previous experience with OA were more likely to have positive perceptions of OA journal quality and impact, as well as the overall publishing experience, as compared to publishing in traditional journals.
As in other disciplines, LIS faculty are conscious of the connection between OA and tenure and promotion processes. For example, this study reveals that non-tenured faculty are more likely to agree that publishing in OA venues may affect their career progress. Researchers report uncertainty about OA even among tenured LIS faculty. Of all respondents, only 34% agreed that a tenure or promotion committee might consider an OA publication on par with a traditional publication, while 44% of respondents were of the opinion that an OA publication would be treated less favourably than a traditional journal. A mere 1% of respondents believed that an OA publication would be treated more favourably within the tenure and promotion process. Despite this unfavourable perception of OA, the researchers report that 38% of respondents planned to publish in an OA journal regardless of whether their tenure and promotion committees might treat that OA publication unfavourably.
Conclusion – The researchers report a connection between publishing in an OA journal and academic rank, with full professors more likely to publish OA or to have previous experience in publishing in an OA journal as compared to assistant professor colleagues, who perceive publishing in OA as a potential impediment to career progress. The researchers note that there is significant opportunity for LIS faculty involved in tenure and promotion committees to consider and clarify how OA publications are treated, and the impact of OA publishing with regard to career progress. Moreover, given the levels of uncertainty and equivocacy among faculty respondents as a whole regarding certain aspects of OA, the perceptions around quality and rigour, there is room for further research into LIS professors’ perceptions and attitudes toward open access, and how these change over time
Title, Description, and Subject are the Most Important Metadata Fields for Keyword Discoverability
No full textA Review of:
Yang, L. (2016). Metadata effectiveness in internet discovery: An analysis of digital collection metadata elements and internet search engine keywords. College & Research Libraries, 77(1), 7-19. http://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.1.7
Objective – To determine which metadata elements best facilitate discovery of digital collections.
Design – Case study.
Setting – A public research university serving over 32,000 graduate and undergraduate students in the Southwestern United States of America.
Subjects – A sample of 22,559 keyword searches leading to the institution’s digital repository between August 1, 2013, and July 31, 2014.
Methods – The author used Google Analytics to analyze 73,341 visits to the institution’s digital repository. He determined that 22,559 of these visits were due to keyword searches. Using Random Integer Generator, the author identified a random sample of 378 keyword searches. The author then matched the keywords with the Dublin Core and VRA Core metadata elements on the landing page in the digital repository to determine which metadata field had drawn the keyword searcher to that particular page. Many of these keywords matched to more than one metadata field, so the author also analyzed the metadata elements that generated unique keyword hits and those fields that were frequently matched together.
Main Results – Title was the most matched metadata field with 279 matched keywords from searches. Description and Subject were also significant fields with 208 and 79 matches respectively. Slightly more than half of the results, 195 keywords, matched the institutional repository in one field only. Both Title and Description had significant match rates both independently and in conjunction with other elements, but Subject keywords were the sole match in only three of the sampled cases.
Conclusion – The Dublin Core elements of Title, Description, and Subject were the most frequently matched fields in keyword searches. Academic librarians should focus on these elements when creating records in digital repositories to optimize traffic to their site from search engines
