Purpose – To quantify the usage of electronic journals as an aid to making judgements on the use of document supply.
Design/methodology/approach – A detailed analysis was made of the use of OHIOLink as well as the Blackwell Synergy, ScienceDirect, emeraldinsight, and OUP databases by CIBER at University College London.
Findings – Many more people are accessing electronic journals than was previously the case in a print environment. Users are searching more widely as linking becomes easier and abstracts are becoming increasingly popular.
Research limitations/implications – More research could be done on the use of abstracts together with further evaluation of usage at article level by title.
Practical implications – Massive usage of the databases analysed is significantly affecting the use of information by researchers.
Originality/value – This article presents an example of “deep log” analysis that sheds valuable light on the actual as distinct from perceived use of electronic full text databases
When academic journals in electronic format were introduced, librarians eagerly anticipated a drop in wildly escalating journal prices. After all, publishers incur no paper costs, no mailing costs, and no significant additional production costs in distributing an electronic equivalent to their paper journals. However, to date, the crisis in rising serial costs has not been alleviated by the availability of electronic journals. Seven years after his first column discussing libraries' struggles with serial prices, the author revisits the topic of electronic journals and summarizes what we have learned about using journals in this format.
The use of XML in the lifecycle of e-journals has recently emerged as a hot topic in the library world. This burst of interest is largely due to proposals to use XML in e-journal archiving and also a growing awareness of the advantages of XML for metadata. But the publishing community are increasingly viewing XML as playing a central role in the future of the entire e-journals process. The papers in this special issue cover a breadth of opinion but there is a common theme; namely, that XML and its related technologies can help to fulfil the promise of e-journals.
To establish the how far the leading psychiatric journals from the USA and UK show any favouritism to researchers from the journals' host countries. Retrospective review of original data-based research reports published in 2006 from the five highest impact general psychiatric journals.British authors were 10 times more likely to appear as authors in two general psychiatry journals that are UK based than the three USA based journals (odds ratio=10.37 CI=8.95 to 12.02). American authors were 13 times more likely to publish in three leading three American psychiatry journals compared to British journals (odds ratio=14.27 CI=12.39 to 16.45). It is difficult to explain why researchers appear so much more likely to appear as authors in the host countries' journals other than by invoking some form of bias or favouritism in journals' editorial procedures. This creates a particular disadvantage for research outside the USA and UK.Research is funded and disseminated based on publications in high impact medical journals. If medical journals are xenophobic, that is they preferentially publish articles from their host countries, this severely disadvantages research in less developed countries, of which, many host no medical journals. For example simple, inexpensive research, such as the provision of non-proprietary antidepressants and antipsychotics or measures to prevent the epidemic of alcohol and tobacco related problems in developed countries may be hugely beneficial to millions of people, but this is unlikely to be researched or disseminated if medical journals are xenophobic.
Examines a set of over 27,000 UK papers in cancer research in order to identify the individual factors that influence the impact category of the journals in which they are published, using multiple regression analysis. The most important independent variables that have a positive effect are the numbers of authors and funding bodies, the research level (from clinical to basic), and the presence of certain universities, or of the USA, in the address field. Inter-lab co-operation was shown to have a negative effect on journal impact category, as was international co-authorship. It is because such partnerships usually involve more authors and funding for the research that they are perceived to lead to higher impact work. There is also a tendency for papers to be published in higher impact journals in later years, probably because of market forces, which means that such journals will tend to expand.