The
use and the attitude of scientists from the Rudjer Boskovic Institute about
electronic journals - a user study
Ivana Pažur, Sofija Konjević
Institut Rudjer Boskovic, Library,
Bijenicka c. 54, Zagreb
tel. ++385 1/4561-195, fax. ++385 1 4561-095
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Electronic journal
2.
RELATED STUDIES
2.1. Library, librarian and author studies
2.2. User studies
3.
THE PURPOSE AND THE METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH
4.
THE RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH
4.1. The results of the first survey
4.1.1. Description of frequencies
4.1.2. Correlation of variables
4.2. The results of the survey carried out during the seminar
on electronic journals usage
5.
CONCLUSION
6. REFERENCES
7.
APPENDIX: The Questionnaire
Summary
The
number of journals available in an electronic form is growing daily. In the
past main role of libraries was ownership and storage but today this is replaced
with accessibility and availibility of documents. Regarding this new library
service, it is extremely important to have the feedback from the end users.
During December 2001 and January 2002 a user study was carried out to find
out to what extent scientists at the Rudjer Boskovic Institute are accepting
electronic journals. The results of this survey showed high acceptance of
electronic journals at the Rudjer Boskovic Institute.
Key
words: electronic journals, user study, questionnaire, survey
User
studies about electronic journals usage have a purpose to determine the attitude
of users towards electronic journals, the degree of their acceptance and users'
habits Librarians are interested what users consider as advantages and/or
disadvantages of electronic journals, to what extent they accept and use them,
how do they use them, would they eventually be willing to give up print version.
These studies serve as an useful indicator at the creation of library's aquisition
policy, as well as in education of users.
In the last few years the world experienced a large expansion of electronic
journals therefore the Rudjer Boskovic Institute Library (further in the text
RBI Library) is making an effort to adapt to modern trends and provide its
users with access to a greater number of electronic journals.
We think that this user study will show current level of use and that it might
encourage use of electronic journals.
1.1. Electronic journal
The
first electronic journals appeared during 1970s. They were not available to
a larger number of users; this is one of the reasons why they were not widespread.
(Tenopir, C., 2000). With the appearance of Internet
and PC computers the number of electronic journals rapidly grows. Until 1995
this number is rather low, but then it starts to rise (Hitchcock,
S. et al, 1996). Today, most of the electronic journals appear as parallel
version of its print counterparts. All the major publishers publish electronic
journals and offer them as special services or databases (e.g. ScienceDirect
(Elsevier), SpringerLINK (Springer). There is no unique definition for electronic
journals. According to one of definitions "e-journals are serial publications
available in digital format (Harrassowitz, 2002).
Rich and Rabine define the electronic journal as a "periodical literature
that is made available as an individual title via an electronic medium, typically
the World Wide Web" (Rich, L.A.; Rabine, J. L., 2001).
Electronic journals could be accessed through gopher, ftp, telnet, e-mail
or discussion lists, but today they are mainly accessed through web.
According to the latter definition, we consider "electronic journal"
as a publication accessible exclusively on the web (regardless if it is electronic
journal only or an electronic equivalent of the print version).
Appearance
of electronic journals changes the role of publishers and libraries, as well
as it changes information seeking behaviour. The first studies of users, librarians,
publishers and authors come in to improve their offer of electronic journals,
to justify the libraries' investments and to define the users' needs. These
studies mostly explore several aspects:
1. library and librarians
2. authors
3. users.
Even
though we are primarily interested into user studies we will take a look at
the first two equally important aspects.
Electronic
journals today are becoming a part of the library collection, therefore different
studies have been used to find out what are the reasons to subscribe to electronic
journals. In the beginning of 1994 Systems and Procedures Exchange Center
(SPEC), a part of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), conducted
research among the members of the association about electronic journals. They
wanted to determine to what extent American academic libraries accept electronic
journals, why do they subscribe or do not subscribe to them. The most important
reasons for electronic journals acceptance are: possibility of remote access,
possibility of simultaneous use, the fact that the use does not depend on
the library working hours. These are followed by great searching capabilities
and links to other documents. As reasons for non-acceptance it was pointed
out that the request of special equipment for a starting implementation creates
a need for a large financial support of the library and requires promotion
and training of library staff and users. Further more, librarians were concerned
with copyrights (at the time they still had not been precisely defined with
electronic journals). They pointed out a problem of archiving electronic journals
and a problem of complex licensing agreements that is an important factor
in acquisition of journals. At the time of this research, electronic journals
were making a very small part of library collection but academic libraries
showed a great enthusiasm for them (Chu, H., 2000).
In 1997 the Department of Information Science of the University of Loughborough
carried out a research about tendency of British authors to publish their
papers in electronic journals (McKnight, C.; Price,
S., 1999). By the term of electronic journal were considered journals
published exclusively in the electronic form. By that time only a 16% of authors
had published their paper in an electronic journal. These are the top frequent
reasons why papers were not published electronically: there are still no electronic
journals within certain scientific fields and papers published electronically
are not equally evaluated as print ones at obtaining the academic grade. On
the other hand there are clear advantages: fast dissemination of results,
shorter period of time required for publishing the paper (this period is fairly
long with printed papers). At last, authors expressed their concern regarding
the permanence of electronic journals due to often changes in the information
technology.
The
user and usage studies appear in literature in late 1990s when the larger
number of electronic journals has become widely available (Diedrichs,
C. P., 2001).
These studies were mostly carried out among the academic staff of institutes
and colleges who are the most frequent users of scholarly journals. According
to the respondents' scientific field the most numerous among them are natural
scientists. Studies that included respondents from social sciences and humanities
showed that latter respondents use electronic journal to a smaller degree,
which is partly caused by a lack of electronic journals in these fields (Rusch-Feja,
D.; Siebeky, U., 1999).
In the usage studies different methods are used. One of them, mostly used
by publishers and libraries is the log file analysis. Some of the disadvantages
of this method are the inability to include all the searches; journals can
be found on different servers while the access is counted only on one of them;
searches are saved in computer cache memory for several days and that kind
of access is not measurable. Another problem is that it is not always clear
what is being counted: the number of searches or the number of the full text
downloads (Bauer, K., 2000).
Survey (poll, questionnaire) is another method along with less represented
methods as interview and focus groups (Sercar, T. et.
al. 2001).
In 1995, The University of Tilburg introduced
electronic journals in the library collection and started monitoring this
service using the log file analysis. This study revealed a lack of information
about the use of electronic journals and a lack of information about the use
of print journals as well. Therefore in 1996, using diverse methods1, a research has been held about journals usage
in general. The study showed that most of the respondents use journals daily
and that print and electronic journals are used equally. Most of the requests
are covered by a small core of journals while majority remains unused2. There are several reasons why researchers
do not use electronic journals: technical problems when printing articles,
a preference for actually handling the print journal, the lack of sufficient
titles on their own research subject and the incompetence on the part of the
researcher. Generally taken, researches do not have a negative attitude about
electronic journals and they are aware of their advantages (The
use of paper and electronic journals by researches, 1999).
During 1998 the consortium of Ohio's college and university
libraries and the State library of Ohio (so-called OhioLINK3) carried out a two year research on accessing electronic
journals using the log file analysis (Diedrichs, C. P.,
2001). OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center stored locally on its server
wide range of journals subscribed from different publishers. That way its
users had a uniform interface and access itself became easier to analyze.
A special attention was paid to use of titles that the library did not hold
in print. It was revealed that 77% of downloads are from journals not held
in print by libraries. It was concluded that users benefit from the offer
and that print subscription not necessarily correspond to users' needs. Since
the degree of utilization turned out to be high the decision to subscribe
to electronic journals was correct. A lot of librarians use log file analysis
as an indicator of the exploiting of offered electronic journals but further
in the text we will focus on researches made through questionnaire since our
decision was to follow that method.
During
1996 and 1997 a research was carried out among the Great Britain academic
staff and it covered five faculties. The purpose was to determine a possible
difference in use of electronic journals among academics belonging to different
scientific fields, different academic status and different age groups. The
results showed that 72% of respondents does not use electronic journals at
all. According to the scientific field, researchers from Business, Science
and Engineering use electronic journals more frequently than researchers from
social science but one of the reasons is certainly the fact that at the time
of the research social sciences were not well represented. According to the
age, electronic journals are used by 56% of respondents under the age of 40
and only 14% of those over 40. The use fairly varies according to the academic
status: only 12% of professors use electronic journals.
Most of the respondents prefer to read the print copy instead of reading directly
from the screen (57%). As the biggest advantage they point out the accessibility
and possibility to read the article from their own desktop. At the same time
the biggest disadvantage is considered to be the impression that the electronic
publication is not a real one and that it would be easy to change its
contents - which is actually a concern for the copyright.
Regarding the subscription to electronic version only the study revealed that
respondents are still not prepared to give up the print version. As one of
the reasons why they do not use electronic journals, respondents mention a
lack of time to learn how to use them. They do not reject the new medium completely;
as much as 80% of them responded that they could start using electronic journals
in future. Indeed, most of them consider the development of the electronic
publishing inevitable, it is only a question of how fast it will happen (Tomney,
H.; Burton, P. F., 1998).
During
1996 within the Café Jus project (Woodward,
H. et al, 1998) a survey was taken among the postgraduate students and
the academic staff of the Loughborough University. Before the main research,
a pilot research conducted on a smaller sample showed that the majority of
respondents (60%) think that there are not enough relevant electronic journals.
In the main research only 20% of respondents kept that opinion because in
the meantime commercial publishers offered a larger quantity of journals available
in electronic form.
The respondents listed several disadvantages: problems
in accessing the material, slow download, necessity of foreknowledge (incompetence
on the part of the user), required additional software (e.g. Acrobat Reader),
inability to access back issues. However, excellent searching capabilities
and availability at any time were listed as great advantages. Further more
the research showed that users dislike reading the text from the screen, while
59% of respondents consider the print journal easier to handle. Also, the
survey stressed the necessity of users education, finding out that diverse
interfaces and seeking methods often create confusion.
Within the Super Journal project the study covered
academic staff from thirteen universities in Great Britain. A research on
use of electronic journals as well as print one was carried out during a two-year
period (1997-1999). The respondents sorted out several advantages of electronic
journals: easy to access, access from their own desktop, simultaneous use.
As disadvantages, they pointed out scarce representation of certain scientific
fields, insufficient number of available back issues and slow download. On
the other side, disadvantages of print journals are that user has to pay the
visit to the library, look for the journal and very often find out that journal
has been already in use, lost or misfiled. Generally, respondents see electronic
journals as a new library service, as well as supplement to the print journals,
not a replacement for it. (Baldwin, C.; Pullinger, D.,
2000).
The
research carried out among users of Princeton University (Holmquist,
J. E., 1997) showed that 56% of respondents do not use electronic journals.
The main reason given for not using electronic journals was that users prefer
to read articles printed on paper. The second reason is the lack of time to
study and learn about electronic journals.
The
results of the survey carried out on ETH in Zürich during 1998 are
curious because 52% of respondents were willing to renounce printed versions
when the access to the electronic one is provided. A comparison to the research
conducted in 1996 showed the decreased number of those who do not use electronic
journals (from 59% down to 25%) (Keller, A.; Neubauer, W.,
1999).
According
to the type of the institute and the research sample, the Max Planck Institute
is the closest to our sample in RBI, therefore we single out their survey.
The results of this survey showed a significantly high acceptance of electronic
journals and an unwillingness to return to print versions only. At the same
time it displayed that scientist feel a lack of confidence for the new medium.
They pointed out the lack of long term access and lack of electronic journal
archives that would assure the access to these journals in the future. Nevertheless,
the greatest advantage of electronic journals is the direct accessibility
from the researcher's desktop (78%) and their prompt availability.(Rusch-Feja,
D.; Siebeky, U., 1999).
In
the survey carried out in the year 2000, the Library and Learning Centre,
University of Bath, the respondents point out the importance of an existing
electronic journal archive in the case the subscription is cancelled (53%).
19% of respondents absolutely do not want to cancel the print subscription.
The other way round, more than a half of respondents (56%) want the library
to provide even more electronic journals. (Electronic
journals survey, 2000)
The
librarians Clajus and Maier from the University and State Library in Köln
carried out survey among the academic staff and found out that 16% of respondents
do not want to renounce the print version of the journal under no circumstances.
As the biggest advantages of the new service they pointed out the possibility
of full-text access from their own desktop (49%), and the fact that the electronic
journal is available before the print one. Besides the full text access, other
facilities like the table of contents and the summary are also often consulted.
As well as the researches of the University of Bath and the one of the Max
Planck Institute this one also reveals that the respondents insist on the
importance of electronic journal archives (Clajus, G.; Maier,
C., 2001).
By
taking on this research, we wanted to find out to what extent the scientists
at the RBI use and accept electronic journals and how much do they benefit
from offered electronic journal sources. Further, what do they consider as
advantages and disadvantages of electronic journals. Finally, we wanted to
know what titles do they use and to which ones they would like to have access.
Using the questionnaire we carried out a
user study on a sample of N=478 scientists - employees
of the Institute. The survey was anonymous and it has been taking place from
December 7th 2001 till February 8th 2002.
Although
the sample is quite homogeneous (it was sorted out from the scientists of
related natural sciences), we supposed that nevertheless there are differences
in use of electronic journals.
We
posed following hypothesis:
1. Scientists use electronic journals but not to a sufficient
degree. We supposed there would be about 40% of scientists who use electronic
journals.
2. There is a difference in use regarding the academic status
of the respondents which is closely connected to the age - scientists of
the age up to 40 use electronic journals more than their older colleagues.
3. There is a difference in use regarding the field that scientists
belong to - physicists set an example in using of electronic journals according
to their tendency to publish in the preprint archives (Valauskas,
E. J., 2001; Melinscak - Zlodi, I., 2002).
While creating a concept of the questionnaire we chose
a multiple-choice (Fixed-alternative) test type questionnaire for two reasons:
respondents consider it easier and they answer to more questions, also, for
us the answers are easier to analyze (Zelenika, R., 2000;
Pavlinic, S.; Horvat, J., 1997).
We
used open-ended questions in case we wanted respondents to express their opinions
in their own words.
Along
with the questionnaire we prepared a short introduction to motivate the users
to fill it out, in order to use those answers as an indicator of further development
and enhancement of the library services.
We
tried to keep the questionnaire as short as possible, questions and offered
answers clear and unambiguous. The first section contains questions about
the respondent (questions 1 - 5: organizational unity, status, scientific
field, sex and age). The second section (questions 6 - 20) contains questions
about use of electronic journals and available electronic journal sources.
At
most of the questions it was possible to give only one answer and only at
3 out of 20, the respondents could give several answers (questions 7, 14,
16). 17 questions were mandatory and 3 were optional (questions 9, 10 and
20).
Since
all the departments at the Institute are networked for several years now,
we did not explore the technical conditions required for use of electronic
journals, or the computer skills. Also, users have at their disposal a number
of computers in the library.
Before
the actual survey we tested the questionnaire on a pilot sample. At two separate
occasions e-mail notifications were sent to the scientists, also we tried
to draw their attention with printed notices.
In
the first phase of the research we put the questionnaire on the library web
site and the questionnaire was accessible only from the RBI domain so the
data were collected directly into the database.
This has made it easier to collect and process the data and it minimized the
number of invalid questionnaires (respondents were not allowed to leave out
questions or select few answers where only one was required).
The
data collected were processed in SPSS software.
We
supposed that the scientists not skilled in Internet use probably do not use
electronic journals and would not fill out the online questionnaire. Fearing
to miss their answers we gave out 350 print questionnaires in the second phase
of the survey.
While
the research was taking place users had on their disposal 92 full-text electronic
journals accessible through the electronic journal list (http://knjiznica.irb.hr/pretplata/)
and through the "Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek" electronic
journal database (EZB) (http://knjiznica.irb.hr/ezb/).
In
2001 the number of full-text electronic journals available to the Institute
employees varied: on several occasions they could access electronic journals
on the free-trial basis benefiting from services of ScienceDirect, Biomednet,
PhysicsDirect, Engineering Village etc. At the beginning of 2002 the Ministry
of Science and Technology subscribed to the electronic versions of journals
published by major publishers "Elsevier" and "Springer" in favor of the Croatian Academic Community
(In Croatia academic libraries do not have their own budget, journals subscription
is financed by Ministry of Science and Technology)
To
inform the RBI scientists about new services we held a seminar on use of electronic
journals. At the time, the number of journals available to the Institute employees
increased to 1690, which is a lot more than at the time when the survey was
carried out. After the seminar we asked the participants about the level of
success of the seminar and the necessity of organizing similar ones using the somewhat changed questionnaire
containing three additional questions.
The
question number 15 - What do you consider the main advantage of electronic
journals? - supposed to have a single answer. Because many respondents selected
several answers a lot of the questionnaires would have been invalid. We decided
to evaluate them as valid ones because the answers indicated the equal importance
of all offered advantages and the problem of singling out only one of them
- something that respondents additionally pointed out in their comments.
We
included the five invalid slips in the analysis of the three additional questions:
1. Have you already had a chance to fill out the questionnaire
about electronic journals brought by the Library during December of 2001 and
January of 2002?
2. Has this seminar improved your knowledge on use of electronic
journals?
3. Do you think that the Library should organize a presentation
of its services from time to time?
The
second survey was carried out on a very small sample therefore we did not
analyze correlation of variables to avoid getting irrelevant information.
Out
of the total of 478 resident scientist at RBI, 155 respondents filled
out the questionnaire: among those 150 were valid (31%) and 5 were invalid.
At
the question number 6, respondents who do not use electronic journals at all,
did
not answer further questions so in the end we processed answers from 133 questionnaires.
The
distribution of scientists and respondents at the RBI according to their academic
status reveals that within the total of scientists at the Institute, the largest
category is the one of junior researchers (assistents). For this reason it
is not surprising that they form the largest category of respondents (35%)
(table 1).
Table
1 - Distribution of scientists and respondents at the RBI according to their
academic status
|
Academic
Status
|
Total
of scientists at the Institute
|
Number
of respondents
|
The
ratio of the respondents vs. the total in the respective status
|
|
research
adviser
|
84 (18%)
|
25 (17%)
|
30%
|
|
senior research
associate
|
68 (14%)
|
28 (19%)
|
41%
|
|
research
associate
|
73(15%)
|
19 (13%)
|
26%
|
|
researcher
|
86 (18%)
|
24 (16%)
|
28%
|
|
junior
researchers (assistents)
|
167(35%)
|
54 (35%)
|
32%
|
|
total
|
478 (100%)
|
150 (100%)
|
|
The
distribution of scientists according to their scientific field (table 2) indicates
that chemists are the most numerous; they are the most numerous in the total
of the respondents as well. There are an equal number of physicists and biologists
and there are only three respondents belonging to the category other
that covers electronic engineering, mathematics and computer science. If we
compare the number of respondents in relation to a total within the respective
research field, the most represented are the scientists from the biomedical
sciences (46%).
Table
2: Distribution of scientists and respondents at the RBI according to their
scientific field:
|
Scientific
field
|
Total
of scientists at the Institute
|
Number
of respondents
|
The
ratio of the respondents vs. the total in the respective scientific field
|
|
Biology
|
69 (14%)
|
26 (17%)
|
38%
|
|
Biomedicine
|
48 (10%)
|
22 (15%)
|
46%
|
|
Physics
|
105 (22%)
|
26 (17%)
|
25%
|
|
Earth
Sciences
|
71 (15%)
|
9 (6%),
|
13%
|
|
Chemistry
|
166 (35%)
|
64 (43%)
|
39%
|
|
other
|
19 (4%)
|
3 (2%)
|
16%
|
|
total
|
478 (100%)
|
150 (100%)
|
|
Representation
of respondents according to their sex is well balanced; female scientists
are slightly more numerous which corresponds to the ratio within the total
of scientists (figure 1).
Figure
1- The number of scientists and respondents according to sex
In
terms of age, the most represented group of scientists is the one aged 51
to 60, which is at the same time the largest group of respondents. The following
ones are groups of scientists aged 31 to 40 and 20 to 30, and they are equally
numerous. In the total of scientists and the total of respondents, the smallest
group is the one of the scientists aged over 61.
Comparing
the number of scientists according to different categories (academic status,
scientific field, age and sex) with the total number of scientists at the
RBI we conclude that the relations in numbers are fairly balanced and that
our sample is representative and corresponds to the real state of matters
at the RBI.
Figure
2 - The number of scientists and respondents according to their age
At
the question "how often do you use electronic journals" we received
following answers: the journals are used daily by 10 respondents (7%),
several times a week by 51 respondents (33%), once a week by
26 respondents (17%), several times a month by 25 respondents (17%),
once a month by 7 respondents (5%), several times a year by
13 respondents (9%) and once a year by 1 respondent (1%). So, 133 respondents
(89%) use electronic journals to some extent and only 17 of them (11%) do
not use them at all. The most numerous are those who use them several times
a week.
Figure
3 - How often do scientists use electronic journals
The
respondents who do not use electronic journals at all had the opportunity
to list in their own words the reasons for not using them. The most often
reason is that scientists still have not developed the habit of using electronic
journals because they are used to traditional print versions. Also, the journals
they are interested in are not available electronically or the electronic
version requires additional payment: "The journals that I find interesting
are either unavailable or they are not free of charge". Some users express
willingness to start using them: "I have not paid enough attention to
it, although I would like to use them".
At
the question considering the place respondents use to access electronic journals,
it was possible to select more than one answer.
Most
of the respondents, 132 of them, as we expected, use the computer at work,
followed by 21 respondents who use the computer at home. The computers in
the library are rarely used, 6 respondents use the computer in their own library,
and 5 in other libraries.
We
were interested whether the respondents use earlier mentioned sources of electronic
journals (electronic journal list and EZB database), and whether they are
aware of the existence of these sources.
At
the question whether they use the list of electronic journals, 92 respondents
(69%) confirmed, 30 respondents (23%) replied they did not use it although
they knew it existed and 11 respondents (8%) answered they did not use it
not being aware it existed.
Same
questions were made about the EZB database: 58 respondents (44%) use it, 48
respondents (36%) do not use it although they know about it and 27 respondents
(20%) do not know it exists and therefore do not use it.
Figure
4 - The use of electronic journal list and EZB database
Evidently,
a large number of respondents use the electronic journal list while a lot
of respondents did not know the EZB database even existed. So, we realized
that additional information should be provided.
Another
question was about the use of electronic journals that do not allow full-text
access but only a browse through table of contents and summaries. 109 respondents
(82%) answered affirmatively. This information indicates the importance of
bibliographic information of the journal alongside with the importance of
summaries which help scientists decide whether a particular article is important
for their own research.
The
number of electronic journals available to the employees of the Institute
often increase with the opportunity to access diverse free-trial journals.
As our library keeps users regularly informed about it, we wanted to define
whether our users know about these possibilities and whether they used them.
79 respondents (59%) did use them, but 54 respondents (41%) - quite a fair
number - did not benefit from this opportunity. Among the free trials library
had access to, 52 respondents used ScienceDirect, 35 of them used BiomedNet
and 9 respondents used PhysicsDirect.
The Engineering Village service that covers journals from the electrical engeeniring
was not used at all and the probable reason is that scientific fields covered
by the database are not widely represented at the RBI. The respondents could
list other electronic journal free-trials they used and these are: the journals
accessible through ChemWeb, the journal published by the Institute of Physics
and Nature.
The
respondents listed 230 titles they use and another 240 they would like to
have access. We sorted out those that were listed by at least three respondents.
Figure
5 -Journals that users would like to use in electronic form
As
the greatest advantage of electronic journals 52 respondents (38%) pointed
out its availability before the print version, 38 respondents (29%) pointed
out the accessibility from desktop. Only 12 respondents (9%) chose access
to full-text, 9 respondents (7%) timeless availability, independence of the
library working hours, 7 respondents (5%) mentioned the possibility of searching
from different locations. The possibility to use the journal simultaneously
by multiple users was chosen by only one respondent (1%). 14 respondents (11%)
listed some other advantages: "some journals available electronically
are not held by library", "I can print out instead of copying, if
I get rid of the paper there is always a file, it is impossible that particular
issue misses". Some of the respondents stated that all mentioned is equally
important.
Figure
6 - The advantages of electronic journals
At
the question about disadvantages of electronic journals it was possible to
choose more than one answer and/or to add something else. 81 respondents chose
slow download as the biggest disadvantage, 13 chose frames, 12 chose difficulties
in navigation, 37 chose additional payment, 11 respondents stated some other
disadvantage: low quality of printed pictures, problems in printing articles,
"there are no advertisements and notices about conferences that can be
found in the print journal", dependence on the computer equipment and
the network, "necessity to have computer and access to the network",
slow connection: " occasional difficulty in accessing the web ",
as well as "storing for a longer period of time is uncertain". Only
10 respondents think that there are no disadvantages at all.
Figure
7 - Disadvantages of electronic journals
As
expected, the results showed that according to the way of reading electronic
journals, respondents prefer printing them out (97 respondents (73%)) instead
of reading them directly from screen (36 respondents (27%). One respondent
pointed it out as a disadvantage: "It is difficult to read articles from
the screen". (Figure 8)
Regarding
users' attachment to paper and the habit of use print journals the results
showed that when both versions of the journal are available 55 respondents
(42%) prefer to use the print one, 35 respondents (26%) prefer the electronic
and 43 respondents (32%) have no preferences. (Figure 8)
In
accordance with the previous, the following result shows that most of the
respondents (87 of them (65%)) considers that electronic journals will not
completely replace the print ones, although a considerable number of respondents
(46 (35%)) think that it will happen. (Figure 8)
Figure
8 - Answers to the questions:
When
using the electronic version of the journal do you read the full-text articles...?
When
both versions of the journal are available what do you prefer?
Do
you think that electronic journals will completely replace the print ones?
In
regard to our hypothesis we carried out correlation of respective variables.
(Chi-square test)
In
cases where we offered multiple answers to questions we obtained great dispersion
of results so we merged answers together.
At
the question number 6: "How often do you use electronic journals?"
we analyzed two categories: users and non-users of electronic journals and
made the correlation with scientific field, academic status, sex and age.
Correlation
showed significant difference in terms of scientific fields. Most of the scientists
who do not use electronic journals at all belong to the chemistry and Earth
sciences (p=0,031). At the
Institute there is a total of 71 scientist are from Earth sciences. Out of
this total, only 9 scientists filled out the questionnaire, and two of them
(22%) did not use electronic journals, but we could not draw general conclusions
based on such a small number.
Out
of the total of 166 chemists at the Institute, 64 answered the questionnaire.
Among them 13 (20%) are non users of electronic journals. On the other side,
comparing chemists with scientists from other fields, it is obvious that the
number of users of electronic journals is the highest among chemists.
We
received a very interesting result from biomedical respondents (48 scientists
at the Institute). 22 respondents filled out the questionnaire (46%) and the
result showed that all of them use electronic journals.
In
spite of our hypothesis that physicists use electronic journals more than
the scientists from other scientific fields, it turned out that there is no
statistically significant difference.
Figure
9 - Correlation of scientific field of respondents and the electronic journals
usage
Correlation
of variables in terms of age did not produce statistically significant difference.
Since there are only 12 respondents (8%) aged over 61 we tried to do a correlation
by merging this group with the group of respondents aged 51 to 60. However,
this modified variable did not produce statistically significant difference.
Correlation
also proved wrong our hypothesis that scientists aged over 40 use electronic
journals to a smaller extent. (p>0,05) Indeed, it showed that all the respondents aged 41 to
50 use electronic journals.
Remaining
correlation of scientific field and sex also did not produce statistically
significant difference in use of electronic journals.
Figure
10 - Correlation of age and electronic journals usage
Correlation
of questions number 15: "What is the most important advantage of electronic
journals?" and number 16: "What do you consider as disadvantage
of electronic journals?" with academic status, scientific field, sex
and age of respondents did not show statistically significant differences.
(p>0,05)
After
the seminar 42 questionnaires were collected; 5 of them were invalid. Respondents who do not use electronic
journals (4 respondents) did not answer further questions so in the end we
processed answers from 33 questionnaires.
Identically
as in the first survey according to the academic status, the largest group
is the one of junior researches (assistants) (15 respondents (40%), and according
to the scientific field most of the respondents are chemists (22 respondents
(59%).
The
ratio of respondents according to their academic status and their scientific
field approximately corresponds to the ratio of the respondents from the first
survey.
Table
3 - Distribution of respondents according to their academic status and their
scientific field
|
Academic status
|
Number
of respondents
|
|
Scientific field
|
Number
of respondents
|
|
research adviser
|
6 (16%)
|
|
Biology
|
2 (5%)
|
|
senior research associate
|
7 (19%)
|
|
Biomedicine
|
5 (14%)
|
|
research associate
|
5 (14%)
|
|
Physics
|
4 (11%)
|
|
researcher
|
4 (11%)
|
|
Earth Sciences
|
3 (8%)
|
|
junior researchers (assistents)
|
15 (40%)
|
|
Chemistry
|
22 (59%)
|
|
total
|
37 (100 %)
|
|
Other
|
1 (3%)
|
| |
|
|
total
|
37 (100 %)
|
Female
are more represented than male scientists: 28 women (76%) vs. only 9 men (24%).
This is disproportionate to the real ratio.
According
to age groups, 12 respondents (33%) are in the group aged 20 to 30, 6 respondents
(16%) belong to the groups aged 31 to 40 and 41 to 50, 10 respondents (27%)
belong to group aged 51 to 60 and only 3 (8%) respondents make the group aged
over 61.
At
the question about frequency of use, 5 respondents (14%) use journals daily,
11 respondents (29%) use them several times a week, 5 respondents (14%)
use them once a week, 8 (21%) respondents use them, several times
a month, 1 (3%) respondent use them once a month, 3 respondents
(8%) use them several times a year, and 4 respondents (11%) do not
use them at all.
Based
on the collected answers we came to the conclusion that most of the respondents
(89%) use electronic journals, while those who do not use them at all make
11% out of total. This percentage is equal to the first survey. Two respondents
listed as a reason for non-use lack of information about the available electronic
journals.
The
respondents mostly access electronic journals from the computer at work (33
respondents) only 3 respondents access from home.
None of the respondents listed computers in the RBI library or in any other
library as access place. Slightly
less than in the first survey, 25 respondents (76%) use the journals that
offer only contents and/or abstracts although they are informed about it,
8 respondents (24%) do not use these journals.
To
the question whether they use the "Electronic journal list", 30
respondents (91%) answered affirmatively, 1 respondent (3%) answered he did
not use it although he knew it existed and 2 respondents (6%) did not use
it because they did not know it existed.
To
the question whether they use the EZB electronic journal database, we offered
three answers identical to ones to the previous question: every answer was
chosen by the equal quantity of 11 respondents (33,3%).
As
in the first survey we observe that a great part of respondents use the electronic
journal list while the EZB database remains unexploited. We have already mentioned
that the respondents consider all the advantages of electronic journals equally
important. Firstly
the accessibility before the print version (15 respondents) and the independence
regarding the library working hours (15 respondents). The next advantage is
the possibility of searching from different locations (10 respondents), then
the possibility of full text access (9 respondents) and the simultaneous use.
(6 respondents). (Figure
11)
Figure
11 - The advantages of electronic journals
Beside
the offered ones, respondents stated following advantages: "the possibility
to link directly to the references in the article", "the possibility
of zooming the text on the screen", " it is not necessary to order
articles from other libraries so it is time saving" and "the possibility
of using the journals that the library does not subscribe in print.
The
question "What do you consider as disadvantage of electronic journals?" produced following results: most
of the respondents, 21 of them, pointed out slow download of text and pictures,
2 of them pointed out the frames, 8 of them had problems in navigation and
16 of them chose the answer "other". As "other" most of
the respondents consider problems in printing the article. Only 3 respondents
thought that there were no disadvantages at all.
Identically
to the results of the first survey questionnaire showed that most of the respondents,
26 of them (79%) reads the text printed out on paper and 7 of them (21%) reads
it directly from screen.
When
both versions of the journal are available 12 respondents (37%) prefer the
print one, 10 respondents (30%) prefer the electronic one and 11 respondents
(33%) use both versions. This actually shows that the use of electronic journals
does not fall behind the use of paper one.
At
the same time though, like in the first survey, 21 respondents (64%) think
that electronic journals will not replace the print ones completely and 12
of them (36%) think this is going to happen.
Out
of 33 respondents, added the answers from 5 invalid questionnaires, 24 of
them (63%) had already taken part in the previous survey and 14 of them (37%)
had not.
At
the question whether the seminar improved their knowledge about electronic
journals use, 34 respondents (89%) confirmed, 3 respondents (8%) denied and
1 (3%) did not answer. All the respondents agree that the library should organize
similar presentation of its services from time to time.
They
also listed comments and suggestions about the seminar: "stand-by time
for individual presentation directly on the computer", "more examples
of searching capabilities from the beginning to the end", "instructions
how to perform some key operations".
As
in the earlier presented user studies, our research as well shows high acceptance
and use of electronic journals, but clearly there is a consciousness of the
lack of permanence of the electronic medium and users' concern regarding the
archiving journals for future use.
Since
their beginning library collections were designed with the idea of long-term
use, and regarding electronic journals this is still quite uncertain. Publishers
have different subscription conditions and canceling the current subscription
always creates a possibility for a library and its users to lose all back
issues. Although
the users and libraries are still attached to print versions they accept electronic
ones.
New
electronic medium presented new possibilities as well as new demands for users.
The users still have not changed their patterns of use and information seeking
behaviour. It can take from sixteen months to three years for users to integrate
changes in access patterns into their routine (Luther, J.
2000) There is a difference in age: students acquire new technologies
faster but they often act as if resource do not exist if it is not available
online (Luther, J., 2000).
Innovations
affect people's earlier behavior. Hence, the innovations regarding searching
have to be accepted in order to become a part of ordinary information seeking
behavior. The pace of accepting the new varies from one individual to another,
also the available infrastructure is an important pre-condition (Borghuis,
M. G. M., 1997).
Until
1997, at the time of the first user studies about electronic journals usage,
the commercial publishers only began to publish electronically. The offer
was not that large as today and most of the time the back issues were not
available which affect their usage in general. The size of the collection
inevitably reflects its usage level. As amount of content increases, the collection
usage increases as well (Luther, J. 2000).
The
studies carried out at the RBI revealed that a part of Croatian Scientific
Community (89% in both surveys) accepts electronic journals and uses them
to a great extent, opposite to the 11% of non-users.
These
results proved wrong our hypothesis that there is an insufficient quantity
of scientists who use electronic journals. Although there is a possibility
that we did not cover the real number of scientists who do not use electronic
journals, we believe that the increased number of those respondents would
have not changed the final results essentially. The similar results of the
seminar and the first survey proved relevance of gained results.
Together
with the unfounded hypothesis of insufficient number of electronic journals,
another two turned out to be unfounded as well: scientists under 40 use electronic
journals more and, physicists are predominant electronic journal users.
In
the electronic journal use an important factor is being informed about the
available sources and services. Some researches revealed quite devastating
results about librarians as informers on relevant electronic publications.
The
Keller and Neubauer survey showed that scientists (70% of them) consider e-mail
recommendations from their colleagues the most important informal information
channel. (Keller,
A.; Neubauer, W., 1999).
The
Tomney and Burton study showed that only 21 respondents out of 75 (28%) consider
the University Library as a source of information about relevant electronic
journals, and the main sources are recommendations from colleagues and searching
on the Internet (Tomney, H.; Burton, P. F., 1998).
On
the other side, the Baldwin and Pullinger study showed that scientists show
great respect for library as institution, and that they consider electronic
journals as a new library service and not a replacement for it. (Baldwin,
C.; Pullinger, D., 2000).
Regarding
these studies, the results on usage of the available sources on the Library
site (electronic journal list, EZB, free-trial journals) showed that some
of them are not used enough and users are not informed about existence of
certain sources. The electronic journal list is used by 69% (or 91% in the
second survey) of users and only 8% (in the second survey 6%) did not know
it existed.
The
number of respondents who do not use EZB electronic journal database even
though they know about it combined with the number of respondents who do not
know it exists comes to 56% according to the first survey and 67% according
to the second one. This number is fairly higher then the number of its users
(44% or 33,3%) and shows that the potential of this database is not exploited
enough. One of the elements that made this source unavailable to many of those
who knew about it is that up until May 2002 the interface was available only
in German. The new interface now available in English as well will probably
increase the number of its users.
There
are also a lot of respondents who did not take advantage of the free-trial
access (41%).
When
asked about the use of these sources, the respondents were not given the opportunity
of explanation, so we do not know the real reasons why they do not use them.
Being librarians we have to ask ourselves whether we used all possibilities
to inform our users.
Advantages
and disadvantages of electronic journals listed in the earlier mentioned user
studies are almost identical, with variations according to the importance
that users attach to them.
The
RBI respondents in both surveys stress the availability before the print version
as the most important advantage of the electronic journals, and as the most
important disadvantage slow download. Very few respondents think that electronic
journals have no disadvantages at all (10 in the first and 3 in the second
survey).
Although
most of the respondents prefer print version in the situation where both versions
are available, there are lots of those who use both versions equally (32%
and 33%). Like other similar studies this one also proved the fact that respondents
prefer reading the article printed out instead reading from screen. (73% and
79%). This shows that the appearance of electronic journals will not save
paper as it was thought originally (Woodward, H.,
1997).
It
is obvious that respondents are still quite attached to the paper version.
In accordance, the opinion prevails that electronic journals will not replace
print ones completely.
Comparing
the opinion of our respondents with results from other researches it is evident
that print and electronic journal will continue their co-existence for some
time ahead.
Some
authors think that the appearance of electronic journals represents the second
communication revolution that changed the paradigm of scientific communication
(Sercer, T. M. et al 1999). We agree with the opinion
of Valauskas that electronic journals are different from its print equivalents
but not as radically that it could be called revolution. Also, he thinks that
the revolution is never going to happen and that in the future we will dispose
of a large number of both print and electronic journals (Valauskas,
E. J., 2001).
Preparing
the seminar about the use of electronic journals we were suspicious whether
we would meet the users' needs and expectations. We did not know whether our
users think that seminars are necessary, so we were interested in answers
about the success of the seminar and the need of organizing similar ones.
A
majority of respondents (89%) thinks that seminar improved their knowledge
and all the participants agree that the Library should organize presentation
of its services and practical workshops from time to time. A good response
of users and the results we obtained showed that besides providing electronic
journals there is a very important new task for librarians: education of users.
Promotion
of electronic journals is a first step of animating users and it is not a
one-time activity but ongoing process (Roes, H., 1999).
The libraries should spent more effort on promotion; printed promotional
material like posters and guides still have the same importance as promotion
on library web pages. (Ashcroft, L., 2000). We think
and our respondents confirmed that information about the sources is not enough.
Workshops where the practical use of electronic journals is taught are necessary,
especially those about different ways of searching.
The
change in medium i.e. the electronic version of journals did not fundamentally
change the way of use - scientists still go directly to the desired article
in the journal that they found either by searching through bibliography databases
and/or they browse the latest issue (Clajus, G.; Maier,
C., 2001).
That
is the reason why the new searching capabilities, not applicable with print
versions, mostly remain non-utilized. Many scientists emphasized lack of the
time to study and manage the unfamiliar electronic journals.
The
results of the user study among scientists at the RBI are very encouraging.
They confirm that a part of Croatian scientists have already got quite ahead
on the road of acquiring and intensifying the use of the electronic medium
that provides more efficient and faster dissemination of scientific information.
In spite of the favorable results of this study, which revealed high acceptance
of electronic journals, it would be necessary to conduct a research that would
include scientists from social sciences and humanities in order to get a better
insight about the use of electronic journals within the Croatian Scientific
Community.
The
research among RBI scientists should be repeated after a year because a lot
of journals from major publishers ("Springer", "Elsevier",
"Wiley") became electronically available to users after our study
was completed thus we think that a better offer will help increase the number
of users. We hope that the intensive activities organized by the Library,
directed to promote electronic journals and similar services as well as education
of users will help increase this number, too.
One
of the factors that will certainly help intensify the use of electronic journals
is the increase of scientists willing to publish their paper through the electronic
medium only. The academic libraries should certainly find their place in the
promotion of new services and in user education In other words libraries have
to accept the role of the intermediates between electronic journals and their
end users. Otherwise, users will marginalize them and cut them off from the
position of the relevant scientific information dissemination service.
6. REFERENCES
Ashcroft,
L. Win-win-win: can the evaluation and promotion of electronic journals bring
benefits to library suppliers, information professionals and users?, Library
Management, 21, 9 (2000) 466-471.
Baldwin,
C.; Pullinger, D. What readers value in academic journals, Learned publishing,
13, 4 (2000), 229-239.
Bauer, K. 2000, Who Goes There? Measuring Library Web Site
Usage. http://www.onlinemag.net/OL2000/bauer1.html (2002-04-20)
Borghuis,
M. G. M. User feedback from electronic subscriptions : the possibilities of
logfile analysis, Library Acquisitions : practice & theory, 21, 3 (1997),
373-380.
Chu,
H. Promises and challenges of electronic journals : academic libraries surveyed,
Learned publishing, 13 (1999), 169-175.
Clajus,
G.; Maier, C (2001). Elektronische Zeitschriften and der UB: Eine Untersuchung
zum Nutzerverhalten. http://www.uni-koeln.de/rrzk/kompass/90/k9012.html
Diedrichs,
C. P. E-journals : the OhioLINK experience, Library collections, acquisitions,
& technical services, 25. (2001), 191-210.
Electronic
journals survey (2000). http://www.bath.ac.uk/library/about/general/surveys/2000-ej/.
Harrassowitz,
(2002) http://www.harrassowitz.de/top_resources/ejresguide.html
Hitchcock, S.; Carr, L.; Hall, W. (1996) A
survey of STM online journals 1990-95: the calm before the storm. http://journals.ecs.soton.ac.uk/survey/survey.html.
Holmquist, J. E.(1997) Survey on the use of
electronic journals at Princeton. http://www.eso.org/gen-fac/libraries/lisa3/holmquistj.html.
Keller, A.; Neubauer, W. Dienstleistungsangebote
von Bibliotheken in elektronischer Form, NFD Information - Wissenschaft und
Praxis, 50 (1999) 407-412.
Luther, J. (2000) White paper on electronic
journal usage statistics. http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub94abst.html
McKnight, C.; Price, S. A survey of author
attitudes and skils in relation to article publishing in paper and electronic
journals. Journal of documentation, 55, 5 (1999), 556-577
Melinscak-Zlodi, I. Slobodan i besplatan pristup
znanstvenim radovima - utopija ili sutrašnjica? Rudjer, 3 (2002), 9-10
Pavlinic, S.; Horvat, J. Koncipiranje anketnog
upitnika za istraživanje korisnika Gradske i sveucilišne knjižnice Osijek.
Vjesnik bibliotekara Hrvatske, 40,1-4 (1997), 61-71.
Rich, L. A.; Rabine, J. L. The changing access
to electronic journals : a survey of academic library websites revisited,
Serials review, 27, 3/4 (2001), 1-16
Roes, H.
(1999) Promotion of electronic journals to users by libraries - a case study
of Tilburg University Library. http://cwis.kub.nl/~dbi/users/roes/articles/london99.htm
Rusch-Feja, D.; Siebeky, U. (1999) Evaluation of Usage and
Acceptance of Electronic Journals. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october99/rusch-feja/10rusch-feja-full-report.html
Sercar, T. M.; Ostir, B.,
Rogina. Ali gre za spremembo paradigme znanstvenoga komuniciranja? : primer
elektronskih znanstvenih casopisov s podrucja informacijske znanosti in knjiznicarstva
(1. del od 2 delov). http://home.izum.si/cobiss/cobiss_obvestila/1999_3/html/clanek_02.html
COBISS obvestila, 4, zv. 3 (1999), str. 18-32.
Sercar, T. M.; Oštir,
B., Rogina, A., Ujevic, T. Proucevanje uporabe elektronskih casopisov : sticisce
informacijske znanosti in sociologije (2. del od 2 delov). URL: http://home.izum.si/cobiss/cobiss_obvestila/2001_1/Html/clanek_01.html.
Tenopir, C. Towards electronic journals :
realities for scientists, librarians, and publishers. Special libraries association,
2000
The use of paper and electronic journals
by researchers. Discussion of research results, Tilburg University Library,
January 1999, http://cwis.kub.nl/~dbi/project/journal/eindrep.pdf
Tomney, H.; Burton, P. F. Electronic journals
: a study of usage and attitudes among academics, Journal of information science,
24, 6 (1998), 419-429.
Valauskas, E.J. (2001) Fist Monday and the
evolution of electronic journals: waiting fro Thomas Kuhn. http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-01/FirstMonday.html
Woodward, H.; Fytton, R.; McKnight, C.; Meadows,
J.; Pritchett, C. Electronic journals : myths and realities, Library management,
18, 3 (1997), 155-162.
Woodward, H.; Rowland, F.; McKnight, C.; Pritchtett,
C.; Meadows, J. (1998) Café jus : an electronic journals user survey. http://jodi.esc.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v01/i03/Woodward/
Zelenika, R. Metodologija i tehnologija izrade
znanstvenog i strucnog djela, Rijeka: Ekonomski fakultet u Rijeci, 2000.
Dear
user,
With
the purpose of offering you an ever better service, using this questionnaire
the RBI Library is trying to find out to what extent the users/readers accept
and use electronic journals.
We
expect that the number of electronic journals is going to increase in the
future as well as the number of scientists who will use them in their research
work. That is why your answers are very precious to us.
The
information you will provide is anonymous and its only purpose is helping
our research.
Thank
you for your time and effort.
1.
Division, department
_____________________________________________________________
2.
Status
1.
research
adviser
2.
senior
research associate
3.
research
associate
4.
researcher
5.
junior
researchers (assistents)
3.
Scientific field (Ministry of Science and Technology Classification)
1.
Biology
2.
Biomedicine
3.
Electronics
4.
Physics
5.
Earth
sciences
6.
Chemistry
7.
Mathematics
8.
Computer
science
9.
other_____________________________________
4.
Sex
1. female
2. male
5.
Age
1. 20-30
2. 31-40
3. 41-50
4. 51-60
5. 61-
6.
Frequency of use (JUST ONE answer)
1. daily,
2. several times a week,
3. once a week
4. several times a month
5. once a month,
6. several times a year,
7. once a year
8. do not use them at all - please give us explanation for non
usage _____________________________________________________________________________
If you do not use electronic journals at all you do not have
to fulfill the rest of the questionnaire
7.
Electronic journal access (several answers can be choosen)
1.
from
work place desktop
2.
home
deskop
3.
computer
in RBI library
4.
computer
in other library
8.
Do you use list of current periodicals available at library web pages
(one answer)?
1. yes
2.
no,
I know it exists
3.
no,
I didn't know it existed
9.
Name at least 4 full text electronic journals that you use
__________________________________________________________________________________________
10.
Name journal/journals that you would like to have access to
_________________________________________________________________________________________
11.
Do you use electronic journals that offer only contents and/or abstracts?
1.
yes
2.
no
12.
Do you use electronic journals database Electronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek
(EZB)? (JUST ONE answer)
1.
yes
2.
no,
I know it exists
3.
no,
I didn't know it existed
13.
Did you use free trials that were accessible through library ?
1.
yes
2.
no
14.
If your response to former question was positive, name free trials that you
used (several answers can be choosen)
1.
ScienceDirect
2.
BiomedNet
3.
PhysicsDirect
4.
Engeeniring
Village
5.
Other_________________________________
15.
What do you consider the main advantage of electronic journals ? (JUST one
answer !)
1. availability before print version
2.
timeless
availability
3.
access
from different locations
4.
simultaneous
usage
5.
full
text
6.
access
from desktop
7.
other______________________________________
16.
What do you consider as disadvantage of electronic journals? (several answers
can be choosen)
1. slow download
2.
frames
3.
navigation
4.
additional
payment
5.
other,_______________________________
6.
there
are no disadvantages
17.
When using the electronic version of the journal do you read the full-text
articles...?
1. from the screen
2.
print
out on the paper
18.
When both versions are available which one do you prefer ?
1. print
2.
electronic
3.
both
equally
19.
Will print journals disappear ?
1.
yes
2.
no
20.
Your comments and suggestions
____________________________________________________
1 Survey slip method, monitoring use of photocopying facilities,
questionnaire, interview, interlibrary slip analyses, log file, etc. The
survey of the use of paper journals in collaboration with University in Maastricht.
2 With paper journals,
20% of journals covers 80% of the demand, with electronic journals 31% covers
80% of the demand
3 OhioLINK = The Ohio Library
and Information Network
Café Jus = Commercial
and Free Electronic Journals: User Study
The
number of scientists at the time of the polling (December 1st 2001
- January 31st 2002)
There is a selection
of answers offered to the respondents
The questionnaire is
enclosed
The base for collecting
data through the network questionnaire is programmed by a Mario Pranjić
B. S. in Computer Sciences, IRB Library
The data was processed
by Boris Badurina, B. A. in Sociology
Since May 2002 the access
was possible to 100 journals from the publisher "Wiley"
The questions about use
of free-trial journals, and the questions where the respondents list the electronic
journals they use the most, as well as those they would like to use in the
electronic version, are omitted.
It was possible to select
as much as four offered answers.
13 It was possible to select several
answers and to present your own answer
At this question the
respondent could either select one answer of offer his own answer.
P-value of<0.05 was taken as statistically
significant
See methodology
There were four answers
offered with this question
The participants of the
workshop could select multiple answers. See methodology
At this question the
answer:" access from desktop" has been omitted because it is contained
in the answer: "access from different locations"
The respondents could
choose from multiple answers
four respondents who
answered they did not use electronic journals, did not answer these questions,
see methodology
see methodology