In the spring of 2005, the University of Denver's Penrose Library conducted a survey of its users to determine their degree of awareness of electronic books, how and why they use them, and their level of satisfaction with the format. It is clear from vendor-supplied usage statistics that electronic books are used, but it is not clear how or why they are used. The survey addressed electronic books in general and netLibrary specifically. Survey results show that e-books are used by about half of the campus community. Of these users, most utilize them only occasionally. These e-book users like the convenience of being able to access materials from home and the ability to search within the text. Most respondents read only small portions of e-books, suggesting perhaps that print volumes are a better alternative for immersion in the text. Most respondents (over 60 percent) indicate a preference for print books over electronic, but an even larger number (over 80 percent) indicate a degree of flexibility between the two formats. Respondents are generally pleased with the e-book format.
Purpose -To identify levels of awareness and patterns of usage of electronic books by scholars in the humanities. Design/methodology/approach -A survey of the University of Denver community assessed knowledge about and usage of electronic books. The results for humanists are presented here. Findings -Scholars in the humanities have a higher level of awareness of e-books than their colleagues across campus but use e-books at the same rate. Their patterns of use are different, with humanists using less of the e-book than do other groups. Humanists still prefer printed books to electronic texts at a higher rate than do other groups and care less about added features, such as searchability, than they do about content. Originality/value -Humanists conduct research differently than do most other scholars, using the library catalog and browsing as primary means of finding information, and valuing the book more than other resources. No previous research has assessed whether humanists have similarly unique patterns of usage for electronic books.
Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to identify the utility of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar as citation analysis tools for the social sciences. Design/methodology/approach -The 25 most-accessed articles in 163 social sciences journals are searched in three citation databases. Findings -Web of Science has long been the only tool for citation analysis. Scopus and Google Scholar, while still new to the market, are complementary to Web of Science and in some cases can provide a more nuanced view of the importance of scholarly articles in the social sciences. Practical implications -As libraries struggle to provide the best tools to their users, they may wish to consider the freely-available Google Scholar as a substitute or complement to expensive databases such as Web of Science and Scopus. Originality/value -Most analyses of citation databases have focused on the sciences. Because this study examined the social sciences literature, it has expanded on the research available on Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.