E-Book usage and the Choice outstanding academic book list: Is there a correlation?

Williams, Karen Carter; Best, Rickey

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2006.05.007

Cited by 19 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Christianson & Aucoin (2005) found that fewer e-books were used than print books but that the circulation for those e-books was higher than for the print (p. 75). Both Hughes (2001, p. 117) and Mandel & Summerfield (1998, Section 3.2.1.2) reported that online titles were used three times more than print titles, while Williams & Best (2006) reported average use of 2.11 circulations for print compared to 1.30 for electronic titles (p. 477). Joint (2009) stated that a digital library is used forty times more than a print library (p. 66), while Littman & Connaway (2004) described 11% higher usage of e-books than of the print equivalent (p. 260).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was corroborated by Littman & Connaway's discovery that that if a title were unpopular in print it was also unpopular in electronic format (2004, p. 261). Williams & Best (2006) compared titles available in both formats and found that only 7% of the electronic titles circulated compared to 79% of the titles in print format. The remaining 14% of titles were checked out in both electronic and print format (p. 477).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Impact of the Acquisition of Electronic Medical Texts on the Usage of Equivalent Print Books in an Academic Medical Library

Morgan¹

2010

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncsa/2.5/ca/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one. AbstractObjectives -This study examines whether acquiring a text in electronic format effects the usage of the print version of the text, focusing specifically on medical texts. Studies in the literature dealt specifically with general collections and it was not clear if they were applicable to medical collections. It was also not clear if these studies should play a role in determining whether a medical library should purchase electronic texts or whether reserve collections are still needed for print texts.Methods -Four usage studies were conducted using data from the circulation system and the electronic vendor systems. These were 1) trends of print usage; 2) trends of electronic usage; 3) a comparison of electronic usage with print usage of the same title in the reserve collection; 4) a comparison of electronic usage with print usage of the same title in the general collection.Results -In comparison to print, substantial usage is being made of electronic books. Print is maintaining a level pattern of usage while electronic usage is increasing steadily. There was a noticeable difference in the usage levels of the electronic texts as regards to the package in which they are contained. Usage of print texts both on reserve and in the general collection has decreased over time, however the acquisition of the electronic version of a medical title had little impact on the usage of the equivalent print version.Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2010, 5.3 6 Conclusion -There is a demand for medical texts in medical libraries. Electronic versions can replace print versions of texts in reserve. Further investigation is needed of current patterns of print collection usage, with particular emphasis on trends in reserve collection usage.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%