More E-Books, Less Print?—What Does Usage Data Tell Us?

Chen-Gaffey, Aiping; Getsay, Heather

doi:10.1080/14649055.2016.1209003

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies reported e-book use was an important reason for the decrease of print book use (Bailey, 2006; Chen-Gaffey and Getsay, 2015; Martell, 2008). We compared the usage statistics of print materials with the largest Chinese e-book database, Superstar (see Table 3).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The proportion changed minimally in the past five years and was lower than the findings of Harris (1977) and Hindle and Buckland (1979) who reported the proportion approximate to be 40%. There were marginally significant positive Previous studies reported e-book use was an important reason for the decrease of print book use (Bailey, 2006;Chen-Gaffey and Getsay, 2015;Martell, 2008). We compared the usage statistics of print materials with the largest Chinese e-book database, Superstar (see Table 3).…”

Section: In-house Use Of Print Books and Relationship Between Check-out And In-house Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can in-house use data of print collections shed new light on library practices? Statistical evidence from a five-year longitudinal study in China

Han

Song

et al. 2018

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Libraries worldwide are encountering limited budgets, rising e-collection prices and declining check-out use of print books. It is necessary for administrators to demonstrate physical library value to stakeholders and make empirically based collection development decisions. This five-year longitudinal study of the Southern Medical University Library in China was conducted based on the in-house use and the check-out use data of the whole collection from 2012 to 2016. We found that the in-house use of print materials was positively correlated with the check-out use. In-house use represented 26.78% of the total circulation, on average. Academic bound periodicals and reference books were rarely used in-house. The in-house use ratio differed greatly among subjects, and subjects with frequent check-out use approximated the average ratio. Collections with high check-out use also had a high in-house use ratio. Of the books, 46.1% of the titles were used only in-house, and titles of in-house use were 1.5 times that of check-out use, although the average frequency of in-house use was lower than check-out use. Check-out use data could not comprehensively represent in-house use. In-house use data provided important information for the physical library’s value estimation and collection weeding. We provide practical suggestions on in-house use data collection, collection development and weeding work.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%