International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology

Research Institute for Knowledge Content Development & Technology (건국대학교 지식콘텐츠연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Log Usage Analysis: What it Discloses about Use, Information Seeking and Trustworthiness

  • Received : 2014.03.08
  • Accepted : 2014.06.01
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The Trust and Authority in Scholarly Communications in the Light of the Digital Transition research project1) was a study which investigated the behaviours and attitudes of academic researchers as producers and consumers of scholarly information resources in respect to how they determine authority and trustworthiness. The research questions for the study arose out of CIBER's studies of the virtual scholar. This paper focuses on elements of this study, mainly an analysis of a scholarly publisher's usage logs, which was undertaken at the start of the project in order to build an evidence base, which would help calibrate the main methodological tools used by the project: interviews and questionnaire. The specific purpose of the log study was to identify and assess the digital usage behaviours that potentially raise trustworthiness and authority questions. Results from the self-report part of the study were additionally used to explain the logs. The main findings were that: 1) logs provide a good indicator of use and information seeking behaviour, albeit in respect to just a part of the information seeking journey; 2) the 'lite' form of information seeking behaviour observed in the logs is a sign of users trying to make their mind up in the face of a tsunami of information as to what is relevant and to be trusted; 3) Google and Google Scholar are the discovery platforms of choice for academic researchers, which partly points to the fact that they are influenced in what they use and read by ease of access; 4) usage is not a suitable proxy for quality. The paper also provides contextual data from CIBER's previous studies.

Keywords

References

  1. Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C. et al. (2014). Retour sur Investissement (ROI) de la consultation des revues electroniques en bibliotheques universitaires francaises: Approches bibliometrique et econometrique. Research report. Available at Retrieved 2014.02.20.
  2. Carr, N. (2011). The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York, W.W Norton.
  3. CIBER. (2011). E-journals: their use, value and impact - final report. Research Information Network. Available at Retrieved 2014.02.20.
  4. CIBER and University of Tennessee. (2014a). Trust project. Available at Retrieved 2014.02.20.
  5. CIBER and University of Tennessee. (2014b). Trust and Authority in Scholarly Communications in the Light of the Digital Transition. Final Report. Available at Retrieved 2014.02.20.
  6. COUNTER. (2014). Usage-based measures of journal impact and quality. Available at Retrieved 2014.01.20.
  7. Howard, J. (2012). JSTOR tests free, read-only access to some articles [blog post]. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Wired Campus. Available at Retrieved 2013.02.25.
  8. Jamali, H. R., & Asadi, S. (2010). Google and the scholar: The role of Google in scientists' informationseeking behaviour. Online Information Review, 34(2), 282-294. doi: 10.1108/14684521011036990
  9. Nicholas, D. (2010). The behaviour of the researcher of the future (the 'Google generation'). Art Libraries Journal, 35(1), 18-21.
  10. Nicholas, D. (2010). The virtual scholar: the hard and evidential truth. In Digital Library Futures. IFLA Publication Series. K.G. Saur Verlag, Munich, 23-32.
  11. Nicholas, D., & Clark, D. (2012). Evidence of user behaviour: deep log analysis in Milena Dobreva, Andy O'Dwyer and Pierluigi Feliciati, Editors. User studies for digital library development. London: Facet, 85-94.
  12. Nicholas, D., Clark, DJ., & Jamali, HR. (2014). Evaluating information seeking and use in the changing virtual world: the emerging role of Google Analytics. Learned Publishing, 27(3), in progress.
  13. Nicholas, D., Clark, D., Rowlands, I., & Jamali, H.R. (2009). Online use and information seeking behaviour: Institutional and subject comparisons of UK researchers. Journal of Information Science, 35(6), 660-676. doi: 10.1177/0165551509338341
  14. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Jamali, H. R. (2007). The Use, Users, and Role of Abstracts in the Digital Scholarly Environment. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 446-453. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2007.03.004
  15. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. R., & Dobrowolski, T. (2008). "The Information-Seeking Behaviour of the Digital Consumer: Case Study the Virtual Scholar." In: Nicholas, D. and Rowlands, I., Eds., Digital Consumers: Reshaping the Information Professions. London: Facet Publishing, 113-158.
  16. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. R., Rowlands, I., Dobrowolski, T., & Tenopir, C. (2008). Viewing and reading behaviour in a virtual environment: The full-text download and what can be read into it. Aslib Proceedings, 60(3), 185-198. doi: 10.1108/00012530810879079
  17. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Tenopir, C., Jamali, H., & Dobrowolski, T. (2008). Viewing and reading behaviour in a virtual environment: the full-text download. Aslib Proceedings, 60(3), 186-198.
  18. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Williams, P., & Dobrowolski, T. (2004). Re-appraising information seeking behaviour in a digital environment: bouncers, checkers, returnees and the like. Journal of Documentation, 60(1), Jan/Feb, 24-39. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410410516635
  19. Nicholas, D., & Rowlands, I. Editors. (2008). Digital Consumers; reshaping the information professions. London: Facet, 2008.
  20. Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. R., & Salazar, P. H. (2010). Diversity in the e-journal use and information-seeking behaviour of UK researchers. Journal of Documentation, 66(3), 409-433. doi: 10.1108/00220411011038476
  21. Nicholas, D., Williams, P., & Rowlands, I. (2010). Researchers' e-journal use and information seeking behaviour. Journal of Information Science, 36(5), August, 494-516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551510371883
  22. PLOS. (2014). Article-Level Metrics measure the dissemination and reach of published research articles. Available at Retrieved 2014.02.20.
  23. Research Information Network. (2009). Available at: E-journals: their use, value and impact. Retrieved 2014.01.20.
  24. Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Bates, B., Levine, K., King, D.W., Birch, B., Mays, R., & Caldwell, C. (2011). Perceived Value of Scholarly Articles. Learned Publishing, 24, 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1087/20110207
  25. Town, S. (2004). E-measures: a comprehensive waste of time? Vine, 34(4), 190-195. https://doi.org/10.1108/03055720410570984

Cited by

  1. A Global Analysis of Open Access Books: A Study Based on Directory of Open Access Books vol.6, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5865/IJKCT.2016.6.1.085