• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Evidence Based Library and Information Practice >Education and Criminal Justice Faculty Value Electronic Serials over Print to Support Professional Activities
【24h】

Education and Criminal Justice Faculty Value Electronic Serials over Print to Support Professional Activities

机译：教育和刑事司法学院重视电子版出版物，以支持专业活动

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

A Review of: Jones, G. F., Cassidy, E. D., McMain, L., Strickland, S. D., Thompson, M., & Valdes, Z. (2015). Are serials worth their weight in knowledge? A value study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(5), 578-582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.004 Objective – To determine the faculty assessed value of print and electronic serials. Design – Qualitative survey. Setting – Doctoral research institution in the southern United States of America. Subjects – 122 tenured or tenure-track faculty from the School of Criminal Justice and the School of Education. Methods – A survey was designed to measure the value of online and print serials for key faculty activities: research, publishing, course preparation and development, service, and personal interests. Measures included: recentness of use, the extent to which library journals supported work in the key activities (minor, moderate, or major), requirement of students to use online or print journals in their courses, cancellations of personal journal subscriptions in favor of library subscriptions, and travel to other libraries to use library journals. Main Results – Twenty-seven faculty responded to the survey (22%). Two of the respondents (7%) had never used the library journals, though the majority (93%) had. Of those who used library journals, the most recent use was of online over print publications. For each key activity, 40%-87% of the respondents reported they had never used print journals, and those who did use print reported that it supported their work only to a minor extent, primarily in the area of research. Respondents noted they used online journals most frequently for research (92%), publishing (83%), and course preparation and development (76%). Service is the least supported by journal use in either print or online, with 87% of the respondents never using print and 50% never using online journals for service. The respondents who taught undergraduates required the use of online journals over print journals at a ratio of 3:1 for assigned readings, course activities, and writing assignments. The ratio increased to a range of 4.5:1 to 8.5:1 across activities for graduate students. Respondents indicated that print (22%) and online journals (72%) had the highest use in assigned readings. The majority of respondents required graduate students to use online journals in all activities and less than a quarter required the use of print. Twenty respondents (80%) had not dropped personal subscriptions, but among those who did, print subscriptions were more likely to be dropped than online. If institutional access were available, 55% indicated that they would drop a personal subscription for online access, and only 27% indicated they would cancel personal subscriptions for print access. Those who did drop subscriptions cited cost, storage space, and ease of access to library journals as their motivation. Faculty comments praised the serials holdings, especially the holdings of back issues. Finally, the majority of respondents (74%) reported not having traveled to another library for journal access, but those who did, accessed materials for research, class preparation, and publishing. Many of those who went to other libraries did so because they were closer to their residence or they needed to access original manuscripts. Conclusion – Participants used journal subscriptions for all of the key activities surveyed, with research and publishing the top reasons for use and service the lowest. Both undergraduate and graduate students were required to use both print and online journals, with graduate student use being greater for online access. Faculty acknowledged their use of print and online journals for key activities to a major extent, with a strong preference for online journals.
机译：综述：琼斯·G·F·卡西迪·E·D·麦克迈因·L·斯特里克兰·S·D·汤普森·M·巴尔德斯（2015）。连续剧值得他们重视知识吗？一项价值研究。大学图书馆学报，41（5），578-582。 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.004目标–确定教师对印刷版和电子版的评估价值。设计–定性调查。机构-美国南部的博士研究机构。科目–刑事司法学院和教育学院的122名终身制或终身制教师。方法–设计了一项调查，以衡量在线和印刷系列对于教师的主要活动的价值：研究，出版，课程准备和开发，服务以及个人兴趣。措施包括：使用的最新性，图书馆期刊在关键活动（次要，中级或主要）中支持工作的程度，要求学生在课程中使用在线或印刷期刊，取消对图书馆有利的个人期刊订阅订阅，并前往其他图书馆使用图书馆日记。主要结果–有27位教职员工对此调查做出了回应（22％）。其中有两个受访者（7％）从未使用过图书馆期刊，尽管大多数（93％）曾经使用过。在那些使用图书馆期刊的人中，最近的使用是在线印刷出版物。对于每个关键活动，有40％-87％的受访者表示他们从未使用过印刷期刊，而使用印刷品的人则表示仅在很小的程度上支持他们的工作，主要是在研究领域。受访者指出，他们最常使用在线期刊进行研究（92％），出版（83％）和课程准备与开发（76％）。在印刷或在线期刊使用中，对服务的支持最少，有87％的受访者从未使用印刷期刊，而50％的受访者从未使用在线期刊提供服务。教授本科的受访者要求以3：1的比例使用在线期刊与印刷期刊进行分配的阅读，课程活动和写作作业。在研究生活动中，该比率增加到4.5：1至8.5：1的范围。受访者表示，印刷品（占22％）和在线期刊（占72％）在指定阅读中的使用率最高。大多数受访者要求研究生在所有活动中都使用在线期刊，不到四分之一的受访者要求使用印刷品。 20位受访者（80％）并未放弃个人订阅，但在那些受访者中，印刷订阅比在线订阅更有可能被放弃。如果有机构访问权限，则55％表示他们将放弃在线订阅的个人订阅，只有27％的人表示将取消打印访问的个人订阅。那些放弃订阅的人将成本，存储空间和对图书馆期刊的便捷访问视为动机。教师的评论赞扬了系列出版物的持有量，尤其是后期出版物的持有量。最后，大多数受访者（74％）报告说他们没有去过另一个图书馆来访问期刊，但是这样做的人访问了用于研究，课堂准备和出版的资料。许多去其他图书馆的人之所以这样做，是因为他们离自己的住所更近，或者他们需要获取原始手稿。结论–参与调查的所有关键活动的参与者都使用期刊订阅，而使用和提供服务的最主要原因是研究和发布。本科生和研究生都必须同时使用印刷和在线期刊，而研究生对在线访问的使用更多。学院承认他们在很大程度上将印刷和在线期刊用于重要活动，并且强烈偏爱在线期刊。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号