Journal Reading Patterns of Medical Faculty in a Digital Age

Carol Tenopir

ctenopir@utk.edu

Medical faculty/physicians are different!

4 Main Questions

1) How many medical faculty use scholarly journals?

2) Are print articles or electronicarticles read more?

3) Is there a pattern of the usersof electronic vs. print?

4) How do medical facultycompare with other disciplines?

Data From:

• 16,000+ scientists and social sciences

• 1977 to the present

• University and non-university settings

Three Types of Data

• Demographic

• Estimates of behavior

• Details of “last” reading

“Medical Faculty’s Use of Print and Electronic Journals: Changes Over Time and Comparison with Other Scientists.” Journal of the Medical Library Association. January 2004.

Use and Users of Electronic Library Resources: An Overview and Analysis of Recent Research Studies. August 2003

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120/pub120.pdf

Not All “E-Journals” are the Same

Average Time Spent and Number of Articles Read Per Year Per Scientist

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1977 1978-1983

1984 1985-1989

1990-1993

1994-1998

2000-2001

Number ReadHours Spent

Scholarly Article ReadingWork Field Articles

Reading (Per Year)

Time Spent (Hours)

Time Per Article (Min)

University Medical Faculty

~322 118 22

Chemists ~276 198 43

Physicists ~204 153 45

Engineers ~72 97 81

Scientist’s Reading Per Year

204

322

72

232 228

276

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

UT MedicalFaculty

CorporateMedical

Professionals

Astronomers Chemists Physicists Engineers

Principal Purpose of Reading

Primary Research 29.9%

Current Awareness 22.1%

Teaching 16.9%

Writing 11.7%

Other Purpose 9.0%

Background 6.5%

Consulting/Advising 3.9%

#3

#5

#4

#2

#6

#7

#1

Differences Among Medical Respondents

• Award winners averaged 395 readings/year

• Others averaged 270 readings/year

Average Number of Personal Subscriptions to Scholarly

Journals

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1977 1978-1983

1984 1985-1989

1990-1993

1994-1998

2000-2001

2002-2003

Years of Observation

Personal Subscriptions

• All studies average 2.2

• All UT science faculty average 3.8

• Medical faculty average 6.3

Separates Personal

36%15%

62.3%Library 49%

Separates

15.6% Library22.1%

Astronomers Medical Faculty

Sources of Readings

Personal

Astronomers Medical Faculty

Print 20%

Electronic 80%

Electronic 25%

Print 75%

Print or Electronic?

Format of Reading

Educational Degree

Print Electronic

M.D., only 33 1

Ph.D., only 18 17

Both M.D. and Ph.D.

1 0

Neither degree

4 0

Value of Readings

• Inspired new thinking or ideas (55%)

• Improved the result of the purpose (55%)

• Narrowed, broadened, or changed their views (30%)

• Saved time or other resources (16%)

• Resolved problems (12%)

62.3%

20.8%

16.9%

Means of Learning About Articles Read

Medical Faculty

Browse SearchOther

39%

21%

37%

Astronomers

22%

29%49%

All UTK Faculty

Summary

• Medical faculty read more on average

• They spend less time on average/article

• They value currency, but need digested and verified information to save them time

• They browse more than others

Summary (cont)

• They value journal articles

• Convenience is important

• They rely more on personal subscriptions than others

• Portability is important

What does all this mean for librarians and publishers?