Search

Abstract This guide outlines general issues in searching for studies; describes the main sources of potential studies; and discusses how to plan the search process, design, and carry out search strategies, manage references found during the search process and document and report the search process.

Objective – To test whether acquiring books written by authors of highly cited journal articles is an effective method for building a collection in the social sciences.Design – Comparison Study.Setting – Academic library at a public university in the US.Subjects – A total of 1,359 book titles, selected by traditional means (n=1,267) or based on citation analysis (n=92).Methods – The researchers identified highly‐ranked authors, defined as the most frequently cited authors publishing in journals with an impact factor greater than one, with no more than six journals in any category, using 1999 ISI data. They included authors in the categories Business, Anthropology, Criminology & Penology, Education & Education Research, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology/Anthropology, and General Social Sciences. The Books in Print bibliographic tool was searched to identify monographs published by these authors, and any titles not already owned were purchased. All books in the study were available to patrons by Fall 2005. The researchers collected circulation data in Spring 2007, and used it to compare titles acquired by this method with titles selected by traditional means.Main Results – Overall, books selected by traditional methods circulated more than those selected by citation analysis, with differences significant at the .001 level. However, at the subject category level, there was no significant difference at the .05 level. Most books selected by the test method circulated one to two times.Conclusion – Citation analysis can be an effective method for building a relevant book collection, and may be especially effective for identifying works relevant to a discipline beyond local context.

Objective – To quantify the transition to electronic communication in information‐seeking behaviour of academic scientists.Design – Census survey.Setting – University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a large public research university.Subjects – Nine hundred two faculty, research staff, and graduate students involved in research in basic or medical science departments. Participants self‐selected (26%) from 3523 recruited. The sample reflected the larger population in terms of gender, age, university position, and department.Methods – The authors developed a web‐based survey and delivered it via PHP Survey Tool. They developed the questions to parallel similar earlier studies to allow for comparative analysis. The survey included 28 main questions with some questions including further follow‐up questions depending on the initial answer. The instrument included three initial questions designed to reveal the participant’s place and role in the university, and further coding classified participants’ department as either basic or medical science. The questions included categorical, continuous, and open‐ended types. While most questions focused on the scientists’ information seeking behaviour, the three final open‐ended questions asked about their opinions of the library and ideal searching environment. Answers were transferred into a MySQL database, then imported into SAS to generate simple descriptive statistics.Main Results – Participants reported easy access to online resources, and a strong preference for conducting research online, even when access to a physical library is convenient. Infrequent visits to the library predominantly took place to utilize materials not available online, although the third most common answer for visiting was to take advantage of the library building as a quiet reading space (14%). Additional questions revealed both type and specifics of most popular sources for research, preferred journals, current awareness tools, reasons for choice of journal for publication, and use of bibliographic management tools.Conclusion – Scientists prefer online tools for conducting library research, although specific contexts influence the preference, and online articles may be printed out for reading or annotation. The participants are taking advantage of the developing online arena, utilizing databases for research, as well as literature searching, access to journals and conference proceedings, and to keep abreast of current research.

Objective – To investigate the relationship between academics’ use of library electronic resources and their opinions regarding how these resources have impacted their work, and to investigate the association between this perceived influence and publication productivity during the previous two years.Design – Two specific questions added to an annual online user-survey questionnaire; additional data mined from surveySetting – Twenty-two Finnish Universities served by FinELib, the Finnish Electronic Library.Subjects – Seven hundred and sixty seven academic staff and full-time doctoral students.Methods – A questionnaire was posted in April 2007 on FinELib’s homepage and advertised on each university library’s mainpage, and focused on respondents’ experience in the previous two years. Participants selected answers either from a list of category choices, or, when measuring perceptions, by rating agreement with statements along a four-point scale. Controlled variables measured were the respondents’ academic position, their discipline, membership in a research group, whether their literature use was discipline-specific or interdisciplinary, and their perception of the availability online of the relevant core literature. The independent variable measured was the scholars’ perception of the impact of the use of electronic library resources on their work. The dependent variable measured was the scholars’ self-reported publications in the two years preceding the survey.Main Results – Participants reported a positive impact on the efficiency of their work, most strongly in areas of ease of access, with lesser impacts in the range of materials available to them and the ease with which they can keep up-to-date in their field. To a lesser extent, the scholars perceived a positive impact on the quality of their work. Upon analysis, the study found that access to online library resources improved scholars’ work by the interconnected mechanisms of the ease of access and breadth of resources available positively impacting their ability to keep abreast of new developments and inspiring new ideas. The study found mixed results between perceived improved access and number of publications. Although representation in national publications was not significantly impacted, there was a positive correlation with the number of international publications. There were interesting differences among disciplines and academic status, with a decreased impact among scholars in the humanities, and greater impact among lower-status or novice academics.Conclusion – There are positive perceptions of the accessibility of online information and of its impact on the quality of work, and a correlation between these perceptions and the number of international publications, thus validating the investment in providing access to digital information resources to Finnish academics.

A Review of: Enger, K. B. (2009). Using citation analysis to develop core book collections in academic libraries. Library & Information Science Research, 31(2), 107-112. Objective – To test whether acquiring books written by authors of highly cited journal articles is an effective method for building a collection in the social sciences. Design – Comparison Study. Setting – Academic library at a public university in the US. Subjects – A total of 1,359 book titles, selected by traditional means (n=1,267) or based on citation analysis (n=92). Methods – The researchers identified highly-ranked authors, defined as the most frequently cited authors publishing in journals with an impact factor greater than one, with no more than six journals in any category, using 1999 ISI data. They included authors in the categories Business, Anthropology, Criminology & Penology, Education & Education Research, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology/Anthropology, and General Social Sciences. The Books in Print bibliographic tool was searched to identify monographs published by these authors, and any titles not already owned were purchased. All books in the study were available to patrons by Fall 2005. The researchers collected circulation data in Spring 2007, and used it to compare titles acquired by this method with titles selected by traditional means. Main Results – Overall, books selected by traditional methods circulated more than those selected by citation analysis, with differences significant at the .001 level. However, at the subject category level, there was no significant difference at the .05 level. Most books selected by the test method circulated one to two times. Conclusion – Citation analysis can be an effective method for building a relevant book collection, and may be especially effective for identifying works relevant to a discipline beyond local context.

A Review of: Leykam, Andrew. “Exploring Interlibrary Loan Usage Patterns and Liaison Activities: The Experience at a U.S. University.” Interlending & Document Supply 36.4 (2008): 218-24. Objective - To investigate Interlibrary Loan (ILL) usage patterns, and connect them to liaison activities beyond collection development. Design – Pattern analysis of ILL requests. Setting – Library of The College of Staten Island, a mid-size, public university with predominantly undergraduate enrolment. Subjects – 4,875 identifiable requests over a three-year period. Methods – A data set of requests for ILLs of monographs over a period of three years was acquired from OCLC resource sharing statistics. This data was manually reviewed to remove duplicate records of the same request, but not multiple requests for the same item. The data included requestor status, department, publication date and subject classification of requested items. Main Results – Differences in use across user statuses and departments were identified. Conclusion – Usage Patterns can accurately illustrate trends in the borrowing behaviour of patrons, and be used to inform liaison librarians about user needs.