Scholarly Reading and Scholarly Sharing Some Indicators of

Scholarly Reading and Scholarly Sharing: Some Indicators of Change Carol Tenopir University of Tennessee ctenopir@utk. edu Center for Information and Communication Studies

Conclusions come from research projects over the years § Surveys from 1977 to 2012 of reading patterns of academics with Donald W. King (NSF, IMLS) § Projects on trust and factors that influence choice of articles (funded by STM and Sloan Foundation, 2009 -2014) § Current projects on Sharing and Open Access (Elsevier and Mellon) § Sharing of research data 2010 - present (Data. ONE for NSF) Center for Information and Communication Studies

Some underlying principles • Researchers as readers can be different from researchers as authors • Value of access does not necessarily equate to frequency of access • Not everyone is the same • Data from a variety of studies can help with insights (with limitations) Center for Information and Communication Studies

Diffusion of Innovations Everett Rogers Center for Information and Communication Studies

5 conclusions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Scholarly reading is essential E-access has made a difference Trust of a source varies by purpose and age Sharing articles is natural Most researchers are willing to share some of their data, but there are barriers to data sharing Center for Information and Communication Studies

1. Scholarly reading is essential to academic work. Center for Information and Communication Studies

Academics read a lot (averages per month in US) Article 21 Book 7 Other Publication 10 0 5 10 15 20 Average Read per Month 25 n=837, 5 US institutions, January 2013 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Article Readings differ by discipline (average per month in US) 45 Readings per month 40 37 35 30 26 25 22 19 20 21 15 10 5 0 Sciences Medical Sciences Engineering Social Sciences Humanities n=837, 5 US institutions, 2012 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Research & writing is the most likely principal purpose of reading 59% 47% 31% Article Readings Book Readings Other Publication Readings n=837, 5 US institutions, January 2013 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Readings for research are. . • • Read longer Read with greater care Less likely to be skimmed Ranked more highly valuable to purpose • Most often come from the library Center for Information and Communication Studies

Some signs of change? Annual Article Readings 1977 to Present by Scientists and Social Scientists in the US 350 280 Readings per year 300 250 216 200 150 264 150 171 188 100 50 * 0 1977 1984 *2012, n=837; 2005, n=932; 2000 -03, n=397; 1993, n=70; 1984, n=865; 1977, n=2350 1993 2000 -2003 2005 2012 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Is social media the reason? Faculty… • …who use or create more social media also read more articles, books, and other publications • …in social sciences and humanities are more likely to use or create social media • …in their 40 s and 50 s are more likely to use or create social media than their younger or older counterparts Center for Information and Communication Studies

It may be we have reached a saturation point…Change in Scholarly Article Reading and Time Spent per Reading on Average for U. S. Academics Center for Information and Communication Studies

Portrait of a successful academic: In last 2 years: Has won an award and published four or more items. § Reads more of every type of material. § Spends more time per book and other publication readings. § Uses the library for articles § More often buys books and obtains other publications from the Internet. § Occasionally participates and creates social media content. Center for Information and Communication Studies

2. E-access has made a difference. Center for Information and Communication Studies

Use of electronic sources: 2005 vs 2012 Electronic 54% Print 21% Print 46% Electronic 79% 2005, n=1105, 5 US universities 2012, n=1163 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Use of library collections for articles US, 2012 Print 5% Electronic 95% US: January 2013 n=609 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Format of last article reading 2005 vs 2012 Computer Screen 18% Computer Screen 51% From Print 82% From Print 49% n=594 n=923 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Where academics are obtaining articles (% in the US) 60 55 Percent 50 40 30 20 13 15 7 10 10 0 Library US, n=609 January 2013 Website Personal Colleague Other Center for Information and Communication Studies

Just because they read from library collections (library collections only)… US 2012 Home 30% Library 2% Travelling 1% Other 1% Office/lab 66% n=327, 5 US universities, January 2013 Center for Information and Communication Studies

3. Trust of a source varies by purpose of use and age of researcher. Center for Information and Communication Studies

The reality of trust (from focus groups): • They read many things they “trust” but would never cite (e. g. Wikipedia) • Politics influence citing and publishing • Cite to protect yourself and add “trustworthiness” • Publish to help your career • Use different criteria for reading, citing, and publishing Center for Information and Communication Studies

Trust in reading is complex 1. Navigational Metrics • Read abstract and methodology • Check for credible data and sound logic • Look at source’s references 2. Social Metrics • Colleague recommendations • Experience with the author 3. Traditional Metrics • Familiarity with journal • Peer-review linked to quality • Impact factor a factor. . . Center for Information and Communication Studies

How trustworthiness is determined for citing • Known and trusted authority: • Author • Journal • Conference • Research group • Seminal work in the field • Supports methodology Center for Information and Communication Studies

How trustworthiness is determined when deciding where to publish • Traditional metrics (e. g. , impact factor) still important • Influenced by career advancement • Institutional research policies • Audience of a journal • Likelihood of getting published Center for Information and Communication Studies

How trustworthiness is determined by different age groups for reading Younger Researchers are more likely to… • Read abstract • Rely on colleagues’ opinions • Check if indexed by authoritative indexing body • Look at number of downloads Older Researchers are more likely to… • Check for sound logic • Is it peerreviewed? • Check the name of the author Alfred P. Sloan Foundation International Survey May – July 2013 (n=3, 650) Significant differences based on mean score Photos from www. freedigitalphotos. net Center for Information and Communication Studies

How trustworthiness is determined by different age groups for publishing and citing Younger researchers more likely to… • trust nontraditional methods of dissemination • feel pressure to publish in highly ranked journals to obtain research grants • cite people they know because they trust them • cite open access journals if properly peer-reviewed Alfred P. Sloan Foundation International Survey May – July 2013 (n=3, 650) Significant differences based on mean score Center for Information and Communication Studies

Winds of change … I am concerned that the litmus test for quality remains the same (peer review, publication in wellknown journals, etc. ) when there are more accurate ways to judge quality The best writing now is shifting away from the traditional peer-reviewed journals to social media and open access There are some people publishing in nontraditional sources (e. g. , blogs) that are more trustworthy because their material is more empirical and data-driven. Center for Information and Communication Studies

4. Sharing articles is natural. Center for Information and Communication Studies

Beyond Downloads: study of sharing Center for Information and Communication Studies

Center for Information and Communication Studies

Top preferred methods of sharing for research Email ranked 1 st with 73. 8% respondents listing as most preferred method of sharing. Cloud services 2 nd with 11. 6% respondents listing as most preferred method of sharing. Internal networks ranked 3 rd with 10. 7% respondents listing as most preferred method of sharing. Center for Information and Communication Studies

Top preferred methods of sharing for teaching Email ranked 1 st with 82. 8% respondents listing as most preferred method of sharing. Learning management systems ranked 2 nd with 9. 6% respondents listing as most preferred method of sharing Internal networks ranked 3 rd with 8% respondents listing as most preferred method of sharing Center for Information and Communication Studies

When sharing scholarly articles, are you more likely to share Own Work Other's Work 83. 9% 77. 3% 9. 7% 9. 3% 5. 5% Preprint Published 7. 3% Accepted MSS 3. 8% 3. 3% Other Center for Information and Communication Studies

Please indicate your agreement with the following statements: I have increased the amount of sharing of journal articles in the last 5 years. Mean 3. 76 I expect to increase the amount of sharing of journal articles in the next 5 years. 3. 65 Traditional publishers should adapt their systems of usage measurement to take account of sharing behavior. 4. 18 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree Center for Information and Communication Studies

Percent When working in a research group … sharing habits would not change 30% share less 3% share more 67% N=771 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Please indicate your agreement with the following statements: Embargo periods that restrict sharing of scholarly articles for 6 months are reasonable. Mean 2. 74 Embargo periods that restrict sharing of scholarly articles for 1 year are reasonable. 2. 07 Embargo periods that restrict sharing of scholarly articles for 2 years are reasonable. 1. 64 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree Center for Information and Communication Studies

Sharing is a natural behavior • Sharing supports research & disseminating results • Convenience is a key concern • Sharing channels chosen for fit to work style • New policies and measures must fit preferences & likely behavior Center for Information and Communication Studies

5. Many researchers are willing to share some of their data, but there are barriers and conditions. Center for Information and Communication Studies

Interest in Data Sharing Use others' datasets if their data were easily accessible (2010 n=1299, 2014 n=629) 88% 84% Willing to share data across a broad group of researchers (2010 n=1287, 2014 n=617) It is appropriate to create new datasets from the shared data (2010 n=1297, 2014 n=597) doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0021101 doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0134826 Data availability (doi: 10. 5061/dryad. 1 ph 92) at https: //datadryad. org 88% 81% 80% 76% 0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% 2014 2010 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Gap Between Willingness to Share and Accessibility Place at least some of my data into a central data repository (2010 n=1295, 2014 n=623) 78% I share my data (2010 n=1293, 2014 n=753) 75% Place all of my data into a central data repository (2010 n=1286, 2014 n=609) 41% Others can access my data easily (2010 n=1291, 2014 n=745) 36% 85% 77% 48% 45% 0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% 2014 doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0021101 doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0134826 Data availability (doi: 10. 5061/dryad. 1 ph 92) at https: //datadryad. org 2010 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Reasons for Not Making Data Available 2010 2014 34% Lack of funding n=445 No place to put data n=264 Do not have rights to make data… n=271 Lack of standards n=222 Sponsor does not require n 196 30% 45% I need to publish n=299 Insufficient time n=603 26% Insufficient time n=265 20% I don’t have rights n=179 18% 20% Lack of funding n=169 17% Do not need data n=170 17% 15% Do not need data n=169 13% Should not be available n=162 Other reasons for data not available n=164 12% Lack of standards n=123 12% no place to put data n=125 Should not be available n=90 12% Insufficient skills n=91 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0021101 doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0134826 Data availability (doi: 10. 5061/dryad. 1 ph 92) at https: //datadryad. org 9% 9% 0, 00 0, 10 0, 20 0, 30 0, 40 0, 50 0, 60 0, 70 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Conditions for Data Sharing Formally cite provider/funder (2010 n=1234, 2014 n=639) Acknowledge provider/funder (2010 n=1256, 2014 n=646) Opportunity to collaborate (2010 n=991, 2014 n=409) Reciprocal sharing agreement (2010 n=880, 2014 n=319) Reprints of articles (2010 n=860, 2014 n=324) Complete list of products (2010 n=846, 2014 n=305) 93% 95% 93% 94% 75% 81% 58% 72% 55% 70% 54% 69% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% 100% 2014 doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0021101 doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0134826 Data availability (doi: 10. 5061/dryad. 1 ph 92) at https: //datadryad. org 43 2010 Center for Information and Communication Studies

Conclusions… • Sharing is a natural part of research • Helping research influences behavior • Quality and clues that imply trustworthiness are still important • Publishers and libraries can facilitate sharing of articles and of data Center for Information and Communication Studies

Center for Information and Communication Studies

Thank you! Carol Tenopir ctenopir@utk. edu / Center for Information and Communication Studies