What reaers value in acaemic journals 229 Learne Publishing (2000)13, 229 239 Introuction SuperJournal 1,2 was a research project in the Electronic Libraries (elib) programme 3 that examine how reaers use electronic journals, what they value most an the factors that will make future electronic journal services successful. Acaemic researchers at 13 universities in the UK participate in the project research over a perio of two years (1997 1999). The overall approach for implementing the research can be summarize briefly as: Ientify user nees. At the start of the project, baseline stuies 4 ientifie how reaers use printe journals an the library, what they value in printe journals, the problems associate with manual methos, an how electronic journals might help to overcome some of these problems. Provie access to electronic journals an monitor usage. Clusters of journals on topics in the sciences an social sciences were mae available to the test sites, usage was logge, an the ata were analyse to ientify patterns of use. The journal cluster topics were: Molecular Genetics an Proteins, Materials Chemistry, Communication an Cultural Stuies, an Political Science. Ask experience users what they value. At the en of the project, follow-up stuies explore what users like an islike about the SuperJournal service, how their use of journals an the library ha change, an what they woul value most in future electronic journal services. This paper compares the views of reaers at the start of the project (baseline stuies) with their views at the en (follow-up stuies). It focuses on their nees, expectations, an what they value. Both quantitative an qualitative methos were use in these stuies. Methos for the baseline stuies What reaers value in acaemic journals Christine Balwin Project Manager, SuperJournal Davi Pullinger Project Director, SuperJournal Christine Balwin an Davi Pullinger 2000 An expane version of a presentation given at the ALPSP International Learne Journals Seminar, Lonon, April 1999 ABSTRACT: This paper examines what reaers value in printe an electronic journals base on the experience of the SuperJournal Project. Data were collecte at the start of the project on how acaemic reaers use printe journals an the library, their views on the avantages an isavantages of print as a meium, an their expectations for electronic journals. At the en of the project, they were aske what they value in the electronic journals elivere by SuperJournal an what they woul most value in future services. Core requirements for electronic journal services are a wie range of journals, timeliness, fast access an ease of use. The key benefits from the user s point of view are convenience, saving time an efficiency. Christine Balwin
230 Christine Balwin an Davi Pullinger There isn t any one reason that acaemic researchers rea journals inclue a questionnaire (133 responents) an 11 focus groups (72 participants). Methos for the follow-up stuies inclue a questionnaire (105 SuperJournal users), personal interviews (52 users), an three focus groups (12 users). Use of printe journals At the start of the project we wante to unerstan the nees of journal users an how they are fulfille why they use journals, when, where, how often, etc. In aition to knowing what they actually i, we wante to gather their opinions about printe journals an current practice, what they like an i not like, an what they felt coul be improve. This woul allow us to compare their views on print with electronic, an to see if electronic ha preserve what they value in print, or overcome any of the isavantages. Reasons for use The baseline stuies confirme that the reaers who participate o use journals an rea them regularly: 99.2% of responents to the baseline questionnaire sai they rea journals on a regular basis. 98.5% agree or strongly agree with the statement Journals are important to my work. 57.1% sai they rea journals weekly, an 28.6% rea them aily. Meian number of journals rea: seven for the scientists, an five for the social scientists. Meian number of personal subscriptions to journals: one for the scientists, an two for the social scientists. There isn t any one reason that acaemic researchers rea journals. Participants in the baseline focus groups liste several reasons, for example: Keeping up to ate with articles publishe in their specific area of research. Keeping up to ate with what is being publishe more broaly in relate areas. Gathering backgroun information on a new area they may be embarking on. In Table 1 Techniques for ientifying relevant articles Technique % Social sciences % Sciences the sciences this might inclue a new activity in their present area, for example gathering the backgroun ata to perform a new experiment. Preparing for specific events, e.g. writing an article for publication, an essay, a grant proposal, or preparing a presentation to give at a conference. Performing tasks associate with teaching, e.g. writing an upating lectures an stuent reaing lists. Journals serve multiple purposes, an any given researcher will use them for ifferent purposes at ifferent times. Scenarios for using printe journals Online bibliographic 47.5 92.5 78.9 atabases Article references 80.0 61.3 66.9 Browsing journal 67.5 60.2 62.4 issues Journal abstracts 22.5 24.7 24.1 Peer recommenation 35.0 16.1 21.8 There are many ways to ientify relevant articles, an typically researchers use a range of complementary techniques. Table 1 shows the techniques use most frequently by responents to the baseline questionnaire. In focus groups, the scientists stresse the importance of keeping up to ate, in their own research area, an in ajacent areas. The areas they work in are competitive, an it is essential to know what others are oing an publishing. Typically they perform regular searches using the major online bibliographic atabases (e.g. MEDLINE) an regularly visit the library to browse the current journal issues. They also rea the News an Views section of Nature an similar journals, rea reviews an articles that ientify trens, an follow cite references. To keep up to ate, scanning is one frequently an follows a regular pattern. Comprehensive literature searches are one when neee (e.g. when publishing an
What reaers value in acaemic journals 231 article), an this is often just a matter of upating. The social scientists ten to be more task-riven in their use of journals, with a particular event (e.g. writing an essay) acting as the stimulus to visit the library an catch up on their reaing. They also seem to use a wier variety of techniques for ientifying relevant articles. Like the scientists, they visit the library to browse through the recent journals, but in a more open-ene way, an more manual work is involve. Within a research area, there is interest in tracking themes an ialogues on particular topics. There is also consierably more interest in knowing what is being publishe generally, tracking current trens, ientifying new ones, an knowing what topics are in. The references at the en of an article are often their guie to fining more relate articles, as are references they get from colleagues. Although they may visit the library weekly or monthly to browse through the journals an see what has been publishe, the more serious task of tracking themes an ialogues is one less frequently, say quarterly, when a whole new group of journal issues is available. Using articles Once acaemic researchers fin a relevant article, typically they make a photocopy, rea the article, annotate the copy, an file it so they can refer to it again. Results of the baseline questionnaire inicate that: 79.7% sai they mae a photocopy, always or sometimes. 69.2% sai they rea the article. Many annotate the photocopy (29.3%) or take notes (12.0%). In focus groups, reaers sai they make photocopies so they can have a copy of the article to own, mark up, file an refer to again. Annotating the article (or making notes) ais the process of unerstaning an igesting the article content. When they refer to the copy again, the margin notes remin them of the important points the author mae, an their views on the article when they rea it. Where journals are rea The baseline questionnaire she some light on where acaemic researchers prefer to rea journals: The main factors that influence reaers choice are the location of journals (39.1%), the quality of the environment (24.8%), an convenience (20.3%). Scientists sai they preferre to rea journal articles in their offices (49.5%), an social scientists at home (37.5%) or in the library (35.0%). In the focus groups, the scientists sai they ientify a relevant article in the library, make a photocopy, an then take the copy away to rea later. Reaing is most often one in the office, though copies are also rea while travelling, e.g. air travel to a conference or regular commuting. For the scientists, the office/lab is their place of work, where they are expecte to be uring the ay, an often the most convenient place, as it is where their other copies of journal articles are locate. The social scientists sai they prefer to rea articles in the library or at home. For those that rea in the library, it is because that s where the journals are. Consiering the open-ene process they use to ientify articles an track themes, it is convenient to rea articles as part of the overall iscovery process. However, a significant factor mentione by both the scientists an social scientists is that the place they choose for reaing shoul be quiet, comfortable, free of istractions, an conucive to absorbing the content of the article. For the scientists, typically this is the office, where they have a comfortable chair an a cup of coffee. For the social scientists, typically this is home or the library, as many have share offices at work, with too much noise an too many istractions. What reaers value in printe journals The baseline stuies gave some insights into what aspects of printe journals reaers value. The factors mentione most frequently in the focus groups were: The social scientists ten to be more task-riven in their use of journals
232 Christine Balwin an Davi Pullinger Having the chance to stuy the original is essential They are portable, so you can rea them where you want. They are easy to rea. You can make a photocopy to own an annotate. They are easy to flip through an scan. These factors were value by all reaers. However, the baseline questionnaire highlighte some isciplinary ifferences. The social scientists most frequently (40.0%) commente on the journal in intellectual rather than physical terms. They like the intellectual concept of the journal, that it contains articles on iscrete subjects, that articles are more concentrate an up to ate than books, a ialogue is establishe over time, an journal issues are a goo way to collect articles together. Perhaps the fact that journals have become important relatively recently cause them to comment on the concept. Scientists, who have use them longer, mae few comments on the journal as a meium for communication (9.7%). More scientists (24.7%) than social scientists (10.0%) commente on highquality presentation of journals. They value the time an effort that has gone into preparing a well-formatte page, the fact that complex tables are presente so they are easy to unerstan, an the high quality of the original graphics. Articles in the life sciences often contain photographs (e.g. electron micrographs) an colour images. In all of the science focus groups, they mentione that these illustrations o not photocopy well, i.e. the etail an any colour is lost. If you have seen the original, a photocopy is fine to keep an file. But if you have only seen a photocopy, you will not be able to interpret the graphics, an will not have access to all the content the author is conveying. Having the chance to stuy the original is essential. Problems with printe journals The baseline questionnaire aske three ifferent questions to ientify problems associate with print journals an see if there were expectations that electronic journals might overcome some of these problems. All three questions were open ene, so responents coul give any answer. When the Table 2 Disavantages of printe journals Literal response % Total Tracking own journal articles an physically fining them in the library The bulkiness of print, e.g. boun volumes are heavy, the space neee to store them in the library, the space to store photocopies in the office Printe journals o not have electronic features, e.g. searchability, hypertext links, multimeia The journal shoul be in the library, but the issue is missing or in use Photocopying is time-consuming an inconvenient 26.3 19.5 18.1 17.3 16.5 various responses were classifie an tabulate, they show that access, availability an efficiency are all problems, an the problems mentione are as much relate to the library as the print meium itself. The first question was: What features of the printe journal meium o you islike most? Table 2 shows that the main problems are accessibility an efficiency. The secon question focuse specifically on access: Does your access to journals significantly limit the breath an epth of your journal reaing? Most of the social scientists (70.0%) sai yes, as i 49.5% of the scientists. Those who i were aske to escribe the barriers to access. Table 3 summarizes their most frequent responses Here the top response relates to availability, an most of the others to efficiency. The thir question was What features of the electronic journal meium o you like most? There was no assumption that responents woul be experience users; simply knowing what an electronic journal is woul be sufficient to comment. Table 4 shows that the greatest expectation was that electronic journals woul enable better access. Similar themes run through the responses to the three questions: access to an availability of journals is a problem, an the whole process of getting your hans on them
What reaers value in acaemic journals 233 Table 3 Barriers liste by responents with access problems Literal response The library oes not subscribe to 55.6 enough journals Making a trip to the library, e.g. 31.9 time, istance Tracking own journal articles 18.1 an physically fining them in the library The journal shoul be in the 9.7 library, but the issue is missing or in use Inconvenience of interlibrary loans 9.7 an making a copy is inefficient. As one reaer put it: It takes ten minutes to walk to the library, 20 minutes to locate many journals, 20 minutes to queue for photocopies, after all of which many journals are lost or misfile. In aition to the literal responses given in the questionnaire, the focus groups were very helpful in fleshing out the specific problems in more etail. Guarantee access At almost all of the baseline focus groups, participants expresse frustration about visiting the library an fining that what they wante was not available on the ay. There might be a variety of reasons, e.g. someone else is using it, someone was using it an it hasn t been reshelve, it s at the binery, it s been stolen, or the particular article they want has been rippe out. The unavailability of something that shoul be available cause enormous frustration, as a trip to the library ha been waste an another visit must be mae. Journal coverage in the library % Responents In several of the social science focus groups, participants sai their library oes not subscribe to enough journals. This means they have to visit other libraries or sen off for articles through interlibrary loans. Those who feel they are not well serve by their own library in their fiel of interest often Table 4 Avantages of electronic journals Literal response prefer to visit another library specializing in this area. Interlibrary loan is a istinct secon best, as it takes some time for the article to arrive, an when it oes, it may not be as goo or relevant as they ha hope. Although making the trip is time consuming, overall it makes better use of their time to have the resources they nee all together in one place. Visiting the library Easy access 23.3 Convenience, esktop access 22.6 Electronic journals are searchable 19.5 Instant access, quick an irect 15.0 Goo printouts, better than photocopies 12.0 Electronic journals are more up to ate 11.3 Many sai that physically visiting the library is a barrier; they have to make the time to go there, an the library may be some istance away. Although this is not the library s fault, it is a barrier that has to be overcome. Also, some times of the ay are more convenient than others. Normal office hours are taken up with the business of work, e.g. working in the lab, teaching an seeing stuents. Typically they visit the library out of office hours, e.g. at lunch time or on the way home. Another factor mentione was the ifficulty of physically fining journal articles in the library. At some universities, responents foun the layout of the library or the subject classification of materials ifficult to use. At universities with multiple sites or ecentralize library systems, they foun it ifficult to fin where a journal was locate, an might have to use several libraries to rea all the journals that were relevant. The thir factor mentione was library opening hours. Although there were few complaints about opening hours uring term time, many felt that restricte opening hours uring vacation perios were a problem. Researchers look forwar to the vacations, because when the stuents are away, the Interlibrary loan is a istinct secon best
234 Christine Balwin an Davi Pullinger participants expresse frustration with photocopying library is less congeste an easier to use. Closing the library early uring the week (e.g. at 5 p.m.) is much more of a problem than restricte hours at weekens. Photocopying At most of the focus groups, participants expresse frustration with photocopying. Firstly, there is the time an inconvenience of physically making photocopies: gathering up all the journals, queuing for the photocopier an physically copying each page. Often photocopiers are equal opportunity evices in the library. You may be a well-pai acaemic, but you still have to stan in a queue, perhaps behin a group of unergrauates copying course notes. So it is more than time an inconvenience, a sense that your time is being waste, an perhaps that the system oes really not value your time. Lastly, there is the physical problem of getting a copy that is as goo as the original. Once a journal is boun, the text near the spine may be ifficult or impossible to rea. An, as note above, the scientists sai that the high-quality graphics o not photocopy well, colour is obviously lost an so therefore is some of the content. Timeliness In some of the science focus groups, the researchers sai they felt that the journals in the library were not always up to ate. In most cases the problem is that journals are physically maile to the library an take some time to arrive, particularly journals from the USA. Researchers who subscribe to alerting services know what has been publishe on the ay of publication, but are frustrate that the issue has not yet arrive in the library. The library might be getting the issues to the shelves as soon as humanly possible. But for some there is a perception that the library is not up to ate if the issue has been publishe an is not yet in the library. Expectations for electronic journals In all of the focus groups there was an expectation that electronic journal services woul ramatically improve their access to journals. Desktop access from their office woul be convenient, an allow them to make better use of their time. They coul fin an article an print it out in minutes without visiting the library. Journals woul always be there, not in use or missing. They also felt that electronic journal services woul bring together a wie range of journals all in one place. This combination of availability, accessibility an efficiency was thought to be the major benefit that electronic journals woul bring, an woul overcome some of the main problems with printe journals. There was also an expectation that electronic journals woul allow users to o things they cannot o in printe form. At the top of the wish list was the ability to search across a wie range of journals, an seconly to link from references at the en of articles to the full text. Thir on the wish list was the ability to inclue multimeia or some aitional content in articles, or link to it. What reaers value in SuperJournal The results of the baseline stuies were important in establishing what reaers value in the journal meium an the problems they encountere using them. In the follow-up stuies at the en of the project, we wante to fin out what users value in SuperJournal. Although SuperJournal was an experimental service, an we i not expect it to meet all their nees, this was an opportunity to fin out what real users sai about an electronic journal service where their use ha been ocumente. What users like about SuperJournal The follow-up questionnaire aske users what they like most about SuperJournal, an to select up to five of 17 options liste. The combine results are given in Table 5. The top ten choices show that users value convenience, efficiency an availability of content most highly. Although SuperJournal i offer some value-ae features, e.g. searching, alerting, links, saving references an saving preferences, they were not extensively use, an apparently not value by users.
What reaers value in acaemic journals 235 Table 5 What users like Table 6 What users islike Multiple choice response Multiple choice response Get journal articles without leaving my 80.0 esk Printing an article is easier than 55.2 photocopying from paper Quicker than visiting library 46.7 Get a number of journals all in one place 39.0 Get journals that aren t available in the 39.0 library Easy to use 38.1 Use any time of ay/night 37.1 Fast access, saves time 31.4 Get journals sooner than the library 24.8 Use from home 18.1 Get an email alert when journal issues are 15.2 publishe Use a search engine to fin relevant 13.3 articles Links from references 8.6 Save references in my atabase 6.7 Quality of presentation 4.8 Save preferences, e.g. the cluster or search 3.8 engine I use Goo match with the journals I rea 3.8 Doesn t contain enough journals 77.1 Not enough back issues 58.1 SuperJournal is only an experimental 56.2 service an will en at some point Doesn t contain the right journals 30.5 Access is too slow 27.6 Not up to ate 19.0 Have to keep logging in to see when new 19.0 issues are available Logging in is teious 17.1 Don t like reaing journals on a computer 15.2 screen Technical problems 10.5 Can t link irectly to SJ from the other 9.5 online services I use Printing is too slow 5.7 No multimeia journal content 3.8 Not enough information on how to use SJ 3.8 Not enough user support 1.9 No easier than going to the library 1.0 What users islike about SuperJournal Similarly users were aske what they islike most about SuperJournal, an aske to select up to five of the 16 options liste. Table 6 inicates that the main problem area was content: not enough journals, not enough back issues an not the right journals. The secon problem area was access: that access was slow, an that it will en. The thir problem area was timeliness. These results are not surprising. Super- Journal was an experimental service an worke within limitations. Users like the fact that it collecte together a range of journals in one place, but the number of titles an match with their interests was not great enough. Users value guarantee access, an i not want the service to en. Users value timeliness, an the project ha some ifficulties getting the journal issues in a timely manner from all the participating publishers. The combine results of the likes an islikes show that SuperJournal elivere value in terms of convenience, efficiency an collecting together a range of journals in one place. However, the range an epth of content an timeliness of the content was not great enough. Although overall the value-ae features were not highly value by users, neither was the absence of features consiere to be a serious isavantage. This suggests that value-ae features are simply less important than content an convenience. Core requirements an benefits Perhaps the most important aspect of the follow-up stuies was to learn from users what they woul value most in future electronic journal services, base on the experience they ha gaine in SuperJournal. Core requirements an benefits were explore with users by questionnaire, in personal interviews an in focus groups. The results of the follow-up questionnaire the value-ae features were not highly value by users
236 Christine Balwin an Davi Pullinger Table 7 Ranking of requirements for future electronic journal services Weighte rank Requirement Very important rank Important rank Nice rank 1 Wie range of journals covere 1 2 Up to ate 2 3 Fast access 3 5 4 Easy to use 4 = 7 5 Goo backfile 5 3 6 Ability to search titles/abstracts 6 4 7 Goo quality printouts 7 2 8 Goo quality presentation on screen 11 1 9 Available anytime, 24 hours 8 6 10 Ability to search full text of articles 9 = 6 11 Access from anywhere 10 12 Alerts when new issues/articles are publishe 12 = 7 3 5 13 Links to/from other electronic services 14 9 2 6 14 Save references in my reference atabase 13 10 = 4 4 15 Customize the service to my requirements 16 1 3 16 Buil a virtual filebox of my electronic articles 15 = 4 2 17 Annotate the electronic article 17 = 6 1 Unimportant rank core requirements are a wie range of journals that are up to ate are probably the best guie to what users consier to be the core requirements for electronic journal services. They were given a list of 17 requirements an aske to rate them as very important, important, nice to have an unimportant. The ranke results are given in Table 7 an inicate that the core requirements are a wie range of journals that are up to ate, access must be fast an the service easy to use. These requirements will make an electronic journal service better than what users can get from printe journals in the library, an are istinct benefits. The next group of requirements might be classe as those that will make an electronic journal service as goo as what they can get from the library, i.e. goo presentation, goo printouts an a goo backfile. Searching titles/abstracts is also in this category, an though not something they woul expect from the library, it is something they expect from online bibliographic services an woul reasonably expect from online journal services. The nice to have requirements are all value-ae features (rather than benefits) which enable them to o things they cannot o with print, i.e. customization, linking, alerting, saving references an builing a virtual filebox of articles. In interviews, users were aske what woul most influence their frequency of use. The majority sai that the range journals available woul be the main factor (59.6%), followe by ease of use (28.8%). They were also aske to explain in an open-ene way what they most wante to have in future electronic journal services. Their responses were consistent with the follow-up questionnaire: a wie range of journals, quick an easy access, an being able to perform current tasks more easily, rather than oing new things. The following quotes from the interviews illustrate what users consier to be core features: A service shoul be as comprehensive as possible in terms of the number of journals an also the back issues available. I on t want anything that sophisticate to be able to rea an ownloa articles. If it s big enough, I like to be able to search. The ease of application woul be important an there woul nee to be access for stuents. I woul want a wie range of journals. Anything that reuces the effort an time involve in keeping up to ate. It wouln t require a huge peripheral support network. There woul be comprehensive
What reaers value in acaemic journals 237 Table 8 Comparison of questionnaire response on library use at start an en of the project Response Start of project Daily 28.6 14.3 Weekly 57.1 42.9 Biweekly NA 22.9 Monthly 10.5 11.4 Bimonthly NA 1.0 Occasionally 3.0 7.6 No response 0.8 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 En of project Table 9 Impact of electronic on library use Response % Social science % Science I am using the library 6.9 22.4 18.1 much less than before I am using the library 37.9 48.7 45.7 somewhat less than before I continue to use the 55.2 26.3 34.3 library as before No response 0.0 2.6 1.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 access to a number of publishers through one site. That s all I nee. The range of journals woul be most important an availability of past issues. There woul nee to be easy access to be able to immeiately fin one issue or another, that sort of thing. I think I want to be able to search. I m not sure what else. With these things you get something someone else thinks you might want. 90% of features are not of interest at all. The critical things are accessibility an ease of use. The changing information environment Use of the library The baseline stuies inicate that visiting the library is a barrier, an reaers hope that esktop access woul enable easier an more convenient access to journals. At the en of the project, we wante to know if electronic journal users were using the library less. Table 8 compares questionnaire results on frequency of library use, an shows that users say they are using the library less. Both aily an weekly use is own, where monthly an occasional use remains about the same. At the en of the project, users were aske specifically if they were using the library less because they coul get journals online. Table 9 shows that, overall, the scientists seem to be leaing the tren for using the library less, with 71.1% saying they use it somewhat or much less, where only 44.8% of the social scientists say the same. The tren also seems to be inepenent of user status (acaemic, researcher, postgrauate, etc.). Do electronic journals replace the library? If users are using electronic journals more an the library less, we wante to know if they consier electronic journals to be a replacement for the library or complementary to it. This issue was aresse in ifferent ways, both irectly an inirectly. Firstly, the follow-up questionnaire aske users which they woul prefer if the journals they regularly rea were available in electronic form. Overall, 40.0% sai they woul prefer electronic, 9.5% sai they woul prefer print, an 44.8% sai they woul choose epening on the task. This was explore in interviews an the focus groups. Those that preferre electronic i so mainly for the convenience: I go to the library sometimes, but really not often these ays. I ll check to see if I can get what I want from my esk first. Much of the relevant information is in another campus library, so I use an electronic source for these. You see the theoretical evelopment of a tren more clearly. You can actually see a number of scholars across ifferent fiels are beginning to write about roughly the same set of issues. SuperJournal is a research facility rather than just a journal scientists seem to be leaing the tren for using the library less
238 Christine Balwin an Davi Pullinger The key benefits are convenience, saving time, an efficiency Electronic journals are therefore an important service of the library service. I hope that electronic journal services such as SuperJournal grow. But most felt that print an electronic were complementary an wante to use both: I on t think something like SuperJournal woul replace traitional methos but a to them. Library an electronic use of journals shoul be complementary. Online use is convenient an browsing on the WWW shoul be similar to browsing in a physical library. Being familiar with a journal, there is no real ifference. If you re not familiar with a journal, browsing may be easier physically. The other thing you can o electronically is to manipulate an article for other things, e.g. graphical information. I like to look at the real library. Sometimes it s easier to browse in print. There are human benefits. Sometimes you want a broaer view when browsing. This is easier in the library, walking aroun, picking up journals. Electronic journals are better when you re looking for specific things. Most sai they foun a printe issue of a journal easier to scan than one in electronic form, as it is easier to flip through quickly. Electronic journal systems have not yet emulate that feature. However, many mentione that electronic tables of contents services are changing the way they keep up to ate with journals. An email alert from a favourite journal listing the articles in the new issue allows the user to scan the titles quickly an ientify articles of interest. It is then just a matter of going online to print out the articles. This may not replace the nee to visit the library entirely, but it may reuce the frequency of visits. Users o not perceive electronic journals to be a replacement for the library as an institution. They value the library as a place to visit an browse through journals, the location of the journal archive, an where they can fin helpful staff. However, they o perceive electronic journals as a replacement for the process of getting copies of journal articles more quickly an easily than visiting the library or requesting interlibrary loans. Electronic journals are therefore an important service of the library, not a replacement for it. Conclusions At the start of the SuperJournal project, reaers explaine how they use printe journals an how they perceive the avantages of print as a meium. Print is portable, easy to browse, easy to rea an you can make a photocopy to own. But print also ha isavantages, an physically storing it in one place (the library) creates barriers to access. These inclue having to make a trip to the library to use journals, the range of journals available, physically fining the article you want, that it may not be available on the ay you want it, an the inefficiency of photocopying. Initial expectations that electronic journals woul enable users to overcome these barriers were fulfille in SuperJournal. What users value in SuperJournal was convenience, efficiency, an collecting together a range of journals in one virtual place. However, the range an epth of content provie in this experimental service, an its timeliness, was not great enough. For future electronic journal services, the core requirements are a wie range of journals that are up to ate, fast to access, an easy to use. The key benefits are convenience, saving time, an efficiency. SuperJournal has emonstrate that electronic journal users are using the library less, an the convenience of esktop access is a key factor. However, users still value the library an consier electronic an print to be complementary meia. Electronic journals o not replace the library, but allow journal articles to be obtaine more quickly. Researchers value the library as an institution. Electronic journals are therefore an important service of the library, not a replacement for it. Acknowlegements The SuperJournal project was fune by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) as part of the elib programme. Many institutions an iniviuals collaborate on the research. We woul like to thank the SuperJournal Consortium of publishers for contributing their journals to the project, Manchester Computing at University of
What reaers value in acaemic journals 239 Manchester for esigning an hosting the electronic journal application, Loughborough University for implementing the evaluation research, an all the universities that acte as test sites. These inclue Birmingham, Brafor, Cambrige, De Montfort, Durham, Lees, Lonon School of Economics an Political Science, National Institute of Meical Research, Oxfor, Sussex, University College Lonon, Ulster an Warwick. The publishers in the SuperJournal Consortium inclue Blackwell Publishers, Blackwell Science, CAB International, Cambrige University Press, Carfax Publishing, Elsevier Science, Institute of Physics Publishing, Kluwer Acaemic Publishers, Macmillan Publishers, Oxfor University Press, Routlege, Royal Society of Chemistry, Sage Publications, Society for Enocrinology, Springer Verlag, an Taylor & Francis. We woul especially like to thank Ken Eason at University of Loughborough for heaing the evaluation team, Ross MacIntyre at Manchester Computing for heaing the technical team, an all their co-workers who enable the research. We woul also like to thank Davi Hill for his help an avice in writing this paper. Finally, we woul like to thank all the acaemic researchers at the university test sites who participate in the SuperJournal research an contribute their valuable time to express their views on printe an electronic journals. References 1. The SuperJournal website escribes the project in more etail an will post all project reports: www.superjournal.ac.uk/sj. 2. A book by Davi Pullinger, Christine Balwin, an Davi Hill is in preparation an will provie full project results an key source ata. Please contact c.balwin@ial.pipex.com for etails. 3. The elib Web site escribes the Electronic Libraries Programme an provies links to all elib project sites: www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib. 4. Pullinger, D. an Balwin, C. SuperJournal: what reaers really want from electronic journals. Electronic Library & Visual Information Research. Lonon: ASLIB, 1997, 145 153. Christine Balwin Information Design & Management Broom, Hinksey Hill, Oxfor OX1 5BH, UK Email: c.balwin@ ial.pipex.com Davi Pullinger Email:.pullinger@ pullinger.com We hope you have enjoye this issue of our journal. Do you have to wait weeks for the office copy to get to you? Extra subscriptions for members only cost 35 each, inclusive of postage. All you have to o is contact the Secretary-General: Sally Morris South House, The Street Clapham, Worthing West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44 (0)1903 871 686, Fax: +44 (0)1903 871 457 Email: sec-gen@alpsp.org.uk Subscriptions for non-members cost 170 so membership of the Association (which inclues a free subscription to Learne Publishing) is a bargain!