Speaker: Gabriel Hughes, Elsevier
New to the industry, and didn’t know what usage data was when he started. He’s interested in usage that COUNTER doesn’t count.
Internet based storage and sharing technology results in higher volume of reading of material than is reflected in download statistics due to scholars sharing the content more easily. Elsevier has done surveys on this, and 65% of those researchers surveyed this year agreed that they access articles from a shared folder or platform, which is increasing over time.
For the most part, sharing doesn’t happen because the recipient doesn’t have access. It’s more out of convenience, particularly with annotations or attached notes. Of course, he recommends using Mendeley (or similar tools, whatever they may be) to meet this need.
Elsevier is funding the research that Tenopir is doing on how and why researchers share, and how that compares with measured usage.
Speaker: Carol Tenopir, University of Tennessee
There are many tools and platforms designed to share citations and content, and they were designed to fit the research workflow. Informal methods are tools that weren’t designed for sharing citations/documents, but are used widely both personally and professionally to do so (i.e. Twitter, blogs).
They have done interviews and focus groups, and an international survey that went out two days ago. Sharing a citation or link is more common than sharing a document. Those that share their own work say that they mostly share what was uploaded to their institutional repository.
Altruism and the advancement of research trump any concerns about copyright when it comes to sharing content with other scholars.
There are some differences when it comes to books. Articles and research reports are more easily shared, but book royalties are a consideration that causes many to hesitate. They certainly wouldn’t want their own books shared instead of purchased.
Is a COUNTER-like measure/calculation possible? Good question. Any thoughts on that are welcome.
