Evidence Summary
The Types of Publications Read by Finnish Scholars
Vary with Their Purposes for Reading
A Review of:
Late,
E., Tenopir, C., Talja, S.,
& Christian, L. (2019). Reading practices in scholarly work: From articles
and books to blogs. Journal of Documentation, 75(3), 478-499. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2018-0178
Reviewed by:
Barbara
M. Wildemuth
Professor
Emeritus, School of Information & Library Science
University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, United States of America
Email:
wildemuth@unc.edu
Received: 25 Oct. 2019 Accepted: 22 Jan. 2020
2020 Wildemuth. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29667
Abstract
Objective –
To closely examine the role of reading in scholarly work, with particular
attention to the relationships between reading practices and characteristics of
the scholars, the types of publications they read, and the context of reading.
Design –
Survey.
Setting –
Universities in Finland.
Subjects –
528 academics (research directors/managers, professors, post doctoral
researchers, doctoral students, lecturers, and researchers).
Methods –
An online survey was distributed in Finland, October-December 2016. The first
part of the survey asked about scholars’ general reading practices; the second
part asked about their most recent reading of two particular publications, one
a journal article and the other a different publication type. In relation to
these two readings, the scholars provided information about the documents read,
the reading process and context, how the document was identified and obtained, and
the effect of the reading on their work.
Main Results –
On average, the scholars read 59 publications per month: 20 journal articles, 3
books, 5 conference proceedings or research reports, 17 newspaper articles, 9
magazine articles, 4 blogs, and 2 non-fiction/fiction books. There was no
statistically significant difference in the number of journal articles read
across disciplines, but the number of books read was highest in the humanities
and social sciences and lowest in the sciences and medical sciences. Frequency
of reading of particular publication types also varied by work focus (research
vs. teaching/administrative) and by the nature of the scholar’s research (basic
vs. applied).
The
scholars were also asked about the importance of reading different publication
types. Overall, scholarly journals and article compilations were rated as most
important for scholarly reading. Differences in these ratings were found across
disciplines, work focus, nature of the research, and scholar rank/status.
Part
2 of the survey focused on the most recent items read by the scholars. Their
reading of journal articles, scholarly books, and conference
proceedings/research reports was mainly for the purpose of research and
writing. Their reading of newspaper articles, magazine articles, and blogs was
mainly for current awareness and continuing education. Their reading of
non-fiction/fiction books was mainly for their personal interest or pleasure.
None of these publication types was specifically focused on supporting the
scholars’ teaching.
Over
70 percent of the recent readings were new, rather than re-readings. Across all
publication types, the scholars read at least parts of the item “with great
care”. Almost half of the journal articles recently read have been or will be
cited in the future; this proportion was also high for scholarly books and
conference proceedings/research reports, but not for the other publication
types.
The
most recently read journal articles were brought to the scholar’s attention
primarily through searching; they became aware of scholarly books and conference
proceedings/research reports through both searching and because another person
told them about the item. Scholars mainly obtained journal articles and
scholarly books from their libraries, but they also obtained articles on the
Internet and scholarly books from another person.
Forty
percent of the scholars read journal articles by printing a downloaded copy,
but over half read them on a computer, mobile phone, or e-reader. Over half of
the scholarly books were read from published/printed copy, but 18% read the
book in an electronic version. Most reading occured
in the scholar’s office or lab.
Over
half the journal articles and conference proceedings/research reports read were
published within the last year; just under half the scholarly books read were
published within the last year. While these scholars worked in Finland, 91% of
the journal articles and 73% of the scholarly books they read were published in
English.
Conclusion –
The results from this study confirmed and extended findings from previous
studies (e.g., Tenopir et al., 2010, 2015). They
demonstrated that scholars read a variety of types of publications for a
variety of purposes. However, journal articles still dominated the reading and
the perceptions of importance among the various publication types, particularly
for the purposes of research and writing. This paper provides a first look at
scholars’ uses of the other publication types and the influence of work tasks
on reading practices; further research is needed to understand these
relationships more fully. In general, the disciplinary differences in reading
practices found in this study mirror the different publishing practices of the
disciplines and so may be affected by future evolution toward open access and
social media use for scholarly communication.
Commentary
First,
it should be noted that this paper presents many more findings on the reading
practices of Finnish scholars than have been included in this summary. In the
original paper, the results are presented in 21 tables. For those who are
particularly interested in the information behaviors of scholars, a close
reading of the original paper is certainly warranted.
This
survey was methodologically strong (Boynton & Greenhalgh, 2004) and
conducted by an experienced team of researchers; however, there are a few
limitations that should be mentioned here. The most obvious is that the sample
was drawn from a population of scholars in Finland—a single country that is ranked 35th
in the world in the number of scientific articles published (National Science
Board, 2018, Table 5-22). The authors thoughtfully address this limitation in
their discussion, noting that scholars in Finland read and publish in both
Finnish and other languages, especially English. In addition, the results from
Part 1 of the survey are consistent with findings from past studies. Finally, a
direct comparison of Finland with Australia and the U.S. found only small
country-based differences (Tenopir et al., 2010).
Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to consider the results of this study
in terms of their implications for scholars in other countries and the
libraries that serve them.
One
key aspect of the study methods should be taken into account when interpreting
the findings: in Part 2 of the survey, each respondent/scholar was asked to
provide detailed information about their most recent reading of a scholarly
journal article and their most recent reading of some other type of
publication. Thus, while there is a significant amount of data supporting the
findings about journal article reading, there is much less data about the
reading of the other types of publications. For example, the ratings of the
importance of reading scholarly books was based on only 93 responses, while the
ratings of article importance were based on 454 responses. Thus, the Part 2
findings related to the reading of scholarly books, conference proceedings and research
reports, newspapers, magazine articles, blogs, and non-fiction/fiction books
should be interpreted with caution.
Third,
the results were tested for their statistical significance, and these findings
are reported. However, the authors do not report effect sizes for their
findings, making it difficult to evaluate which of the differences in reading
practices are most important to consider in terms of libraries’ support of
those practices.
A
final methodological question concerns the total number of readings undertaken
by a typical scholar (i.e., the mean number of readings during the past month).
The total reported by the authors is 59 readings per month, which is the sum of
the means for the various types of publications. However, it’s not clear that
any given scholar reads all type of publications; in other words, it’s not
clear that the unit of analysis is the scholar, rather than the particular
publication type. For instance, 37% of the respondents read no scholarly books
and 24% read no conference proceedings or research reports. Thus, it is
possible that the total of 59 readings per month is an overestimate of
scholarly reading.
In
spite of these methodological concerns, the authors have provided a strong
basis for librarians’ consideration of their collections and the way those
collections support scholars’ reading practices, as well as service development
and outreach programs. There are three findings that are particularly pertinent
to practitioners.
First,
these results can be used to understand the broad range of materials that
scholars find useful in their work. While the reading of journal articles was
dominant, scholars are also relying on both scholarly books and conference
proceedings/research reports for their research and writing, and newspaper and
magazine articles and blogs for current awareness and continuing education.
They also use magazine articles and other fiction/non-fiction pieces to augment
their use of journal articles for teaching purposes. As academic libraries
consider both their collections and their services they provide, this wide
variety of publication types and their variation with the scholars’ purposes
should be taken into account.
Second,
these results show that scholars are strongly dependent on their libraries to
support their scholarly reading needs. Scholars become aware of relevant
articles through searching both web search engines (47%) and databases provided
by the library, such as Academic Search Premier or Web of Science (37%). Almost
half of the scholars reported obtaining the journal articles from the library
collection; an additional 15% obtained the articles from an institutional or
subject repository. Almost 20% of the scholars obtained the articles from the
Internet, but it is likely that many of these were obtained through online
subscriptions maintained by the library. Only about 2% of the scholars obtained
their articles from their own personal subscriptions. Thus, academic librarians
should be vigilant in maintaining collections that will support the research
work of the scholars at their institutions. Without the library collections,
research would be severely hobbled.
Other
considerations should come into play when developing e-book collections. This
study took a close look at the format in which the publications were read.
While journal articles were most often downloaded and printed on paper prior to
reading (40%), over half of the readings were on a computer, mobile phone, or
e-reader. The reading of scholarly books followed a different pattern. Some
were downloaded and printed prior to reading (18%) and some were read in
electronic form (25%), but 56% of the readings were from a printed/published
copy. Most of these printed copies were obtained from the library’s collection
(44%) or borrowed from another person (26%). From these findings, we can
conclude that librarians should continue to develop their printed book
collections in the core research areas of the scholars they support.
In
summary, the results from this two-part survey provide us with a detailed look
at scholars’ reading practices and have important implications for academic
library collection development. Journal articles and scholarly books continue
to play important roles in scholars’ work, and scholars rely on their libraries
for support in discovering and obtaining these publications.
References
Boynton, P. M., & Greenhalgh, T.
(2004). Hands-on guide to questionnaire research: Selecting, designing, and
developing your questionnaire. BMJ, 328(7451), 1312-1315. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7451.1312
National Science Board. (2018). Science
and Engineering Indicators 2018. NSB-2018-1. Alexandria, VA: National
Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators/
Tenopir, C., King, D.W., Christian, L., & Volentine,
R. (2015). Scholarly article seeking, reading, and use: A continuing evolution
from print to electronic in the sciences and social sciences. Learned
Publishing, 28(2), 93-105.
https://doi.org/10.1087/20150203
Tenopir, C., Wilson, C.S., Vakkari, P., Talja, S., & King, D.W. (2010). Cross country
comparison of scholarly e-reading patterns in Australia, Finland and the United
States. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 41(1), 26-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2010.10721432