Introduction Project goal was to develop simple way to characterize

1. Assessing access to the journal literature using the Journal Citation Reports database. Questions or comments welcome: Alan Gale / agale@uoguelph.ca Linda Day / lday@uoguelph.ca Alan Gale and Linda DayUniversity of Guelph Library, Guelph, Ontario, CANADA • Introduction • Project goal was to develop simple way to characterize • level of access to journal literature in physical sciences and engineering provided by a research library. • Journal Citation Reports (JCR), a database common • in North American university libraries, was selected for this work. • Data from the JCR for 2003 and 2008 was analyzed • then compared to the University of Guelph Library’s (UGL) holdings to assess the level of access offered. • Methodology and results should be of interest to those • engaged in outreach to faculty and graduate students. • Methodology • Selected the subject headings in the JCR database • that covered the primary research and teaching areas at Guelph for one of the sample disciplines; chemistry, engineering, mathematics and statistics, or physics. • Downloaded data in the JCR database for all journals • assigned to at least one of the subject headings selected in the previous step, for given year; e.g. 2003. • Imported the downloaded data into Excel to form a • subject list of journals. Checked for duplicate entries. • Ranked list of journals on basis of total number of • citations received in given year, in descending order. Journal with most citations was assigned rank of 1. • Established minimum threshold of citation activity • for a journal to be included in the study. Threshold was set low enough (i.e. enough journals were included) that a proper assessment of access provided to the literature in that discipline could be made. • Determined whether access to current issues of the • selected journals was available through the UGL or if it required document delivery. • Investigated stability of the results of this method of • analysis over time by determining distribution of changes in journal rankings between 2003 and 2008. • Compared journals selected for analysis for 2003, in • each of the four disciplines, to raw list of journals in the corresponding discipline for 2008; each list having been ranked by total number of citations received, in • descending order. • Matched each journal from 2003 list to one of the • same name on 2008 list, if possible. When all journals from 2003 list had been considered all journals from either list that remained unmatched were removed. • Calculated net change in ranking from 2003 to 2008 • for a matched pair of journals using the formula: • Net change = – [rank(2008) – rank(2003)] • Results • Disciplines selected for analysis were chemistry, engineering, • physics, and mathematics and statistics. Data for chemistry is used • to illustrate the general findings. • Figure 1 shows data for chemistry (2003). Total citations (normalized) • data (open and solid triangles) is plotted using the left-hand axis while • cumulative frequency data (solid diamonds) uses the right-hand one. • Results (continued) • number of chemistry journals (2003) considered. • UGL catalogue was searched to determine if current • subscription (2003) held. • Cumulative frequency data indicates distribution with • rank (normalized) of journals (2003) for which current • subscription not held; e.g. about 33% of journals with no subscription have rank (normalized) less than 0.5 . • Figures 2 and 3 show change in rank from 2003 to • 2008 for chemistry journals, in raw and normalized • form. Data on math and stats journals is also shown. • To normalize a data set chose a maximum bin limit • (symmetric) that included all but about 3% of the data. • Constructed histogram using 21 equally-spaced bins • of width = 2 * (max. bin limit) / 21 . Chemistry had maximum bin limits of +/- 165 ; math / stats had +/-85. • UGL holdings data for chemistry, presented in tabular • form, portrays Library’s holdings in terms of journal list drawn from JCR database, sorted in descending order by total number of citations. • “Total citations (most)” is total number of citations for • chemistry journal of rank 1. “Total citations (lower limit)” is the “threshold” value mentioned previously. • Discussion / Conclusions • JCR database has greater credibility as source for list • of “important” journals in a science or engineering area due to prominence of journal impact factors. • Chose to rank journals by total citations (not impact • factor) since focus is on general access to literature. • Should consider backfile access for completeness. • Can customize a list of “important” journals to increase • its relevance to faculty, graduate students, and others. • For each discipline studied, normalized total citation – • rank data suggests a small group of highly-cited journals and much-larger group of less-cited ones. • In current study, changes in journal rank, from 2003 to • 2008 didn’t have marked impact on apparent level of access provided. Normalized change in rank behavior • was quite similar for all disciplines studied. • Number of journals reviewed in disciplines covered • was more than adequate to characterize access. • Charts with primary and secondary vertical axes, e.g. • Figure 1, can be easily constructed using Excel 2007. • Studies like current one can provide good • basis for discussions with users on quality of • library holdings, interpretation of LibQUAL • survey results, and support for open access • initiatives. • Total citations data for chemistry (2003) was normalized • by dividing the total citation count for each of the journals by the average total citation count for all of the chemistry journals (2003) considered. • Rank data for chemistry (2003) was normalized by • dividing the rank for each of the journals by the total • UGL chem holdings (2003)As % • Avail. online (top 50) 100 % 50 • Avail. online (top 100) 100 % 100 • Avail. online (top 200) 99 % 198 • Journals examined (all) 100 % 457 • Avail. online (all) 78 % 357 • Avail. in paper only 1 % 6 • Avail. via Doc Del 21 % 94 • Total citations (most) 212,938 • Total citations (lower limit) 550 • UGL chem holdings (2008)As % • Avail. online (top 50) 100 % 50 • Avail. online (top 100) 99 % 99 • Avail. online (top 200) 97 % 193 • Journals examined (all) 100 % 472 • Avail. online (all) 88 % 417 • Avail. in paper only 0 % 0 • Avail. via Doc Del 12 % 55 • Total citations (most) 318,252 • Total citations (lower limit) 981 Figure 1. Total citations and unsubscribed chemistry journals (2003) by rank (normalized) Total citations (normalized) Cumulative frequency Rank (normalized) Figure 2. Relative frequency as function of change in rank (2003 – 2008) Figure 3. Relative frequency as function of normalized change in rank (2003 – 2008) Relative frequency (%) Relative frequency (%) Change in rank Change in rank (normalized) (expressed as bin number)