Overview of the Collection Management Initative

Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings from the Journal Use and User Preference Studies

Introduction

This report summarizes data and general findings from two of the three principal components of the UC Collection Management Initiative:

 Journal Use Study: The title-by-title comparison of print and digital journal use under experimental and control conditions at campuses;

 User Preference Survey: The survey of faculty, students and staff regarding the acceptability of digital as a substitute for print, including: characteristics of the journal, the user, the user’s technology environment, and the purpose of the use.

The third component, a cost analysis of managing UC’s mixed print and digital collection, is being conducted and will be forth coming.

Additional information about the project is available at http://www.ucop.edu/cmi/staff/.

Journal Use Study (October 2001–September 2002)

Journal Use Study Overview: The criteria for participating journals were:  Sufficient use data had to be available from the publishers of electronic journals selected (not all publishers of ejournals are able to provide use data).  Mix of journal titles should include: o Titles for which current issues were available in both print and digital form; o Titles for which the digital form was available only retrospectively (e.g., JSTOR titles). Table 1: Study Titles by Publisher  Journal titles should represent a variety of Publisher Total Titles disciplines and a variety of content characteristics, American Chemical Society 11 American Physical Society 3 including graphics and article length. BlackwellScience 18 Company of Biologists 1 Approximately 3,000 journals from 15 publishers met these Elsevier 130 IDEAL/Academic Press 15 criteria. Campuses selected 280 journal titles from 12 Institute of Physics 11 publishers from the eligible titles (see Table 1). JSTOR 44 Project Muse 17 For each of the titles selected for study, the campus Royal Society of Chemistry 1 SIAM 5 designated as experimental relocated to remote storage all Wiley InterScience 24 hardcopy issues of the journal that were also available TOTAL 280 digitally, and monitored requests for recall of the print from storage. Another campus, designated as control, retained these same issues on its library shelves, and actively monitored all uses of those print issues for the duration of the study. Usage data for the digital versions of the same journal issues were provided by their publishers for both the control and experimental campuses.

Two campuses, UCSB and UCSF served as experimental only, while one campus, UCR, served as control only. The remaining six campuses acted as both experimental and control (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Number of Titles Handled by Each Campus Pairing This chart shows the number of titles that each campus pair handles, irrespective of the control or experimental role of the campus. For example, Berkeley and UCLA are paired for 10 titles.

The journal titles selected were apportioned amongst four broad disciplinary areas1 (see Figure 2):  Arts and Humanities (ca. 8 percent)  Life and Health Sciences (ca. 47 percent)  Physical Sciences and Engineering (ca. 36 percent)  Social Sciences (ca. 9 percent)

Figure 2: Study Titles by Broad Discipline Social Sciences Arts & Humanities 9% 8%

Physical Sciences & Engineering Life & Health Sciences 36% 47%

1 Broad discipline classification of titles was conducted by a member of the CMI staff team with substantial experience as a UC chief collection development officer.

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 2 of 38 Journal Use Findings In all four general disciplinary areas, digital use exceeded print use by at least a factor of ten to one (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Journal Usage by Format (Study period: October 1, 2001 – September 30, 2002)

200,000

160,180

160,000

120,000 97,493

80,000

40,000

6,044 201

0 Control, Print Control, Electronic Experimental, Print Experimental, Electronic

Table 2: Ratio of Electronic to Print Uses Subject Category Number of Titles Control Campus Usage Ratio of Electronic to Print Electronic Print Arts & Humanities 22 5,475 528 10.4 to 1 Life & Health Sciences 130 34,449 3,601 9.6 to 1 Physical Sciences & Engineering 102 54,757 1,635 33.5 to 1 Social Sciences 26 2,812 280 10 to 1 Grand Total 280 97,493 6,044 16 to 1

On average, electronic use is more than sixteen times the rate of print use for the same journal titles and issues at control campuses that had both print on the shelf and digital access (see Table 2). For Physical Sciences and Engineering, that ratio is predictably higher at 34 digital uses to 1 print use. It is notable that the ratios for Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences were so similar to Life and Health Sciences at approximately 10 digital uses to 1 print use.

The fact that use of digital journals was considerably higher than print use, at both control and experimental campuses (see Figure 3), appeared at first glance to be a result of the experiment; that is, removal of print from the shelf drove an increase in digital use. To examine how much of this higher digital use might be attributable to the storage of print, the year-to-year change in digital use was examined. This showed that digital use was greater at experimental campuses both during the study and in the year prior to the study; the titles chosen for the study were simply more frequently used at experimental campuses (see Table 3).

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 3 of 38 Table 3: Year-to-Year Change in Electronic Use These figures correspond to usage for January-September 2000 (Prior Year) and January-September 2001 (Study Year). Subject Category Control Campus Electronic Use Experimental Campus Electronic Use Prior Year Study Year Change Prior Year Study Year Change Uses Uses from Prior Uses Uses from Prior Year to Year to Study Year Study Year Arts & Humanities 4,763 4,256 -10.6% 5,278 7,733 46.5% Life & Health Sciences 20,333 27,407 34.8% 50,665 65,183 28.7% Physical Sciences & Engineering 32,466 44,607 37.4% 33,194 46,937 41.4% Social Sciences 1,885 2,132 13.1% 3,398 4,546 33.8% Grand Total 59,447 78,402 31.9% 92,535 124,399 34.4%

Recalls from storage Journal issues removed to storage at experimental campuses were not frequently requested: a total of 201 items were recalled, or about 3 percent of the use of the same titles at campuses that retained the material on the shelf (see Figure 3). Users who did request journals from remote storage were asked why they were requesting the items, and more often than not indicated they were doing so because of differences in content available in the two formats (see Appendix A).

User Preference Survey: Understanding the Acceptance of Electronic Journals

User Preference Survey Overview During February and March 2003, 20,000 UC faculty, students, and staff were invited to participate in a User Preference Survey2. In addition to demographic questions, the 60 questions (see Appendix B) posed in the survey sought to elicit responses in four general areas:  Frequency of use of digital and print journals  Format preferences for a variety of common tasks  Advantages of digital journals  Barriers to the effective use of digital journals

The stratified random sampling methodology3 employed in the survey provided for a 95 percent confidence interval of ± 5 percent at the campus level for the responses of faculty and graduate students, and at the systemwide level for undergraduates, campus professional staff, and health science professionals. Faculty and graduate students were contacted by mail, with a printed questionnaire and instructions for responding on the Web or by mail. Staff and students were contacted by email with a URL for the Web survey and instructions for requesting a printed questionnaire. All groups received three email reminders. It should be noted that the user preference survey was entirely separate from the journal use study. Undoubtedly, many survey respondents were unaware that UC had conducted a journal use study.

2 The sample was drawn from UC payroll and enrollment databases. 3 To assure adequate representation of each subpopulation in the survey, individuals were selected at random from within each group (as defined by University Status) in numbers sufficient to meet sampling objectives.

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 4 of 38 Figure 4: Survey Response by University Status Health Care Professional 3% Other 0.5% UC Staff Undergraduate Librarian 5% 4% 0.03% Researcher 5%

Post Doc 6% Graduate Student 54% Faculty 23%

Figure 5: Survey Responses by Broad Discipline Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies Other Arts & Humanities 2% 6% 9% Social Sciences 19%

Life & Health Sciences 39% Physical Sciences & Engineering 25%

By the end of the data collection period on April 1, 2003, more than 7,000 responses had been received; a response rate of 30 percent. One thousand six hundred and seventy-three faculty and 3,814 graduate students participated, making up 77 percent of responses (see Figure 4). Respondents self-identified their university status4 and academic field or area. To aid analysis the academic field data was classified into broad disciplines 5(see Figure 5). The broad discipline areas of the responding segments, except for Health Care Professionals and Staff, were distributed across disciplines in proportions similar to those of general campus enrollment statistics (see Figure 6). 6

4 University status describes the respondents’ relationship to the university and included: Undergraduate Student, Graduate Student, Postdoctoral Student/Fellow, Faculty, Researcher, Health Care Professional, Librarian, UC Staff and other.

5 Broad disciplines were defined as Life and Health Sciences, Physical Sciences and Engineering, Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences and Multi/Inter-disciplinary; using UCOP Division of Academic Affairs taxonomy, respondents’ academic field, as reported in response to survey question 11, was classified into these broad disciplines.

6 “The University of California Statistical Summary of Students and Staff Fall 2002” at http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/stat/

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 5 of 38 Figure 6: Responses by University Status and Broad Discipline Note: Undergraduates, health care professionals, staff, librarians and people who identified their status as “Other” were not asked to identify their discipline, so they are omitted from this chart.

Arts & Humanities Life & Health Sciences Physical Sciences & Eng. Social Sciences Multi/Inter-Disciplinary Other 4,000

0 Graduate Student Faculty Post Doc Researcher The number of responses was fairly even across the campuses, with the exception of the San Francisco campus (see Figure 7). UCSF’s relatively high number of responses was likely due to a preponderance of Health Care Professionals and an absence of undergraduates.

Figure 7: Survey Responses by Campus Faculty All

Berkeley

Irvine

Los Angeles

Riverside

Santa Barbara

Santa Cruz

San Diego

San Francisco

Office of the President

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 6 of 38 General Findings

Overall, the data show that ejournals are generally popular, frequently used, preferred for a variety of tasks and, although there are barriers, they do not outweigh the advantages, particularly of convenience. There are some differences between the faculty and the general university community, and likewise some differences among disciplines; however; in very few cases did one group express a preference that was markedly different from the others. For instance, 68 percent of all respondents had used a digital journal within the last week, while 35 percent of all respondents had used a print journal during the same period. The comparable figures for faculty were 71 percent and 34 percent, respectively.

Figure 8: Most Recent Use of Print and Electronic Journals

Faculty t n i r P All c

i Faculty n o r t c e l

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Today Less than a week ago Less than a month ago More than a month ago Never

The pattern of similar responses is also illustrated in the responses by discipline concerning how recently print or digital journals have been used. Ejournals had been used during the last week by 60 percent or more of the respondents from all disciplines except Arts and Humanities, where only 42 percent of respondents reported using an ejournal in the last week (see Figure 10). This pattern of recent use of ejournals among the disciplines is also true of the use of print journals. Approximately 70 percent of respondents from all disciplines reported using print within the last month (see Figure 11). It appears that frequent users of ejournals are also frequent users of print (see Figure 9 and Table 4).

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 7 of 38 Figure 9: Most Recent Electronic Journal Use by Most Recent Print Journal Use 100% Last print use: Never

80% Last print use: More than a month ago 60% Last print use: Less than a month ago 40% Last print use: Less than a week ago 20% Last print use: Today

0% Today Less than a Less than a More than a Never week ago month ago month ago Last electronic use

Table 4: Most Recent Electronic Journal Use by Most Recent Print Journal Use7 Last print use Last electronic use Frequency Percent Less than a Less than a More than a Col Pct Today week ago month ago month ago Never Total Today 348 100 21 12 7 488 4.98 1.43 0.30 0.17 0.10 6.98 18.07 3.65 2.10 1.51 1.32 Less than a week ago 517 1064 182 98 47 1908 7.40 15.23 2.60 1.40 0.67 27.31 26.84 38.89 18.24 12.31 8.85 Less than a month ago 444 625 402 113 41 1625 6.35 8.95 5.75 1.62 0.59 23.26 23.05 22.84 40.28 14.20 7.72 More than a month 538 829 327 491 118 2303 ago 7.70 11.86 4.68 7.03 1.69 32.96 27.93 30.30 32.77 61.68 22.22 Never 79 118 66 82 318 663 1.13 1.69 0.94 1.17 4.55 9.49 4.10 4.31 6.61 10.30 59.89 Total 1926 2736 998 796 531 6987 27.57 39.16 14.28 11.39 7.60 100.00 Frequency Missing = 233

7 In this table and those following, the contents of each cell include the total number of responses for that cell (“Frequency”), plus the cell percentage (the number of responses in the cell as a percentage of total responses) and the column percentage (the number of responses in the cell as a percentage of total responses for that column). For the “Total” row and column, only the cell percentage for each cell is shown.

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 8 of 38 Figure 10: Electronic Usage by Broad Discipline

Today Less than a week ago Less than a month ago More than a month ago Never

Arts & Humanities

Life & Health Sciences

Physical Sciences & Eng.

Social Sciences

Multi/Inter-Disciplinary

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 11: Print Usage by Broad Discipline

Today Less than a week ago Less than a month ago More than a month ago Never

Arts & Humanities

Life & Health Sciences

Physical Sciences & Eng.

Social Sciences

Multi/Inter-Disciplinary

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

A majority of respondents also feel that all or most of the journals they use are available digitally, and 90 percent, including the faculty, report that at least some digital journals are available in their fields (see Figure 12). This response does differ by discipline, but again by degree, not kind (see Table 5). More then 65 percent of respondents from Life & Health

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 9 of 38 Sciences, as well as 73 percent from Physical Sciences & Engineering, felt that all or most of their relevant journals were available. This was true for only 20 percent of those in the Arts & Humanities and for 36 percent of those in the Social Sciences. However, when the categories “All,” “Most” or “Some” are considered together, 80 percent or more of respondents across all disciplines agreed that at least some relevant journals are available electronically.

Figure 12: Relevant Electronic Journals Available How many of the most relevant journals in your (field, area, discipline, specialty) are available in electronic format:

All Most Some

Faculty

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Table 5: Relevant Electronic Journals Available (by Broad Disciplinary Area) Relevant journals available electronically Broad Disciplinary Area Total Frequency Physical Percent Arts & Life & Health Science & Social Multi/Inter- Col Pct Humanities Science Eng. Sciences Disciplinary Other All 5 160 188 21 3 8 385 0.08 2.67 3.14 0.35 0.05 0.13 6.42 0.90 6.74 12.65 1.83 3.13 2.42 Most 102 1389 895 392 41 136 2955 1.70 23.18 14.93 6.54 0.68 2.27 49.31 18.35 58.51 60.23 34.09 42.71 41.09 Some 341 724 328 601 44 143 2181 5.69 12.08 5.47 10.03 0.73 2.39 36.39 61.33 30.50 22.07 52.26 45.83 43.20 None 12 4 1 6 0 3 26 0.20 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.43 2.16 0.17 0.07 0.52 0.00 0.91 Don't Know 96 97 74 130 8 41 446 1.60 1.62 1.23 2.17 0.13 0.68 7.44 17.27 4.09 4.98 11.30 8.33 12.39 Total 556 2374 1486 1150 96 331 5993 9.28 39.61 24.80 19.19 1.60 5.52 100.00 Frequency Missing = 1227

Attitudes: The survey asked a series of questions related to general attitudes about ejournals. Both faculty and all respondents generally described their research as being dependent on both print (over 60 percent) and electronic journals (over 70 percent); more respondents, including

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 10 of 38 faculty, described their research as being dependent on electronic journals than did on print journals (see Figure 13). When this question of dependence on a format is examined by discipline there are modest differences in responses. Arts and Humanities respondents report a higher level of dependence on print at 79 percent while in the Life and Health Sciences, Physical Sciences and Engineering and the Social Sciences between 50 and 60 percent of the respondents acknowledge a dependence on the library’s print journals (see Figure 14).

Figure 13: Format Dependence for Research Within Respondents’ Field Strongly agree Agree 100%

0% Faculty All Faculty All Research dependent on e-journals Research dependent on print journals

Figure 14: Dependence on Library's Print Journals Respondents’ agreement with the statement "Research in my [field] is dependent on the library's print journals."

Agree No Opinion Disagree 100%

0% Arts & Life & Health Physical Social Sciences Multi/Inter- Other Humanities Sciences Sciences & Disciplinary Eng.

Faculty are only slightly more conservative than other groups in embracing the advantages of ejournals. When asked if ejournals are a suitable alternative to print, for example, 73 percent of

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 11 of 38 faculty responded “Yes,” compared with an overall affirmative response of 82 percent (see Figure 15).

Figure 15: E-Journals as Print Alternative Strongly agree Agree 100%

0% Faculty All Faculty All Print more reliable E-journals a suitable alternative

Figure 16: Reliability of Print Journals Respondents’ agreement with the statement "Even if both are available, I think print journals are more reliable than electronic journals."

Agree No Opinion Disagree 100%

0% Arts & Life & Health Physical Social Sciences Multi/Inter- Other Humanities Sciences Sciences & Eng. Disciplinary

Knowing that concerns are often expressed about the reliability of ejournals, it is interesting to learn that less than 25 percent of faculty and less than 20 percent of all respondents agreed with the statement “Even if both are available, I think print journals are more reliable than electronic journals” (Figure 15). There is general consensus on this matter among the disciplines. For most disciplinary groups, less then 20 percent of respondents thought that print was more reliable; in the Arts and Humanities, 30 percent felt that print was more reliable (see Figure 16).

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 12 of 38 Over 60 percent of faculty respondents and almost 70 percent of all respondents found electronic journals easy to locate in online catalogs and well represented in abstracting and indexing (A&I) databases. Roughly the same percentages of respondents indicated they were likely to browse more and in different electronic journals than print. There was one area where the consensus was not running in favor of the electronic journals; only about 20 percent of respondents felt that backfiles of ejournals went back far enough to meet their needs (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Attitudes Toward Electronic Journals

Strongly agree Agree 100%

0% All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty E-journals a Research Browse more and Easy to locate e- Indexes & E-journals go far suitable dependent on e- different e- journals via online databases provide enough back alternative to print journals journals than print catalog good e-journal coverage

Preferences: The survey also asked a series of questions about which format is preferred for a variety of tasks. Almost 60 percent of all respondents and almost 50 percent of faculty respondents indicated they prefer electronic for browsing past issues (see Figure 18). Almost half of all respondents, and a third of faculty, also indicated they preferred electronic for browsing current issues.

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 13 of 38 Figure 18: Kinds of Use 1

Print Either Electronic 100%

0% Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Browsing current Browsing past Searching through Keeping current in Keeping current Locating specific issues issues different titles my field outside my field facts

Figure 19: Kinds of Use 2

0% Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Making copies of articles Comparing & contrasting Citing articles For use in course articles assignments

Other uses for which electronic journals were preferred over print by 50 percent or more of all respondents included  Copying articles;  Citing articles;  Locating specific facts;  Keeping current inside and outside their field  Searching through multiple titles; and  Keeping current both inside and outside of their field.

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 14 of 38 Comparing and contrasting articles was, however, not yet a use to which electronic journals seem to lend themselves (see Figure 19).

Interestingly, fewer than 50 percent of faculty report a clear preference to use electronic journals in course assignments (see Table 6). A minority in all disciplinary groups expressed the preference for use of print in course assignments; print was preferred less then 20 percent of the time for use in course assignments in all disciplines except the Arts and Humanities, where the preference for print climbs to 37 percent (see Figure 20).

Table 6: Format Preferences for Use in Course Assignments by University Status For use in course University Status Total assignments Frequency Under Grad Post Faculty Researcher Health care Librarian UC Other Percent grad student Doc professional staff Col Pct Definitely prefer 21 187 10 144 8 7 0 4 1 382 print 0.31 2.75 0.15 2.12 0.12 0.1 0 0.06 0.01 5.62 7.75 5.05 2.26 8.79 2.4 4.32 0 1.93 3.23 Mostly prefer print 34 299 26 133 15 15 0 4 3 529 0.5 4.4 0.38 1.96 0.22 0.22 0 0.06 0.04 7.79 12.55 8.07 5.87 8.11 4.5 9.26 0 1.93 9.68 Either print or 103 932 85 400 61 44 0 47 8 1680 electronic 1.52 13.72 1.25 5.89 0.9 0.65 0 0.69 0.12 24.73 38.01 25.16 19.19 24.41 18.32 27.16 0 22.71 25.81 Mostly prefer 58 725 70 307 45 33 0 24 10 1272 electronic 0.85 10.67 1.03 4.52 0.66 0.49 0 0.35 0.15 18.73 21.4 19.57 15.8 18.73 13.51 20.37 0 11.59 32.26 Definitely prefer 48 1357 103 446 73 43 0 39 9 2118 electronic 0.71 19.98 1.52 6.57 1.07 0.63 0 0.57 0.13 31.18 17.71 36.63 23.25 27.21 21.92 26.54 0 18.84 29.03 N/A 7 205 149 209 131 20 2 89 0 812 0.1 3.02 2.19 3.08 1.93 0.29 0.03 1.31 0 11.95 2.58 5.53 33.63 12.75 39.34 12.35 100 43 0 Total 271 3705 443 1639 333 162 2 207 31 6793 3.99 54.54 6.52 24.13 4.9 2.38 0.03 3.05 0.46 100 Frequency Missing = 427

Figure 20: Format Preferences for Use in Course Assignments by Broad Disciplinary Area

0% Arts & Life & Health Physical Social Sciences Multi/Inter- Other Humanities Sciences Sciences & Eng. Disciplinary

Advantages: Six questions were asked about the advantages of ejournals. The leading advantages reported by over 90 percent of respondents are related to the convenience of

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 15 of 38 ejournals: there is no need to go to the library, and they are available at any time of day or night (see Figure 21). This finding is supported by a preponderance of volunteered comments citing “convenience” as an advantage. The availability of related information, including links and downloadable data were also frequently cited, at a rate of about 70 percent, as important advantages.

Figure 21: Advantages of Electronic Journals Very important Important 100%

0% All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty No need to go to Always available Includes links Includes Avoids photocopy Available before print library or wait for doc downloadable data costs delivery

The convenience of the immediate availability provided by ejournals is also a very important advantage across disciplines (see Table 7). Over 90 percent of respondents agreed (only Arts and Humanities rated this lower, with 57 percent) that not having to wait for document delivery or visit the library was a very important advantage.

Table 7: Advantage of Not Visiting Library or Waiting for Document Delivery by Broad Disciplinary Area Advantage: No need to visit library or wait for doc delivery Broad Disciplinary Area Total Frequency Life & Physical Percent Arts & Health Science & Social Multi/Inter- Col Pct Humanities Science Eng. Sciences Disciplinary Other Very important 322 1934 1163 867 72 239 4597 5.34 32.08 19.29 14.38 1.19 3.96 76.26 57.60 81.12 77.53 75.00 75.00 71.77 Important 169 398 286 238 21 74 1186 2.80 6.60 4.74 3.95 0.35 1.23 19.67 30.23 16.69 19.07 20.59 21.88 22.22 Not important 45 43 41 34 3 10 176 0.75 0.71 0.68 0.56 0.05 0.17 2.92 8.05 1.80 2.73 2.94 3.13 3.00 No opinion 23 9 10 17 0 10 69 0.38 0.15 0.17 0.28 0.00 0.17 1.14 4.11 0.38 0.67 1.47 0.00 3.00 Total 559 2384 1500 1156 96 333 6028 9.27 39.55 24.88 19.18 1.59 5.52 100.00 Frequency Missing = 1192

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 16 of 38 Barriers: We asked several questions about perceived barriers to the effective use of digital journals, grouped in three general areas: ease of use, content and coverage, and computing equipment. In most cases there seems to be remarkable agreement on what factors make digital journals hard to use. The most commonly-cited barriers to ejournal use in the “Content and Coverage” area were the unavailability of both older and the most recent issues in electronic form (see Figure 22). Eighty percent of respondents identified the unavailability of older issues as a problem; 60 percent characterized this as a major barrier. This is entirely consistent with the finding that about 80 percent of respondents report that backfiles don’t go back far enough. These responses may arise from experiences with providers of ejournals who only supply backfiles of publications, but do not provide access to current content. Examples include JSTOR and publishers who embargo the electronic version of the most recent issues.

Figure 22: “Content and Coverage” Barriers to Electronic Journal Use Major barrier Minor barrier 100%

0% All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty Unavailability of Unavailability of Locating table of Locating info for Omission of letters, older issues recent issues contents authors supplements, editorial info, etc

The most widely perceived problem in the “Ease of Use” category was the difficulty of reading on the screen, followed by problems with highlighting and making notes, and with navigating among the parts of an article (see Figure 23). However, “Reading on the screen” was mentioned often as an advantage in the written comments added to the survey by respondents; in particular, the ability to increase the scale on the screen as needed was mentioned repeatedly as an advantage to the visually impaired.

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 17 of 38 Figure 23: “Ease of Use” Barriers to Electronic Journal Use

Major barrier Minor barrier 100%

0% All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty

Reading Highlighting & Moving Printing Reproducing Printing Maps, Different onscreen notes between parts charges color graphics illustrations, formats (PDF, of an article non-Roman HTML, etc) text

In the “Computing Equipment” area, the two major problems reported were difficulties with authentication and authorization from off-campus locations, and the speed of home Internet connections (see Figure 24). Although there are differences when these barriers are examined by campus, reasons are not evident particularly as there are many layers of interacting technology that are involved in remote access to the library systems. Almost half the respondents claimed to have DSL or cable modem connections at home, and half dial-up. Sixty percent of respondents indicated that gaining access to digital journals via the proxy server was a barrier but it should be noted that only 25 percent of respondents indicated the primary place from which they access ejournals to be their home or other off campus location. And while over 50 percent of faculty indicate that the speed of their home internet connection is a barrier, less then 20 percent use their home as the primary place from which they access ejournals (see Table 8).

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 18 of 38 Figure 24: "Computing Equipment" Barriers to Electronic Journal Use Major barrier Minor barrier 100%

0% All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty All Faculty Proxy or Speed of home Home Library Computer Office Computer authentication internet computer computers support & computer skills off-campus connection training

Table 8: Primary Place Electronic Journals Are Accessed (by University Status) University Status Frequency Under Grad Post Faculty Researcher Health care Librarian UC Other Percent grad student Doc professional staff Col Pct Total Library 103 350 8 28 4 26 1 12 6 538 1.5 5.11 0.12 0.41 0.06 0.38 0.01 0.18 0.09 7.85 37.45 9.38 1.78 1.69 1.19 15.76 50 5.71 18.75 My campus 4 993 243 1169 223 42 1 125 5 2805 office 0.06 14.49 3.55 17.06 3.25 0.61 0.01 1.82 0.07 40.94 1.45 26.62 54.12 70.76 66.17 25.45 50 59.52 15.63 Research 7 802 172 51 87 2 0 19 1 1141 Laboratory 0.1 11.7 2.51 0.74 1.27 0.03 0 0.28 0.01 16.65 2.55 21.5 38.31 3.09 25.82 1.21 0 9.05 3.13 Home 118 1125 9 317 14 53 0 23 14 1673 1.72 16.42 0.13 4.63 0.2 0.77 0 0.34 0.2 24.42 42.91 30.16 2 19.19 4.15 32.12 0 10.95 43.75 Campus 22 348 10 8 4 11 0 0 5 408 computer lab 0.32 5.08 0.15 0.12 0.06 0.16 0 0 0.07 5.95 8 9.33 2.23 0.48 1.19 6.67 0 0 15.63 N/A 15 47 3 44 1 8 0 21 1 140 0.22 0.69 0.04 0.64 0.01 0.12 0 0.31 0.01 2.04 5.45 1.26 0.67 2.66 0.3 4.85 0 10 3.13 Other 6 65 4 35 4 23 0 10 0 147 (specify) 0.09 0.95 0.06 0.51 0.06 0.34 0 0.15 0 2.15 2.18 1.74 0.89 2.12 1.19 13.94 0 4.76 0 Total 275 3730 449 1652 337 165 2 210 32 6852 4.01 54.44 6.55 24.11 4.92 2.41 0.03 3.06 0.47 100 Frequency Missing = 368

Other patterns regarding barriers are less clear. Faculty systematically diverge from the rest of the respondents in that they acknowledge that deficiencies in their own computer skills present a barrier to effective use of digital collections at a higher rate. As with advantages, undergraduates and females are somewhat more likely to describe all of the barriers issues as major rather than minor barriers. They are joined by graduates and health science professionals in more frequently identifying the quality of library equipment and printing charges as issues

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 19 of 38 (see Table 9). Generally, respondents under 30 were more likely to see printing charges and library equipment as barriers. This may be related to the finding that 37 percent of undergraduates come to the library to access ejournals. Overall 40 percent of respondents indicated that printing charges were a barrier; the same percentage that indicated that it was not a barrier. There are some differences in responses by campus that may reflect differences in campus “business models” for library printing and investments in equipment or maintenance (see Table 10).

Table 9: Print Charges as a Barrier to Electronic Use by University Status University Status Total Frequency Under Grad Post Faculty Researcher Health care Librarian UC Other Percent grad student Doc professional staff Col Pct Major 82 668 56 161 24 36 0 22 7 1056 barrier 1.2 9.8 0.82 2.36 0.35 0.53 0 0.32 0.1 15.5 30.26 18.03 12.47 9.79 7.1 21.69 0 10.68 21.88 Minor 129 1271 88 382 68 73 1 50 15 2077 barrier 1.89 18.66 1.29 5.61 1 1.07 0.01 0.73 0.22 30.49 47.6 34.31 19.6 23.22 20.12 43.98 50 24.27 46.88 Not a 47 1439 205 788 177 32 1 73 7 2769 barrier 0.69 21.12 3.01 11.57 2.6 0.47 0.01 1.07 0.1 40.64 17.34 38.85 45.66 47.9 52.37 19.28 50 35.44 21.88 No opinion 13 326 100 314 69 25 0 61 3 911 0.19 4.78 1.47 4.61 1.01 0.37 0 0.9 0.04 13.37 4.8 8.8 22.27 19.09 20.41 15.06 0 29.61 9.38 Total 271 3704 449 1645 338 166 2 206 32 6813 3.98 54.37 6.59 24.15 4.96 2.44 0.03 3.02 0.47 100 Frequency Missing = 407

Table 10: Print Charges as a Barrier to Electronic Journal Use by Campus Campus Total Frequency Percent Col Pct UCB UCD UCI UCLA UCR UCSB UCSC UCSD UCSF UCOP Major barrier 111 101 117 90 109 97 103 88 236 0 1052 1.64 1.49 1.73 1.33 1.61 1.43 1.52 1.30 3.48 0.00 15.52 14.45 11.60 16.05 15.08 16.17 13.02 17.76 11.75 22.16 . Minor barrier 230 240 219 161 165 233 173 212 429 0 2062 3.39 3.54 3.23 2.38 2.43 3.44 2.55 3.13 6.33 0.00 30.42 29.95 27.55 30.04 26.97 24.48 31.28 29.83 28.30 40.28 . Not a barrier 329 403 264 251 287 329 237 350 301 0 2751 4.85 5.95 3.89 3.70 4.23 4.85 3.50 5.16 4.44 0.00 40.59 42.84 46.27 36.21 42.04 42.58 44.16 40.86 46.73 28.26 . No opinion 98 127 129 95 113 86 67 99 99 0 913 1.45 1.87 1.90 1.40 1.67 1.27 0.99 1.46 1.46 0.00 13.47 12.76 14.58 17.70 15.91 16.77 11.54 11.55 13.22 9.30 . Total 768 871 729 597 674 745 580 749 1065 0 6778 11.33 12.85 10.76 8.81 9.94 10.99 8.56 11.05 15.71 0.00 100.00 Frequency Missing = 442

Printing graphics and reproducing color are two barriers where disciplinary differences appear. While 34 percent of Physical Sciences and Engineering respondents indicate that difficulty in printing graphics is a barrier to using digital, between 40 percent and 48 percent of the respondents in other disciplines identified it as such (see Table 11). However, many of those who took time to write comments on the survey form noted the superiority of color graphics in digital versus print journals and remarked that storing and using digital file provided better copies then Xerox technology.

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 20 of 38 Table 11: Difficulty in Printing Graphics as a Barrier to Electronic Journal Usage by Broad Disciplinary Area Broad Disciplinary Area Total Frequency Physical Percent Arts & Life & Health Science & Social Multi/Inter- Col Pct Humanities Science Eng. Sciences Disciplinary Other Major barrier 81 256 96 140 10 40 623 1.35 4.26 1.60 2.33 0.17 0.67 10.37 14.62 10.77 6.43 12.11 10.42 12.05 Minor barrier 141 822 416 362 36 94 1871 2.35 13.68 6.92 6.02 0.60 1.56 31.14 25.45 34.57 27.86 31.31 37.50 28.31 Not a barrier 206 1165 899 549 44 163 3026 3.43 19.39 14.96 9.14 0.73 2.71 50.36 37.18 48.99 60.21 47.49 45.83 49.10 No opinion 126 135 82 105 6 35 489 2.10 2.25 1.36 1.75 0.10 0.58 8.14 22.74 5.68 5.49 9.08 6.25 10.54 Total 554 2378 1493 1156 96 332 6009 9.22 39.57 24.85 19.24 1.60 5.53 100.00 Frequency Missing = 1211

Table 12: Difficulty in Accurately Reproducing Color Illustrations as a Barrier to Electronic Journal Use by Broad Disciplinary Area Broad Disciplinary Area Total Frequency Physical Percent Arts & Life & Health Science & Social Multi/Inter- Col Pct Humanities Science Eng. Sciences Disciplinary Other Major barrier 80 393 115 111 13 45 757 1.33 6.55 1.92 1.85 0.22 0.75 12.61 14.49 16.56 7.72 9.56 13.54 13.55 Minor barrier 121 847 455 277 28 95 1823 2.02 14.11 7.58 4.61 0.47 1.58 30.37 21.92 35.69 30.56 23.86 29.17 28.61 Not a barrier 197 932 769 551 40 130 2619 3.28 15.53 12.81 9.18 0.67 2.17 43.63 35.69 39.28 51.65 47.46 41.67 39.16 No opinion 154 201 150 222 15 62 804 2.57 3.35 2.50 3.70 0.25 1.03 13.39 27.90 8.47 10.07 19.12 15.63 18.67 Total 552 2373 1489 1161 96 332 6003 9.20 39.53 24.80 19.34 1.60 5.53 100.00 Frequency Missing = 1217

To summarize these findings about barriers, it is evident that the lack of backfiles is perceived as the major impediment to effective use of digital journal collections, followed by difficulty with reading on screen, and off campus access (see Figure 25). The other barriers listed in Figure 25, however, are reported as problems by 50-60 percent of our respondents, and all warrant attention.

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 21 of 38 Figure 25: Top Barriers to Electronic Use

Major barrier Minor barrier 100%

0% Unavailability of Reading Proxy or Highlighting & Unavailability of Speed of home Moving between older issues onscreen authentication notes recent issues internet parts of an article off-campus connection

Influence of Demographic Variables on Survey Responses

Analysis of the survey data showed that survey responses were associated with demographic variables in a large number of cases.8 To help identify the stronger relationships in the data, particular attention was paid to results with a Cramer's V statistic over 0.10.9 As shown in Table 13, while many relationships with demographic variables were statistically significant, in most cases Table 13: Summary of Statistical Significance the relationship was not strong (V<0.10). These results of Demographic Variables suggest that Discipline and University Status are the # Sig Chi- Demographic Variable #V > 0.10 most important variables in explaining differences in sq user responses. Many of the strongest and most Discipline 67 36 interesting of these relationships have been mentioned University Status 66 37 Campus 60 8 in the preceding discussion of substantive findings. The Age 68 19 purpose of this section is to review and characterize Gender 61 19 these demographic relationships in more general terms.

University Status: Faculty, researchers and, to a lesser extent, graduate and postdoctoral students, are the most recent users of both print and digital journals. However, undergraduate students still show a preference for digital: while only 32 percent of undergraduates (as compared with 72 percent of faculty) reported using an ejournal within the last week, fewer than 26 percent reported using a print journal from the library during the same period (see Figure 26).

8 That is, the Chi-square statistics for the relationship between the demographic variable and the response variable was statistically significant at the .05 level or better, meaning that there was a less than 5 percent probability that the indicated relationship could have resulted from chance.

9 Cramer’s V is a measure of association for categorical data. Like Pearson’s r, the classical measure of correlation for continuous data, V ranges between 0 and 1, with 0 denoting no association, and 1 denoting perfect association.

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 22 of 38 Undergraduate students do not emerge in these data as heavy users of digital information. Twenty-seven percent of undergraduate students seem to concur, as they (and 38 percent of faculty) acknowledged the lack of computer skill as a barrier (see Table 15). For faculty, who are familiar with and dependent upon the literature, this is probably an expression of their difficulty in keeping up with changing technology. For undergraduates, this may mean that, while heavy online users, undergraduates don’t make much use of the scholarly and scientific journal literature. If so, it appears that the survey instrument was successful in drawing the distinction between electronic journals and other online content.

Figure 26: Most Recent Electronic Journal Use (by University Status) Today Less than a week ago Less than a month ago More than a month ago Never 100%

0% Undergrad Grad student Post Doc Faculty Researcher Health care Librarian UC staff Other professional

Figure 27: Most Recent Print and Electronic Journal Use (by Broad Discipline) Today Less than a week ago Less than a month ago More than a month ago Never 100%

0% Print Electronic Print Electronic Print Electronic Print Electronic Print Electronic Print Electronic Arts & Humanities Life & Health Physical Sciences & Social Sciences Multi/Inter- Other Sciences Eng. Disciplinary

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 23 of 38 Table 14: Most Recent Print Journal Use by University Status University Status Total Frequency Under Grad Post Faculty Researcher Health care Librarian UC Other Percent grad student Doc professional staff Col Pct Today 17 313 48 95 21 5 1 4 1 505 0.24 4.39 0.67 1.33 0.29 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.01 7.08 5.43 8.25 10.79 5.68 6.14 2.6 50 1.19 3.03 Less than a 63 1149 128 479 81 34 0 23 4 1961 week ago 0.88 16.11 1.79 6.72 1.14 0.48 0 0.32 0.06 27.5 20.13 30.27 28.76 28.65 23.68 17.71 0 6.82 12.12 Less than a 57 939 110 422 71 31 1 23 12 1666 month ago 0.8 13.17 1.54 5.92 1 0.43 0.01 0.32 0.17 23.36 18.21 24.74 24.72 25.24 20.76 16.15 50 6.82 36.36 More than a 108 1096 146 604 151 78 0 130 12 2325 month ago 1.51 15.37 2.05 8.47 2.12 1.09 0 1.82 0.17 32.6 34.5 28.87 32.81 36.12 44.15 40.63 0 38.58 36.36 Never 68 299 13 72 18 44 0 157 4 675 0.95 4.19 0.18 1.01 0.25 0.62 0 2.2 0.06 9.46 21.73 7.88 2.92 4.31 5.26 22.92 0 46.59 12.12 Total 313 3796 445 1672 342 192 2 337 33 7132 4.39 53.22 6.24 23.44 4.8 2.69 0.03 4.73 0.46 100 Frequency Missing = 88

Table 15: Computer Skills as a Barrier to Electronic Journal Use by University Status University Status Total Frequency Under Grad Post Faculty Researcher Health care Librarian UC Other Percent grad student Doc professional staff Col Pct Major 16 118 5 139 6 18 0 10 4 316 barrier 0.24 1.74 0.07 2.05 0.09 0.27 0 0.15 0.06 4.66 5.9 3.2 1.12 8.5 1.79 11.04 0 4.88 13.33 Minor 58 551 61 477 71 51 1 40 7 1317 barrier 0.86 8.13 0.9 7.04 1.05 0.75 0.01 0.59 0.1 19.44 21.4 14.94 13.65 29.17 21.19 31.29 50 19.51 23.33 Not a 184 2950 373 976 252 86 1 141 17 4980 barrier 2.72 43.54 5.51 14.41 3.72 1.27 0.01 2.08 0.25 73.51 67.9 80.01 83.45 59.69 75.22 52.76 50 68.78 56.67 No opinion 13 68 8 43 6 8 0 14 2 162 0.19 1 0.12 0.63 0.09 0.12 0 0.21 0.03 2.39 4.8 1.84 1.79 2.63 1.79 4.91 0 6.83 6.67 Total 271 3687 447 1635 335 163 2 205 30 6775 4 54.42 6.6 24.13 4.94 2.41 0.03 3.03 0.44 100 Frequency Missing = 445

Discipline: When the preference for digital is examined by discipline, the survey shows a generally consistent pattern, with Life & Health Sciences and Physical Sciences & Engineering displaying similar tendencies to favor digital. Arts & Humanities and Social Sciences respondents are somewhat more likely to favor print, but Arts & Humanities responses frequently show a preference for print at about twice the rate of the overall survey population, while the responses from the Social Sciences are more moderate (see Table 16).

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 24 of 38 Table 16: Most Recent Electronic Journal Use by Broad Discipline Broad Disciplinary Area Frequency Physical Percent Arts & Life & Health Science & Social Multi/Inter- Col Pct Humanities Science Eng. Sciences Disciplinary Other Total Today 61 1002 448 236 27 76 1850 1.01 16.57 7.41 3.90 0.45 1.26 30.59 11.03 42.40 29.55 20.02 27.27 22.49 Less than a week 181 958 678 496 41 143 2497 ago 2.99 15.84 11.21 8.20 0.68 2.36 41.29 32.73 40.54 44.72 42.07 41.41 42.31 Less than a month 127 251 191 227 10 48 854 ago 2.10 4.15 3.16 3.75 0.17 0.79 14.12 22.97 10.62 12.60 19.25 10.10 14.20 More than a 129 116 129 149 16 43 582 month ago 2.13 1.92 2.13 2.46 0.26 0.71 9.62 23.33 4.91 8.51 12.64 16.16 12.72 Never 55 36 70 71 5 28 265 0.91 0.60 1.16 1.17 0.08 0.46 4.38 9.95 1.52 4.62 6.02 5.05 8.28 Total 553 2363 1516 1179 99 338 6048 9.14 39.07 25.07 19.49 1.64 5.59 100.00 Frequency Missing = 1172

Age: Responses by age tend to follow responses by University Status in ways that might be expected with youngest respondents tending to be undergraduate students and older respondents tending to be faculty. The 21-30 and 31-40 age groups appear to be the most recent users of ejournals and the 20-or-under group is conspicuously less-recent users. See for example Table 17.

Table 17: Most Recent Electronic Journal Use by Age of Respondent Age Frequency Percent 20 or 71 or Col Pct under 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 over Total Today 9 897 558 270 153 35 9 1931 0.13 12.85 7.99 3.87 2.19 0.50 0.13 27.66 6.04 28.95 31.21 27.16 22.60 15.49 18.75 Less than a week ago 28 1244 732 371 259 94 17 2745 0.40 17.82 10.49 5.32 3.71 1.35 0.24 39.33 18.79 40.15 40.94 37.32 38.26 41.59 35.42 Less than a month ago 29 461 226 149 90 39 6 1000 0.42 6.60 3.24 2.13 1.29 0.56 0.09 14.33 19.46 14.88 12.64 14.99 13.29 17.26 12.50 More than a month ago 54 324 184 113 87 25 7 794 0.77 4.64 2.64 1.62 1.25 0.36 0.10 11.38 36.24 10.46 10.29 11.37 12.85 11.06 14.58 Never 29 172 88 91 88 33 9 510 0.42 2.46 1.26 1.30 1.26 0.47 0.13 7.31 19.46 5.55 4.92 9.15 13.00 14.60 18.75 Total 149 3098 1788 994 677 226 48 6980 2.13 44.38 25.62 14.24 9.70 3.24 0.69 100.00 Frequency Missing = 240

Gender: The picture that emerges is that male respondents are more frequent users of ejournals and report fewer barriers to their use. However, survey responses by gender should be interpreted in light of the gender distribution at the university. In the survey, faculty, postdoctoral students and researchers were more likely to be male, as were respondents from Physical Sciences & Engineering. It is of interest to note that females were far more likely to report primarily accessing ejournals from the library or home, while males access ejournals more often from their campus office or lab (see Table 18).

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 25 of 38 Table 18: Primary Place from Which Electronic Journals Are Accessed Gender Total Frequency Percent Col Pct Male Female Library 221 315 536 3.25 4.63 7.87 6.06 9.96 My campus office 1732 1052 2784 25.44 15.45 40.89 47.52 33.25 Research Laboratory 648 484 1132 9.52 7.11 16.63 17.78 15.30 Home 741 925 1666 10.88 13.58 24.47 20.33 29.24 Campus computer lab 167 240 407 2.45 3.52 5.98 4.58 7.59 N/A 68 70 138 1.00 1.03 2.03 1.87 2.21 Other (specify) 68 78 146 1.00 1.15 2.14 1.87 2.47 Total 3645 3164 6809 53.53 46.47 100.00 Frequency Missing = 411

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 26 of 38 Appendix A: Return Request Survey Summary

Explicitly selected Not checked, but Reason for requesting journal in print format (checked) reflected in comments Total Online version incomplete 21 7 28 Prefer to browse in print format 14 0 14 Prefer to read/study in print format 13 0 13 Unaware of online version 7 0 7 System problems library or publisher 3 2 5 Unable to access from off-campus location 4 1 5 Accessing/displaying/printing takes to long 1 2 3 Computer inadequate to print 2 0 2 Professor insisted on print source 1 1 2 Vision makes print preferable 2 0 2 Inadequate resolution for images 1 0 1 Computer inadequate to retrieve or view 0 0 0 Full color copy needed no equipment 0 0 0 Maps/special features do not work 0 0 0 Network connection slow/unreliable 0 0 0

Reasons given in Comments: The status listing did not make it clear to me that the essay I wanted to read could be recovered online. If I could access the journal from home, great. But I don’t' even know how to download a copy of article from school. Then to have to go home and print! That's just too much work. I need the printed article for my files. I followed the Melvyl link to the journal but the journal site indicated only issues beginning vol. 46 issue 4 and I wanted volume 46 issue 3. I use on-line but it is visual torture. It took 40 minutes of computer play to find, although I had its specs and knew it was there…and 24 hours to obtain. A serious waste of time. I discovered that it was not available in the on-line version, but I strongly prefer print version to be available. I like to be able to lay out a number of articles in organized piles when writing a paper. This allows me to rapidly compare them for a meta Analysis. (e.g. a comparison and tally of methods used for a certain type of study). It is inconvenient to use a computer for this as you can generally only look at one article at a time. Also I think I can save paper by not printing out all the articles! Also some journals do not give the most recent year or on-line. I would disqualify this title as a full text journal. Full text and PDF articles require a subscription or individual article purchase. The volume I want is a special issue of this journal and it is not available online. Unable to figure out how to access journal online in library. Input article title search words in search box so did not find the journal and requested paper. I also wish to read the instructions to submitters. It is much easier to browse through a (print) volume then it is online. In addition frequently the recent issues are not available online I also wish to read the instructions to submitters. It is much easier to browse through a (print) volume then it is online. In addition frequently the recent issues are not available online I am submitting an article to this journal and I wanted to look at several recent articles to get a feel for them. Instructions to authors are surprisingly often not available online. I didn’t actually check for Bio. Cons, but I have noticed this problem with other journals often enough that I didn't even try this time. Also I wanted to see who the current editors are etc. Other issues of the volume online, not this one. Online version goes only to Dec 2001, I need more recent issues. Heredity had been available online. Now it stops at 2001. Issue not online. Online version is no longer available to UC. Otherwise, I would have printed this article from my office. 2002 articles are not on the web. Printing error part way through - I could only print the first 4 pages. Companies aren't authorized to use internet resources. Online version does not include Supplements Online version does not include Supplements

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 28 of 38 Appendix B: Collection Management Initiative Questionnaire Codebook

Thank you for your participation in this survey, which should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Your opinions on print and electronic journals are important to University-wide library planning. First of all, tell us about your typical use of journals when conducting research or personal reading. Unless specified, we are interested in your use of journals from UC Libraries.

Q1_a_1. When was the last time you: Read, checked out, or copied a print journal or article from the University Library? 1. Today 2. Less than a week ago 3. Less than a month ago 4. More than a month ago 5. Never

Q1_a_2. When was the last time you: Retrieved, read, or downloaded an electronic journal article or abstract? 1. Today 2. Less than a week ago 3. Less than a month ago 4. More than a month ago 5. Never

Q2_a. I most often access electronic journals when I am at (please mark only one) 1. The Library 2. My Campus Office 3. A Research Laboratory 4. My Home 5. A Campus Computer lab 6. N/A 7. Other (Specify)

Q2_a_specify. Other (Specify) I most often access electronic journals when I am at [OPEN ENDED]

Q2_b. I also access electronic journals when I am at (please mark all that apply): 1. The Library 2. My Campus Office 3. A Research Laboratory 4. My Home 5. A Campus Computer lab 6. N/A 7. Other (Specify)

Q2_b_specify. Other (Specify) I also access electronic journals when I am at [OPEN ENDED]

Q3_a_1. When was the last time you: Retrieved, read, or downloaded an electronic journal article or abstract from a source other than the University Library system (from a public source or from a personal online subscription)? 1. Today 2. Less than a week ago 3. Less than a month ago 4. More than a month ago 5. Never

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 29 of 38 Q3_a_2: When was the last time you: Used a print journal from a source other than the University Library (such as a departmental or personal subscription)? 1. Today 2. Less than a week ago 3. Less than a month ago 4. More than a month ago 5. Never

Q4. How many of the most relevant journals in your (field, area, discipline, specialty) are available in electronic format: 1. All 2. Most 3. Some 4. None 5. I don’t know

Q5. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about journals in print and electronic format:

Q5_a_1. Research in my (field, area, discipline, specialty) is dependent on the library's electronic journals. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 6. N/A

Q5_a_2. Even if both are available, I think print journals are more reliable than electronic journals. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 6. N/A

Q5_a_3. Electronic journals are a suitable alternative to print journals. Strongly Agree 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 6. N/A

Q5_a_4. In my (field, area, discipline, specialty) electronic journal back issues go far enough back to meet my needs. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 6. N/A

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 30 of 38 Q5_a_5. Using the online library catalog makes it easy to locate electronic journals. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 6. N/A

Q5_a_6. The indexes and databases I use to find articles provide good coverage of electronic journal articles. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 6. N/A

Q5_a_7. Using electronic journals has increased the number of different journal titles I browse when compared to the number of titles I browse in print. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 6. N/A

Q5_a_8. Research in my (field, area, discipline, specialty) is dependent on the library's print journals 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree 6. N/A

Q6. Print and electronic journals may be used in different ways. If both versions were equally available, would you prefer to use print or electronic for the uses described below? Please mark the option that best describes your preference.

Q6_a_1. When browsing current issues of a journal. 1. Definitely Prefer Print 2. Mostly Prefer Print 3. Either Print or Electronic 4. Mostly Prefer Electronic 5. Definitely Prefer Electronic 6. N/A

Q6_a_2. When browsing past issues of a journal. 1. Definitely Prefer Print 2. Mostly Prefer Print 3. Either Print or Electronic 4. Mostly Prefer Electronic 5. Definitely Prefer Electronic 6. N/A

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 31 of 38 Q6_a_3. When searching through several different journal titles for articles. 1. Definitely Prefer Print 2. Mostly Prefer Print 3. Either Print or Electronic 4. Mostly Prefer Electronic 5. Definitely Prefer Electronic 6. N/A

Q6_a_4. To keep current in my (field, area, discipline, specialty). 1. Definitely Prefer Print 2. Mostly Prefer Print 3. Either Print or Electronic 4. Mostly Prefer Electronic 5. Definitely Prefer Electronic 6. N/A

Q6_a_5. To keep current outside of my (field, area, discipline, specialty). 1. Definitely Prefer Print 2. Mostly Prefer Print 3. Either Print or Electronic 4. Mostly Prefer Electronic 5. Definitely Prefer Electronic 6. N/A

Q6_a_6. When making copies of journal articles for my personal use. 1. Definitely Prefer Print 2. Mostly Prefer Print 3. Either Print or Electronic 4. Mostly Prefer Electronic 5. Definitely Prefer Electronic 6. N/A

Q6_a_7. When comparing and contrasting several articles at once. 1. Definitely Prefer Print 2. Mostly Prefer Print 3. Either Print or Electronic 4. Mostly Prefer Electronic 5. Definitely Prefer Electronic 6. N/A

Q6_a_8. When I need to locate and access specific facts. 1. Definitely Prefer Print 2. Mostly Prefer Print 3. Either Print or Electronic 4. Mostly Prefer Electronic 5. Definitely Prefer Electronic 6. N/A

Q6_a_9. When I need to cite articles. 1. Definitely Prefer Print 2. Mostly Prefer Print 3. Either Print or Electronic 4. Mostly Prefer Electronic 5. Definitely Prefer Electronic 6. N/A

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 32 of 38 Q6_a_10. For use in course assignments. 1. Definitely Prefer Print 2. Mostly Prefer Print 3. Either Print or Electronic 4. Mostly Prefer Electronic 5. Definitely Prefer Electronic 6. N/A

Q7A. Electronic versions of journals may have advantages for some users. Please tell us how important for you are the following characteristics of electronic journals:

Q7_a_1. Articles are available in electronic form before they are published in print. 1. Very Important 2. Important 3. Not Important 4. No Opinion

Q7_a_2. Electronic journals contain hyperlinks to other articles and related information. 1. Very Important 2. Important 3. Not Important 4. No Opinion

Q7_a_3. Electronic journals are always available - 24 hours a day, every day 1. Very Important 2. Important 3. Not Important 4. No Opinion

Q7_a_4. In using electronic journals I don't have to go to the library or wait for document delivery. 1. Very Important 2. Important 3. Not Important 4. No Opinion

Q7_a_5. Electronic journals include data which can be downloaded for use. 1. Very Important 2. Important 3. Not Important 4. No Opinion

Q7_a_6. Using electronic journals avoids photocopy costs for print articles. 1. Very Important 2. Important 3. Not Important 4. No Opinion

Q7_b. If you have discovered other advantages to using electronic journals, would you please tell us about them? [OPEN ENDED]

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 33 of 38 In using electronic versions of journals you may have encountered barriers that discouraged their use. We would like to ask you about three types of possible problems: ease of use, availability of content, and computing equipment. We also would like to learn of other barriers that may not be noted here.

Q8A. Please indicate to what extent you have found the following to be barriers to your use of electronic journals.

Q8_a_1. Printing charges for electronic articles when using campus computer labs, libraries or departmental services. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_a_2. Dealing with several different formats (PDF, HTML etc.) with different access and use modes. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_a_3. Reading electronic journals on the computer screen. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_a_4. Moving between parts of an electronic article (for instance from text to graphics, to references). 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_a_5. Highlighting sections or making marginal notes in electronic articles. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8a_a_6. Printing graphics from electronic articles at a quality suitable for research. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_a_7. Accurately reproducing color illustrations from electronic articles. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_a_8. Working with distinctive features of articles such as maps, illustrations or non-roman characters included in the electronic version. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 34 of 38 Q8B. Please indicate to what extent you have found the availability of content to be a barrier to using electronic journals.

Q8_b_1. Unavailability of most recent issues of journals in electronic form. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_b_2. Unavailability of older issues of journals in electronic form. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_b_3. Locating and accessing the table of contents in electronic journals. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_b_4. Omission of letters, advertisements, editorial information or supplements from the electronic version. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_b_5. Locating publication information for authors in electronic journals. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8C. Please indicate to what extent you have found these computing issues to be a barrier to your use of electronic journals.

Q8_c_1. The quality, performance or availability of library computer equipment. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_c_2. The quality or performance of my home computer equipment. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_c_3. Getting access to the library's online journals from off-campus locations (Proxy Server/Authentication problems). 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 35 of 38 Q8_c_4. The speed and reliability of my home Internet connection. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_c_5. The quality or performance of my office computer equipment. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_c_6. Quality of computer support and training available to me. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_c_7. My own computer skills. 1. Major Barrier 2. Minor Barrier 3. Not a Barrier 4. No Opinion N/A

Q8_d. If you have encountered other barriers to your use of electronic journals, would you please take a moment to tell us about them? [OPEN ENDED]

Q9. When you decide to use a print journal and find that it is not on the shelf in the campus library, how likely is it that you:

Q9_a_1. Go online and use the electronic version as a substitute for the print. 1. Very Likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very Unlikely 5. N/A

Q9_a_2. Use InterLibrary Loan (ILL) or library document delivery service. 1. Very Likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very Unlikely 5. N/A

Q9_a_3. Take out a personal subscription to the journal. 1. Very Likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very Unlikely 5. N/A

Q9_a_4. Find an alternate source for the journal such as a departmental or colleague's collection. 1. Very Likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very Unlikely 5. N/A

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 36 of 38 Q9_a_5. Decide to use an off-campus public or academic library where you expect the print is available. 1. Very Likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very Unlikely 5. N/A

Q9_a_6. Decide not to use the journal. 1. Very Likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very Unlikely 5. N/A

Q10. When you want to read an article online and the full text is not available online, how likely is it that you:

Q10_a_1. Try to obtain a print version from your campus library. 1. Very Likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very Unlikely 5. N/A

Q10_a_2. Try to obtain a print copy from a colleague or a departmental subscription. 1. Very Likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very Unlikely 5. N/A

Q10_a_3. Submit a request for the article through Inter Library Loan (ILL) or document delivery services. 1. Very Likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very Unlikely 5. N/A

Q10_a_4. Decide to use a similar article with full text online instead. 1. Very Likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very Unlikely 5. N/A

Q10_a_5. Rely on the online abstract for the information needed. 1. Very Likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very Unlikely 5. N/A

Finally, in this section please tell us about yourself.

Q11_a. My affiliation with the university is: 1. Undergraduate Student 2. Graduate Student 3. Post Doc

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 37 of 38 4. Faculty 5. Researcher 6. Health Care Professional 7. Librarian 8. UC Staff 9. Other

Q11_b. My class standing is: 1. Freshman 2. Sophomore 3. Junior 4. Senior

Q11_c. My graduate program is: 1. Master’s 2. Doctorate

Q11_d. My main (field, area, discipline, major, specialty) can best be defined as:

Q11_e. The highest degree I hold is: 1. High School Diploma 2. Associate Degree 3. Bachelor's 4. Master's 5. Doctorate

Q12. My home campus is: 1. UCB 2. UCD 3. UCI 4. UCLA 5. UCR 6. UCSB 7. UCSC 8. UCSD 9. UCSF 10. UCOP

Q13. Gender 1. Male 2. Female

Q14. My age range is: 1. 20 or under 2. 21-30 3. 31-40 4. 41-50 5. 51-60 6. 61-70 7. 71 or over

Q15. My home campus is: 1. None 2. Dial-up (modem) 3. Broadband (DSL, Cable, Satellite etc.) 4. Campus residential network

DRAFT – Collection Management Initiative Preliminary Findings, 4/9/2018, Page 38 of 38