Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Library & Information Science Research

Variations in article seeking and reading patterns of academics:What makes a difference?

Carol Tenopir a,⁎, Donald W. King b, Jesse Spencer a, Lei Wu a

a 451 Communications Bldg., 1345 Circle Park Drive, School of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0341, USAb University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, USA

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: ctenopir@utk.edu (C. Tenopir), do

(D.W. King), jspence21@utk.edu (J. Spencer), lwu9@utk

0740-8188/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.lisr.2009.02.002

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 18 April 2009

Although scholarly articles play an important role in the work life of academics, specific patterns of seekingand reading scholarly articles vary. Subject discipline of the reader influences many patterns, includingamount of reading, format of reading, and average time spent per reading. Faculty members in differentdisciplines exhibit quite distinct patterns of reading. Medical/health faculty read more than others andmainly for current awareness purposes, while engineering faculty spend more time on average per articlereading, and they also read more for research. Other factors that influence some reading patterns includework responsibilities (weighted towards more teaching or more research), age (young faculty are more likelyto read on-screen from the open Web) and productivity of the reader, and purpose of the reading (readingsfor research and writing are more likely to be from a library collection). The ability to predict scholarly articleseeking and reading patterns will assist journal editors, publishers, and librarians design better, moretargeted journal systems and services.

© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Table 1Average number of articles read per month by subject discipline of faculty in the U.S.and Australia, 2004–2005 (p=.000).

Average number of articles read per month

Subject disciplines n Mean Std. error of mean

Medical/health 307 34.5 2.3Engineering/technology 132 24.0 3.6

1. Introduction

Academic faculty in all subject disciplines read many journalarticles each year, for many reasons. Although overall averages areuseful for detecting big picture patterns (see Tenopir & King, 2000,2004), there are, of course, many variations in information seekingand reading behavior. How faculty become aware of readings, thesource of reading (library, personal subscription, other), form ofreading (electronic or print), and other information-seeking pat-terns varies from reader to reader and reading to reading. Theamount of reading, purpose of reading, time spent reading, andother reading patterns are also not the same for every reader or forevery reading.

Survey results of academic faculty in seven universities in theUnited States and Australia reveal many differences in both the readerand the reading that result in variations in journal article readingpatterns. The following characteristics of readers reported here resultin many significant differences in seeking and reading patterns:subject discipline, responsibilities (weighedmore towards teaching orresearch), achievement (as defined by winning awards in the last2 years and above-average publishing), and age. The seeking andreading patterns reported here often vary by these reader character-istics, including: amount of reading, average time spent per reading,

naldwking@gmail.com.edu (L. Wu).

l rights reserved.

purpose of reading, source of reading, format of reading (electronic orprint), final form of reading (on paper or on-screen), and year ofpublication. In addition, each reader may exhibit a variety of readingpatterns depending on the purpose of that specific reading.

2. Problem statement

Academic faculty readers of journal articles read for many reasons,and overall reading patterns vary by demographic and other factors.Most research studies, however, tend to focus on readers, rather thanreadings, by examining selected demographic factors of the indivi-duals, such as subject discipline or age. Studies on readings typicallyfocus only on situational or contextual factors, such as purpose ofreading. This study looks at demographic and contextual factorstogether to examine journal article reading from both a reader and

Sciences 306 27.6 2.2Social sciences 439 19.4 1.0Humanities 183 11.8 .9Other 26 21.9 8.9Total 1393 24.0 .9

Table 3How faculty by subject discipline become aware of articles read in the U.S. and Australia,2004–2005 (n=1384, χ2=43.281, p=.002).

Subject Information seeking to become aware of articles read Totaldiscipline Browsing Searching Citations Colleagues Other

Medical/health 118 92 30 42 23 30538.7% 30.2% 9.8% 13.8% 7.5% 100.0%

Engineering/technology

40 43 18 19 11 13130.5% 32.8% 13.7% 14.5% 8.4% 100.0%

Sciences 90 75 53 63 21 30229.8% 24.8% 17.5% 20.9% 7.0% 100.0%

Social sciences 180 118 51 58 30 43741.2% 27.0% 11.7% 13.3% 6.9% 100.0%

Humanities 86 34 33 19 12 18446.7% 18.5% 17.9% 10.3% 6.5% 100.0%

Other 11 6 2 4 2 2544.0% 24.0% 8.0% 16.0% 8.0% 100.0%

Table 2Principal purpose of reading by subject discipline of faculty in the U.S. and Australia,2004–2005 (n=1394, χ2=112.402, p=.000).

Subject Principal purpose of reading Totaldiscipline Research Teaching Current

awarenessWriting Other

Medical/health 142 52 32 46 36 30846.1% 16.9% 10.4% 14.9% 11.7% 100.0%

Engineering/technology

93 11 8 8 12 13270.5% 8.3% 6.1% 6.1% 9.1% 100.0%

Sciences 190 36 28 32 20 30662.1% 11.8% 9.2% 10.5% 6.5% 100.0%

Social sciences 186 136 31 48 40 44142.2% 30.8% 7.0% 10.9% 9.1% 100.0%

Humanities 89 47 18 12 16 18248.9% 25.8% 9.9% 6.6% 8.8% 100.0%

Other 8 4 8 1 4 2532.0% 16.0% 32.0% 4.0% 16.0% 100.0%

Total 708 286 125 147 128 1,39450.8% 20.5% 9.0% 10.5% 9.2% 100.0%

Table 5Source format of reading by subject discipline of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n=1388, χ2=146.387, p=.000).

Subject discipline Source format of reading(from a print or electronic source)

Total

Print Electronic Unknown

Medical/health 102 190 16 30833.1% 61.7% 5.2% 100.0%

Engineering/technology 25 82 25 13218.9% 62.2% 18.9% 100.0%

Sciences 74 206 24 30424.3% 67.8% 7.9% 100.0%

Social sciences 187 224 27 43842.7% 51.1% 6.2% 100.0%

Humanities 124 50 7 18168.5% 27.6% 3.9% 100.0%

Other 8 15 2 2532.0% 60.0% 8.00% 100.0%

Total 520 767 101 138837.5% 55.2% 7.3% 100.0%

140 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

individual reading perspective. Knowing what factors make adifference in seeking and reading patterns shows how scholarlyarticles fit into the process of scholarship for a variety of readers andreading purposes. This knowledge will help publishers, editors, andlibrarians provide better journal article products and services byproviding a realistic picture of the variety of roles and value of journalarticles to readers and the variations in reading patterns.

Table 4Source of articles read by subject discipline of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005

Subject discipline Source of articles read

Libraryprovided

Personalsubscription

Open Web

Medical/health 123 79 4040.3% 25.9% 13.1%

Engineering/technology 57 15 2343.5% 11.5% 17.6%

Sciences 146 50 3948.3% 16.6% 12.9%

Social sciences 187 123 4542.9% 28.2% 10.3%

Humanities 87 59 1248.1% 32.6% 6.6%

Other 9 9 337.5% 37.5% 12.5%

Total 609 335 16244.2% 24.3% 11.7%

Research questions driving this study include:

• What individual demographic characteristics result in statisti-cally significant differences in reading patterns?

• Do subject discipline, age, gender, work responsibilities, orachievements result in differences in average number of articlereadings, time spent reading, or other reading patterns?

• For readers within the same demographic groups, are therecharacteristics of the individual readings (such as purpose ofreading) that cause a difference in reading patterns?

3. Literature review

Many research studies have examined multiple aspects of whyinformation seeking and use behavior differs from person to personor group to group. Those studies that focus specifically on scholarlyarticle reading are summarized in several literature reviews(including Friedlander & Bessette, 2003; King & Tenopir, 2001;Rowlands, 2007; Tenopir, 2003; Tenopir & King, 2000, 2004).Because the research literature is well covered in these reviews, itis outside the scope of this article to review all of the many hundredsof specific scholarly reading studies. In addition, the literature of howindividual differences influence adoption of technology is vast andoutside the scope of this article (see Agarwal & Prasad, 1999, forexample).

Of particular interest to this article, Talja and Maula (2003)described the profound effect that subject discipline of the reader can

(n=1379, χ2=69.190, p=.000).

Total

Colleagues School, departmentsubscription

Other

18 16 29 3055.9% 5.2% 9.5% 100.0%10 3 23 1317.6% 2.3% 17.6% 100.0%17 11 39 3025.6% 3.6% 12.9% 100.0%28 25 28 4366.4% 5.7% 6.4% 100.0%11 4 8 1816.1% 2.2% 4.4% 100.0%1 0 2 244.2% .0% 8.3% 100.0%85 59 129 13796.2% 4.3% 9.4% 100.0%

Table 6Date of reading by subject discipline of faculty in the U.S., Oct–Nov 2005 (n=1037, χ2=62.351, p=.000).

Subject discipline Date of reading Total

9–10 months(2005)

2–5 years(2001–2004)

6–10 years(1996–2000)

11–15 years(1991–1995)

Over15 years

Medical/health 129 64 9 5 5 21260.8% 30.2% 4.2% 2.4% 2.4% 100.0%

Engineering/technology 36 19 10 3 7 7548.0% 25.3% 13.3% 4.0% 9.3% 100.0%

Sciences 120 72 21 8 17 23850.4% 30.3% 8.8% 3.4% 7.1% 100.0%

Social sciences 157 131 32 12 12 34445.6% 38.1% 9.3% 3.5% 3.5% 100.0%

Humanities 58 44 19 9 24 15437.7% 28.6% 12.3% 5.8% 15.6% 100.0%

Other 8 3 2 0 1 1457.1% 21.4% 14.3% .0% 7.1% 100.0%

Total 508 333 93 37 66 103749.0% 32.1% 9.0% 3.6% 6.4% 100.0%

141C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

have on reading patterns. Different disciplines have varying traditionsof the importance of journals to scholarship as compared to othertypes of information (Fry & Talja, 2004), to the average number ofarticle readings (Tenopir, King, Boyce, Grayson, & Paulson, 2005;Tenopir, King, Clarke, Na, & Zhou, 2007), and the use of alternatives totraditional journals, such as preprints and e-prints (Kling, 2004). Inaddition, not all subjects have the same availability of electronicsources, resulting in at least temporary differences in sources andformat selected for reading (Vakkari, 2006; King et al., 2003).

Age is widely assumed to make a difference in reading patterns,but few studies control for the status or motivation of the mature,subject-expert reader; comparing older and younger faculty mem-bers, for example, rather than comparing students to facultymembers. The pioneering report in the United Kingdom (UniversityCollege London, 2008) is one of the few to acknowledge thedifficult task of teasing out the differences between informationbehaviors that are a function of level of maturity and those that willpersist as someone ages. Work role and responsibilities may play amore important role and, of course, change as someone matures intheir career (Tenopir & King, 2004). In addition, high achievers,defined by awards and amount of publication, have been demon-strated to read more articles than do other scientists (Tenopir &King, 2000).

Table 7Work responsibilities and average number of articles read per month for faculty in theU.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n=850, p=.000).

Average number of articles read per month

Work responsibilities: N=50% n Mean Std. error of mean

Research-oriented (N=50%) 352 30.5 1.951Teaching-oriented (N=50%) 498 20.8 1.592Total 850 24.8 1.244

Table 8Work responsibilities and principal purpose of reading for faculty in the U.S. andAustralia, 2004–2005 (n=850, χ2=29.731, p=.000).

Work responsibilities: Principal purpose of reading TotalN=50% Research Teaching Current

awarenessWriting Other

Research-oriented(N=50%)

219 48 20 46 20 35362.0% 13.6% 5.7% 13.0% 5.7% 100.0%

Teaching-oriented(N=50%)

243 131 48 45 30 49748.9% 26.4% 9.7% 9.1% 6.0% 100.0%

Total 462 179 68 91 50 85054.4% 21.1% 8.0% 10.7% 5.9% 100.0%

The literature that explores how differences in situation andcontext influence information-seeking patterns is vast, and factorssuch as motivation or purpose of a search have been shown to play arole in information-seeking behaviors (Cool, 2001; Courtright, 2007;Solomon, 2002; Vakkari, 2003). Most do not focus on the act ofscholarly article reading, but rather on the information-seekingprocess, but many studies do demonstrate that the same individualmay exhibit many different information-seeking patterns dependingon the purpose for which the information is needed.

Limited availability of training, e-journals, and computing infra-structure may be a barrier to the use of e-journals, thus affecting userbehavior (Raza & Upadhyay, 2006). In the universities studied here,that was not the case as all had access to substantial print andelectronic journals collections from their libraries and robusttechnological infrastructure from their universities.

4. Procedure

Self-reported data on scholarly article reading were collectedthrough a Web-based survey to faculty members (academic staff) atseven universities: five in the United States and two in Australia. Fiveof the seven universities are research extensive or intensive (PhDgranting) universities and two are master's degree-granting univer-sities. Together, the seven universities include academic programs inall major areas, including medicine and other health related fields,engineering, sciences (including all major life and physical sciences),social sciences (including law, business, education, psychology), andhumanities (including arts, literature, and history). All have extensiveprint and electronic journal collections with robust computinginfrastructure, hence availability and access to scholarly journals isnot a problem for any of these respondents.

In most cases, a random sample of faculty members at eachuniversity received an e-mail from the university librarian with anembedded link to the Web-based survey instrument housed on the

Table 9Work responsibilities and how faculty become aware of articles read for faculty in theU.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n=841, χ2=24.082, p=.000).

Work responsibilities: Information seeking to become aware of articles read TotalN=50% Browsing Searching Citations Colleagues Other

Research-oriented(N=50%)

97 97 60 68 26 34827.9% 27.9% 17.2% 19.5% 7.5% 100.0%

Teaching-oriented(N=50%)

204 134 57 57 41 49341.4% 27.2% 11.6% 11.6% 8.3% 100.0%

Total 301 231 117 125 67 84135.8% 27.5% 13.9% 14.9% 8.0% 100.0%

Table 10Work responsibilities and source of articles read for faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n=840, χ2=38.224, p=.000).

Work responsibilities: N=50% Source of articles read Total

Libraryprovided

Personalsubscription

Open Web Colleagues School, departmentsubscription

Other

Research-oriented (N=50%) 202 57 34 22 9 24 34858.0% 16.4% 9.8% 6.3% 2.6% 6.9% 100.0%

Teaching-oriented (N=50%) 186 115 78 27 20 66 49237.8% 23.4% 15.9% 5.5% 4.1% 13.4% 100.0%

Total 388 172 112 49 29 90 84046.2% 20.5% 13.3% 5.8% 3.5% 10.7% 100.0%

142 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

University of Tennessee server. A follow-up e-mail and, in some cases,announcements of the survey in various library-originated universitypublications or meetings helped increase response rate to a low of15% at one Australian university to a high of over 40% at two U.S.universities.

Surveys were distributed in late 2004 and May 2005 in Australiaand October through November 2005 in the United States. Respon-dents could skip any question they wanted to or exit the survey at anytime. All responses were anonymous, with no identifying informationrecorded. In all, 1688 faculty members responded to at least some ofthe questions, 381 from Australia and 1307 from the U.S.

The questions asked in all of the university surveys were for themost part the same, in the same order. Small variations were made inthe demographic question on academic discipline to reflect thesubject departments within a particular university, as well as toquestions about the source of a reading to reflect the names given tothe online catalogs and systems of each specific university. Forpurposes of analysis all of these responses were re-coded to beconsistent. A discipline of “theatre” for example, was re-coded to“humanities”, and the “JSTOR system” was re-coded as source of“library” and access source format of “electronic”. The social sciencescategory includes law, business, psychology, and education in additionto the standard social sciences disciplines such as political science andsociology. All survey instruments and details of each individualuniversity's responses are available at: http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir/research/survey_instruments.html.

In addition to standard demographic questions about respondents'age, gender, and subject discipline, they were asked several demo-graphic questions that directly relate to their use of journals. Theseincluded questions about their authorship productivity and number ofpersonal subscriptions. Most differences based on gender were notstatistically significant or can be explained by gender differencesinherent between academic disciplines, so gender is not included inthis analysis.

The majority of questions focused on scholarly journal reading anduse, beginning with a single recollection question of how manyscholarly articles they had read in the past month. Scholarly articleswere defined to include “those found in journal issues, authorwebsites, or separate copies such as preprints, reprints, and otherelectronic or paper copies”. Reading was defined as “going beyond thetable of contents, title, and abstract to the body of the article”.

Table 11Work responsibilities and source format of readings for faculty in the U.S. and Australia,2004–2005 (n=845, χ2=23.015, p=.000).

Work responsibilities: 50% Source format of reading Total

Print Electronic Unknown

Research-oriented (N=50%) 96 235 20 35127.4% 67.0% 5.7% 100.0%

Teaching-oriented (N=50%) 193 250 51 49439.1% 50.6% 10.3% 100.0%

Total 289 485 71 84534.2% 57.4% 8.4% 100.0%

Next, respondents were asked to focus on the specific article theyhad read most recently. This variation of the critical incidenttechnique (first described by Flanagan, 1954) asks detailed questionsrelating to the last reading and improves the likelihood thatrespondents will remember specific information. The unit of observa-tion, thus, becomes a reading of a scholarly article, and the universe ofreadings being sampled is all readings by the faculty population overthe past month. A two-stage sample is taken, where the first stage isthe readers and the second stage is the critical incident of one reading,which is assumed to be random in time.

Results are presented here in descending order, with those factorsthat have the greatest influence on the most reading patterns abovethose that account for just a few differences in reading patterns.

5. Findings

5.1. Subject discipline

Prior research suggests that subject discipline has a majorinfluence on reading patterns, and the findings of this study supportthis. Significant subject discipline differences were found in manyseeking and reading patterns.

Most reading questions focused on the critical incident of lastreading, but one general recollection question was asked, namely:“How many scholarly articles did you read in the past month(30 days)?” Faculty members in medicine/health, engineering/technology, and sciences read significantly more scholarly journalarticles on average than faculty members in social sciences andhumanities (Table 1).

Respondents were asked to indicate the principal purpose of theirlast reading, including: research, writing, teaching, current awareness,or other. Although reading for the purpose of research is the mostcommon across all subject disciplines, there are significant differences(χ2=112.402, p=.000). Reading by respondents in engineering andsciences disciplines is more likely to be for the purpose of research,while reading by social sciences and humanities faculty are morelikely to be for teaching than are those by other disciplines (Table 2).

Readers seek for and become aware of the articles they read by avariety of methods, including browsing through tables of contents orlists of journal titles; searching in online catalogs, indexes and

Table 12Work responsibilities and final form of reading for faculty in the U.S. and Australia,2004–2005 (n=847, χ2=22.392, p=.000).

Work responsibilities: Final form of reading TotalN=50% Printed

journalPrintedout

Photocopy Otherprint

On-screen

Research-oriented(N=50%)

63 183 28 1 77 35217.9% 52.0% 8.0% .3% 21.9% 100.0%

Teaching-oriented(N=50%)

157 212 43 2 81 49531.7% 42.8% 8.7% .4% 16.4% 100.0%

Total 220 395 71 3 158 84726.0% 46.6% 8.4% .4% 18.7% 100.0%

Table 13Work responsibilities and date of reading for faculty in the U.S., 2005 (n=626, χ2=6.906, p=.141).

Work responsibilities: Date of reading TotalN=50% 9–10 months

(2005)2–5 years(2001–2004)

6–10 years(1996–2000)

11–15 years(1991–1995)

Over15 years

Research-oriented (N=50%) 151 80 30 11 21 29351.5% 27.3% 10.2% 3.8% 7.2% 100.0%

Teaching-oriented (N=50%) 141 120 37 14 21 33342.3% 36.0% 11.1% 4.2% 6.3% 100.0%

Total 292 200 67 25 42 62646.6% 31.9% 10.7% 4.0% 6.7% 100.0%

143C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

abstracts, or internet search engines; following citations in print orelectronic articles; from correspondence or conversations withcolleagues; and so forth.

Readings by faculty members in all disciplines except engineeringare most often found by browsing, followed by searching. Browsingmay be through personal print or electronic subscriptions or libraryprint or electronic collections or other means (Table 3). Engineeringfaculty readings are most often found by searching. Comparing allmethods of finding articles across disciplines, there is a significantdifference betweenmethods used and subject discipline (χ2=43.281,p=.002). Science faculty readings are the least concentrated on anysingle method—with a large chunk of readings coming equally frombrowsing, searching, citations, and colleagues.

If subject discipline were to be broken down into smallercategories, some additional differences might emerge. In an earlierstudy, for example, astronomers and astrophysicists were found to bemore likely to become aware of articles by searching, due in large partto the mature search and retrieval systems in this community thatfacilitate searching (Tenopir et al., 2005). If the U.S. and Australiansurveys are split, a higher percentage of readings by Australianacademics are found by searching, while U.S. facultymembers identifymore articles by browsing (Tenopir, Wilson, Vakkari, Talja, & King,2008).

Approximately 40% to half of readings from all subjectdisciplines came from library-provided resources, which are thesingle largest source of readings for everyone (Table 4). Additionalreadings by social sciences, humanities, and medical/health facultyare more likely, however, to come from personal subscriptions thando those in other disciplines. Prior studies of medical faculty andmedical practitioners show they hold a higher-than-averagenumber of personal subscriptions and, therefore, read more frombrowsing personal print subscriptions (Tenopir, King, & Bush, 2004;Tenopir et al., 2007). In these surveys, the average number ofpersonal subscriptions across all faculty members at every institu-tion is 3.75.

Sources can be further categorized by format and categorized intoeither a print or electronic source. Readings by social sciences,humanities, and medical/health faculty are more likely to be fromprint sources than are readings by engineering and sciences faculty.Humanities is the only subject discipline whose members use printsources more often than electronic sources. Work by Vakkari (2006)suggests this may simply be a matter of availability, with a much

Table 14Average number of articles read per month by publishing productivity of faculty in theU.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n=1364, p=.000).

Average number of articles read per month

Publishing productivity (number ofarticles published in the past 2 years)

n Mean Std. errorof mean

Least productive (0–1) 323 17.0 1.718Medium productive (2–5) 516 22.2 1.183Most productive (over 5) 525 29.8 1.558Total 1364 23.9 .862

smaller percentage of humanities journals available in electronicformat (Table 5).

Even though an article may be retrieved from an electronic source,past research has shown that a majority of readings are still printed onpaper for final form of reading (Tenopir et al., 2003). The categories ofresponses to the survey question involving the final form of the lastreading can be collapsed into two different groups: print on paper andon computer screen. Print on paper includes printed journals,photocopies, and print-outs. Readings by faculty members of everysubject discipline were viewed in one of these print forms far moreoften than on a computer screen, and differences are not significantlyassociated with subject disciplines. Readings by faculty members inthe scienceswere slightly more likely to be on-screen than readings bythe other subject disciplines, however.

Reading by engineering and sciences faculty members is muchmore likely to be done in their offices or laboratories than is reading bythe other faculty members. Humanities is the only discipline wherethe office or lab is the location for less than half of all readings. It is notsurprising that readings by faculty members in humanities are moreoften done in libraries and their homes, as these in essence function astheir “laboratories”. Engineering and science faculty may be moredependent on equipment found in their offices or labs, so reading athome or in the library is less convenient.

All disciplines read from a range of article dates—although readingoverall is highly skewed to the first 9 to 10 months of publication.Since the surveys in the United States were all conducted in Octoberand November 2005, and those in Australia were conducted at twodifferent times, only U.S. data is reported here (Table 6). Medicalfaculty reading in the United States is most likely to occur within thefirst 9–10 months of publication, and humanities reading is the leastlikely to occur during this period. When the measure of currentjournal usage extends to readings that are 5 years old or less, medical/health faculty reading is more likely to happen within 5 years ofpublication, and humanities faculty are the most likely to read worksthat are 15 years old or older.

Overall, the reported mean time per reading is just under a halfhour (29.3 min per reading when outliers are removed). Facultymembers in medical/health fields spend the least amount of time, onaverage just 23.6 min per reading, while humanities faculty membersspend significantly more time, an average of 32.9 min per reading.Closer to the mean are engineering/technology faculty (32.4 minper reading), social sciences (30.1 min per reading), and sciences(30.7 min per reading).

Table 15Average number of articles read per month by faculty who have received awards in theU.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n=1364, p=.001).

Average number of articles read per month

Awards received n Mean Std. error of mean

Awards in past 2 years 437 28.0 1.566No awards in past 2 years 927 22.0 1.023Total 1364 23.9 .860

Table 16Principal purpose of reading by publishing productivity of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n=1366, χ2=119.268, p=.000).

Publishing productivity (number of Principal purpose of reading Totalarticles published in the past 2 years) Research Teaching Current awareness Writing Other

Least productive (0–1) 103 110 52 19 38 32232.0% 34.2% 16.1% 5.9% 11.8% 100.0%

Medium productive (2–5) 272 103 38 61 43 51752.6% 19.9% 7.4% 11.8% 8.3% 100.0%

Most productive (over 5) 325 65 33 65 39 52761.7% 12.3% 6.3% 12.3% 7.4% 100.0%

Total 700 278 123 145 120 136651.2% 20.4% 9.0% 10.6% 8.8% 100.0%

144 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

5.2. Work responsibilities

Work responsibilities of faculty members include many differentduties, but the two that are the most important for this analysis areresearch and teaching. Faculty were classified as research-oriented ifthey spend more than half of their time on research or teaching-oriented if they spend more than half of their time on teaching. Thesurvey respondents include more teaching-oriented faculty thanresearch-oriented faculty, perhaps due to the inclusion of twomaster'sdegree universities in the United States that are more oriented toteaching than are research intensive institutions. There is no significantdifference in the amount of time spent per reading by research-oriented and teaching-oriented faculty, but many other patterns differ.

There is a clear difference in the mean number of total articlesbetween the research-oriented faculty members and teaching-oriented faculty members; faculty members oriented to researchread more articles than teaching-oriented faculty members (Table 7).

Readings by both research-oriented and teaching-oriented facultymembers were more likely to be for research than for any otherpurpose, but, not surprisingly, the percentage of readings by research-oriented faculty members with the principal purpose of research ismuch greater than readings by teaching-oriented faculty members,and readings by teaching-oriented facultymembers aremore often for

Table 18Source of articles read by publishing productivity of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–

Publishing productivity (number of Source of articles readarticles published in the past 2 years) Library provided Personal

subscription

Least productive (0–1) 118 9137.5% 28.9%

Medium productive (2–5) 245 11947.7% 23.2%

Most productive (over 5) 228 11943.8% 22.9%

Total 591 32943.8% 24.4%

Table 17How faculty become aware of articles read by publishing productivity of faculty in the U.S.

Publishing productivity (number of Information seeking to become awaarticles published in the past 2 years) Browsing Searching

Least productive (0–1) 163 7251.4% 22.7%

Medium productive (2–5) 174 13433.9% 26.1%

Most productive (over 5) 179 15334.4% 29.4%

Total 516 35938.2% 26.6%

teaching purposes than those by their research-oriented colleagues(Table 8).

Work responsibilities do make a difference in the methods used tofind articles (χ2=24.082, p=.000). Browsing and searching are usedequally to locate readings by research-oriented faculty, and followingcitations from colleagues were also highly used. In contrast, teaching-oriented faculty members used browsing more often than other ways(Table 9).

Although both teaching-oriented and research-oriented facultyrely on the library for their greatest number of readings, research-oriented faculty use the library for significantly more of their readingsand teaching-oriented faculty read significantly more articles frompersonal subscriptions (χ2=38.224, p=.000). Both groups getarticles from a variety of sources, as shown in Table 10.

Choice of a print or electronic source from which to access areading also differs significantly for research-oriented and teaching-oriented faculty members (χ2=23.015, p=.000). Although morethan half of all readings by both groups come from electronic sources,readings by research-oriented faculty are much more likely to comefrom electronic sources (Table 11).

Evenwhen a reading is from an electronic source, most are printedout on paper for final reading. Research-oriented faculty are slightlymore likely to read on-screen, however (Table 12).

2005 (n=1349, χ2=25.126, p=.005).

Total

Open Web Colleagues School, departmentsubscription

Other

39 22 22 23 31512.4% 7.0% 7.0% 7.3% 100.0%51 37 15 47 5149.9% 7.2% 2.9% 9.1% 100.0%67 25 20 61 52012.9% 4.8% 3.8% 11.7% 100.0%157 84 57 131 134911.6% 6.2% 4.2% 9.7% 100.0%

and Australia, 2004–2005 (n=1351, χ2=38.042, p=.000).

re of articles read Total

Citations Colleagues Other

30 34 18 3179.5% 10.7% 5.7% 100.0%74 88 44 51414.4% 17.1% 8.6% 100.0%81 79 28 52015.6% 15.2% 5.4% 100.0%185 201 90 135113.7% 14.9% 6.7% 100.0%

Table 21

Table 19Source of articles read by faculty who have received awards in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n=1350, χ2=23.911, p=.000).

Award received Source of articles read Total

Libraryprovided

Personalsources

Open Web Colleagues School, departmentsubscription

Other

Yes 214 113 28 17 21 44 43749.0% 25.9% 6.4% 3.9% 4.8% 10.1% 100.0%

No 386 214 126 66 36 85 91342.3% 23.4% 13.8% 7.2% 3.9% 9.3% 100.0%

Total 600 327 154 83 57 129 135044.4% 24.2% 11.4% 6.1% 4.2% 9.6% 100.0%

145C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

There is a clear pattern presented in the location where facultymembers read articles and the amount of time spent on research orteaching. Those faculty members devoting more of their time toresearch are much more likely to read articles at their office or laband less likely to read them at home than are teaching-orientedfaculty.

Readings by research-oriented faculty members in the UnitedStates are slightly more likely to be within the first 10 months ofpublication than readings by U.S. teaching-oriented faculty. However,both research-oriented faculty members and teaching-orientedfaculty members read from a wide range of dates and nearly a thirdof all readings by research-oriented faculty and slightly under aquarter of all readings by teaching-oriented faculty are older than5 years (Table 13).

5.3. Productivity of faculty

Faculty productivity is defined by two demographic questions inthis study: what is the number of publications in the past 2 years, andwere honor or awards received in the past 2 years? Some readingpatterns differ for both measures of productivity. There is nosignificant relationship between receiving awards and whetherreadings are from print or electronic sources, how faculty becameaware of articles, final form of reading, or reading location.

For publishing productivity, respondents were put into threegroups: a) least productive for those who reported no or just onepublication in the past 2 years, b) medium productive for those whoreported two to five publications, and c)most productive for thosewhoreported more than five publications in the past 2 years. For awards,faculty self-reported whether they had received awards or recognitionfor their work in the past 2 years. They are grouped merely as awardwinners or no awards.

There is a significant relationship between publishing productivityand average number of article readings per month—faculty whopublish more, read more (p=.000) (Table 14). In addition, facultywho have received awards in the past 2 years read significantly morearticles (p=.001) (Table 15). The relationships between bothpublishing productivity and reading and between receiving awardsand reading have been observed for many years (Tenopir & King,

Table 20Source format of reading by publishing productivity of faculty in the U.S. and Australia,2004–2005 (n=1360, χ2=20.364, p=.000).

Publishing productivity (number of Source format of reading Totalarticles published in the past 2 years) Print Electronic Unknown

Least productive (0–1) 145 152 20 31745.7% 47.9% 6.3% 100.0%

Medium productive (2–5) 199 281 37 51738.5% 54.4% 7.2% 100.0%

Most productive (over 5) 162 314 50 52630.8% 59.7% 9.5% 100.0%

Total 506 747 107 136037.2% 54.9% 7.9% 100.0%

2000). Although there is no claim for cause and effect, highlyproductive and successful faculty members do use the scholarlyliterature more than less productive faculty.

Not surprisingly, those who publish more also read much more forresearch and for writing and much less for teaching and currentawareness (Table 16). There is no significant relationship betweenrecently receiving awards and the principal purpose of reading.

While browsing is the most common method used to becomeaware of articles by all groups, faculty who publishmore also aremorelikely to find articles by searching and following citations, or fromcolleagues, while those who publish less rely significantly more onbrowsing (χ2=38.042, p=.000) (Table 17). There is no significantrelationship between receiving awards and the method used tobecome aware of readings.

Browsing is likely to be more often from a personal printsubscription, so it follows that the least productive faculty membersfind significantly more articles from personal sources than do others.They also find more articles from the open Web than do the facultywho publish more (Table 18). In addition, award winners are morelikely to get readings from the library (Table 19).

All groups use more electronic sources than print, but faculty withmedium and most publishing productivity rely significantly more onelectronic sources for articles (χ2=20.364, p=.000) (Table 20).There is no significant association between receiving awards andsource format of reading.

The average time in minutes spent per reading differs significantlywith productivity (p=.01) when outliers are removed. Faculty whopublish the least spend an average of 26 min per reading, compared to30 min on average for the medium publishing group and 29 min onaverage by the most productive faculty. There is no significantassociation between receiving awards and time spent per reading.

There is a relationship between location of reading and publishingproductivity; reading done by faculty who publish more is more likelyto occur in the office or lab. There is no significant association betweenreceiving awards and location of reading.

Principal purpose of reading by age of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005(n=1364, χ2=91.806, p=.000).

Age Principal purpose of reading Total

Research Teaching Current awareness Writing Other

Age under 30 49 6 11 11 5 8259.8% 7.3% 13.4% 13.4% 6.1% 100.0%

Age 31–40 235 53 26 30 19 36364.7% 14.6% 7.2% 8.3% 5.2% 100.0%

Age 41–50 220 77 32 50 37 41652.9% 18.5% 7.7% 12.0% 8.9% 100.0%

Age 51–60 134 105 32 43 34 34838.5% 30.2% 9.2% 12.4% 9.8% 100.0%

Age over 60 58 37 21 13 26 15537.4% 23.9% 13.5% 8.4% 16.8% 100.0%

Total 696 278 122 147 121 136451.0% 20.4% 8.9% 10.8% 8.9% 100.0%

Table 24Source format of reading by age of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005(n=1357, χ2=76.479, p=.000).

Age Source format of reading Total

Print Electronic Unknown

Age under 30 8 55 19 829.8% 67.1% 23.2% 100.0%

Age 31–40 103 225 33 36128.5% 62.3% 9.1% 100.0%

Age 41–50 167 214 31 41240.5% 51.9% 7.5% 100.0%

Age 51–60 153 177 18 34844.0% 50.9% 5.2% 100.0%

Age over 60 75 74 5 15448.7% 48.1% 3.2% 100.0%

Total 506 745 106 135737.3% 54.9% 7.8% 100.0%

Table 22How faculty become aware of articles read by age of faculty in the U.S. and Australia,2004–2005 (n=1351, χ2=29.478, p=.021).

Age Information seeking to become aware of articles read Total

Browsing Searching Citations Colleagues Other

Age under 30 32 28 6 7 10 8338.6% 33.7% 7.2% 8.4% 12.0% 100.0%

Age 31–40 118 115 49 52 25 35932.9% 32.0% 13.6% 14.5% 7.0% 100.0%

Age 41–50 151 110 61 57 29 40837.0% 27.0% 15.0% 14.0% 7.1% 100.0%

Age 51–60 148 74 45 59 19 34542.9% 21.4% 13.0% 17.1% 5.5% 100.0%

Age over 60 71 33 17 24 11 15645.5% 21.2% 10.9% 15.4% 7.1% 100.0%

Total 520 360 178 199 94 135138.5% 26.6% 13.2% 14.7% 7.0% 100.0%

146 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

5.4. Age of faculty members

It is often assumed that younger academics will exhibit muchdifferent information seeking and use behavior than older aca-demics, in particular those faculty members young enough to havegrown up with computers. More of the survey respondents fall intothe middle age groups, with an average respondent age of 46. Allfaculty members—regardless of age—are more likely to readscholarly articles in final printed form, and there is no statisticallysignificant difference based on age. Age also has no significant effecton the number of articles read per month or on the average timespent per reading. There are some differences in reading patternsby age, however, although not as many differences as can beaccounted for by other factors such as subject discipline and workresponsibilities.

In general, younger faculty members read more articles for theprincipal purpose of research, while more of the readings by olderfaculty members are for the principal purpose of teaching (Table 21).Faculty members over 60 years old are more likely to read articles forpurposes of current awareness than any other age group.

Age of facultymembers also has an influence on theways they seekfor and find scholarly journal articles. After age 40, as the age of facultymembers increases, the percentage of articles found by browsingincreases and the percentage of articles found by searching decreases(Table 22).

All ages of faculty rely on a variety of sources for their scholarlyarticles, and the library accounts for the largest percentage of readingsby every age group. Additional readings by facultymembers under age30, however, are more likely to come from the open Web than areadditional readings by other age groups. Readings by those under age

Table 23Source of articles read by age of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n=1347, χ2=

Age Source of articles read

Libraryprovided

Personalsubscription

Open Web

Age under 30 30 10 1836.6% 12.2% 22.0%

Age 31–40 174 55 5248.5% 15.3% 14.5%

Age 41–50 187 99 4045.9% 24.3% 9.8%

Age 51–60 135 108 3539.1% 31.3% 10.1%

Age over 60 63 54 1540.9% 35.1% 9.7%

Total 589 326 16043.7% 24.2% 11.9%

30 also less frequently come from the library or from personalsubscriptions than readings by other age groups (Table 23). If thistrend continues as these individuals age, it could have a major impacton publishing, professional societies, where most personal subscrip-tions originate, and libraries.

As might be guessed, younger faculty members are much morelikely to access readings from electronic sources than are their oldercounterparts. In fact, the percent of reading from print sources goessteadily up as the age of the reader increases (Table 24).

Age also plays a role in the location of scholarly article reading.Reading by all faculty members most often take place in their office orlab, but a higher percentage of reading by faculty members over age50 is more likely to take place at home or in the library.

Reading by U.S. facultymembers over age 60 is more likely to be forcurrent awareness (Table 21), as well as within the first 9 to 10monthsof publication. For all other age groups more than half of all readingsare older than the current year of publication (Table 25).

5.5. Purpose of reading

A few reading patterns also vary with the purpose of the reading,meaning the same academic reader exhibits different reading patternsdepending on why they are reading.

Readings for research and writing, for example, are more likely tobe from the library collection, while readings for current awarenessare more likely to be from personal subscriptions (Table 26). Thelibrary journals collection plays a particularly important role forresearch and writing.

Purpose of reading also influences the date of article readings. Notsurprisingly, readings for current awareness are likely to be articles

67.979, p=.000).

Total

Colleagues School, departmentsubscription

Other

4 3 17 824.9% 3.7% 20.7% 100.0%22 17 39 3596.1% 4.7% 10.9% 100.0%24 23 34 4075.9% 5.7% 8.4% 100.0%27 12 28 3457.8% 3.5% 8.1% 100.0%7 4 11 1544.5% 2.6% 7.1% 100.0%84 59 129 13476.2% 4.4% 9.6% 100.0%

Table 25Date of article readings by age of faculty member in U.S., 2005 (n=998, χ2=44.542, p=.000).

Age Date of reading Total

9–10 months(2005)

2–5 years(2001–2004)

6–10 years(1996–2000)

11–15 years(1991–1995)

Over15 years

Age under 30 9 5 2 4 4 2437.5% 20.8% 8.3% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0%

Age 31–40 110 79 23 16 21 24944.2% 31.7% 9.2% 6.4% 8.4% 100.0%

Age 41–50 154 109 24 9 13 30949.8% 35.3% 7.8% 2.9% 4.2% 100.0%

Age 51–60 139 99 27 6 12 28349.1% 35.0% 9.5% 2.1% 4.2% 100.0%

Age over 60 75 33 14 0 11 13356.4% 24.8% 10.5% .0% 8.3% 100.0%

Total 487 325 90 35 61 99848.8% 32.6% 9.0% 3.5% 6.1% 100.0%

147C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

that are published recently, while readings for teaching and researchrely on a range of article dates (Table 27).

6. Discussion

Scholarly articles are important to thework of academics, yet thereare variations in the reading patterns of faculty members, includingthe number of articles they read, how they locate articles, year ofreadings, and other factors. This study shows that these variations canbe accounted for by several characteristics of readers, especiallysubject discipline and work responsibilities. Productivity, age, andpurpose of a specific reading also influence some, but fewer, readingpatterns.

Table 26Source of reading by purpose of reading by faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n

Purpose of reading Source of articles read

Library provided Personalsubscription

Open Web

Research 358 127 9749.7% 17.6% 13.5%

Teaching 109 105 3038.1% 36.7% 10.5%

Current awareness 37 59 929.6% 47.2% 7.2%

Writing 74 21 1649.0% 13.9% 10.6%

Other 39 31 1530.2% 24.0% 11.6%

Total 617 343 16743.7% 24.3% 11.8%

Table 27Date of reading by purpose of reading by faculty members in U.S., 2005 (n=1047, χ2=87.

Purpose of reading Date of last reading

9–10 months(2005)

2–5 years(2001–2004)

Research 230 16945.5% 33.5%

Teaching 108 7545.4% 31.5%

Current awareness 80 1087.9% 11.0%

Writing 39 4736.1% 43.5%

Other 58 3355.2% 31.4%

Total 515 33449.2% 31.9%

Some of the findings are of particular importance for the future ofpublishing and library services. Discipline differences, for example,show the importance of specialized approaches to publications andinformation services for users in different disciplines. Medical/healthfaculty read more, more than others for current awareness, and theirreadings are more likely to be within the first 9–10 months ofpublication, while engineering faculty spend more time on averageper article reading and read more for research than do others.Consequently, medical faculty spend less time per reading. This is notsurprising, since there is a limited amount of total time that anyonecan spend on reading. Humanities faculty read fewer articles, relymore on browsing, and read older articles on average. This is not to saythat humanities faculty members do not read, but they most likely

=1412, χ2=121.464, p=.000).

Total

Colleagues School, departmentsubscription

Other

50 23 66 7216.9% 3.2% 9.2% 100.0%13 14 15 2864.5% 4.9% 5.2% 100.0%4 4 12 1253.2% 3.2% 9.6% 100.0%12 8 20 1517.9% 5.3% 13.2% 100.0%9 12 23 1297.0% 9.3% 17.8% 100.0%88 61 136 14126.2% 4.3% 9.6% 100.0%

202, p=.000).

Total

6–10 years(1996–2000)

11–15 years(1991–1995)

Over15 years

40 26 40 5057.9% 5.1% 7.9% 100.0%32 8 15 23813.4% 3.4% 6.3% 100.0%0 1 0 91.0% 1.1% .0% 100.0%15 1 6 10813.9% .9% 5.6% 100.0%6 1 7 1055.7% 1.0% 6.7% 100.0%93 37 68 10478.9% 3.5% 6.5% 100.0%

148 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

read books, primary materials, and manuscripts. This study examinedonly their reading of scholarly articles.

Age differences are also potentially important. While all ages usethe library for most readings, fewer readings by faculty membersunder the age of 30 come from the library or personal subscriptionsand a greater percent come from the openWeb than readings by olderfaculty members. Faculty members under age 60 are less likely to readin the library. As the age of the reader decreases, the likelihood of thefinal form of reading being paper also decreases. Even if articles arefound in electronic journal systems, most so far have been printed outfor reading, making print-friendly formats popular. The trend to moreon-screen reading by younger faculty members should cause formatto be reexamined.

7. Conclusion

Over 1600 faculty members responded to the questionnairesdescribed here that were distributed from October 2004 throughNovember 2005. The universities are assumed to be typical, but thereare some differences among them, notably in size of faculty and studentbody and academic departments so results at specific universities mayvary somewhat. All of the facultymembers studied here have easyaccessto robust e-journal collections. Results may differ in other universities,particularly thosewith limited e-journal resources or poor technologicalinfrastructure. E-journal collections and the use of them continue togrow, so actual amounts of reading are likely higher each year.

It can be concluded with confidence, as evidenced in these studies,that faculty of all disciplines, work responsibilities, and ages readarticles for a variety of purposes and locate them by many methodsand sources. Perhaps even more important than the significantdifferences reported here, is the evidence this study provides of thisvariety. No one solutionworks for all readers or all readings. Electronicsources and formats have not replaced print on paper, nor has theWebreplaced library or personal subscriptions. Sources and journalssystems must accommodate a wide range of methods and formats,as readers choose the source, format, and method that meet theirneeds at the time they find and read scholarly articles.

Acknowledgments

Surveys conducted in the United States were funded by a grantfrom the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Surveysconducted in Australia were funded in part by a John Metcalfe VisitorsGrant at the University of New South Wales.

References

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance ofnew information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30, 361−391.

Cool, C. (2001). The concept of situation in information science. In M. E. Williams (Ed.),Annual review of information science and technology, 35 (pp. 5–42). Medford, NJ:Information Today, Inc.

Courtright, C. (2007). Context in information behavior research. In B. Cronin (Ed.),Annual review of information science and technology, 41 (pp. 273–306). Medford,NJ: Information Today, Inc.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 327−358.Friedlander, A., & Bessette, R. S. (2003). The implications of information technology for

scientific journal publishing: A literature review. Arlington, VA: National ScienceFoundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf03323/pdf/nsf03323.pdf

Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2004). The cultural shaping of scholarly communication: Explaining e-journal use within and across academic fields. Proceedings of the American Societyfor Information Science and Technology, 41 (pp. 20–30). Washington, DC: AmericanSociety for Information Science.

King, D. W., & Tenopir, C. (2001). Using and reading scholarly literature. In M. E. Williams(Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology, 34 (pp. 423–477). Medford,NJ: Information Today, Inc.

King, D. W., Tenopir, C., Montgomery, C. H., & Aerni, S. E. (2003). Patterns of journal useby faculty at three diverse universities. D-Lib, 9(10) Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october03/king/10king.html

Kling, R. (2004). The Internet and unrefereed scholarly publishing. In B. Cronin (Ed.),Annual review of information science and technology, 38 (pp. 591–631). InformationToday, Inc: Medford, NJ.

Raza, M.M., & Upadhyay, A. K. (2006). Usage of e-journals in AligarhMuslim University:A study. The International Information & Library Review, 38(3), 170−179.

Rowlands, I. (2007). Electronic journals and user behaviour: A reviewof recent research.Library & Information Science Research, 29, 369−396.

Solomon, P. (2002). Discovering information in context. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual reviewof information science and technology, 36 (pp. 229–264). Medford, NJ: InformationToday, Inc.

Talja, S., & Maula, H. (2003). Reasons for the use and non-use of electronic journals anddatabases: A domain analytic study in four scholarly disciplines. Journal ofDocumentation, 59, 673−691.

Tenopir, C. (2003). Use and users of electronic library resources: An overview and analysisof recent research studies. Washington, DC: Council on Library and InformationResources. Retrieved from http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub120abst.html

Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2000). Towards electronic journals: Realities for scientists,librarians, and publishers. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association.

Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communication patterns of engineers. New York: IEEE/Wiley InterScience.

Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Boyce, P., Grayson, M., & Paulson, K. (2005). Relying onelectronic journals: Reading patterns of astronomers. Journal of the AmericanSociety for Information Science and Technology, 56, 786−802.

Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Boyce, P., Grayson, M., Zhang, Y., & Ebuen, M. (2003). Patternsof journal use by scientists through three evolutionary phases. D-Lib, 9(5) Retrievedfrom http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may03/king/05king.html

Tenopir, C., King, D. W., & Bush, A. (2004). Medical faculty's use of print and electronicjournals: Changes over time and comparison with other scientists. Journal of theMedical Library Association, 92(2), 233−241. Retrieved from http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir/eprints/tenopir_jmla_article_042203.pdf

Tenopir, C., King, D.W., Clarke, M. T., Na, K., & Zhou, X. (2007). Journal reading patternsand preferences of pediatricians. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 95(1),56−63.

Tenopir, C., Wilson, C., Vakkari, P., Talja, S., & King, D. W. (2008). Scholarly e-readingpatterns in Australia, Finland, and the United States: A cross country comparison. Paperpresented at the 2008 annual meeting of IFLA (the International Federation ofLibrary Associations), Quebec, 10–14 August .

University College London (UCL), Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluationof Research. (2008). Information behaviour of the researcher of the future. London:UCL. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.bl.uk/news/pdf/googlegen.pdf

Vakkari, P. (2003). Task-based information searching. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual reviewof information science and technology, 37 (pp. 413–464). Medford, NJ: InformationToday, Inc.

Vakkari, P. (2006). Trends in the use of digital libraries by scientists in 2000–2005: Acase study of FinELib. In A. Grove (Ed.), Proceedings 69th annual meeting of theAmerican society for information science and technology (ASIST) 43 Austin, TX.Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. RetrievedMarch 17, 2009, from http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00008278/