加拿大一所小型大学图书馆的印刷图书流通寿命下降

IF 0.4 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Jordan Patterson
{"title":"加拿大一所小型大学图书馆的印刷图书流通寿命下降","authors":"Jordan Patterson","doi":"10.18438/eblip30181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A Review of:\nBelvadi, M. (2021). Longevity of print book use at a small public university: A 30-year longitudinal study. Insights, 34(1), 26. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.562\nAbstract\nObjective – To inform future collecting decisions by ascertaining the circulation longevity of print books within an academic library.\nDesign – Longitudinal data analysis of two circulation datasets.\nSetting – Library catalogue of a small public university in Canada.\nSubjects – 10,002 print books acquired between 1991 and 1996 with a first circulation year between 1991 and 2000 (part 1); 4,060 print books acquired and with a first circulation year between 2008 and 2011 (part 2A); 35,860 print books acquired since 1991 with a first circulation year between 2008 and 2011 (parts 2B).\nMethods – The researcher established two datasets by selecting books with viable circulation data from the institution’s holdings. Using each book’s Library of Congress classification number, the researcher mapped each book to three other categorization schemes. The first scheme, Becher-Biglan topology, categorizes books as belonging to either applied or hard and pure or soft fields of study. The second scheme, called in the paper “major subjects,” uses a traditional broad subject categorization (e.g. arts, sciences, health, etc.), and the third scheme categorizes books by the academic programs at the researcher’s institution. The researcher then analyzed the circulation data through the lens of these three categorization schemes.\nMain Results – Part 1, which considered the collection’s older circulated books, found that books had an average circulation longevity of 10 years. About 14% of books circulated for only one year, and about 24% of books circulated for less than five years. Among the newer books considered in Part 2, 37% circulated for just one year and 64% had a circulation longevity of four years.\nConclusion – Books in applied and hard fields generally have greater longevity compared to pure and soft fields. Books in professional and STEM fields generally have greater longevity than books in the humanities and arts, contrary to conventional library wisdom. Print book circulation longevity appears to be dropping. Subscription and on-demand acquisitions options may prove to be a more efficacious use of resources than ‘just-in-case’ print collecting.","PeriodicalId":45227,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Print Book Circulation Longevity Dropping at a Small Canadian University Library\",\"authors\":\"Jordan Patterson\",\"doi\":\"10.18438/eblip30181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A Review of:\\nBelvadi, M. (2021). Longevity of print book use at a small public university: A 30-year longitudinal study. Insights, 34(1), 26. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.562\\nAbstract\\nObjective – To inform future collecting decisions by ascertaining the circulation longevity of print books within an academic library.\\nDesign – Longitudinal data analysis of two circulation datasets.\\nSetting – Library catalogue of a small public university in Canada.\\nSubjects – 10,002 print books acquired between 1991 and 1996 with a first circulation year between 1991 and 2000 (part 1); 4,060 print books acquired and with a first circulation year between 2008 and 2011 (part 2A); 35,860 print books acquired since 1991 with a first circulation year between 2008 and 2011 (parts 2B).\\nMethods – The researcher established two datasets by selecting books with viable circulation data from the institution’s holdings. Using each book’s Library of Congress classification number, the researcher mapped each book to three other categorization schemes. The first scheme, Becher-Biglan topology, categorizes books as belonging to either applied or hard and pure or soft fields of study. The second scheme, called in the paper “major subjects,” uses a traditional broad subject categorization (e.g. arts, sciences, health, etc.), and the third scheme categorizes books by the academic programs at the researcher’s institution. The researcher then analyzed the circulation data through the lens of these three categorization schemes.\\nMain Results – Part 1, which considered the collection’s older circulated books, found that books had an average circulation longevity of 10 years. About 14% of books circulated for only one year, and about 24% of books circulated for less than five years. Among the newer books considered in Part 2, 37% circulated for just one year and 64% had a circulation longevity of four years.\\nConclusion – Books in applied and hard fields generally have greater longevity compared to pure and soft fields. Books in professional and STEM fields generally have greater longevity than books in the humanities and arts, contrary to conventional library wisdom. Print book circulation longevity appears to be dropping. Subscription and on-demand acquisitions options may prove to be a more efficacious use of resources than ‘just-in-case’ print collecting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45227,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30181\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

综述:Belvadi,M.(2021)。小型公立大学印刷书籍使用寿命:一项为期30年的纵向研究。见解,34(1),26。http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.562AbstractObjective——通过确定学术图书馆内印刷书籍的流通寿命,为未来的收藏决策提供信息。设计——两个环流数据集的纵向数据分析。背景——加拿大一所小型公立大学的图书馆目录。主题——1991年至1996年间获得的10002本印刷书籍,1991年至2000年首次发行(第一部分);获得4060本印刷书籍,2008年至2011年首次发行(第2A部分);自1991年以来获得的35860本印刷书籍,第一个发行年份为2008年至2011年(第2B部分)。方法——研究人员通过从该机构持有的书籍中选择具有可行发行数据的书籍,建立了两个数据集。研究人员使用每本书的美国国会图书馆分类号,将每本书映射到其他三种分类方案中。第一种方案,Becher-Biglan拓扑,将书籍分类为应用或硬、纯或软研究领域。第二种方案在论文中称为“主要学科”,使用传统的广泛学科分类(如艺术、科学、健康等),第三种方案根据研究机构的学术项目对书籍进行分类。然后,研究人员通过这三种分类方案的视角分析了流通数据。主要结果——第1部分考虑了该系列较旧的流通书籍,发现书籍的平均流通寿命为10年。大约14%的书只流通了一年,大约24%的书流通了不到五年。在第二部分考虑的新书中,37%的书只发行了一年,64%的书的发行寿命为四年。结论——与纯领域和软领域相比,应用领域和硬领域的书籍通常寿命更长。与传统的图书馆智慧相反,专业和STEM领域的书籍通常比人文和艺术领域的书籍寿命更长。印刷书籍的发行寿命似乎在下降。订阅和按需购买选项可能比“以防万一”的印刷品收集更有效地利用资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Print Book Circulation Longevity Dropping at a Small Canadian University Library
A Review of: Belvadi, M. (2021). Longevity of print book use at a small public university: A 30-year longitudinal study. Insights, 34(1), 26. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.562 Abstract Objective – To inform future collecting decisions by ascertaining the circulation longevity of print books within an academic library. Design – Longitudinal data analysis of two circulation datasets. Setting – Library catalogue of a small public university in Canada. Subjects – 10,002 print books acquired between 1991 and 1996 with a first circulation year between 1991 and 2000 (part 1); 4,060 print books acquired and with a first circulation year between 2008 and 2011 (part 2A); 35,860 print books acquired since 1991 with a first circulation year between 2008 and 2011 (parts 2B). Methods – The researcher established two datasets by selecting books with viable circulation data from the institution’s holdings. Using each book’s Library of Congress classification number, the researcher mapped each book to three other categorization schemes. The first scheme, Becher-Biglan topology, categorizes books as belonging to either applied or hard and pure or soft fields of study. The second scheme, called in the paper “major subjects,” uses a traditional broad subject categorization (e.g. arts, sciences, health, etc.), and the third scheme categorizes books by the academic programs at the researcher’s institution. The researcher then analyzed the circulation data through the lens of these three categorization schemes. Main Results – Part 1, which considered the collection’s older circulated books, found that books had an average circulation longevity of 10 years. About 14% of books circulated for only one year, and about 24% of books circulated for less than five years. Among the newer books considered in Part 2, 37% circulated for just one year and 64% had a circulation longevity of four years. Conclusion – Books in applied and hard fields generally have greater longevity compared to pure and soft fields. Books in professional and STEM fields generally have greater longevity than books in the humanities and arts, contrary to conventional library wisdom. Print book circulation longevity appears to be dropping. Subscription and on-demand acquisitions options may prove to be a more efficacious use of resources than ‘just-in-case’ print collecting.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信