it to other fields (MacRoberts & MacRoberts
Understanding journal usage: A statistical analysis of citation and use
β Scribed by John D. McDonald
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2006
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 264 KB
- Volume
- 58
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1532-2882
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between print journal use, online journal use, and online journal discovery tools with local journal citations. Local use measures were collected from 1997 to 2004, and negative binomial regression models were designed to test the effect that local use, online availability, and access enhancements have on citation behaviors of academic research authors. Models are proposed and tested to determine whether multiple locally recorded usage measures can predict citations and if locally controlled access enhancements influence citation. The regression results indicated that print journal use was a significant predictor of local journal citations prior to the adoption of online journals. Publisherβprovided and locally recorded online journal use measures were also significant predictors of local citations. Online availability of a journal was found to significantly increase local citations, and, for some disciplines, a new access tool like an OpenURL resolver significantly impacts citations and publisherβprovided journal usage measures.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
A problem, raised by Wallace (JASIS, 37, 136 -145, 1986), on the relation between the journal's median citation age and its number of articles is studied. Leaving open the problem as such, we give a statistical explanation of this relationship, when replacing "median" by "mean" in Wallace's problem.
## Abstract Statistical relationships between downloads from ScienceDirect of documents in Elsevier's electronic journal __Tetrahedron Letters__ and citations to these documents recorded in journals processed by the Institute for Scientific Information/Thomson Scientific for the __Science Citation
## Background: Disagreements in cytologic interpretation can have several causes, including differences in diagnostic threshold and diagnostic accuracy. these can be distinguished by a combination of statistical analyses. ## Methods: For demonstration purposes, a nonrandom collection of 80 cervic