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, USA
b
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 18 April 2009
Although scholarly articles play an important role in the work life of academics, specific patterns of seeking
and reading scholarly articles vary. Subject discipline of the reader influences many patterns, including
amount of reading, format of reading, and average time spent per reading. Faculty members in different
disciplines exhibit quite distinct patterns of reading. Medical/health faculty read more than others and
mainly for current awareness purposes, while engineering faculty spend more time on average per article
reading, and they also read more for research. Other factors that influence some reading patterns include
work responsibilities (weighted towards more teaching or more research), age (young faculty are more likely
to read on-screen from the open Web) and productivity of the reader, and purpose of the reading (readings
for research and writing are more likely to be from a library collection). The ability to predict scholarly article
seeking and reading patterns will assist journal editors, publishers, and librarians design better, more
targeted journal systems and services.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction purpose of reading, source of reading, format of reading (electronic or

print), final form of reading (on paper or on-screen), and year of
Academic faculty in all subject disciplines read many journal publication. In addition, each reader may exhibit a variety of reading
articles each year, for many reasons. Although overall averages are patterns depending on the purpose of that specific reading.
useful for detecting big picture patterns (see Tenopir & King, 2000,
2004), there are, of course, many variations in information seeking 2. Problem statement
and reading behavior. How faculty become aware of readings, the
source of reading (library, personal subscription, other), form of Academic faculty readers of journal articles read for many reasons,
reading (electronic or print), and other information-seeking pat- and overall reading patterns vary by demographic and other factors.
terns varies from reader to reader and reading to reading. The Most research studies, however, tend to focus on readers, rather than
amount of reading, purpose of reading, time spent reading, and readings, by examining selected demographic factors of the indivi-
other reading patterns are also not the same for every reader or for duals, such as subject discipline or age. Studies on readings typically
every reading. focus only on situational or contextual factors, such as purpose of
Survey results of academic faculty in seven universities in the reading. This study looks at demographic and contextual factors
United States and Australia reveal many differences in both the reader together to examine journal article reading from both a reader and
and the reading that result in variations in journal article reading
patterns. The following characteristics of readers reported here result Table 1
in many significant differences in seeking and reading patterns: Average number of articles read per month by subject discipline of faculty in the U.S.
subject discipline, responsibilities (weighed more towards teaching or and Australia, 2004–2005 (p = .000).
research), achievement (as defined by winning awards in the last Average number of articles read per month
2 years and above-average publishing), and age. The seeking and Subject disciplines n Mean Std. error of mean
reading patterns reported here often vary by these reader character- Medical/health 307 34.5 2.3
istics, including: amount of reading, average time spent per reading, Engineering/technology 132 24.0 3.6
Sciences 306 27.6 2.2
Social sciences 439 19.4 1.0
Humanities 183 11.8 .9
⁎ Corresponding author.
Other 26 21.9 8.9
E-mail addresses: ctenopir@utk.edu (C. Tenopir), donaldwking@gmail.com
Total 1393 24.0 .9
(D.W. King), jspence21@utk.edu (J. Spencer), lwu9@utk.edu (L. Wu).

0740-8188/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2009.02.002
140 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

Table 2 Table 5
Principal purpose of reading by subject discipline of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, Source format of reading by subject discipline of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–
2004–2005 (n = 1394, χ2 = 112.402, p = .000). 2005 (n = 1388, χ2 = 146.387, p = .000).

Subject Principal purpose of reading Total Subject discipline Source format of reading Total
discipline Research Teaching Current Writing Other (from a print or electronic source)
awareness Print Electronic Unknown
Medical/health 142 52 32 46 36 308 Medical/health 102 190 16 308
46.1% 16.9% 10.4% 14.9% 11.7% 100.0% 33.1% 61.7% 5.2% 100.0%
Engineering/ 93 11 8 8 12 132 Engineering/technology 25 82 25 132
technology 70.5% 8.3% 6.1% 6.1% 9.1% 100.0% 18.9% 62.2% 18.9% 100.0%
Sciences 190 36 28 32 20 306 Sciences 74 206 24 304
62.1% 11.8% 9.2% 10.5% 6.5% 100.0% 24.3% 67.8% 7.9% 100.0%
Social sciences 186 136 31 48 40 441 Social sciences 187 224 27 438
42.2% 30.8% 7.0% 10.9% 9.1% 100.0% 42.7% 51.1% 6.2% 100.0%
Humanities 89 47 18 12 16 182 Humanities 124 50 7 181
48.9% 25.8% 9.9% 6.6% 8.8% 100.0% 68.5% 27.6% 3.9% 100.0%
Other 8 4 8 1 4 25 Other 8 15 2 25
32.0% 16.0% 32.0% 4.0% 16.0% 100.0% 32.0% 60.0% 8.00% 100.0%
Total 708 286 125 147 128 1,394 Total 520 767 101 1388
50.8% 20.5% 9.0% 10.5% 9.2% 100.0% 37.5% 55.2% 7.3% 100.0%

Research questions driving this study include:

Table 3 • What individual demographic characteristics result in statisti-
How faculty by subject discipline become aware of articles read in the U.S. and Australia,
cally significant differences in reading patterns?
2004–2005 (n = 1384, χ2 = 43.281, p = .002).
• Do subject discipline, age, gender, work responsibilities, or
Subject Information seeking to become aware of articles read Total achievements result in differences in average number of article
discipline Browsing Searching Citations Colleagues Other readings, time spent reading, or other reading patterns?
Medical/health 118 92 30 42 23 305 • For readers within the same demographic groups, are there
38.7% 30.2% 9.8% 13.8% 7.5% 100.0% characteristics of the individual readings (such as purpose of
Engineering/ 40 43 18 19 11 131
technology 30.5% 32.8% 13.7% 14.5% 8.4% 100.0%
reading) that cause a difference in reading patterns?
Sciences 90 75 53 63 21 302
29.8% 24.8% 17.5% 20.9% 7.0% 100.0% 3. Literature review
Social sciences 180 118 51 58 30 437
41.2% 27.0% 11.7% 13.3% 6.9% 100.0%
Many research studies have examined multiple aspects of why
Humanities 86 34 33 19 12 184
46.7% 18.5% 17.9% 10.3% 6.5% 100.0% information seeking and use behavior differs from person to person
Other 11 6 2 4 2 25 or group to group. Those studies that focus specifically on scholarly
44.0% 24.0% 8.0% 16.0% 8.0% 100.0% article 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, it
individual reading perspective. Knowing what factors make a is outside the scope of this article to review all of the many hundreds
difference in seeking and reading patterns shows how scholarly of specific scholarly reading studies. In addition, the literature of how
articles fit into the process of scholarship for a variety of readers and individual differences influence adoption of technology is vast and
reading purposes. This knowledge will help publishers, editors, and outside the scope of this article (see Agarwal & Prasad, 1999, for
librarians provide better journal article products and services by example).
providing a realistic picture of the variety of roles and value of journal Of particular interest to this article, Talja and Maula (2003)
articles to readers and the variations in reading patterns. described the profound effect that subject discipline of the reader can

Table 4
Source of articles read by subject discipline of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n = 1379, χ2 = 69.190, p = .000).

Subject discipline Source of articles read Total

Library Personal Open Web Colleagues School, department Other
provided subscription subscription
Medical/health 123 79 40 18 16 29 305
40.3% 25.9% 13.1% 5.9% 5.2% 9.5% 100.0%
Engineering/technology 57 15 23 10 3 23 131
43.5% 11.5% 17.6% 7.6% 2.3% 17.6% 100.0%
Sciences 146 50 39 17 11 39 302
48.3% 16.6% 12.9% 5.6% 3.6% 12.9% 100.0%
Social sciences 187 123 45 28 25 28 436
42.9% 28.2% 10.3% 6.4% 5.7% 6.4% 100.0%
Humanities 87 59 12 11 4 8 181
48.1% 32.6% 6.6% 6.1% 2.2% 4.4% 100.0%
Other 9 9 3 1 0 2 24
37.5% 37.5% 12.5% 4.2% .0% 8.3% 100.0%
Total 609 335 162 85 59 129 1379
44.2% 24.3% 11.7% 6.2% 4.3% 9.4% 100.0%
 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148 141

Table 6
Date 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 2–5 years 6–10 years 11–15 years Over
(2005) (2001–2004) (1996–2000) (1991–1995) 15 years
Medical/health 129 64 9 5 5 212
60.8% 30.2% 4.2% 2.4% 2.4% 100.0%
Engineering/technology 36 19 10 3 7 75
48.0% 25.3% 13.3% 4.0% 9.3% 100.0%
Sciences 120 72 21 8 17 238
50.4% 30.3% 8.8% 3.4% 7.1% 100.0%
Social sciences 157 131 32 12 12 344
45.6% 38.1% 9.3% 3.5% 3.5% 100.0%
Humanities 58 44 19 9 24 154
37.7% 28.6% 12.3% 5.8% 15.6% 100.0%
Other 8 3 2 0 1 14
57.1% 21.4% 14.3% .0% 7.1% 100.0%
Total 508 333 93 37 66 1037
49.0% 32.1% 9.0% 3.6% 6.4% 100.0%

have on reading patterns. Different disciplines have varying traditions
of the importance of journals to scholarship as compared to other
types of information (Fry & Talja, 2004), to the average number of
article readings (Tenopir, King, Boyce, Grayson, & Paulson, 2005;
Tenopir, King, Clarke, Na, & Zhou, 2007), and the use of alternatives to
traditional journals, such as preprints and e-prints (Kling, 2004). In
addition, not all subjects have the same availability of electronic
sources, resulting in at least temporary differences in sources and
format 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 faculty
members. The pioneering report in the United Kingdom (University
College London, 2008) is one of the few to acknowledge the
difficult task of teasing out the differences between information
behaviors that are a function of level of maturity and those that will
persist as someone ages. Work role and responsibilities may play a
more important role and, of course, change as someone matures in
their 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 7
Work responsibilities and average number of articles read per month for faculty in the
U.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 1.951
Teaching-oriented (N = 50%) 498 20.8 1.592
Total 850 24.8 1.244
The literature that explores how differences in situation and
context influence information-seeking patterns is vast, and factors
such as motivation or purpose of a search have been shown to play a
role in information-seeking behaviors (Cool, 2001; Courtright, 2007;
Solomon, 2002; Vakkari, 2003). Most do not focus on the act of
scholarly article reading, but rather on the information-seeking
process, but many studies do demonstrate that the same individual
may exhibit many different information-seeking patterns depending
on 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 user
behavior (Raza & Upadhyay, 2006). In the universities studied here,
that was not the case as all had access to substantial print and
electronic journals collections from their libraries and robust
technological infrastructure from their universities.
4. Procedure
Self-reported data on scholarly article reading were collected
through a Web-based survey to faculty members (academic staff) at
seven universities: five in the United States and two in Australia. Five
of the seven universities are research extensive or intensive (PhD
granting) universities and two are master's degree-granting univer-
sities. Together, the seven universities include academic programs in
all 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), and
humanities (including arts, literature, and history). All have extensive
print and electronic journal collections with robust computing
infrastructure, hence availability and access to scholarly journals is
not a problem for any of these respondents.
In most cases, a random sample of faculty members at each
university received an e-mail from the university librarian with an
embedded link to the Web-based survey instrument housed on the

Table 8
Work responsibilities and principal purpose of reading for faculty in the U.S. and Table 9
Australia, 2004–2005 (n = 850, χ2 = 29.731, p = .000). Work responsibilities and how faculty become aware of articles read for faculty in the
U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n = 841, χ2 = 24.082, p = .000).
Work responsibilities: Principal purpose of reading Total
N=50% Research Teaching Current Writing Other Work responsibilities: Information seeking to become aware of articles read Total
awareness N=50% Browsing Searching Citations Colleagues Other
Research-oriented 219 48 20 46 20 353 Research-oriented 97 97 60 68 26 348
(N= 50%) 62.0% 13.6% 5.7% 13.0% 5.7% 100.0% (N =50%) 27.9% 27.9% 17.2% 19.5% 7.5% 100.0%
Teaching-oriented 243 131 48 45 30 497 Teaching-oriented 204 134 57 57 41 493
(N= 50%) 48.9% 26.4% 9.7% 9.1% 6.0% 100.0% (N =50%) 41.4% 27.2% 11.6% 11.6% 8.3% 100.0%
Total 462 179 68 91 50 850 Total 301 231 117 125 67 841
54.4% 21.1% 8.0% 10.7% 5.9% 100.0% 35.8% 27.5% 13.9% 14.9% 8.0% 100.0%
142 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

Table 10
Work 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

Library Personal Open Web Colleagues School, department Other
provided subscription subscription
Research-oriented (N= 50%) 202 57 34 22 9 24 348
58.0% 16.4% 9.8% 6.3% 2.6% 6.9% 100.0%
Teaching-oriented (N = 50%) 186 115 78 27 20 66 492
37.8% 23.4% 15.9% 5.5% 4.1% 13.4% 100.0%
Total 388 172 112 49 29 90 840
46.2% 20.5% 13.3% 5.8% 3.5% 10.7% 100.0%

University of Tennessee server. A follow-up e-mail and, in some cases,
announcements of the survey in various library-originated university
publications or meetings helped increase response rate to a low of
15% 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 Australia
and October through November 2005 in the United States. Respon-
dents could skip any question they wanted to or exit the survey at any
time. All responses were anonymous, with no identifying information
recorded. In all, 1688 faculty members responded to at least some of
the questions, 381 from Australia and 1307 from the U.S.
The questions asked in all of the university surveys were for the
most part the same, in the same order. Small variations were made in
the demographic question on academic discipline to reflect the
subject departments within a particular university, as well as to
questions about the source of a reading to reflect the names given to
the online catalogs and systems of each specific university. For
purposes of analysis all of these responses were re-coded to be
consistent. 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 sciences
category includes law, business, psychology, and education in addition
to the standard social sciences disciplines such as political science and
sociology. All survey instruments and details of each individual
university'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. These
included questions about their authorship productivity and number of
personal subscriptions. Most differences based on gender were not
statistically significant or can be explained by gender differences
inherent between academic disciplines, so gender is not included in
this analysis.
The majority of questions focused on scholarly journal reading and
use, beginning with a single recollection question of how many
scholarly articles they had read in the past month. Scholarly articles
were defined to include “those found in journal issues, author
websites, or separate copies such as preprints, reprints, and other
electronic or paper copies”. Reading was defined as “going beyond the
table of contents, title, and abstract to the body of the article”.
Next, respondents were asked to focus on the specific article they
had read most recently. This variation of the critical incident
technique (first described by Flanagan, 1954) asks detailed questions
relating to the last reading and improves the likelihood that
respondents will remember specific information. The unit of observa-
tion, thus, becomes a reading of a scholarly article, and the universe of
readings being sampled is all readings by the faculty population over
the past month. A two-stage sample is taken, where the first stage is
the 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 factors
that have the greatest influence on the most reading patterns above
those that account for just a few differences in reading patterns.
5. Findings
5.1. Subject discipline
Prior research suggests that subject discipline has a major
influence on reading patterns, and the findings of this study support
this. Significant subject discipline differences were found in many
seeking and reading patterns.
Most reading questions focused on the critical incident of last
reading, 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 journal
articles on average than faculty members in social sciences and
humanities (Table 1).
Respondents were asked to indicate the principal purpose of their
last reading, including: research, writing, teaching, current awareness,
or other. Although reading for the purpose of research is the most
common across all subject disciplines, there are significant differences
(χ2 = 112.402, p = .000). Reading by respondents in engineering and
sciences disciplines is more likely to be for the purpose of research,
while reading by social sciences and humanities faculty are more
likely to be for teaching than are those by other disciplines (Table 2).
Readers seek for and become aware of the articles they read by a
variety of methods, including browsing through tables of contents or
lists of journal titles; searching in online catalogs, indexes and

Table 12
Table 11 Work responsibilities and final form of reading for faculty in the U.S. and Australia,
Work responsibilities and source format of readings for faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n = 847, χ2 = 22.392, p = .000).
2004–2005 (n = 845, χ2 = 23.015, p = .000).
Work responsibilities: Final form of reading Total
Work responsibilities: 50% Source format of reading Total N=50% Printed Printed Photocopy Other On-screen
Print Electronic Unknown journal out print
Research-oriented (N= 50%) 96 235 20 351 Research-oriented 63 183 28 1 77 352
27.4% 67.0% 5.7% 100.0% (N= 50%) 17.9% 52.0% 8.0% .3% 21.9% 100.0%
Teaching-oriented (N = 50%) 193 250 51 494 Teaching-oriented 157 212 43 2 81 495
39.1% 50.6% 10.3% 100.0% (N= 50%) 31.7% 42.8% 8.7% .4% 16.4% 100.0%
Total 289 485 71 845 Total 220 395 71 3 158 847
34.2% 57.4% 8.4% 100.0% 26.0% 46.6% 8.4% .4% 18.7% 100.0%
 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148 143

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

Work responsibilities: Date of reading Total

N=50% 9–10 months 2–5 years 6–10 years 11–15 years Over
(2005) (2001–2004) (1996–2000) (1991–1995) 15 years
Research-oriented (N= 50%) 151 80 30 11 21 293
51.5% 27.3% 10.2% 3.8% 7.2% 100.0%
Teaching-oriented (N = 50%) 141 120 37 14 21 333
42.3% 36.0% 11.1% 4.2% 6.3% 100.0%
Total 292 200 67 25 42 626
46.6% 31.9% 10.7% 4.0% 6.7% 100.0%

abstracts, or internet search engines; following citations in print or
electronic articles; from correspondence or conversations with
colleagues; and so forth.
Readings by faculty members in all disciplines except engineering
are most often found by browsing, followed by searching. Browsing
may be through personal print or electronic subscriptions or library
print or electronic collections or other means (Table 3). Engineering
faculty readings are most often found by searching. Comparing all
methods of finding articles across disciplines, there is a significant
difference between methods used and subject discipline (χ2 = 43.281,
p = .002). Science faculty readings are the least concentrated on any
single method—with a large chunk of readings coming equally from
browsing, searching, citations, and colleagues.
If subject discipline were to be broken down into smaller
categories, some additional differences might emerge. In an earlier
study, for example, astronomers and astrophysicists were found to be
more likely to become aware of articles by searching, due in large part
to the mature search and retrieval systems in this community that
facilitate searching (Tenopir et al., 2005). If the U.S. and Australian
surveys are split, a higher percentage of readings by Australian
academics are found by searching, while U.S. faculty members identify
more articles by browsing (Tenopir, Wilson, Vakkari, Talja, & King,
2008).
Approximately 40% to half of readings from all subject
disciplines came from library-provided resources, which are the
single largest source of readings for everyone (Table 4). Additional
readings by social sciences, humanities, and medical/health faculty
are more likely, however, to come from personal subscriptions than
do those in other disciplines. Prior studies of medical faculty and
medical practitioners show they hold a higher-than-average
number of personal subscriptions and, therefore, read more from
browsing personal print subscriptions (Tenopir, King, & Bush, 2004;
Tenopir et al., 2007). In these surveys, the average number of
personal subscriptions across all faculty members at every institu-
tion is 3.75.
Sources can be further categorized by format and categorized into
either a print or electronic source. Readings by social sciences,
humanities, and medical/health faculty are more likely to be from
print sources than are readings by engineering and sciences faculty.
Humanities is the only subject discipline whose members use print
sources more often than electronic sources. Work by Vakkari (2006)
suggests this may simply be a matter of availability, with a much
smaller percentage of humanities journals available in electronic
format (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 on
paper for final form of reading (Tenopir et al., 2003). The categories of
responses to the survey question involving the final form of the last
reading can be collapsed into two different groups: print on paper and
on computer screen. Print on paper includes printed journals,
photocopies, and print-outs. Readings by faculty members of every
subject discipline were viewed in one of these print forms far more
often than on a computer screen, and differences are not significantly
associated with subject disciplines. Readings by faculty members in
the sciences were slightly more likely to be on-screen than readings by
the other subject disciplines, however.
Reading by engineering and sciences faculty members is much
more likely to be done in their offices or laboratories than is reading by
the other faculty members. Humanities is the only discipline where
the office or lab is the location for less than half of all readings. It is not
surprising that readings by faculty members in humanities are more
often done in libraries and their homes, as these in essence function as
their “laboratories”. Engineering and science faculty may be more
dependent on equipment found in their offices or labs, so reading at
home or in the library is less convenient.
All disciplines read from a range of article dates—although reading
overall is highly skewed to the first 9 to 10 months of publication.
Since the surveys in the United States were all conducted in October
and November 2005, and those in Australia were conducted at two
different times, only U.S. data is reported here (Table 6). Medical
faculty reading in the United States is most likely to occur within the
first 9–10 months of publication, and humanities reading is the least
likely to occur during this period. When the measure of current
journal usage extends to readings that are 5 years old or less, medical/
health faculty reading is more likely to happen within 5 years of
publication, and humanities faculty are the most likely to read works
that are 15 years old or older.
Overall, the reported mean time per reading is just under a half
hour (29.3 min per reading when outliers are removed). Faculty
members in medical/health fields spend the least amount of time, on
average just 23.6 min per reading, while humanities faculty members
spend significantly more time, an average of 32.9 min per reading.
Closer to the mean are engineering/technology faculty (32.4 min
per reading), social sciences (30.1 min per reading), and sciences
(30.7 min per reading).

Table 14
Average number of articles read per month by publishing productivity of faculty in the
U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n = 1364, p = .000). Table 15
Average number of articles read per month by faculty who have received awards in the
Average number of articles read per month U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n = 1364, p = .001).
Publishing productivity (number of n Mean Std. error
articles published in the past 2 years) of mean Average number of articles read per month

Least productive (0–1) 323 17.0 1.718 Awards received n Mean Std. error of mean
Medium productive (2–5) 516 22.2 1.183 Awards in past 2 years 437 28.0 1.566
Most productive (over 5) 525 29.8 1.558 No awards in past 2 years 927 22.0 1.023
Total 1364 23.9 .862 Total 1364 23.9 .860
144 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

Table 16
Principal 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 Total

articles published in the past 2 years) Research Teaching Current awareness Writing Other
Least productive (0–1) 103 110 52 19 38 322
32.0% 34.2% 16.1% 5.9% 11.8% 100.0%
Medium productive (2–5) 272 103 38 61 43 517
52.6% 19.9% 7.4% 11.8% 8.3% 100.0%
Most productive (over 5) 325 65 33 65 39 527
61.7% 12.3% 6.3% 12.3% 7.4% 100.0%
Total 700 278 123 145 120 1366
51.2% 20.4% 9.0% 10.6% 8.8% 100.0%

5.2. Work responsibilities
Work responsibilities of faculty members include many different
duties, but the two that are the most important for this analysis are
research and teaching. Faculty were classified as research-oriented if
they spend more than half of their time on research or teaching-
oriented if they spend more than half of their time on teaching. The
survey respondents include more teaching-oriented faculty than
research-oriented faculty, perhaps due to the inclusion of two master's
degree universities in the United States that are more oriented to
teaching than are research intensive institutions. There is no significant
difference 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 articles
between the research-oriented faculty members and teaching-
oriented faculty members; faculty members oriented to research
read more articles than teaching-oriented faculty members (Table 7).
Readings by both research-oriented and teaching-oriented faculty
members were more likely to be for research than for any other
purpose, but, not surprisingly, the percentage of readings by research-
oriented faculty members with the principal purpose of research is
much greater than readings by teaching-oriented faculty members,
and readings by teaching-oriented faculty members are more often for
teaching purposes than those by their research-oriented colleagues
(Table 8).
Work responsibilities do make a difference in the methods used to
find articles (χ2 = 24.082, p = .000). Browsing and searching are used
equally to locate readings by research-oriented faculty, and following
citations 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 faculty
rely on the library for their greatest number of readings, research-
oriented faculty use the library for significantly more of their readings
and teaching-oriented faculty read significantly more articles from
personal subscriptions (χ2 = 38.224, p = .000). Both groups get
articles from a variety of sources, as shown in Table 10.
Choice of a print or electronic source from which to access a
reading also differs significantly for research-oriented and teaching-
oriented faculty members (χ2 = 23.015, p = .000). Although more
than half of all readings by both groups come from electronic sources,
readings by research-oriented faculty are much more likely to come
from electronic sources (Table 11).
Even when a reading is from an electronic source, most are printed
out on paper for final reading. Research-oriented faculty are slightly
more likely to read on-screen, however (Table 12).

Table 17
How faculty become aware of articles read by publishing productivity of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n = 1351, χ2 = 38.042, p = .000).

Publishing productivity (number of Information seeking to become aware of articles read Total
articles published in the past 2 years) Browsing Searching Citations Colleagues Other
Least productive (0–1) 163 72 30 34 18 317
51.4% 22.7% 9.5% 10.7% 5.7% 100.0%
Medium productive (2–5) 174 134 74 88 44 514
33.9% 26.1% 14.4% 17.1% 8.6% 100.0%
Most productive (over 5) 179 153 81 79 28 520
34.4% 29.4% 15.6% 15.2% 5.4% 100.0%
Total 516 359 185 201 90 1351
38.2% 26.6% 13.7% 14.9% 6.7% 100.0%

Table 18
Source of articles read by publishing productivity of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n = 1349, χ2 = 25.126, p = .005).

Publishing productivity (number of Source of articles read Total

articles published in the past 2 years) Library provided Personal Open Web Colleagues School, department Other
subscription subscription
Least productive (0–1) 118 91 39 22 22 23 315
37.5% 28.9% 12.4% 7.0% 7.0% 7.3% 100.0%
Medium productive (2–5) 245 119 51 37 15 47 514
47.7% 23.2% 9.9% 7.2% 2.9% 9.1% 100.0%
Most productive (over 5) 228 119 67 25 20 61 520
43.8% 22.9% 12.9% 4.8% 3.8% 11.7% 100.0%
Total 591 329 157 84 57 131 1349
43.8% 24.4% 11.6% 6.2% 4.2% 9.7% 100.0%
 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148 145

Table 19
Source 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

Library Personal Open Web Colleagues School, department Other
provided sources subscription
Yes 214 113 28 17 21 44 437
49.0% 25.9% 6.4% 3.9% 4.8% 10.1% 100.0%
No 386 214 126 66 36 85 913
42.3% 23.4% 13.8% 7.2% 3.9% 9.3% 100.0%
Total 600 327 154 83 57 129 1350
44.4% 24.2% 11.4% 6.1% 4.2% 9.6% 100.0%

There is a clear pattern presented in the location where faculty
members read articles and the amount of time spent on research or
teaching. Those faculty members devoting more of their time to
research are much more likely to read articles at their office or lab
and less likely to read them at home than are teaching-oriented
faculty.
Readings by research-oriented faculty members in the United
States are slightly more likely to be within the first 10 months of
publication than readings by U.S. teaching-oriented faculty. However,
both research-oriented faculty members and teaching-oriented
faculty members read from a wide range of dates and nearly a third
of all readings by research-oriented faculty and slightly under a
quarter of all readings by teaching-oriented faculty are older than
5 years (Table 13).
5.3. Productivity of faculty
Faculty productivity is defined by two demographic questions in
this study: what is the number of publications in the past 2 years, and
were honor or awards received in the past 2 years? Some reading
patterns differ for both measures of productivity. There is no
significant relationship between receiving awards and whether
readings are from print or electronic sources, how faculty became
aware of articles, final form of reading, or reading location.
For publishing productivity, respondents were put into three
groups: a) least productive for those who reported no or just one
publication in the past 2 years, b) medium productive for those who
reported two to five publications, and c) most productive for those who
reported more than five publications in the past 2 years. For awards,
faculty self-reported whether they had received awards or recognition
for their work in the past 2 years. They are grouped merely as award
winners or no awards.
There is a significant relationship between publishing productivity
and average number of article readings per month—faculty who
publish more, read more (p = .000) (Table 14). In addition, faculty
who have received awards in the past 2 years read significantly more
articles (p = .001) (Table 15). The relationships between both
publishing productivity and reading and between receiving awards
and reading have been observed for many years (Tenopir & King,
2000). Although there is no claim for cause and effect, highly
productive and successful faculty members do use the scholarly
literature more than less productive faculty.
Not surprisingly, those who publish more also read much more for
research and for writing and much less for teaching and current
awareness (Table 16). There is no significant relationship between
recently receiving awards and the principal purpose of reading.
While browsing is the most common method used to become
aware of articles by all groups, faculty who publish more also are more
likely to find articles by searching and following citations, or from
colleagues, while those who publish less rely significantly more on
browsing (χ2 = 38.042, p = .000) (Table 17). There is no significant
relationship between receiving awards and the method used to
become aware of readings.
Browsing is likely to be more often from a personal print
subscription, so it follows that the least productive faculty members
find significantly more articles from personal sources than do others.
They also find more articles from the open Web than do the faculty
who publish more (Table 18). In addition, award winners are more
likely to get readings from the library (Table 19).
All groups use more electronic sources than print, but faculty with
medium and most publishing productivity rely significantly more on
electronic sources for articles (χ2 = 20.364, p = .000) (Table 20).
There is no significant association between receiving awards and
source format of reading.
The average time in minutes spent per reading differs significantly
with productivity (p = .01) when outliers are removed. Faculty who
publish the least spend an average of 26 min per reading, compared to
30 min on average for the medium publishing group and 29 min on
average by the most productive faculty. There is no significant
association between receiving awards and time spent per reading.
There is a relationship between location of reading and publishing
productivity; reading done by faculty who publish more is more likely
to occur in the office or lab. There is no significant association between
receiving awards and location of reading.
Table 21
Principal purpose of reading by age of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005
(n = 1364, χ2 = 91.806, p = .000).

Table 20 Age Principal purpose of reading Total

Source format of reading by publishing productivity of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, Research Teaching Current awareness Writing Other
2004–2005 (n = 1360, χ2 = 20.364, p = .000). Age under 30 49 6 11 11 5 82
59.8% 7.3% 13.4% 13.4% 6.1% 100.0%
Publishing productivity (number of Source format of reading Total
articles published in the past 2 years) Age 31–40 235 53 26 30 19 363
Print Electronic Unknown 64.7% 14.6% 7.2% 8.3% 5.2% 100.0%
Least productive (0–1) 145 152 20 317 Age 41–50 220 77 32 50 37 416
45.7% 47.9% 6.3% 100.0% 52.9% 18.5% 7.7% 12.0% 8.9% 100.0%
Medium productive (2–5) 199 281 37 517 Age 51–60 134 105 32 43 34 348
38.5% 54.4% 7.2% 100.0% 38.5% 30.2% 9.2% 12.4% 9.8% 100.0%
Most productive (over 5) 162 314 50 526 Age over 60 58 37 21 13 26 155
30.8% 59.7% 9.5% 100.0% 37.4% 23.9% 13.5% 8.4% 16.8% 100.0%
Total 506 747 107 1360 Total 696 278 122 147 121 1364
37.2% 54.9% 7.9% 100.0% 51.0% 20.4% 8.9% 10.8% 8.9% 100.0%
146 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148

Table 22 Table 24
How faculty become aware of articles read by age of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, Source format of reading by age of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005
2004–2005 (n = 1351, χ2 = 29.478, p = .021). (n = 1357, χ2 = 76.479, p = .000).

Age Information seeking to become aware of articles read Total Age Source format of reading Total
Browsing Searching Citations Colleagues Other Print Electronic Unknown
Age under 30 32 28 6 7 10 83 Age under 30 8 55 19 82
38.6% 33.7% 7.2% 8.4% 12.0% 100.0% 9.8% 67.1% 23.2% 100.0%
Age 31–40 118 115 49 52 25 359 Age 31–40 103 225 33 361
32.9% 32.0% 13.6% 14.5% 7.0% 100.0% 28.5% 62.3% 9.1% 100.0%
Age 41–50 151 110 61 57 29 408 Age 41–50 167 214 31 412
37.0% 27.0% 15.0% 14.0% 7.1% 100.0% 40.5% 51.9% 7.5% 100.0%
Age 51–60 148 74 45 59 19 345 Age 51–60 153 177 18 348
42.9% 21.4% 13.0% 17.1% 5.5% 100.0% 44.0% 50.9% 5.2% 100.0%
Age over 60 71 33 17 24 11 156 Age over 60 75 74 5 154
45.5% 21.2% 10.9% 15.4% 7.1% 100.0% 48.7% 48.1% 3.2% 100.0%
Total 520 360 178 199 94 1351 Total 506 745 106 1357
38.5% 26.6% 13.2% 14.7% 7.0% 100.0% 37.3% 54.9% 7.8% 100.0%

5.4. Age of faculty members
It is often assumed that younger academics will exhibit much
different information seeking and use behavior than older aca-
demics, in particular those faculty members young enough to have
grown up with computers. More of the survey respondents fall into
the middle age groups, with an average respondent age of 46. All
faculty members—regardless of age—are more likely to read
scholarly articles in final printed form, and there is no statistically
significant difference based on age. Age also has no significant effect
on the number of articles read per month or on the average time
spent per reading. There are some differences in reading patterns
by age, however, although not as many differences as can be
accounted for by other factors such as subject discipline and work
responsibilities.
In general, younger faculty members read more articles for the
principal purpose of research, while more of the readings by older
faculty members are for the principal purpose of teaching (Table 21).
Faculty members over 60 years old are more likely to read articles for
purposes of current awareness than any other age group.
Age of faculty members also has an influence on the ways they seek
for and find scholarly journal articles. After age 40, as the age of faculty
members increases, the percentage of articles found by browsing
increases and the percentage of articles found by searching decreases
(Table 22).
All ages of faculty rely on a variety of sources for their scholarly
articles, and the library accounts for the largest percentage of readings
by every age group. Additional readings by faculty members under age
30, however, are more likely to come from the open Web than are
additional readings by other age groups. Readings by those under age
30 also less frequently come from the library or from personal
subscriptions than readings by other age groups (Table 23). If this
trend continues as these individuals age, it could have a major impact
on publishing, professional societies, where most personal subscrip-
tions originate, and libraries.
As might be guessed, younger faculty members are much more
likely to access readings from electronic sources than are their older
counterparts. In fact, the percent of reading from print sources goes
steadily 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 or
lab, but a higher percentage of reading by faculty members over age
50 is more likely to take place at home or in the library.
Reading by U.S. faculty members over age 60 is more likely to be for
current awareness (Table 21), as well as within the first 9 to 10 months
of publication. For all other age groups more than half of all readings
are 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 patterns
depending on why they are reading.
Readings for research and writing, for example, are more likely to
be from the library collection, while readings for current awareness
are more likely to be from personal subscriptions (Table 26). The
library journals collection plays a particularly important role for
research and writing.
Purpose of reading also influences the date of article readings. Not
surprisingly, readings for current awareness are likely to be articles

Table 23
Source of articles read by age of faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n = 1347, χ2 = 67.979, p = .000).

Age Source of articles read Total

Library Personal Open Web Colleagues School, department Other
provided subscription subscription
Age under 30 30 10 18 4 3 17 82
36.6% 12.2% 22.0% 4.9% 3.7% 20.7% 100.0%
Age 31–40 174 55 52 22 17 39 359
48.5% 15.3% 14.5% 6.1% 4.7% 10.9% 100.0%
Age 41–50 187 99 40 24 23 34 407
45.9% 24.3% 9.8% 5.9% 5.7% 8.4% 100.0%
Age 51–60 135 108 35 27 12 28 345
39.1% 31.3% 10.1% 7.8% 3.5% 8.1% 100.0%
Age over 60 63 54 15 7 4 11 154
40.9% 35.1% 9.7% 4.5% 2.6% 7.1% 100.0%
Total 589 326 160 84 59 129 1347
43.7% 24.2% 11.9% 6.2% 4.4% 9.6% 100.0%
 C. Tenopir et al. / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 139–148 147

Table 25
Date 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 2–5 years 6–10 years 11–15 years Over
(2005) (2001–2004) (1996–2000) (1991–1995) 15 years
Age under 30 9 5 2 4 4 24
37.5% 20.8% 8.3% 16.7% 16.7% 100.0%
Age 31–40 110 79 23 16 21 249
44.2% 31.7% 9.2% 6.4% 8.4% 100.0%
Age 41–50 154 109 24 9 13 309
49.8% 35.3% 7.8% 2.9% 4.2% 100.0%
Age 51–60 139 99 27 6 12 283
49.1% 35.0% 9.5% 2.1% 4.2% 100.0%
Age over 60 75 33 14 0 11 133
56.4% 24.8% 10.5% .0% 8.3% 100.0%
Total 487 325 90 35 61 998
48.8% 32.6% 9.0% 3.5% 6.1% 100.0%

that are published recently, while readings for teaching and research
rely on a range of article dates (Table 27).
6. Discussion
Scholarly articles are important to the work of academics, yet there
are variations in the reading patterns of faculty members, including
the number of articles they read, how they locate articles, year of
readings, and other factors. This study shows that these variations can
be accounted for by several characteristics of readers, especially
subject discipline and work responsibilities. Productivity, age, and
purpose of a specific reading also influence some, but fewer, reading
patterns.
Some of the findings are of particular importance for the future of
publishing and library services. Discipline differences, for example,
show the importance of specialized approaches to publications and
information services for users in different disciplines. Medical/health
faculty read more, more than others for current awareness, and their
readings are more likely to be within the first 9–10 months of
publication, while engineering faculty spend more time on average
per article reading and read more for research than do others.
Consequently, medical faculty spend less time per reading. This is not
surprising, since there is a limited amount of total time that anyone
can spend on reading. Humanities faculty read fewer articles, rely
more on browsing, and read older articles on average. This is not to say
that humanities faculty members do not read, but they most likely

Table 26
Source of reading by purpose of reading by faculty in the U.S. and Australia, 2004–2005 (n = 1412, χ2 = 121.464, p = .000).

Purpose of reading Source of articles read Total

Library provided Personal Open Web Colleagues School, department Other
subscription subscription
Research 358 127 97 50 23 66 721
49.7% 17.6% 13.5% 6.9% 3.2% 9.2% 100.0%
Teaching 109 105 30 13 14 15 286
38.1% 36.7% 10.5% 4.5% 4.9% 5.2% 100.0%
Current awareness 37 59 9 4 4 12 125
29.6% 47.2% 7.2% 3.2% 3.2% 9.6% 100.0%
Writing 74 21 16 12 8 20 151
49.0% 13.9% 10.6% 7.9% 5.3% 13.2% 100.0%
Other 39 31 15 9 12 23 129
30.2% 24.0% 11.6% 7.0% 9.3% 17.8% 100.0%
Total 617 343 167 88 61 136 1412
43.7% 24.3% 11.8% 6.2% 4.3% 9.6% 100.0%

Table 27
Date of reading by purpose of reading by faculty members in U.S., 2005 (n = 1047, χ2 = 87.202, p = .000).

Purpose of reading Date of last reading Total

9–10 months 2–5 years 6–10 years 11–15 years Over
(2005) (2001–2004) (1996–2000) (1991–1995) 15 years
Research 230 169 40 26 40 505
45.5% 33.5% 7.9% 5.1% 7.9% 100.0%
Teaching 108 75 32 8 15 238
45.4% 31.5% 13.4% 3.4% 6.3% 100.0%
Current awareness 80 10 0 1 0 91
87.9% 11.0% .0% 1.1% .0% 100.0%
Writing 39 47 15 1 6 108
36.1% 43.5% 13.9% .9% 5.6% 100.0%
Other 58 33 6 1 7 105
55.2% 31.4% 5.7% 1.0% 6.7% 100.0%
Total 515 334 93 37 68 1047
49.2% 31.9% 8.9% 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 examined
only their reading of scholarly articles.
Age differences are also potentially important. While all ages use
the library for most readings, fewer readings by faculty members
under the age of 30 come from the library or personal subscriptions
and a greater percent come from the open Web than readings by older
faculty members. Faculty members under age 60 are less likely to read
in the library. As the age of the reader decreases, the likelihood of the
final form of reading being paper also decreases. Even if articles are
found in electronic journal systems, most so far have been printed out
for reading, making print-friendly formats popular. The trend to more
on-screen reading by younger faculty members should cause format
to be reexamined.
7. Conclusion
Over 1600 faculty members responded to the questionnaires
described here that were distributed from October 2004 through
November 2005. The universities are assumed to be typical, but there
are some differences among them, notably in size of faculty and student
body and academic departments so results at specific universities may
vary somewhat. All of the faculty members studied here have easy access
to robust e-journal collections. Results may differ in other universities,
particularly those with limited e-journal resources or poor technological
infrastructure. E-journal collections and the use of them continue to
grow, 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 read
articles for a variety of purposes and locate them by many methods
and sources. Perhaps even more important than the significant
differences reported here, is the evidence this study provides of this
variety. No one solution works for all readers or all readings. Electronic
sources and formats have not replaced print on paper, nor has the Web
replaced library or personal subscriptions. Sources and journals
systems must accommodate a wide range of methods and formats,
as readers choose the source, format, and method that meet their
needs at the time they find and read scholarly articles.
Acknowledgments
Surveys conducted in the United States were funded by a grant
from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Surveys
conducted in Australia were funded in part by a John Metcalfe Visitors
Grant at the University of New South Wales.
References
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of
new 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 Science
Foundation, 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 Society
for Information Science and Technology, 41 (pp. 20–30). Washington, DC: American
Society 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 use
by 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). Information
Today, Inc: Medford, NJ.
Raza, M. M., & Upadhyay, A. K. (2006). Usage of e-journals in Aligarh Muslim University:
A study. The International Information & Library Review, 38(3), 170−179.
Rowlands, I. (2007). Electronic journals and user behaviour: A review of recent research.
Library & Information Science Research, 29, 369−396.
Solomon, P. (2002). Discovering information in context. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review
of information science and technology, 36 (pp. 229–264). Medford, NJ: Information
Today, Inc.
Talja, S., & Maula, H. (2003). Reasons for the use and non-use of electronic journals and
databases: A domain analytic study in four scholarly disciplines. Journal of
Documentation, 59, 673−691.
Tenopir, C. (2003). Use and users of electronic library resources: An overview and analysis
of recent research studies. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information
Resources. 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 on
electronic journals: Reading patterns of astronomers. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 56, 786−802.
Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Boyce, P., Grayson, M., Zhang, Y., & Ebuen, M. (2003). Patterns
of journal use by scientists through three evolutionary phases. D-Lib, 9(5) Retrieved
from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may03/king/05king.html
Tenopir, C., King, D. W., & Bush, A. (2004). Medical faculty's use of print and electronic
journals: Changes over time and comparison with other scientists. Journal of the
Medical 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 patterns
and 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-reading
patterns in Australia, Finland, and the United States: A cross country comparison. Paper
presented at the 2008 annual meeting of IFLA (the International Federation of
Library Associations), Quebec, 10–14 August .
University College London (UCL), Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation
of 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 review
of information science and technology, 37 (pp. 413–464). Medford, NJ: Information
Today, Inc.
Vakkari, P. (2006). Trends in the use of digital libraries by scientists in 2000–2005: A
case study of FinELib. In A. Grove (Ed.), Proceedings 69th annual meeting of the
American society for information science and technology (ASIST) 43 Austin, TX.
Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from http://eprints.
rclis.org/archive/00008278/