14. Rate the importance of full-text access of older journal issues, full-text access to current journal issues, and PDF as full-text option.
All Respondents
 

Older Journal Issues

n %
1 (lowest)

8

2.3

2

7

2.0

3

37

10.6

4

82

23.4

5 (highest)

216

61.7

Total

350

100.0

(see comments below)


(Count)

Current Journal Issues

n %
1 (lowest)

5

1.4

2

7

2.0

3

11

3.1

4

44

12.5

5 (highest)

284

80.9

Total

351

100.0


(see comments below)

(Count)
 

PDF as Full- Text Option

n %
1 (lowest)

16

4.7

2

18

5.3

3

64

18.9

4

87

25.7

5 (highest)

154

45.4

Total

339

100.0

(see comments below)


(Count)

Although access to the full-text of both current and older journal issues was considered highly important (4 or 5 rating) by all respondents, a larger percentage rated the full-text of current issues as of somewhat greater importance than the full-text of older issues (93% to 85%). Just over 70% of all respondents rated PDF as a full-text option as a 4or 5.                                                                                                   
 

All Respondents by Academic Status

Older Journal Issues

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total

Faculty

6

5

19

41

99

170

 

3.5

2.9

11.2

24.1

58.2

100.0

Graduate

1

1

5

18

64

89

 

1.1

1.1

5.6

20.2

71.9

100.0

Undergraduate

0

1

5

8

35

49

 

.0

2.0

10.2

16.3

71.4

100.0

Staff

1

0

7

14

14

36

 

2.8

.0

19.4

38.9

38.9

100.0

Other

0

0

1

1

4

6

 

.0

.0

16.7

16.7

66.7

100.0

Total

8

7

37

82

216

350

 

2.3

2.0

10.6

23.4

61.7

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)


(see comments below)
 

Current Journal Issues

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total

Faculty

2

3

4

22

140

171

 

1.2

1.8

2.3

12.9

81.9

100.0

Graduate

1

1

1

7

79

89

 

1.1

1.1

1.1

7.9

88.8

100.0

Undergraduate

0

3

1

6

39

49

 

.0

6.1

2.0

12.2

79.6

100.0

Staff

2

0

5

8

21

36

 

5.6

.0

13.9

22.2

58.3

100.0

Other

0

0

0

1

5

6

 

.0

.0

.0

16.7

83.3

100.0

Total

5

7

11

44

284

351

 

1.4

2.0

3.1

12.5

80.9

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)


(see comments below)

PDF as Full- Text Option

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total

Faculty

11

10

38

40

62

161

 

6.8

6.2

23.6

24.8

38.5

100.0

Graduate

2

1

6

27

52

88

 

2.3

1.1

6.8

30.7

59.1

100.0

Undergraduate

2

4

8

9

26

49

 

4.1

8.2

16.3

18.4

53.1

100.0

Staff

1

3

10

9

12

35

 

2.9

8.6

28.6

25.7

34.3

100.0

Other

0

0

2

2

2

6

 

.0

.0

33.3

33.3

33.3

100.0

Total

16

18

64

87

154

339

 

4.7

5.3

18.9

25.7

45.4

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

(see comments below)

Just over 10% more faculty gave the highest ratings (4 or 5) to the importance of current issues than to older issues. The split between the current and older issues was more evenly distributed in responses from the graduate and undergraduate students and staff. Both undergraduate and graduate student respondents posted larger percentages of high ratings for both current and older issues than faculty and staff. Graduate students had the largest percentage of high ratings for both current (96%) and older issues (91%) of all the user groups. Graduate students also had a significantly higher percentage of high ratings (4 or 5) for PDF as a full-text option than any other user group. 


 
Faculty by Subject Division
 

Older Journals

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total

Business

0

0

1

3

14

18

.0

.0

5.6

16.7

77.8

100.0

Education

1

2

0

4

10

17

5.9

11.8

.0

23.5

58.8

100.0

Engineering

1

0

3

5

8

17

5.9

.0

17.6

29.4

47.1

100.0

Fine Arts

1

0

4

1

10

16

6.3

.0

25.0

6.3

62.5

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

3

7

6

16

.0

.0

18.8

43.8

37.5

100.0

Humanities

0

0

1

4

14

19

.0

.0

5.3

21.1

73.7

100.0

Sciences

2

0

1

9

18

30

6.7

.0

3.3

30.0

60.0

100.0

Social Sciences

0

3

4

6

14

27

.0

11.1

14.8

22.2

51.9

100.0

Library

0

0

2

1

5

8

.0

.0

25.0

12.5

62.5

100.0

Other

1

0

0

1

0

2

50.0

.0

.0

50.0

.0

100.0

Total

6

5

19

41

99

170

3.5

2.9

11.2

24.1

58.2

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

Overall, most faculty (58%) gave the highest rating to the importance of full-text access to older journal issues. Another 24% rated it highly as a 4. Only 6% gave it the lowest ratings possible. These results were fairly consistent across the subject divisions. The numbers in support of full-text access to older issues was particularly strong among Humanities faculty not quite so strong among Engineering faculty.
 

Current Journals

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total

Business

0

0

0

2

16

18

.0

.0

.0

11.1

88.9

100.0

Education

0

1

0

1

15

17

.0

5.9

.0

5.9

88.2

100.0

Engineering

1

1

0

3

12

17

5.9

5.9

.0

17.6

70.6

100.0

Fine Arts

1

0

2

3

10

16

6.3

.0

12.5

18.8

62.5

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

0

2

14

16

.0

.0

.0

12.5

87.5

100.0

Humanities

0

0

0

4

15

19

.0

.0

.0

21.1

78.9

100.0

Sciences

0

0

0

3

27

30

.0

.0

.0

10.0

90.0

100.0

Social Sciences

0

1

1

3

23

28

.0

3.6

3.6

10.7

82.1

100.0

Library

0

0

0

1

7

8

.0

.0

.0

12.5

87.5

100.0

Other

0

0

1

0

1

2

.0

.0

50.0

.0

50.0

100.0

Total

2

3

4

22

140

171

1.2

1.8

2.3

12.9

81.9

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

Even greater numbers of faculty respondents gave the highest rating to the importance of full-text access to current journal issues than to the importance of full-text access to older issues. Overall, 95% of the faculty rated access to current issues as a 4 or 5. These numbers were very consistent across subject divisions.

 

PDF as Full text

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total

Business

2

1

2

3

10

18

11.1

5.6

11.1

16.7

55.6

100.0

Education

2

0

1

3

10

16

12.5

.0

6.3

18.8

62.5

100.0

Engineering

0

0

2

6

9

17

.0

.0

11.8

35.3

52.9

100.0

Fine Arts

2

2

7

2

0

13

15.4

15.4

53.8

15.4

.0

100.0

Health Sciences

1

0

3

3

8

15

6.7

.0

20.0

20.0

53.3

100.0

Humanities

1

4

3

4

2

14

7.1

28.6

21.4

28.6

14.3

100.0

Sciences

1

1

7

6

15

30

3.3

3.3

23.3

20.0

50.0

100.0

Social Sciences

1

1

10

9

7

28

3.6

3.6

35.7

32.1

25.0

100.0

Library

1

1

2

3

1

8

12.5

12.5

25.0

37.5

12.5

100.0

Other

0

0

1

1

0

2

.0

.0

50.0

50.0

.0

100.0

Total

11

10

38

40

62

161

6.8

6.2

23.6

24.8

38.5

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

A majority of faculty respondents (63%) rated the importance of PDF as a full-text option as a 4 or 5. More faculty rated PDF as a 3 or lower than did in other parts of Question 14 . There was some variation across the subject divisions. Fine Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences faculty generally gave lower ratings to PDF than other faculty while the highest ratings came from Business, Education, Engineering, Health Sciences, and Sciences faculty.
 

 

Graduate Students by Subject Division
 

Older Journals

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total
Business

0

0

0

2

3

5

.0

.0

.0

40.0

60.0

100.0

Education

0

0

1

6

13

20

.0

.0

5.0

30.0

65.0

100.0

Engineering

0

0

2

1

10

13

.0

.0

15.4

7.7

76.9

100.0

Fine Arts

0

0

1

1

4

6

.0

.0

16.7

16.7

66.7

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

0

1

1

2

.0

.0

.0

50.0

50.0

100.0

Humanities

1

0

0

3

5

9

11.1

.0

.0

33.3

55.6

100.0

Sciences

0

1

0

0

11

12

.0

8.3

.0

.0

91.7

100.0

Social Sciences

0

0

1

4

17

22

.0

.0

4.5

18.2

77.3

100.0

Total

1

1

5

18

64

89

1.1

1.1

5.6

20.2

71.9

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

Just over 70% of the graduate student respondents gave the highest rating, e.g. 5, to the importance of full-text access to older journal issues. An additional 22% gave a high rating of 4. These percentages were fairly consistent across disciplines.

 

 

Current Journals

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total
Business

0

0

0

1

4

5

.0

.0

.0

20.0

80.0

100.0

Education

0

0

0

2

18

20

.0

.0

.0

10.0

90.0

100.0

Engineering

0

1

0

0

12

13

.0

7.7

.0

.0

92.3

100.0

Fine Arts

0

0

1

0

5

6

.0

.0

16.7

.0

83.3

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

0

0

2

2

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Humanities

1

0

0

1

7

9

11.1

.0

.0

11.1

77.8

100.0

Sciences

0

0

0

1

11

12

.0

.0

.0

8.3

91.7

100.0

Social Sciences

0

0

0

2

20

22

.0

.0

.0

9.1

90.9

100.0

Total

1

1

1

7

79

89

1.1

1.1

1.1

7.9

88.8

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

The graduate student who responded gave a very high rating to the importance of full-text access to current journal issues -- 89% gave a 5; 97% gave either a 4 or 5. Again, these percentages were fairly consistent across the disciplines, and again there were low numbers of respondents in several areas.

 


 

 

PDF as Full text

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total
Business

0

0

1

1

3

5

.0

.0

20.0

20.0

60.0

100.0

Education

0

0

2

5

13

20

.0

.0

10.0

25.0

65.0

100.0

Engineering

0

0

1

0

12

13

.0

.0

7.7

.0

92.3

100.0

Fine Arts

0

0

0

4

2

6

.0

.0

.0

66.7

33.3

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

0

0

2

2

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Humanities

1

1

1

3

3

9

11.1

11.1

11.1

33.3

33.3

100.0

Sciences

0

0

0

4

8

12

.0

.0

.0

33.3

66.7

100.0

Social Sciences

1

0

1

10

9

21

4.8

.0

4.8

47.6

42.9

100.0

Total

2

1

6

27

52

88

2.3

1.1

6.8

30.7

59.1

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

 

Undergraduate Students by Subject Division

Older Journals

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total
Business

0

0

2

3

5

10

.0

.0

20.0

30.0

50.0

100.0

Education

0

0

0

0

2

2

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Engineering

0

0

0

1

2

3

.0

.0

.0

33.3

66.7

100.0

Fine Arts

0

1

0

0

4

5

.0

20.0

.0

.0

80.0

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

1

0

2

3

.0

.0

33.3

.0

66.7

100.0

Humanities

0

0

0

0

3

3

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Sciences

0

0

0

2

3

5

.0

.0

.0

40.0

60.0

100.0

Social Sciences

0

0

2

2

13

17

.0

.0

11.8

11.8

76.5

100.0

Other

0

0

0

0

1

1

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Total

0

1

5

8

35

49

.0

2.0

10.2

16.3

71.4

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

A very high percentage of undergraduate respondents 88% -- considered full-text access to older journal issues as very important, giving either a 4 or 5 rating. Very few students gave a low rating, e.g. 2 or less. The results were consistent across the subject divisions.


 

 

Current Journals

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total
Business

0

0

0

1

9

10

.0

.0

.0

10.0

90.0

100.0

Education

0

0

0

0

2

2

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Engineering

0

1

0

0

2

3

.0

33.3

.0

.0

66.7

100.0

Fine Arts

0

1

0

0

4

5

.0

20.0

.0

.0

80.0

100.0

Health Sciences

0

1

0

0

2

3

.0

33.3

.0

.0

66.7

100.0

Humanities

0

0

0

0

3

3

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Sciences

0

0

0

2

3

5

.0

.0

.0

40.0

60.0

100.0

Social Sciences

0

0

1

3

13

17

.0

.0

5.9

17.6

76.5

100.0

Other

0

0

0

0

1

1

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Total

0

3

1

6

39

49

.0

6.1

2.0

12.2

79.6

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)

 

An even greater percentage of undergraduate students -- 92% -- rated the importance of full-text access to current journal issues as a 4 or 5. The high numbers were again fairly consistently across the subject divisions. Again, very few students gave a low rating, e.g. 2 or less.

PDF as Full-text

(n / %)

1

2

3

4

5

Total
Business

1

1

1

2

5

10

10.0

10.0

10.0

20.0

50.0

100.0

Education

0

0

0

0

2

2

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Engineering

0

0

1

0

2

3

.0

.0

33.3

.0

66.7

100.0

Fine Arts

1

0

1

1

2

5

20.0

.0

20.0

20.0

40.0

100.0

Health Sciences

0

0

1

1

1

3

.0

.0

33.3

33.3

33.3

100.0

Humanities

0

0

1

1

1

3

.0

.0

33.3

33.3

33.3

100.0

Sciences

0

0

0

2

3

5

.0

.0

.0

40.0

60.0

100.0

Social Sciences

0

3

3

2

9

17

.0

17.6

17.6

11.8

52.9

100.0

Other

0

0

0

0

1

1

.0

.0

.0

.0

100.0

100.0

Total

2

4

8

9

26

49

4.1

8.2

16.3

18.4

53.1

100.0

1 = (lowest)        5 = (highest)


 

Most undergraduate respondents --71% -- rated the importance of PDF full-text as a 4 or 5. However, 12% rated PDF as of lesser importance; 16% were neutral. Among the subject divisions, PDF was rated more highly among students in Education and Sciences.