RBU_JR_LIS_V23_2021-FULL_TEXT-E-Copy

RBU Journal of library & Information Science, V. 23, 2021
4 Publishers covered under the existing DRDO e-
journals consortium for the labs
A multiple-choice question with eleven (11) major
publishers covered under the existing DRDO e-journals
consortium was asked the respondents to determine the
coverage of publishers for each lab, and responses are
tabulated in Fig. 1.
Impact of Usage
No. of
Respondents
(n=50)
Percentage
Usage Increased 28 56.00
Usage Decreased 11 22.00
First increase then
decreased 07 14.00
First decreased then
increased 04 08.00
Satisfaction level on Content
Average 26 52
Below Average 18 36
Above Average 06 12
Very High 00 00
Satisfaction level on Coverage
Somewhat better 22 44.00
Fig.1: Publishers covered under existing DRDO e-journals
Consortium
Fig.1 illustrates that IEEE has covered all DRDO labs
which occupy the first position, followed by Elsevier was
covering only 26 labs that occupy the second position.
Wiley was placed in the third position with 20 labs, and
AIAA, ASME, and Nature equally occupied the fourth
position with ten labs each. The publisher ACM was
placed at the last position with six labs.
5 Impact of usage of e-journals
“Journals also play a role in maintaining community
standards in how research and scholarship are conducted.
To some extent, this is done as journals filter what is
published and hence disseminated. The effects can also be
more subtle and know how the research or scholarship
should be conducted and described, and are much less
likely than novices to be chastised by reviewers. The
communication of research findings between scientific
communities is through scholarly journals. Scholarly
journals provide high-quality validation through peer
review” (Solomon, 2007).
5.1 Impact and Satisfaction level on Content and
Coverage
The study tried to shed some light on the impact
satisfaction level with the content and coverage available
in e-journals and DRDO consortia (Table-4).
Stayed the same 13 26.00
Somewhat worse 08 16.00
Much better 07 14.00
Much worse 00 00.00
Table-4: Impact of usage and Satisfaction level on Content and
Coverage
Table-4 reveals that more than half of the librarians stated
that usage has increased by 56 per cent, which occupies
the first place. However, 22 per cent of them indicated that
the usage of e-journals was decreased, followed by 14 per
cent of them who mentioned that usage was first increased
then decreased, and 8 per cent of them indicated that first
decreased then increased the usage.
As evident from Table-4 that 52 per cent of the librarians
responded that the content of e-journals was ranked
average. On the other hand, 36 per cent of them mentioned
that the satisfaction was below average. Surprisingly, only
12 per cent of the librarians rated the satisfaction level as
above average.
The data also shows in Table-4 that a total of 44 per cent
of librarians has mentioned that their satisfaction level was
somewhat better, which occupies the first place. The
second place occupies the satisfaction level of stated the
same with 26 per cent. Only 14 per cent of them were
happy with the coverage as compared to other statements.
74
https://lisrbu.wixsite.com/dlis/rbu-journal-of-lis