Cartile electronice si oportunitatea crearii unui depozit institutional gazduit alaturi de literatura de specialitate
internationala
Iulian Herciu ProQuest
How do you determine if a source of informa2on is trustworthy?
ebrary 2011 Global Student E-book Survey7
Table 4 – Resource Trustworthiness – 2011 vs. 2008
Resource % F
inds
Tr
ustw
orth
y 20
11
% F
inds
Tr
ustw
orth
y 20
08
Diff
eren
ce
Print books 92 90 2
E-books 89 88 1
Print textbooks 89 83 6
Print reference 85 79 6
E-textbooks 85 74 11
Print journals 82 76 6
E-journals 80 75 5
E-reference (online dictionaries, encyclopedias, maps)
79 73 6
Electronic databases (ProQuest, LexisNexis, JStor, etc.)
78 66 12
Lecture recordings 68 52 16
Print newspapers 67 61 6
Google Scholar 65 53 12
E-newspapers 63 57 6
Course management systems 57 47 10
Google & Other Search Engines
54 52 2
Print magazines 52 49 1
E-magazines 48 44 4
Corporate websites 42 43 -1
Podcasts 30 21 9
Wikipedia 24 40 -16
Personal websites 12 12 0
Blogs & wikis 11 11 0
Social web apps (Facebook, etc.)
11 11 0
How do you determine if a source of information is trustworthy?
Reassurance of validity was vested in the same entities as 2008 with increased percentages of selectors (see table 5). Eighty-eight percent of the students selected instructor as the primary source of information trustworthiness an increase of 3%. Librarians gained 10 points. And publishers increased 3%. As noted in the 2008 analysis, the selection of publishers suggests awareness of peer review processes, which in turn is an indication of instruction by librarians and faculty in the use of information resources.
There is a disjuncture in the number of students who placed trust in Google as a trustworthy resource (54% in the last question), the trust they assign to Google in this question (12%) comparing it to faculty and librarians, and the number who report using it as a resource for assignments (85%). The disjuncture can be understood as duplicitous. Or, it can be understood as student awareness of the need for information integrity, an expression of trust in the knowledge of faculty and librarians, and confidence that they know how to effectively use Google.
Table 5 - Sources of – 2011 vs. 2008
Source of Trust 2011
2008
Diff
eren
ce
If my instructor recommends it 88 85 3
If available in my library or recommended by a librarian
77 67 10
If it’s from a well-known publisher 73 70 3
If it’s available in print 25 27 -2
Google or other search engine 12 14 -2
Information is information – don’t worry about it
3 6 -3
39%
57%
56%
83%
31%
83%
77%
42%
50%
58%
48%
51%
Newspapers
Disserta7ons or theses
E-‐Books
Working Papers
Trade Publica7ons
Raw Data (financial, demographic, etc.)
Passive Use Ac7ve Use
Note: Active = used in researching for a paper, etc. Passive = used to keep abreast of their field
Source: ProQuest Faculty Survey, Completed Dec. 2011
Provocari
• Bugete in scadere • Necesitatea eficientizarii • Informatii incerte asupra nevoii de carti electronice
Diversificare: Scenariu
1. Academic Complete™ baza pentru toate ariile stiintifice
2. Achizitia de noi titluri pentru proiecte importante: PDA and STL
3. Achizitionati titluri esentiale prin PA
4. Adaugati lucrarile dvs in DASH!
Reports Manuals Maps Forms
Integrare
• Cartile electronice disponibile pot fi integrate in procesul educational ca bibliografii sau in cadrul grupurilor de cercetare.
• Automatizarea achizitiei • Automatizarea de-duplicarii ebrary utilizeaza bibliotecile traditionale
pentru a imbunatatii continutul si instrumentele disponibile