Literatursuche

Nutzerumfrage des ZPID

by  • 

zpid_nutzerumfrage_468x60

Das Leibniz-Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation (ZPID) führt zur Verbesserung seines Service- und Dienstleistungsangebots eine Online-Umfrage zur Nutzerzufriedenheit durch. Die Umfrage beinhaltet Fragen zu Bekanntheit, Bewertung und Verbesserung seiner Produkte und Dienste. Alle Teilnehmer sollten zumindest mit einem Produkt des ZPID schon einmal in Berührung gekommen sein.

Der Aufwand beläuft sich auf maximal 10 – 15 Minuten. Unter allen Teilnehmern wird als Hauptpreis ein Apple iPod touch der 3.Generation sowie drei USB-Sticks mit 16 GB Speichervolumen verlost. Die Ergebnisse dienen der Optimierung der Serviceangebote des ZPID. Bitte nehmen Sie sich kurz dafür Zeit.

Zur Umfrage: http://www.unipark.de/uc/tr_uni_trier_decieux_ul/d360

Bibliotheken, Smartphone

Amazon vs. Apple Store vs. Prices

by  • 

mac

Amazon Pulls Macmillan Books Over E-Book Price Disagreement und At Amazon, Giving In to Demands. Machte die Runde in der Blogosphäre. Auch wenn die Bücher nun wieder bei Amazon vorhanden sind, die Tatsache an sich und die Kommentare geben einen guten und lesbaren Einblick in die Problematik.

Amazon:

We have expressed our strong disagreement and the seriousness of our disagreement by temporarily ceasing the sale of all Macmillan titles,” Amazon said. “We want you to know that ultimately, however, we will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan’s terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books.

Wie immer geht’s um Geld. Der neue Player auf dem e-Bookmarkt, Apple mit seinem iPad, kommt mit Macht.

Analysts say Amazon, which accounts for 15 to 20 percent of domestic book sales, probably realized it could not compete with Apple if it wasn’t offering the same range of content.

Ich würde ja auch gerne mal ein Kindle-e-Book (bzw. meine Lesemotivation) auf dem iPhone ausprobieren, aber irgendwie fühle ich mich über’s Ohr geschlagen, wenn ich dafür dasselbe wie für das Paperback ausgeben soll. Irgendwie komisch, aber der Lesespaß eines Paperbacks ist halt nicht zu toppen.

Bibliotheken, Refs

The Naked Truth: Wie Elsevier Werbung macht auf Kosten von Bibliotheken

by  • 

nt

Die nackte Wahrheit über die Liebe von Studenten zu StudentConsult:

In all seriousness – you must register all books with student consult and spread the love!

The Naked Truth, (c) Elsevier

… hier kommt’s knüppeldick:

sc3

The Naked Truth (c) by Elsevier.

Zum Piepen! (ebenso wie die Werbung durch eine nackte Comicärztin, notdürftig verhüllt durch einen Bücherstapel.)

Was hört man zur Zeit noch von diesem Verlag?

  1. Elsevier betreibt aktives Lobbying gegen Open Access (das machen auch andere, aber keiner gibt so viel Geld dafür aus wie Elsevier)
  2. Elsevier’s deutschsprachige Lehrbücher kommen mit proprietärer Software, DRM-geschützt, nur im Netz benutzbar und eigentlich zu teuer für Bibliotheken (Dass hier trotzdem etliche Medizinbibliotheken zugelangt haben, ist für mich nicht nachvollziehbar. Das Einzige, was man damit erreicht, ist die Konsilidierung eines überteuerten DRM-Geschäftsmodells am Markt: Herzlichen Glückwunsch!).
  3. Das Geschäftsmodell StudentConsult / eLibrary wirbt mit bibliotheks-inkompatiblen Inhalten
  4. Bibliotheken können ab sofort “mediscript” nicht mehr ausleihen.

Summa Summarum: Elsevier scheint massiv dran zu arbeiten, dass Jay Recht behält mit seinem Spruch: „my library never has a book i want, one that i know“ … Dazu passt das Gerücht(?) von einer neuen Elsevier-Strategie „Beyond The Library“, die unter Umgehung der Bibliothek Inhalte direkt an den Kunden verkaufen soll… Elsevier: Ein Bösewicht? Nein, nur ein Verlag, der vorprescht und Technik und Marktmacht konsequent nutzt. Werden andere folgen? Wird es das Bild der physischen Bibliothek als Lehrbuchsammlung – zu der wir de facto bereits geworden sind – ändern? Spannende Fragen, spannende Entwicklung.

Publikationswesen, Refs

What we achieved by promoting our E-Books

by  • 

The promotion of English-language books proves to be a special challenge in German libraries, as these titles are used much less frequently than their German counterparts. Due to some lucky lotto winnings (or something quite similiar 😉 ), in 2008 we were able to purchase some hundreds Elsevier eBooks in diverse medical subject areas. To promote these new titles to our English-avoiding (Page 9) clients, since December 2008 each week we featured one of these titles via our library’s blog.

Most interesting is the evaluation of our promotional engagement: Did it have any effect on usage? What’s with the not-promoted books? In general, usage stats revealed heavy usage of the promoted book titles in contrast to ones we’ve not promoted. As one would think, this increased usage started shortly after posting the respective blog entries.

werbung3

Red line = Promoted books. Average of usage 39 books, each with a prominent book review in the library blog. Usage was counted in months after promotional event (book review).
Blue line = Non-promoted books. Average of usage of 290 books without any book review, but with a single mentioning of the fact of accessibility (=general promotion).

In this period, all 329 books were used 5.118 times. That’s about 15,6 per book or 1,2 requests per month per book. 1st conclusion: In comparison, our German titles were used on average 100 times a month, that are 2 orders of magnitude more.
The 290 non-promoted books were used 3.721 times or 1,0 times per month. The 39 promoted books were used 2.197 times or 4,3 times per month. Beginning with promotion, the respective books showed an explosion of usage. It led to an overall fourfold increase in usage, and to a twentyfold increase above non-promoted base line (s.a.) in the promotional month. 2nd conclusion: Book reviews by blog entries is highly successful for increasing awareness and usage by faculty.
3rd conclusion: In contrast, a single promotion of the Sciencedirect portal and the publishing of a master book list led only to an doubling or tripling of the average usage base line of 1,0 per month (blue line).
4th conclusion: The increased usage of promoted titles didn’t last forever, instead it vanished three months after the promotional event, both with book reviews or general promotion.

Potential bias: From the overall collection (1995-2009), only recently published books (2007-2009) were selected for book review. Massive downloading by single users may led to erroneous swings (e.g. blue line month ‚9‘, red line month ’10‘), especially with overall low usage counts.

Bibliotheken, Refs

Kluft zwischen Wissenschaftlern und Bibliothekaren überbrückbar?

by  • 

hand (2)
jenny126007 photobucket

Der Beitrag von Martin im Nature Network mit dem leicht provokativen Titel Scientists and librarians: friend or foe? ist sehr lesenswert. Ihr könnt dort oder hier kommentieren.

Hier eine Zusammenfassung meines Kommentars dort:

„I can’t imagine that a librarian thinks of himself as a foe for faculty. Usually they try to be friends and helpful. But I can imagine that faculty may regard some librarians not supporting them enough or not appropriate and perceive their acting as hostile. Maybe we need to know more from each other to gain a better understanding. Librarians need to perform continuous information needs assessments to gain a far better knowledge what their customers really need. And physicians and researcher need to invite librarians to their journal clubs and team sessions to get an better understanding what they are capable of and to correct their expectations accordingly.

An example: Usually, in German medical libraries, there is only one subject librarian with a scientifical background. He (or she) acts as a library manager, which includs not only acquisition decisions and subject classification and journal package negotiations, but also staff development, budget accounting, and administrative and organizational issues of every kind: The medical library is a little university library in itself. Not surprisingly, there’s not much time left for new projects, modern technology, “reinventing things” or just learning enough RefWorks or Yammer or BenchPress to be of substantial help for users.

Or lets take a look at the offerings: We promote our specific knowledge like free beer to the faculty (take a look at the House Calls), but they never ever asked for courses on Impact Factors, EBM, or even PubMed. Maybe they already know everything what they need to know or the access to literature is to easy to be taught any more… I don’t know. Certainly there’s a gap and we try to close it by chat or house calls, but I’m not that much convinced we will succeed. I would like to be proven wrong …

I forget the most important thing 🙂 We have far too few physicians such as Martin which look beyond their horizon. His demanding interest in libraries will for sure make us better anyway…“