Insights and opinions of readers of the Journal of the Medical Library Association

K. Akers, J. Pionke, Ellen M. Aaronson, Rachel Koenig, Michelle A Kraft, Beverly Murphy
{"title":"Insights and opinions of readers of the Journal of the Medical Library Association","authors":"K. Akers, J. Pionke, Ellen M. Aaronson, Rachel Koenig, Michelle A Kraft, Beverly Murphy","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2022.1458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) conducted a readership survey in 2020 to gain a deeper understanding of our readers, their reading habits, and their satisfaction with JMLA's content, website functionality, and overall quality. A total of 467 readers responded to the survey, most of whom were librarians/information specialists (85%), worked in an academic (62%) or hospital/health care system (27%) library, and were current Medical Library Association members (80%). Most survey respondents (46%) reported reading JMLA articles on a quarterly basis. Over half of respondents (53%) said they used social media to follow new research or publications, with Twitter being the most popular platform. Respondents stated that Original Investigations, Case Reports, Knowledge Syntheses, and Resource Reviews articles were the most enjoyable to read and important to their research and practice. Almost all respondents reported being satisfied or very satisfied (94%) with the JMLA website. Some respondents felt that the content of JMLA leaned more toward academic librarianship than toward clinical/hospital librarianship and that there were not enough articles on collection management or technical services. These opinions and insights of our readers help keep the JMLA editorial team on track toward publishing articles that are of interest and utility to our audience, raising reader awareness of new content, providing a website that is easy to navigate and use, and maintaining our status as the premier journal in health sciences librarianship.","PeriodicalId":227502,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1458","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) conducted a readership survey in 2020 to gain a deeper understanding of our readers, their reading habits, and their satisfaction with JMLA's content, website functionality, and overall quality. A total of 467 readers responded to the survey, most of whom were librarians/information specialists (85%), worked in an academic (62%) or hospital/health care system (27%) library, and were current Medical Library Association members (80%). Most survey respondents (46%) reported reading JMLA articles on a quarterly basis. Over half of respondents (53%) said they used social media to follow new research or publications, with Twitter being the most popular platform. Respondents stated that Original Investigations, Case Reports, Knowledge Syntheses, and Resource Reviews articles were the most enjoyable to read and important to their research and practice. Almost all respondents reported being satisfied or very satisfied (94%) with the JMLA website. Some respondents felt that the content of JMLA leaned more toward academic librarianship than toward clinical/hospital librarianship and that there were not enough articles on collection management or technical services. These opinions and insights of our readers help keep the JMLA editorial team on track toward publishing articles that are of interest and utility to our audience, raising reader awareness of new content, providing a website that is easy to navigate and use, and maintaining our status as the premier journal in health sciences librarianship.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《医学图书馆协会杂志》读者的见解和意见
《医学图书馆协会杂志》(JMLA)于2020年进行了一项读者调查,以更深入地了解我们的读者、他们的阅读习惯以及他们对JMLA的内容、网站功能和整体质量的满意度。共有467名读者参与了调查,其中大多数是图书馆员/信息专家(85%),在学术图书馆(62%)或医院/医疗保健系统图书馆(27%)工作,目前是医学图书馆协会会员(80%)。大多数调查对象(46%)每季度都会阅读JMLA的文章。超过一半的受访者(53%)表示,他们使用社交媒体关注新的研究或出版物,其中Twitter是最受欢迎的平台。受访者表示,原始调查、案例报告、知识综合和资源评论文章是最令人愉快的阅读,对他们的研究和实践很重要。几乎所有的受访者都对JMLA网站表示满意或非常满意(94%)。一些受访者认为,JMLA的内容更倾向于学术图书馆,而不是临床/医院图书馆,而且关于馆藏管理或技术服务的文章不够多。这些读者的意见和见解有助于使JMLA编辑团队朝着出版读者感兴趣和实用的文章的方向前进,提高读者对新内容的认识,提供一个易于导航和使用的网站,并保持我们作为健康科学图书馆领域的首要期刊的地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Virtual Services in the Health Sciences Library: A Handbook Finding Your Seat at the Table: Roles for Librarians on In-stitutional Regulatory Boards and Com-mittees Assessing Academic Library Perfor-mance: A Handbook Dark Archives: A Librarian's Investigation into the Sci-ence and History of Books Bound in Hu-man Skin The National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1