Academic health sciences librarians' publication patterns By Carol A. Mularski, M.L.S. Coordinator of Online Services and User Education Pamela S. Bradigan, J.D. Head of Reference Services John A. Prior Health Sciences Library The Ohio State University 376 West 10th Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43210-1240

This study examines the publication patterns of U.S. academic health sciences librarians. A survey was sent to a random sample of Medical Library Association (MLA) members who work in academic settings. Some survey results are consistent with other research while others vary from the findings of previous studies. Faculty status requiring publication may be an incentive to publish; however, a large percentage of librarians in this study published despite the lack of a requirement. Academic health sciences librarians without advanced degrees other than a master's in library science produced about three quarters of the publications, whereas their colleagues with advanced degrees published slightly more than 25% of the publications. Results concerning professional maturity, position, and geographic location reflect findings of earlier studies of academic librarians' publication patterns. Publication productivity generally increased with professional maturity, most authors held administrative or supervisory positions, and many lived in the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States. The differences in rates of publication between males and females was not statistically significant after controlling for respondents' professional maturity and position. Recommendations for future research are discussed.

Many studies in the library literature have focused on publication patterns of general academic or special librarians, but none have studied in detail the patterns of one particular group: academic health sciences librarians. This group is responsible for the

Many studies in the library literature have focused on publication patterns of general academic or special librarians, but none have studied in detail the patterns of one particular group: academic health sciences librarians. largest percentage of submissions and publications in recent issues of the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, as an editorial in that journal has shown [1]. Since the Medical Library Association (MLA) is cur168

rently promoting research activities as part of its strategic plan, it is important to track accomplishments to date to build on the foundation already in place [2]. LITERATURE REVIEW In 1977, Watson examined publication lists from ten public and private Association of Research Libraries (ARL) institutions to determine their librarians' activities in library literature [3]. Watson conducted the *study in order to suggest norms of productivity for the profession and to investigate relationships between productivity and age, educational background, professional maturity, and position held. In 1985, Watson authored a study of publications by academic librarians and library school faculty [4]. Eleven journals in the field of librarianship were examined to determine the institutional affiliations of the authors. In order to study the relationship beBull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991

Publication patterns

tween faculty status and librarian publication activity, Watson relied upon data from English's study of librarians' status in eighty-nine ARL libraries [5]. In 1980, Olsgaard and Olsgaard reviewed five library science journals over a ten-year period for authorship characteristics [6]. The Olsgaards tabulated their information to determine trends in authors' genders, occupations, and geographic locations. Adamson and Zamora replicated the Olsgaards' study in 1981, using five journals of interest to special librarians [7]. These five articles directly relate to the purpose and findings of the current study and are discussed further at appropriate points in this article.

METHODOLOGY Most studies that have measured librarians' publication patterns, as noted earlier, have relied on examining the contents of selected journals or publication lists for authors' institutional affiliations, regions, positions, and genders. However, the authors of the present study decided to measure by way of survey research, in order to note the publication patterns of a specific group of librarians over a tenyear period. The population for this study was drawn from MLA's membership. In April of 1989, the authors requested address labels from MLA for those members who had identified themselves as academic librarians. When the authors received the list, they deleted labels for those individuals who had nonU.S. addresses. The remaining labels, a total of 739 U.S. librarians, were consecutively numbered in zip code order. The proper sample size of 254 was determined by consulting Table 4.3, "Table for Determining Sample Size from a Given Population," from Basic Research Methods for Librarians [8]. Using a random number table generated by computer, the authors identified 254 individuals to whom surveys were then mailed. The survey (Appendix) was designed to yield demographic information for the individuals in the sample, as well as a list of each respondent's publications from 1979 to the present in three categories: journal articles, monographs, and chapters in monographs. Respondents were asked to list their gender, years in the profession, current academic and working titles, the number of years they had held each title, and whether or not they had faculty status. If they had faculty status, they were also asked to indicate whether or not research and publication were required. They were asked to list their educational history (i.e., degrees and majors). Finally, they were asked to send a publication list, if one existed, as the authors felt that previously prepared lists (e.g., from a resume) would yield more complete citations than Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991

space on the survey allowed and would be more convenient for both the respondents and the authors. Complete citations were necessary to verify that publications fell within the established criteria; therefore, the survey could not be anonymous. Prior to mailing the surveys, the authors consulted with the Ohio State University Libraries' Advisory Committee on Research. This committee, composed of tenured library faculty members, critically reviewed the questionnaire and made several suggestions for improvements; these were incorporated into the final draft of the survey. The surveys were sent in June 1989, and a followup was conducted in August 1989. The authors received a total of 182 responses, for a 71.7% response rate. However, thirteen of the surveys were judged unusable, due to several factors (e.g., anonymity accompanied by unclear demographic or publications information, respondent now working in a hospital or non-U.S. library, respondent no longer working as a librarian). This left a usable response of 169 individuals (66.5%) who were MLA members currently employed as professionals in U.S. academic libraries. This response was acceptable, as it fell within the 4075% response rate deemed reasonable for a "specific population that is more motivated to respond," as listed in Table 5.1 of Basic Research Methods for Librarians [9]. The authors analyzed the publication lists and accepted citations for inclusion in the data if the citation met the following criteria: the item had been published no earlier than 1979; the item was either already published or accepted for publication; the item was not in a local publication (i.e., published only for the respondent's college or university), but was available at least regionally; the item was not a book review, regular column, or unpublished paper presented at a professional meeting. Questionable publications were checked in the OCLC database and the Ulrich's International Periodical Directory [10] in order to determine if the citations satisfied the criteria.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Using the described criteria, a total of 461 published or accepted journal articles, monographs, or chapters were analyzed for this study. Of the 169 respondents to the survey, 86 individuals (50.9%) had actually written or coauthored at least one item that satisfied the criteria. The average number of publications per respondent was 2.7 over a ten-year period, and 5.4 per author over the same period of time. Very few publications were duplicates for two authors who both returned surveys. Duplicate publications were counted twice, since the objective of the study was to determine productivity and characteristics of academic health sciences librarians. 169

Mularski and Bradigan

Table 1 Gender and position (n = 169) Position Associate director Assistant director Collection development/ acquisitions librarian Coordinator Director Head of department or specialized library* Reference librarian Technical services librarian

Miscellaneoust Total

Males (%)

Females (%)

4 (14.3%) 2 (7.1%)

9(6.4%) 5 (3.5%)

2 (7.1%) 0 5 (17.9%)

7 (5.0%) 13 (9.2%) 14 (10.0%)

9 (32.1%) 5 (17.9%) 0 1 (3.6%)

54 (38.3%) 34 (24.1%) 3 (2.1%) 2(1.4%) 141 (100%h)

28(100%)

* "Specialized libraries" included biosciences, chiropractic, homeopathic, optometry, pharmacy, psychiatry, surgery, and veterinary libraries that were not part of a larger health sciences library.

t Included an automation librarian, a clinical librarian, and a biomedical librarian within a general academic library.

Publication rates by gender, position, and professional maturity The positions held by the librarians who responded to the survey were analyzed and grouped into the nine categories listed in Table 1. The first author of this study made the initial decision on the category for each respondent; this was checked for accuracy and consistency by the second author. Several positions could be classified as administrative: associate director, assistant director, and director. Males in this category accounted for 11 (6.5%) and females for 28 (16.6%) of the respondents. Heads of departments or specialized libraries (generally, small libraries specializing in a specific area of health sciences librarianship, such as veterinary medicine or pharmacy) and coordinators could be classed as supervisory. In this category, there were 9 males (5.3% of the respondents) and 67 females (39.6% of the respondents). Overall, 115 (68.0%) of the academic health sciences librarians who responded were classified as holding administrative or supervisory positions. A total of 20 males (71.4% of the 28 total male respondents) and 95 females (67.4% of the total 141 female respondents) were in the administrative or supervisory category. It is of interest to note that, of the 19 health sciences library directors who responded to the survey, 5 (26.3%) were male and 14 (73.7%) were female. These results are within only a few percentage points of the

findings from Newcomer and Pisciotta's survey of academic health sciences library directors [11]. They found that 23% of the directors who responded to their survey were male and 77% were female. The authors also made an effort to determine positions held by the seventy-two nonrespondents. 170

Listings for these individuals were sought in two directories published within the last three years [1213]; thirty-two (44.4%) of the nonrespondents' positions were identified. Twelve heads of departments constituted the largest number of nonrespondents; six reference librarians did not reply to the survey. Of the fourteen others, all but four (in miscellaneous position titles) were in administrative or supervisory categories. In a 1977 study of librarians' publication output at ten ARL institutions, Watson found that professional maturity is a more potent predictor of publication output than is age [14]. The criteria used in this survey for professional maturity were based upon the number of years respondents had worked as a librarian with a master's degree in library science. The present survey supports Watson's finding in the area of professional maturity (Table 2). Olsgaard and Olsgaard, and Adamson and Zamora studied the genders of authors in library/information science journals. The Olsgaards found that female academic librarians did not publish in proportion to their numbers in the library profession [15]. Adamson and Zamora found that "while female authors are consistently underrepresented in the literature of library science, they are published in greater proportion in special library periodicals than in the academic library periodicals sampled by the Olsgaards" [16]. The data from the present study regarding gender, professional maturity, and position held were investigated within the context of a statistical model. This permitted the analysis of several variables simultaneously and exposed patterns of interaction suggested by the data. The number of publications for an individual was assumed to follow a Poisson probability distribution to predict the logarithm of the mean publications [17]. The GLIM* software package was used to fit the generalized linear model.

The data from the present study regarding gender, professional maturity, and position held were investigated within the context of a statistical model. This permitted the analysis of several variables simultaneously and exposed patterns of interaction suggested by the data. The average publication rates of 4.3 for males and 2.4 for females over a ten-year period, based on the raw data, suggested a difference in rate of publication between the sexes, with males being more prolific *

GLIM, copyright Britain).

1978©

by the Royal Statistical Society (Great

Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991

Publication patterns

Table 2 Model of publication rates by position and professional maturity (n = 161*) Position

0

2

5

8

Associate director Assistant director Collection developmenVacquisitions librarian Coordinator Director Head of departmentorspecialized library Reference librarian

3.4 1.6

4.0 1.9 0.0 1.0 3.4 1.5 1.3

5.1 2.4 0.0 1.2 4.0 1.6 1.5

6.4 3.0 3.0 1.3 4.8 1.6 1.8

t 0.9 3.0 1.5 1.1

Years in profession 11 14 8.1 3.8 t 1.4 5.8 1.7 2.1

10.2 4.8 t 1.6 6.9 1.8 2.5

17

20

23

25

12.8 6.1 t 1.8 8.3 1.8 3.0

16.2 7.7

20.4 9.8

t 2.0 9.9 1.9 3.6

t 2.3 11.8 1.9 4.3

23.8 11.4 t 2.5 13.3 2.0 4.7

* The two "atypical" respondents, three technical services librarians, and three "miscellaneous" positions have been omitted; the small number of individuals in these categories would prevent reliable predictions of publication rates. t These entries were outside the range of the data, making the extrapolated predictions unreliable.

authors, on average, than females. After closer analysis of these data, the authors found that this apparent difference may be attributable to the difference between the sexes in positions and years of experience. Alternatively, the difference might be caused by the effects of two individuals who had unusually large publication records (fifty-two publications for one, thirty-two for the other), which were atypical with respect to the rest of the data. The change of deviance is used to test for the importance of the gender term in the generalized linear model (Table 2). If the variables of position and years of experience are ignored, the change of deviance for gender, 27.49, is large when compared with the appropriate chi-square percentile of 3.84. This would seem to indicate that gender is a very important factor in predicting rates of publication. However, it is misleading to ignore the variables of position and years of experience. The effects of position and years of experience were controlled by entering these terms into the model before testing for the importance of gender. After controlling for the effects of these variables, the change of deviance, 3.3, is no longer statistically significant. This indicates that a more reasonable explanation for the gender difference is that the sexes differed in position and experience. When comparing the publication rates of males and females who have been in the profession the same length of time, and who hold comparable positions, there does not appear to be any difference in publication rates. Another explanation for the apparent gender effect is that it reflects the influence of the two atypical individuals. Eliminating these individuals results in a similar drop in the change of deviance for gender to 1.2, which is insignificant even without controlling for the confounding effects of position or years of experience. The model for predicting mean publication rates, therefore, does not include gender. In addition to the Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991

main effects of position and years of experience, the interaction involving these two variables was also significant. The influence of these variables on publication rate is summarized by Table 2. Notice that although publication rates increased with years of experience, the increase is not identical for each position. The increase is smallest for the head of department or specialized library position, and largest for the associate director position. It should be emphasized that Table 2 is a model that can be used to predict average publication rates for individuals, whether male or female, in the listed positions. The estimates of publication rates are reliable, provided the positions and years of experience categories are within the ranges of positions and years of experience that were actually observed. For instance, in the position of collection development/ acquisitions librarian, individuals had two to eight years of experience. Consequently, estimates of publication outside the limits of two and eight years constitute extrapolations of the model and are unreliable. In another example, no one in the study became an associate director with fewer than two years of experience; therefore, the expected publication rate of 3.4 for no years of experience is suspect. For most of the positions except heads of departments/specialized libraries and reference librarians, estimates for years of experience exceeding thirteen were extrapolations. Although some of the predictions associated with a larger number of years in the profession must be viewed with a little skepticism, the use of modelbased predictions is preferred to predictions based on raw data, because random fluctuations have been removed, exposing the publication pattern revealed by the Poisson regression model analysis.

Educational background: bachelor's degrees The survey included questions about respondents' baccalaureate, library science, and other advanced de171

Mularski and Bradigan

Table 3 Subject categories of bachelor's degrees (n = 169)

Category Biosciences/Health Sciences Education English/Journalism Humanities Languages* Ubrary Science Sciences*

Social Sciences Unknown Total

Number of respondents (%)

Number Average of publi- publications cations

(5.9%/6)

44 50 72 20 66

1.6 2.0 2.5 1.7 6.6

[9] [(5.3%)]

[14]

[1.6]

[38]

[4.8]

28 25 29 12 10 4 9

(16.6%) (14.8%) (17.2%) (7.1%) (2.4%) (5.3%)

[8] [(4.70/%)] (27.8%) (3.0%/6)

47 5

169

(100%)

8 70

130 1 461

2.0 7.8

2.8 0.2 2.7

* One prolific author in this category has been removed to compute figures that appear in brackets.

grees. All respondents except one had a master's degree in library science. (This individual's master's degree was in archival studies, an area closely related to library science.) Each bachelor's degree was assigned to one of the eight subject categories listed in Table 3. The authors established these categories after reviewing all responses. Each subject category was assigned by the first author and then checked by the second author to ensure consistency in assignment of subject categories. The category labelled "Unknown" was used when a respondent did not complete the bachelor's degree question on the survey. As Table 3 indicates, the largest group of respondents (47 or 27.8%) had undergraduate degrees in the social sciences, including such areas as sociology, psy-

The largest group of respondents had undergraduate degrees in the social sciences, including such areas as sociology, psychology, social work, and history. The subject areas of English/journalism, biosciences/health sciences and education represented the second-, third-, and fourth-largest categories of undergraduate majors. chology, social work, and history. The subject areas of English/journalism, biosciences/health sciences (including nursing and allied medicine), and education represented the second-, third-, and fourthlargest categories of undergraduate majors held by 172

the respondents. Subject areas that were less well represented included, in descending order, the humanities, languages, sciences, and library science. Table 3 also identifies the average number of publications produced by each group of undergraduate majors. Respondents with undergraduate degrees in the sciences published the largest average number of items (7.8 per respondent). One author in the sciences was a recent library science graduate who previously worked in the information industry. This individual wrote thirty-two publications prior to obtaining the master's degree in library science and working in an academic health sciences library (one of the "atypical" individuals mentioned earlier). Even when this author is removed from the group of respondents with undergraduate degrees in the sciences, the group remains among the top two most prolific in this study, with 4.8 publications per respondent. Respondents with undergraduate degrees in the languages were the second most prolific authors, with an average publication rate of 6.6 per respondent in ten years. It must be pointed out, however, that one author in this group accounted for fifty-two publications (the other "atypical" individual). If this individual is removed from the languages group, their average number of publications per respondent drops to 1.6, which falls slightly below all other groups. The average number of publications per respondent for all remaining groups ranged from 2.8 to 1.6 in ten years. It is interesting to note that those librarians with undergraduate degrees in the social sciences, the largest group from this aspect of the survey, published slightly above the average number of publications per librarian. Librarians with a social sciences background published an average of 2.8 publications per respondent over the ten-year period, whereas the average for all respondents in the survey was 2.7.

Educational background: advanced degrees In a 1977 investigation of five years (1969-1974) of academic librarians' journal publications, Watson found that almost 60% of all articles were published by authors who had a subject master's or doctoral degree in addition to a library science degree [18]. In the present study, twenty-eight respondents (16.6%) had advanced degrees (Table 4). This group was responsible for 124 (26.9%) of the 461 publications and averaged 4.4 publications per respondent. Five respondents with doctorates (3%) were responsible for 59 (12.8%) of the publications, averaging 11.8 publications each. The 141 librarians (83.4%) who did not hold a subject master's or doctoral degree produced 337 (73.1%) of the publications, an average of 2.4 publications per respondent. Their peers in the Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) Apr 1991

Publication patterns Table 4 Non-library science advanced degrees (n = 169)

Table 5 Publication by geographic distribution: Olsgaard and Adamson comparisons* (n = 169)

Respondents holding Respondents holding any advanced degree doctoral degree Number Publications Average publications

(%)

(%)

28(16.6%) 124(26.9%) [Watson: 60Yo] 4.4

5(3.0%) 59 (12.8%) [Watson: 25%] 11.8

1977 study produced, according to Watson's data, a little over 40% of the published output. It would appear, therefore, that although individuals with advanced degrees are more prolific as authors, academic health sciences librarians without additional degrees are responsible for more publications, as a group, than their peers in general academic institutions. Conversely, academic health sciences librarians with additional master's or doctoral degrees, as a group, produce a lower percentage of the total publications than their peers in general academic institutions. However, this statement cannot be generalized, since the present study covers a ten-year period from 1979-1989, whereas the Watson data were collected for a five-year period from 1969-1974. Also, the data in the two studies were collected using dif-

ferent methodologies.

Although individuals with advanced degrees are more prolific as authors, academic health sciences librarians without additional degrees are responsible for more publications, as a group, than their peers in general academic institutions.

Publication productivity by U.S. regions: Olsgaard comparison Table 6 of the Olsgaard and Olsgaard paper [19] compared academic librarians' research productivity in five library journals by five regions of the country: Northeast: Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, D.C., Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont; Southeast: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin; Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991

Region Northeast (Olsgaard) (Adamson) Southeast

(Olsgaard) (Adamson) Midwest

(Olsgaard) (Adamson) Southwest (Olsgaard) (Adamson) West (Olsgaard) (Adamson) Total or average *

Number of respondents (%)

Publications Average Number per ro(%) spondent

35 (20.7%) 162 (35.1%) [31.7%]

34(20.1%)

[37.1%] 39 (8.5%)

[10.3%] [12.5%] 47(27.8%) 148(32.1%) [32.2%] [30.0%] 24(14.2%) 30(6.5%) [6.2%] [8.6%] 29(17.2%) 82(17.8%) [19.6%] [11.8%]

169(100%) 461 (100%o)

Authors Average number Number of publ(%) cations

4.6

18 (20.9%)

9.0

1.2

16 (18.6%)

2.4

3.2

24 (27.9%)

6.2

1.3

11 (12.8%)

2.7

2.8

17(19.8%)

4.8

2.7

86(100%)

5.4

Data taken from Olsgaard and Olsgaard, 1980; Adamson and Zamora, 1981.

Southwest: Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; and West: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. The Olsgaards found rates of productivity to be highest in the Northeast and Midwest, and lowest in the Southwest. Adamson and Zamora tested the Olsgaards' method using five special libraries journals (including the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association) and confirmed the Olsgaards' findings with regard to geographic distribution of special librarians' publication productivity [20]. It was of interest to determine if the rates of productivity for the different parts of the country were similar in the present study, even though the methods of study differed (direct journal analysis in Olsgaard and Adamson versus survey research in the present study). Using the random number method, between 31.2% and 37.8% of each region was sampled, for a total sample of 34.4% of the U.S. population. Response to the surveys from each region ranged from 60.3% to 74.6% of the total number of surveys sent to individuals in each region. Table 5 shows the results of the survey by the five regions. The numbers in brackets under the "Publications" column come from Table 6 of the Olsgaards' paper [21] and Adamson's Table 3 data for the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association [22] and are included for easy comparison purposes. (The authors 173

Mularski and Bradigan

Table 6 Publication by geographic area (n = 169) Publications Area

Number of respondents (%)

Number

(%)

Mid-Atlantic 22 (13.0%) 89 (19.3%) Midcontinental 12 (7.1%) 39 (8.5%) Midwest 37(21.9%) 115 (25.0%) North Atlantic 23 (13.6%) 91(19.7%) Pacific Northwest 41 (8.9%) 9(5.3%) South Central 21(12.4%) 27(5.9%) Southern 23(13.6%) 21(4.6%) Western 22(13.0%) 38(8.2%) Total or Average 169 (100%) 461 (100%)

Average per respondent

Authors Average number Number of publi(%) catons

4.0

14 (16.3%)

6.4

3.3 3.1

8 (9.3%) 17 (19.8%)

4.9 6.8

4.0

10 (11.6%)

9.1

4.6

5(5.8%)

8.2

1.3 0.9 1.7

10 (11.6%) 10 (11.6%) 12 (14.0%)

2.7 2.1 3.2

2.7

86(100%)

5.4

assume that the Adamson data allow the closest comparison to the population of the present study.) According to the results of this survey, the academic health sciences librarians from the Northeast portion of the United States were the most productive (35.1% of the publications, averaging 4.6 publications per respondent), followed closely by the Midwest librarians (32.1%, and an average of 3.2 publications per respondent). Least productive was the Southwest region (6.5% of the publications, and 1.3 average publications per respondent). These results closely follow both the Olsgaard and Adamson findings. However, in computing the number of individuals who actually wrote at least one paper from 1979 to the present, it was found that the Midwest health sciences librarians were most productive, with 24 (27.9%) of the 86 authors in the survey. One should note, in this regard, that the Midwest had the highest percentage of respondents to the survey (27.8%), which may account for the greater number of authors who came from this area. Again, the Southwest region produced the fewest librarian authors, with only 11 (12.8%) coming from that part of the country.

Publication productivity by U.S. regions Another comparison can be drawn in regard to regional divisions of the country. The MLA has a number of chapters; as this survey was sent to members of MLA, it was of interest also to compute results for these chapters. However, since some of the chapters cover small (albeit heavily populated) areas of the country, these chapters were combined into eight larger geographic areas: Mid-Atlantic: Mid-Atlantic, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh Chapters (Delaware, Maryland, North Caro174

lina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, D.C., West Virginia); Midcontinental: Midcontinental Chapter (Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming); Midwest: Midwest Chapter (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin); North Atlantic: New York/New Jersey, North Atlantic, and Upstate New York and Ontario Chapters (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont); Pacific Northwest: Pacific Northwest Chapter (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington); South Central: South Central Chapter (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma; Texas); Southern: Southern Chapter (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee); and Western: Hawaii, Northern California and Nevada, Southern California and Arizona Chapters (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada). The Midwest had the largest number of MLA members who were academic librarians (127 or 17.2%), and the Pacific Northwest the lowest (24 or 3.2%). Response rates from each of the divisions ranged from a low of 59% to a high of 78.8%. When the respondents were separated by region, the Midwest librarians were the most productive, with 25% of the publications (Table 6). The Southern area was the least productive, with 4.6% of the publications. The Pacific Northwest librarians had the highest average of publications per respondent (4.6), and the Southern respondents had the lowest (0.9). Once again the Midwest had the highest number of authors (seventeen) from the survey. Faculty status and publication The relationship between faculty status and publication has been discussed by Watson [23], English [24], and most recently by Budd and Seavey [25]. Watson surveyed authors of scholarly articles published in eleven different library journals and then determined the twenty most productive libraries. Relying in part upon data from English, Watson found that, of the top twenty most productive academic libraries, 42% of them provided "not only the benefits of faculty status to librarians but also impose its requirements upon them" [26]. Watson summarized the results by saying, Among the most productive libraries, librarians who do not have faculty status seem to publish at about the same rate as librarians at institutions where librarians do have faculty status. Still, based on English's data on criteria, it appears that the requirement to publish serves, not surprisingly, as a strong incentive to do so [27].

Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991

Publication patterns

Budd and Seavey, who studied academic librarian publications in thirty-six journals, found there seemed to be "a disparity in the rhetoric of the requirements for promotion and tenure and the performance exhibited by the librarians in the institutions with faculty or academic status" [28]. The relationship between faculty status and publication activity from the present study is shown in Table 7. Eighty-two of the 169 respondents did not have faculty status. A total of 87 respondents had faculty status and 35 of these 87 had positions that required publication. Individuals holding faculty status produced 60.3% of the publications, and 39.7% were produced by academic health sciences librarians without faculty status. It is interesting to note that only 19.1% of the total number of publications in this survey were written by librarians who stated that publication was required for them. Although the requirement to publish would seem to be an incentive to do so, a large number (80.9%) of academic health sciences librarians in this survey published despite the lack of a publication requirement. These findings are consistent with those of Watson and Budd and Seavey; however, the effect of publication requirements on rates of publication should be studied further.

Individuals holding faculty status produced 60.3% of the publications, and 39.7% were produced by academic health sciences librarians without faculty status. It is interesting to note that only 19.1% of the total number of publications in this survey were written by librarians who stated that publication was required for them.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS According to the results of this survey, U.S. academic health sciences librarians who are members of MLA published an average of 2.7 publications per individual over a ten-year span. Most authors majored in the sciences, social sciences, or English/journalism as undergraduates. A majority of authors did not have second master's or doctoral degrees. When considering factors of position and professional maturity, there is not a significant difference in the publication rates of male and female academic health sciences librarians. Most authors held administrative or supervisory positions, and most publications were produced by authors who lived in the Northeast and Midwest regions of the country. Finally, the presence or abBull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991

Table 7 Faculty status and publication (n = 169) Number of publications

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 1 0 or more Total

Number of publications Average publications

Faculty,

Faculty,

publication

publication

Nonfaculty (%)

not required (%)

required (%)

Total (%)

42 (51.2%) 14 (17.1%) 6 (7.3%) 5(6.1%) 4(4.9%) 4(4.9%) 2 (2.4%) 0 0 0 5 (6.1%) 82 (100%)

29 (55.8%) 3 (5.8%) 3(5.8%) 3(5.8%) 4(7.7%) 0 1 (1.9%) 0 2 (3.8%) 1 (1.9%) 6 (11.5%) 52 (100%)

12 (34.3%) 5 (14.3%) 5 (14.3%) 1 (2.9%) 3 (8.6%) 3 (8.6%) 3(8.6%) 0 2 (5.7%) 1 (2.9%) 0 35 (100%)

83 (49.1%) 22 (13.0%) 14 (8.3%) 9(5.3%) 11 (6.5%) 7 (4.1%) 6(3.6%) 0 4(2.4%) 2 (1.2%) 11(6.5%) 169(100%)

183 (39.7%)

190 (41.2%)

88 (19.1%)

461 (100%)

2.2

3.7

2.5

2.7

sence of a publication requirement in the librarians' institutions appears to have had little impact, as many academic health sciences librarians published even though it was not required of them. In future studies, it would be desirable to sample the population by positions held in order to get a better representation of librarians in nonsupervisory positions. If a consistent method could be devised, non-MLA members who are academic health sciences librarians should be surveyed. The genders, positions, and regions of academic librarians who have published in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association or the Medical Reference Services Quarterly could be analyzed, as well as subject content and the ratio of "practice" to "research" papers. Types of publications written by these librarians-proceedings, journal articles, monographs, and chapters of monographs-could be tabulated. During the analysis of the survey used in this study, the authors noted the appearance of the respondents as authors in health sciences and other subject publications, as well as in the library literature. Publication patterns of academic health sciences librarians in nonlibrary publications could also be studied in more detail. Other questions to be researched include: At which types of institutions do librarians publish in the health sciences literature, as opposed to library literature? Why do academic health sciences librarians publish, and what obstacles are there to research and publication in an academic health sciences library environment? Who publishes research articles versus practice-oriented case studies? There is much yet to be studied in the publishing characteristics of this group of librarians. 175

Mularski and Bradigan

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors gratefully acknowledge Ohio State University's Statistical Consulting Service, whose personnel provided assistance in the statistical analysis of the data for this study.

APPENDIX Survey of Academic Health Sciences Librarians' Publications Sex:

Name: Library:

F

Phone no.: (

Institution:

REFERENCES 1. LANDWIRTH TK. Your fair share. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1990 Jan;78(1):69-70. 2. Shaping the future: the strategic plan of the Medical Library Association, 1989 revision. MLA News 1989 Jun/ Jul;(216):15-26. 3. WATSON PD. Publication activity among academic librarians. Coll Res Libr 1977 Sep;38(5):375-84. 4. WATSON PD. Production of scholarly articles by academic librarians and library school faculty. Coll Res Libr 1985 Jul;46(4):334-41. 5. ENGLISH TG. Librarian status in the eighty-nine U.S. academic institutions of the Association of Research Libraries: 1982. Coll Res Libr 1983 May;44(3):199-211. 6. OLSGAARD JN, OLSGAARD JK. Authorship in five library periodicals. Coll Res Libr 1980 Jan;41(1):49-53. 7. ADAMSON MC, ZAMoRA GJ. Publishing in library science journals: a test of the Olsgaard profile. Coll Res Libr 1981 May;42(3):235-41. 8. POWELL RR. Basic research methods for librarians. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1985:81. 9. IBID., 113. 10. Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory 1989-90.28th ed. New York: Bowker, 1989. 1 1. NEWCOMER AP, PISCIOTTA RA. Career progression of academic medical library directors. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1989 Apr;77(2):185-95. 12. 1989 Membership Directory. Public Services Section, Medical Library Association. Rockford, IL: The Section, 1989. 13. Directory of Library and Information Professionals. Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications, 1988. 14. WATSON 1977, op. cit., 377. 15. OLSGAARD, op. cit., 50-1. 16. ADAMSON, op. cit., 237-8. 17. MCCULLAGH P, NELDER JA. Generalized linear models. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1983. 18. WATSON 1977, op. cit., 379. 19. OLSGAARD, op. cit., 52. 20. ADAMSON, op. cit., 235. 21. OLSGAARD, Op. cit., 52. 22. ADAMSON, op. cit., 239. 23. WATSON 1985, op. cit., 334. 24. ENGLISH, op. cit., 199. 25. BUDD JM, SEAVEY CA. Characteristics of journal authorship by academic librarians. Coll Res Libr 1990 Sep;51(5): 463-70. 26. WATSON 1985, op. cit., 339. 27. IBm., 341. 28. BUDD, Op. cit., 469.

Received April 1990; accepted November 1990 176

Library address:

Working title (e.g., Head of Reference; Reference Libn.) How long? Academic title (e.g., Assistant Professor; Librarian I) How

long? How long have you been employed as a librarian?

Do you have faculty status?

Yes

--No

If yes, are you required to do research and publication? Yes

No

Please provide educational history: Degree Subject area (e.g., B.A.; M.L.S.) Bachelor's degree:

Library science degree: Other master's degree: Doctoral degree: Would you like to receive a copy of the results of this survey? Yes

--No

If you have authored journal articles, monographs, or chapters of monographs, please provide the information requested on the reverse. If not, stop here and return this survey in the enclosed

stamped envelope. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have an up-to-date publication sheet with information about your publications, please enclose it with this survey. If not, please provide full bibliographic information for all journal articles, monographs, or chapters of monographs you have authored from 1979 to the present. Include information on accepted articles and in-press monographs also. Attach additional pages if needed. Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991

Publication patterns Please do not include editorships, book reviews, or in-house newsletters.

Journal articles:

Thank you for your cooperation. Please return this survey form in the enclosed stamped envelope by July 14, 1989.

Carol Mularski & Pamela Bradigan Ohio State University Health Sciences Library 376 West 10th Avenue Columbus, OH 43210-1240 (614) 292-9810

Monographs:

Chapters of monographs:

FROM THE BULLETIN- 75 YEARS AGO

The medical library of the University of Michigan By Alfred Scott Warthin, Ph.D., M.D., Professor of Pathology and Director

of the Pathological Laboratories in the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor It must be emphasized here that the full importance of the Medical Library of the University of Michigan can be realized only when it is considered in its relation to the University General Library of 352,718 volumes (1915) of which it forms an integral part. From the medical collection proper are excluded many journals in chemistry, physics, pharmacy, sanitary engineering, anthropology, botany, biology, psychology, psychiatry, dentistry, sociology, etc., that should be included in any medical library built up as a complete unit separated from such affiliations with other departmental libraries. The Chemical Library, the General Science Library, that of the College of Dentistry, the collection in the Psychopathic Hospital, etc., as well as a library of several thousand volumes in the School of Homeopathy greatly increase, if not double, the accessible library content of medical material. Were these counted as a part of the medical book material, as they practically are, this library would stand in the sixth rank of American medical libraries. It has always been the policy of the library authorities to discourage the purchase of duplicates out of any library appropriations, hence the distribution among these various departments of the journals most suited to their needs. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1916 Oct;6(2):49-50

Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991

177

Academic health sciences librarians' publication patterns.

This study examines the publication patterns of U.S. academic health sciences librarians. A survey was sent to a random sample of Medical Library Asso...
2MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views