Journal of the Medical Library Association readership survey

Abstract

Every few years, MLA conducts a survey of the readership of the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA). Regular evaluation of the JMLA is required by the association, and this survey is an important part of that process. In October 2012, the survey was sent by email to a random sample of 1,200 Medical Library Association members and nonmember subscribers, and 518 responded. The results are very encouraging. Over 60% of respondents said they read something in every issue of the JMLA; a full 90% reported that they read something at least once a year. This compares favorably to respondents' reports of how often they read other library journals: 54% said they read something in Medical Reference Services Quarterly at least once a year, and a little over 30% said they read something that often in College and Research Libraries, the Journal of Academic Librarianship, and the Journal of Hospital Librarianship. A majority of respondents who read the JMLA thought that the JMLA was better than average in terms of all the qualities listed (timeliness, authoritative information, evidence-based information, relevance, readability, practical information, and value in professional development). The poorest scores were received for readability (Worse than average = 4%) and practical information (Worse than average = 7%). Sixty percent to 70% of those who read the JMLA said that items they had recently read helped them with work-related issues, provided useful information, had practical applications and information not found elsewhere, and contributed to their professional development. Slightly fewer (50%) said it helped them with research. When asked to indicate the topics of the items read, technology was the most frequently chosen topic (67%), followed by instruction (63%) and user behavior (57%). Interlibrary loan, acquisitions and licensing, and bibliometrics were the lowest scoring topics, chosen by approximately 20% of respondents (respondents could select more than 1 option). For the most part, a majority of respondents indicated that the current distribution of sections was “about right.” However, more than a third wanted more electronic resource reviews and case studies, and 10%–11% wanted fewer full-length research papers and book reviews. The percentage recommending elimination of any section was less than 1%, with the exception of book reviews (4%). Between 18% and 11% of responses to all choices for this question was “no opinion,” possibly because these respondents do not regularly look at the section listed. A look at statistics supplied by PubMed Central confirms readers' continuing interest in material published in the JMLA (a word of caution: some fraction of these numbers may represent harvesters rather than actual viewers). We published 18 brief communications in 2012; in the first 4 months after publication, the average brief communication received 170 full-text views and 70 portable document format (PDF) downloads. We published 8 case studies; these received, on average, 299 full-text views and 120 PDF downloads. The 12 full-length research papers had 365 full-text views and 168 PDF downloads. The 4 papers invited for our special issue were clearly of interest as well: 279 full-text views and 124 PDF downloads. By far the most frequently read paper online was the 2011 Janet Doe Lecture by T. Scott Plutchak, AHIP: 6,046 full-text views and 1,308 PDF downloads in just the first 4 months after it appeared! Thank you to everyone who took the time to participate in our readership survey. We will continue to analyze the results so that we can do an even better job of meeting your needs. Sixty-three percent of respondents said that the JMLA is one of the top three to five most important programs or projects provided by the Medical Library Association. We will be working hard to live up to user expectations.