I would now like to respond to the examiner's specific comments under research findings, using the headings in the report.
The advantages of e-journals were drawn from previous research, although Olsen's results about the desirability of annotation and browsing were not listed on the form. This was because of a desire to keep the survey instrument short to improve response rates. I agree that the case studies evidence is second-hand, but seemed a reasonable interpretation of the data. Were I rewriting the thesis, the new software comments under Other Insights might be relocated.
I agree that the data on e-journal functions could have been improved, but the focus of the EPICentre work was on e-journal form .
I agree that it would have been valuable to probe respondents further on the roles of libraries versus other stakeholders but this was not part of the brief for this piece of VALA-sponsored research.
When asking scholars about their e-journal practices, I did not pursue the question of why they did or did not publish as this issue has been adequately covered in other published research on this topic.
Last modified: Monday, 11-Dec-2017 14:38:17 AEDT
© Andrew Treloar, 2001. * http://andrew.treloar.net/ * email@example.com