Due to the growth and expansion of the Internet, resources in electronic form are becoming important information sources for users. Libraries are trying their best to make available the information embedded in e-resources so as to satisfy various information needs of their users. E-journals, among the various forms of e-resources are currently getting a great deal of attention. These have revolutionised the ways in which scholarly information is being communicated and accessed. These bring enormous benefits to there users including their easy accessibility, affordability, space management and potential for quick and easy submission of articles for consideration of publication. E-journals gradually are moving towards an acceptable and necessary tool for retrieving scholarly information.

Electronic journals or e-journals may be described broadly as journals, magazines, e-zine, web-zine, newsletter or type of electronic serial publications available over the Internet and can be accessed using different technologies such as www, gopher, ftp, telnet, e-mail, or listservs. Gail Macmillan has defined e-journal as “any serial produced, published and distributed nationally and internationally via electronic networks such as Bitnet and Internet” (Macmillan, 1991). According to Harrods's Librarians Glossary, an e-journal is “a journal which is available in electronic format; a physical printed version may also be available” (Prytherch, 2005). David Pullinger and Brain Shakil have defined e-journals as “those whose text materials are directly entered by file transfer from a computer or by other transfer in a machine-readable form, whose editorial processes are facilitated by computer and whose articles are available in electronic form to the reader” (Pullinger and Brain, 1990). According to Rustad, “an electronic journal is a periodical – regular or irregular –and moderated unit made available in an electronic format, either on a static medium or via computer networks” (Rustad, 2009).

E-journal, hence, is a term used to describe a journal that is published in digital form to be displayed on a computer screen.

To access the usage of electronic journals, Rogers (2001) in a case study at Ohio State University noted the increased use of e-journals and decreased use of printed journals by the faculty and the graduate students during 1998 to 2000. His study revealed that 41% of the faculty and 25% of graduate students found 24 hour availability and easy access as the major advantages of e-journals. Groote and Dorsch (2001) reported in their article entitled ‘On line journals: impact on print journal usage’ that usage of print journals at the University of Illinois, Chicago has decreased significantly after the introduction of online journals.’ Brennan and others (2002)in their study at the University of Illinois, Chicago entitled ‘A snapshot of early adopters of e-journals: Challenges to the library’ revealed that all the faculty members, read electronic journals at least weekly and many used them on a daily basis. They stated that the users of e-journals accepted them because they see more advantages of e-journals including time saving, ease of use and powerful searching capabilities.

Bonthron and others (2003) in their paper indicated that academic staff incorporates electronic journal usage into their working patterns and this in turn affects the users’ attitude towards such journals. The study also revealed that the students’ awareness about the e-journals is increasing day by day. Mounissamy, Kaliammal and Swaroop (2005) in their article entitled ‘User's attitude towards electronic journal’ revealed that 45.5% respondents’ access e-journals once a week, 47.7% of the respondents use the college computer laboratory to access electronic journals. They stated that younger generations in India have accepted the digital reading culture early. Mohamed and Sreelatha (2006) in their study revealed that 48.83% of researchers of Calicut University use e-journals everyday and 93.40% users access e-journals from the INFONET centre established for accessing e-journals in library rather than from any other place. Zainab and others (2007), examined the use of electronic journals through EJUM (Electronic Journal of the University of Malaya) and noted that the electronic journals are used for searching new information, reading full-text articles as well as abstracts, and browsing the table of contents.

The research survey was undertaken with the following objectives in mind:

1. To find out frequency of using e-journals.

2. To study comparative usage of print verses electronic journals.

3. To find out the hindrances and problems faced by the users while accessing and using electronic journals.

4. To rate the various key advantages of electronic journals

5. To study the preference level of using the journals.

6. To suggest measures for improvement of the use of e-journals.

It is anticipated that the present study will help other institutions to understand the need of library electronic journals and motivate them to update their services in the larger interest of the users be it students, faculty and research scholars. Data was collected through a well structured questionnaire.

The study assessed the user preference in formats of print and electronic journals from students and faculty as provided by their respective university libraries. The study included the following four university libraries in Punjab and Chandigarh:

1. Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU), Amritsar.

2. Panjab University (PU), Chandigarh.

3. Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana.

4. Punjabi University, Patiala.

Table 1 represents the general information related to university libraries of Guru Nanak Dev University, Panjab University, Punjab Agricultural University and Punjabi university. Data shows that library of Panjab University, that is, A.C. Joshi Library is one of the oldest library in the region, followed by Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha Data collected were analysed and inferences made based on standard statistical techniques. Analysis of data obtained through the questionnaire provided an in depth interpretation for fulfilling the six research objectives. The total 500 questionnaires were distributed on random basis after deciding a sample size of 125 users from each university. Out of 500 questionnaires distributed, 480 questionnaires were received back which accounts for 96% response rate from all the four universities.

Figure 1 indicates that a total of 480 users were surveyed, which included 234 males and 246 females. The figure depicts that the overall response rate is more for females as compared with male respondents which is 51.25% and 48.75% respectively.

Data presented in Figure 2 shows that the majority of users surveyed were from the age group of 23–27 years, 52.46% in PUC, 43.23% in PAU, 33.33% in PUP and 34.17% in GNDU. In the age group of 28–32 years, there were 17 (13.94%) respondents from PUC, 28 (23.73%) respondents from PAU, 34 (28.33%) respondents from PUP and 40(33.33%) respondents from GNDU. Whereas within the age group of 18–22 years, 20(16.67%) respondents were from PUP followed by 18(14.75%) respondents from PUC, 15(12.71%) respondents from PAU and 10(8.33%) respondents from GNDU. In the age group of 33–37 years, there were 11 (9.01%) respondents from PUC, 12(10.17%) respondents from PAU, 15(12.6%) respondents from PUP and 20, that is,16.67% respondents from GNDU. In the age groups of 38–42 years, there were 8 (6.56%) respondents from PUC, 7 (5.93%) respondents from PAU, 7 (5.83%) respondents from PUP and 5(4.17%) respondents from GNDU. Within the age group of 43–47 years, there were only 17 users from all the four universities, which is 3.55% of the total population studied.

Figure 3 reveals the qualifications possessed by the users under studied. Out of the 480 users surveyed, 44(9.17%) users were undergraduates, 124 (25.83%) were postgraduates, and 52 (10.83%) users were M.Phil students, while 198 (41.25%) of them were doing research and 62 (12.92%) were faculty members of different departments. Overall responses were highest from research scholars that is, 41.25%. 74 (62.71%) respondents from PAU, 48 (39.34%) respondents from PUC, 42 (35%) respondents from GNDU and 34 (28.33%) users from PUP were pursuing their doctorate studies. Whereas 31.67%, 27.88%, 26.67% and 16.94% respondents from GNDU, PUC, PUP and PAU respectively were doing their masters in various disciplines and using electronic journals. There is no M.Phil course in PAU hence there was no user in this category from PAU, whereas 20.83%, 12.5% and 9.83% of respondents of M.Phil were from PUP, GNDU and PUC respectively and 13.11% respondents from PUC, 10% respondents from GNDU, followed by 8.33% respondents from PUP and 5.09% of respondents from PAU were students of undergraduate courses. The faculty members of different universities were 19 (15.84%) from PUP, 18 (15.26%) from PAU, 13 (10.83%) from GNDU and 12 (9.84%) from PUC. The overall analysis reveals that majority of the users surveyed (41.25%) belonged to the research community, followed by the postgraduates (25.83%), faculty (12.92%), M.Phil students (10.83%) and the undergraduate students (9.17%).

Figure 4 depicts the study streams of the users included in the study. The study streams were divided in four streams, that is, Applied Sciences, Basic Sciences, Social Sciences and Arts. 77.97%, 31.14%, 25% and 14.16% respondents from PAU, PUC, PUP and GNDU respectively were related with Applied Sciences of the study, which gives overall percentage of 36.88%. 35.84% respondents from GNDU, 34.42% respondents from PUC and 29.16% respondents from PUP were studying Basic Sciences. Since Basic Sciences and Social Sciences are not studied in PAU hence there were no users from PAU under these streams. This makes overall percentage of 25% of Basic Sciences respondents. Whereas 31.67% respondents from GNDU, 30.84% respondents from PUP and 19.68% respondents from PU were from social sciences and 22.03%, 18.33%, 15% and 14.76% respondents from PAU, GNDU, PUP and PUC respectively were from the Arts stream thereby making the overall percentage of 20.62% and 17.5% for Social Science and Arts streams respectively.

Figure 5 enumerates the advantageous features of print journals as rated by the users. Three options; Irrelevant, Neutral and Very Important were given to users. Figure 6 reveals that 43.33% of users felt that there is no archival problem with printed journals, whereas 26.67% of users found this feature irrelevant and 30% of users were neutral about this feature. 300 (62.5%) respondents found ‘issues readily available in the library’ in case of print journals as irrelevant. On the other hand, 25% of the users found it as very important. 35% of users found that paper copies are easy to read. Portability of the printed journals was ranked very important by 30% of users, whereas 52.5% of users were neutral about this feature and 17.5% of the users found it irrelevant.

Figure 6 depicts that in spite of e-journals being omnipresent, print journals have not lost their importance. It is clear that most of the respondents from PUC and GNDU, that is, 46(38.33%) read 3–5 articles from printed journals in a week, followed by 43 (36.44%) in PAU and 30 (24.6%) in PUC. 47 (38.52%) users from PUC read 1–2 articles in a week, followed by 44 (37.29%) users from PAU, 41(34.17%) users from PUP, 16(13.33%) users from GNDU. 37 (30.84%) users from GNDU, 23 (18.85%) users from PUC, 22 (18.33%) users from PUP followed by 16 (13.56%) users from PAU expressed that they read 6–10 articles in a week from the printed journals. 11 (9.17%) users from PUP read 11–20 articles from the printed journals in a week. The overall analysis reveals that 34.37% respondents read 3–5 articles, followed by 30.83% respondents who read 1–2 articles in a week, 20.42% respondents who consult 6–10 articles, 14.38% respondents who read 11–20 articles from printed journals in a week.

Figure 7 depicts the change in the reading behaviour of respondents for reading printed journals, whether the frequency of reading printed articles has increased or decreased or remained the same after the introduction of e-journals during the last one year. Data reveals that 49 (40.16%) respondents from PUC, 46 (39.98%) respondents from PAU, 45 (37.5%) respondents from GNDU and 42 (35%) respondents from PUP agreed that their frequency of reading printed journals has decreased. 50 (40.98%) respondents from PUC, and 44 (36.67%) respondents from PUP found no change during the last one year in reading printed journals. Whereas 49 (40.83%) respondents from GNDU and 41 (34.75%) respondents from PAU found an increase in the reading articles from printed journals but the overall analysis shows that 37.91% of users indicated a decrease in consulting print journals, 31.46% of users found it same, followed by 30.62% of users who found an increase in reading printed articles after the introduction of e-journals.

Figure 8 indicates the frequency of using e-journals by the respondents. It is clear from the figure that 40.98% of users from PUC, 36.44% of users from PAU, 41.67% of users from PUP and 45% of users from GNDU access e-journals 2–3 times in a week. 33(27.05%), 21(17.8%), 24(20%) and 26(21.67%) users from PUC, PAU, PUP, GNDU respectively, use e-journals daily. Whereas 21(17.21%) respondents from PUC, 26(22.03%) respondents from PAU, 17(14.16%) respondents from PUP and 17(14.16%) respondents from GNDU access e-journals occasionally. 24.17% users from PUP consult e-journals once in a week, followed by 23.72% users from PAU, 19.17% users from GNDU and 14.76% users from PUC. The overall analysis reveals that majority of respondents, that is, 41.04% access e-journals 2-3times in a week, followed by 21.67% of respondents, who use e-journals daily, 20.41% of respondents’ who access e-journals once in a week, followed by 16.88% of respondents who access e-journals occasionally.

In Figure 9, key advantages of accessing electronic journals as were indicated by the users are given. Three options, that is, Irrelevant, Neutral and Very Important were given to users. The above figure shows that 71.25% users rated easy accessibility of e-journals as the most important advantage of e-journals. Easy search and 24/7 availability of e-journals are rated very important by 70% of users. Hyperlinks are rated as very important by 68.92% of users. E-journals can be ‘access from different locations’, found very important by 65% users. Out of 480, 173 respondents were neutral about the feature, ‘availability from desktop.’ 33.75% users and 30% users were neutral about the ‘archival facility’ and ‘full text availability’, features respectively. 26.04% users have rated ‘speed of publication’ feature as neutral. 23.96% users found ‘on screen reading’ of e-journals an irrelevant feature. ‘Downloading’ feature of e-journals was rated irrelevant by 17.5% users. ‘Graphic capabilities’ of e-journals was found irrelevant by 16.04% of users.

Figure10 depicts that 46 (37.70%) users from PUC, 41 (34.75%) users from PAU, followed by 39 (32.5%) respondents from GNDU, 34 (28.33%) respondents from PUP read 3–5 articles from the e-journals in a week. 43 (36.44%) respondents from PAU, 40 (32.79%) respondents from PUC, 33 (27.5%) respondents from PUP and 19 (15.83%) respondents from GNDU read only 1–2 electronic articles in a week. 43 (35.83%) respondents from GNDU, followed by 32 (26.67%) respondents from PUP, followed by 20 (16.94%) respondents from PAU, 20 (16.39%) respondents from PUC, read 6–10 electronic articles in a week. Whereas only 14 (11.87%) users from PAU, 16 (13.12%) users from PUC, 19 (15.84%) users from GNDU and 21 (17.5%) users from PUP read 11–20 articles from e-journals per week. The overall analysis reveal that 33.33% respondents read 3–5 articles, followed by 28.12% respondents who read 1–2 articles in a week, 23.96% respondents who read 6–10 articles, followed by 14.59% respondents who consult 11–20 articles from e-journals in a week.

Figure 11 depicts the change in reading behaviour of respondents for accessing e-journals, whether the quantity of reading electronic articles has increased or decreased or remained the same during the last one year (2009–2010). 51 (41.8%) respondents from PUC, 54 (45%) respondents from PUP, 37 (31.35%) respondents from PAU and 49 (40.83%) respondents from GNDU, noted that reading electronic journals has increased during the last one year. On the other hand, 41 (34.17%) respondents from GNDU, followed by 36 (29.5%) respondents from PUC and 29 (24.58%) respondents from PAU, 23 (19.17%) respondents from PUP expressed that the use of e-journals has decreased in the last one year. 35(28.7%), 52(44.07%), 43(35.83%), 30(25%) respondents from the universities of PUC, PAU, PUP and GNDU respectively feel that the frequency is same as that of the last one year. The overall data reveals that 191 users out of 480, that is, 39.79% found an increase in reading the e-journals in the last one year, followed by 160 respondents, that is, 33.33% who indicated that there is neither an increase nor a decrease in reading from e-journals and 129 respondents, that is, 26.88% feel a decrease in the frequency of using e-journals during the last one year.

Even though e-journals are a very important source of information, there are some problems faced by the users. Lack of infrastructure, lack of training, difficult to read from screen, and so on are some of them. Figure 12 reveals that 53.28% users from PUC, 43.22% respondents from PAU, 47.5% users from PUP and 51.67% respondents from GNDU found lack of training as the major problem for not using or less usage of e-journals. 35.59% respondents from PAU found e-journals are difficult to read from screen, followed by 30.83% respondents from GNDU, 29.5% of respondents from PUC and 28.33% users from PUP. Only 10.16% respondents from PAU and 11.67% respondents from PUP rated e-journals ‘unorganised’ as the hindrance for not using e-journals. 19.17% respondents from GNDU and 12.29% respondents from PUC found e-journals are not easy to use. 28.81% respondents from PAU gave preference to print journals, followed by PUC, GNDU, and PUP which are 24.59%, 24.17% and 21.67% respectively. Lack of infrastructure for accessing e-journals was also found to be a barrier by 31.35% respondents from PAU, 26.67% respondents from GNDU, followed by respondents from PUC and PUP which are 24.6% and 22.5% respectively. The overall analysis reveals that 235 respondents out of 480 found lack of training as the main hindrance, 31.04% respondents found that e-journals are difficult to read from screen, 26.25% users found lack of infrastructure as the main barrier for not using e-journals. 24.8% respondents gave preference to print journals, followed by 20% respondents who found e-journals are not easy to use, 13.33% respondents found e-journals as unorganised.

A preferential analysis was conducted to check users’ preference to print or electronic journals. Figure13 indicates the preferences given to category of journals by users. In PUC, 44.26% respondents’ preferred printed journals’, followed by 31.15% respondents who preferred electronic journals usage, 24.7% respondents who prefer to read both categories of journals. In PAU, 38.13% respondents prefer print journals, followed by 25.43% who prefer electronic journals and 36.44% users who prefer both type of journals. In PUP, 35% respondents preferred print journals, followed by 22.5% respondents who prefer electronic journals and 42.5% users preferred both type of journals. In GNDU, 25.83% users preferred print journals, followed by 18.33% users who preferred electronic journals. 55.84% users preferred both type of journals in GNDU. The overall analysis reveals that highest preference is given to both types of journals print as well as electronic, by 39.79% users, followed by 35.83% respondents, who still prefer printed journals, and 24.38% users who prefer electronic journals only.

The following are the findings of the study:

• ‘No archive problem’ was ranked as a very important feature of print journals by 43.33% respondents, followed by ‘paper copies are easy to read’, ‘paper copies are portable’ and ‘issues readily available in library’ by 35%, 30% and 25% of users respectively.

• One third (34.38%) of the total users read 3–5 articles from printed journals in a week, 30.83% users read 1–2 articles followed by 6–10 articles by 20.41% users and 11–20 articles by 14.38% users.

• More than one third (37.91%) users of the total population studied stated that there is a decrease in reading of printed articles during the last one year, another one third (31.46%) stated it to be the same as before and rest one third (30.63%) informed that it has increased during the last one year.

• Only 16.88% of users use e-journals occasionally, whereas 41.04% users access e-journals 2–3 times in a week. 21.67% users access e-journals daily and 20.41% users access e-journals once in a week.

• The advantages of e-journals as indicated by the respondents revealed that the major motivation for turning away from the print version of a journal to the electronic version is based on ease of access from the desktop by 50% users; round the clock availability by 70% users; easy accessibility by 71.25% users; easy search by 70% users; hyperlinks to references by 67.92% users; access from different location by 65% users; the ease of downloading by 60% users; speed of publication by 60% users; full text by 56.04% users; archival facility by 53.75% users; graphic capabilities by 50% users and on screen reading by 33.96% users.

• 33.33% respondents read 3–5 electronic articles in a week, followed by 1–2 articles, 6–10 articles and 11–20 articles by 28.12%, 23.96% and 14.59% respondents respectively.

• Research findings indicate that the reading behaviour of 39.79% respondents for reading e-journals has increased during the last one year. Whereas 33.33% respondents stated that it is same as before and 26.88% respondents indicated that it has decreased during the last one year.

• 48.96% respondents indicated that ‘lack of training’ is the major cause of less usage of e-journals, followed by ‘difficult to read from screen’ (31.04%), ‘lack of infrastructure’ (26.25%), ‘preference to paper journals’ (24.8%), ‘not easy to use’ (20%) and ‘unorganised’ (13.33%).

• 39.79% respondents prefer to use print journals as well as the electronic journals. Whereas 24.38% of users prefer to use only electronic journals and 35.83% of users feel comfortable in using print journals only.

In a developing country like India, the prologue of e-journals in various libraries is a very excellent initiative. It is a ray of hope for the faculty and research scholars. Electronic journals are the future of scholarly communication as users and institutions would like to make use of the electronic journals. The study clearly indicates that the information seeking behaviour of users is changing. They are giving more importance to the information available in electronic form. It is also depicted in the study that younger generation has accepted the digital reading culture but the use of electronic journals is going to require a considerable training exercise. Lack of training amongst the users and lack of proper infrastructure in libraries are the major de-motivating factors in the use of electronic journals.

References