How many journals do we have? An alternative approach to journal collection evaluation through local cited article analysis

Abstract

Librarians are often asked to determine the number of journals they hold in a subject for an academic department undergoing external review. Journal number is a poor indicator of collection quality and subject boundaries are difficult to define. An analysis of articles cited in recent publications by Harvey Mudd College biology faculty demonstrates the value of local cited article analysis for evaluating the breadth and depth of an online and print journal collection. Faculty-level analysis showed that online access varied from 55 to 97% of cited articles, with an average of 81%. Strengths and weaknesses of this method are discussed, and it is concluded that the context-specific identification of the most important journals that it provides is far more useful than an estimate of the number of subject-related journals in a collection.