 So faculty publication patterns at a large urban university in correlation with collection use and size is the title of the University of Illinois Chicago's research project. This is our second presentation this afternoon and the team for this project includes Sandy the group young Miss school is Paula Dempsey, Deborah Blaisek and Felicia Barrett. And I know Sandy, I'm going to turn the podium over to you to start your presentation. Hi everyone. So, as already mentioned we focused on how the library, or does the library help increase research productivity and an impact. And so, our primary questions that we tried to address included have the number of references included in publications increases journals increased are the number of publications by authors correlated with the number of references in the publications among our faculty and does a number of references included with an article correlate with later impact or the citations that the articles get. So, we had a somewhat involved methodology we did a really a longitudinal study and went back 25 years to look to see how publications have changed over the years. And is there any relationship with the number of journals that are available so we identified 802 faculty that had been at UIC for at least five to 25 years. And then we put them all into groups of have they been here for five years 10 years 15 years 20 years or 25 years. And then we looked at those patterns over time and then we went and search for their publications and scope us and as part of that, we got the number of references that they included in those publications, and also how many times those articles were cited in either five year or 10 year increments, and we did that to control that variable because obviously the more and older and article gets the more times it's going to be cited. So we did that to control for that time. And then we also collected whether the article was grant funded and that was based on scope is saying it had grant funding and the number of authors that were on the article. And so just in terms of our overall findings over the years as our journal holdings increased the number of references that were in publications increase and the average publications. And so it'd be great to conclude at this point that yes, the library's holdings is, you know, helped increase publications, but it turns out it's a lot more complex than that. I'm glad that I just showed you. That's all the faculty that were in the study, because obviously is new faculty come they could potentially have different types of publication productivity levels. We also then just looked at the faculty who had been at UIC since 2000. So this is just looking at the same people each year. And this is just looking at the same people each year since 2000 and you can see that even though with those people, the number of references that they're including in their publications, and the publications themselves on average per author are increasing over time. So this is not just about publication, but the thing to point to here and pay attention to is that also the number of average authors per article increased over time. So, then we also went and took a look at well how does it relate to the number of references that are included in articles and a previous study that one of my colleagues and myself had done we had found that there was a negative correlation between the number of publications and the use of references and publications. And in this study, we also found that there was a negative relationship, although it wasn't significant, but it generally sort of implies that the more you publish the less you site. So we delved into that a little bit more. So what this particular slide is showing is we grouped people into this group is our least productive authors so they wrote five or less publications. So this is the group that is writing between 66 to 70 publications on average. And then this group here the kind of oranges group that group is writing, like a lot of articles are writing at least 71 or more articles, and then we looked at the average references of authors in those groups. So for the group that's the least productive. They have the least number of authors and the least number of references that they use in their publications, although over time, those numbers both increase. So the group the red or group that those are the more your kind of productive group but not super productive but pretty productive so 60 to 70 publications. And so they have a lot more authors on their articles those increase over time. They are the group that uses the most references in their publications. And then we have our orange group which is the most productive group, their number of co authors also increased over time as did their use of references but overall their use of references in that group that's the most productive is less than that group that is productive just not super productive. So you can see that there's really some variations in productivity related to the references that are included in publications. We also then took a look at some of the disciplinary differences. This is just showing our health sciences because to show everyone it becomes a very crowded slide but you can see that in different disciplines on average. Their publication levels are very different. So average per person. It does also look like in nursing that that publication number declined. This is of all the faculty in the study so it is possible. I think I did we did this with just the same people, all the time in all the years. And I believe that potentially this is maybe a sign of retirements or people going into administrative roles that that might somewhat explain that decrease in productivity but you can see that you know overall publications increased. But at different levels, and then the same with inclusion of references at different levels, references overall, with the exception of nursing used in publications also increased on average. Then there was also as I've brought up a number of points here. Confounding variables that we can't really ignore as we look at these patterns that appear. So, sorry, I actually thought that I changed these slides a little bit but anyways, we'll go with it. So, as you can see here, you know we asked publications increases over time. Average references are increasing over time, but also our average authors are increasing and our grant funding is increasing. And also our average number of faculty at our institution increased, and those all play a role in productivity. So you can just see a little bit clearer in this slide here, how publications increased but so did productivity. We also, so, you know, the thing that we can't really conclude is that you know 100% because we increased our holdings that productivity also increased because co authorship grant funding, so even write articles with probably all plays a role in productivity. In addition to that we are kind of saying that because people are using references in their collections that obviously are sorry references in their articles that obviously we're kind of making the assumption that goes come from our collection. But we also have to recognize that at the same time during all this, you know, increase in journals because of online increase in access to journals because of the big journal bundles. There's also a number of databases that are becoming available online and available remotely from the library there's a number of new databases that are becoming available a lot of open access journals are becoming available. So, and also people can collaborate with colleagues outside of their institution, they could potentially have asked them to share articles with them. There's really a lot of variables that can play a role in what references are included in the publications but we do know that in looking at the references that were in the publications that a large majority of them were potentially held by the university library. But there's just no way to say just how much of that availability of our online additional journals played a role in increasing productivity. We also took a look at how grant funding was related to the use of to productivity and also the use of references. And so these are the grant funded articles. And so, over time, you, well you can see that generally more articles are published that are grant funded they're not grant funded, and those articles that are grant funded tend to use more references in them and also there tends to be more productivity related to articles that are grant funded and also more co authors on grant funded articles. So, again, just another potential confounder with. Oh yes of course the library helps increase productivity. Okay, we also then just looked at cited references. So to see what kind of impact the library might have later. And you can see that in general the number of articles that are getting cited. Over time increases. And it's really the latter six to 10 years after publication where articles are getting more citations rather than the first five years. We looked at, so does the library help to increase research impact. And so we looked at the number of publications. And this is looking at a regression analysis to predict what citations that articles will later receive so the number of references and authors and whether an article was grant funded was explored as predictors of later research impact based on the number of citations and article gets after five years. And all three were significant, although grant funding was kind of on the cusp, but there was some suggestion there that yes the use of the references in publications does have an impact later in the overall citations that an article gets. That's it. Thank you. Thank you so much, Sandy.