TY  - JOUR
AB  - Purpose– The aim of this study is to compare print and e-book use for identical titles in the e-Duke Scholarly Collection (e-DSC) from 2011 to 2013 to determine format preference for a discrete collection of titles in humanities and social sciences. Design/methodology/approach– Use statistics for the e-DSC were downloaded from the e-book platform by title and call number to determine use by title and subject. Circulation statistics were culled from the library’s integrated library system for the same titles to compare e-book use to that of the same print title. Findings– Although e-books had a high number of titles with use as a per cent of the collection, examination of substantive use shows a slight preference for print. While 73 per cent of the e-books garnered enough interest to click on them, only 12 per cent had substantive use. Research limitations/implications– The e-DSC changed platforms in December 2013. The new platform does not require users to create an account to download e-book sections and digital rights management limitations have been removed. The same examination of collection use in 2.5 years on the new platform will provide an interesting comparison on the function of platform on e-book use. Originality/value– The comparison of identical print and e-titles is less studied and includes the examination of “substantive use” in comparing print to e-book use.
VL  - 33
IS  - 4
SN  - 0160-4953
DO  - 10.1108/CB-05-2014-0024
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-05-2014-0024
AU  - Goodwin Cathy
PY  - 2014
Y1  - 2014/01/01
TI  - The e-Duke Scholarly Collection: e-book v. print use
T2  - Collection Building
PB  - Emerald Group Publishing Limited
SP  - 101
EP  - 105
Y2  - 2024/04/24
ER  -