356 A Citation Analysis of Atmospheric Science Publications by Faculty at Texas A&M University Rusty Kimball, Jane Stephens, David Hubbard, and Carmelita Pickett Rusty Kimball, Jane Stephens, and David Hubbard are Science and Engineering Librarians, and Carmelita Pickett is Head of Collection Development & Acquisitions Services, all at Texas A&M University Libraries; e-mail: rkimball@library.tamu.edu, jstephens@library.tamu.edu, hubbardd@library.tamu.edu, cpickett-k@ library.tamu.edu. © 2013 Rusty Kimball, Jane Stephens, David Hubbard, and Carmelita Pickett, Attribution- NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) CC BY-NC A citation analysis of publications produced by the Department of Atmo- spheric Sciences faculty at Texas A&M University was conducted. This study included a detailed analysis of 5,082 cited publications by source, format, and age. TAMU Libraries holdings were then assessed using the works cited within the context of the 80/20 rule. The sources cited were primarily journals (91 percent) and books (5 percent). Eighty percent of the cited journal articles were fulfilled by just 24 journal titles, thus adhering to the 80/20 rule. The results were compared to those of previous cita- tion studies in the sciences, with implications for collection management. cademic libraries have a long history of analyzing collec- tions for many purposes and are often trying to determine whether they are acquiring the ap- propriate scholarly content in support of academic departments. A citation analysis is a common research tool that allows libraries to conduct an assess- ment of their collection development efforts over time in support of specific disciplines. Understanding what format each discipline values as a core publica- tion and how scholars disseminate their research findings are key considerations for libraries as they support traditional disciplines and interdisciplinary fields. Libraries have a complex task of monitor- ing and surveying the scholarly exchange to better understand what subscriptions to acquire and what open access initia- tives to support. Libraries supporting scientific researchers must: maintain subscriptions to society publications and major Science, Technology, and Medicine (STM) publisher products; support disci- pline specific open access models; and, at some point, make significant investments in journal backfile collections. Taken together, these are costly investments compared to the costs associated with supporting disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Texas A&M University is the flagship university for the Texas A&M Univer- sity System and is a land, sea, and space grant institution. The university opened in 1876 as the state’s first public institu- crl-351 A Citation Analysis of Atmospheric Science Publications by Faculty 357 tion of higher education with research strengths in the sciences. In support of the university’s research strengths, TAMU Libraries maintain subscriptions to key society publications, large STM publisher content—and, over time, has made significant investments to secure access to journal backfile collections. In an attempt to understand the collection development practices of TAMU Libraries for specific science disciplines over the last several years, a group of Texas A&M University librarians initiated a citation analysis to determine how well the library supports the research needs of the TAMU Atmospheric Sciences Department. Background Atmospheric Sciences concern the study of the atmosphere and include the sub- fields of Meteorology (with its focus on weather forecasting), and Climatol- ogy—the study of atmospheric changes (both natural and man-induced) over time (short-term and long-term)—expressed as “average” climates. The Atmospheric Sci- ences also include the study of planetary atmospheres. The Department of Atmospheric Sci- ences is one of four departments of the College of Geosciences at Texas A&M University, with its main campus located in College Station, Texas. The university presently has 38,000 undergraduates and 9,000 graduate students. The Department of Atmospheric Sciences currently has 20 faculty members and 17 research staff/ postdoctoral scientists. It spends more than $4,000,000 per year for research expenses, has 75 research grants and con- tracts, and receives funding from the Na- tional Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of En- ergy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Department’s undergraduate program offers a B.S. in Meteorology and has 150 students. The graduate program offers a M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science and has 55 graduate students. The Department of Atmospheric Sciences has four main research areas: weather and forecasting, dynamical meteorology and climate dynamics, atmospheric chemistry, and physical meteorology.1 Literature Review The body of research making up collec- tion analyses comes in different forms, implements various methodologies, and analyzes different variables (depending on study goals). Some analyses are local to a single university; some focus on mul- tiple universities; some focus on a single subject; others are cross-disciplinary. User groups studied (such as faculty or students) and years covered also vary. These differences make comparisons more difficult, although general trends are discernible. The type of material found in the reference list at the end of article, book, chapter, or other work can often be an indication of the type of publication a researcher cites most often in his overall research. Analyses of these references in the sciences and social sciences have found that researchers primarily cite jour- nal articles, followed by books,2 while the researchers in the arts and humanities cite books most frequently.3 Despite this gen- eral trend, format citation patterns vary among science researchers. Investigators have reported that biology researchers cited journals from approximately 75 per- cent to 94 percent.4 Chemistry research- ers cited journals at 79 percent5 and 85.8 percent.6 Researchers in geoscience and its subfields have cited articles from 64 percent to 83 percent.7 After articles, sci- ence researchers rely next on books, but these rates also vary.8 Interestingly, those investigators who analyzed citations across disciplines reported lower percentages of journal use for the sciences as a whole than did the investigators who analyzed citations from specific science subjects, such as biology and chemistry. Leiding analyzed local undergraduate honors theses and reported that students in the sciences 358 College & Research Libraries July 2013 cited more journals than did students in the other disciplines; they cited journals at 58.8 percent.9 Smith analyzed local dissertations and reported that science students cited journals at 79 percent in 1991 and at 64 percent in 2001.10 Some investigators attempted to determine differences in citation pat- terns among user groups. These studies provide evidence, albeit conflicting, that there are differences between faculty and student citation patterns.11 The actual scattering of journal titles (number and distribution of titles ac- counting for 100 percent of the citations) varied among studies. However, articles cited by science researchers tended to follow the 80/20 rule12 (80 percent of the article citations are fulfilled by 20 percent of the journal titles). Investigators, who did not discuss results in terms of this rule, also provided evidence that a large number of frequently cited articles were fulfilled by a small number of titles.13 Cross-disciplinary studies reported that science researchers cite some of the oldest material14—yet the most frequently cited material is more current.15 Vallmit- jana and Sabate found that the mean age of citations in their chemistry disserta- tions was 14 years and the median age was 9 years; 90 percent were 31 years or younger; and the range was 145 years.16 Gooden’s reported age range for chemis- try dissertations was 182 years.17 For biol- ogy graduate students, Miller reported an average article age 10.6 years with a median of 8 years; the most frequently oc- curring age was four years; and the range was 175 years.18 Breaking down fields into subfields revealed additional patterns.19 Within geosciences, Walcott reported that geophysics citations spanned the longest period (292 years) and geochemistry spanned the shortest time (97 years).20 Some investigators attempted to deter- mine the impact that the Internet has had on citation patterns. Conkling, Harwell, McCallips, Nyana, and Osif reported that format changes for sciences (astronomy, biochemistry, geology and physics) var- ied in significance by science subfield and/or by university. Journals remained the predominant format cited, but their number increased while book citations decreased postweb.21 Smith also per- formed a pre- (1991) and postweb (2001) local analysis of theses and dissertations across disciplines.22 She too found that journal citations in the sciences remained dominant, although they decreased in use while book citations increased. The Internet may also have an impact on the age of material cited by researchers. For the sciences, Conkling et al. reported statistically significant changes depend- ing on subfield and/or university.23 These authors speculated that the citations to older material might be due to online journal backfiles being purchased by uni- versity libraries, making the journals eas- ily accessible. For science, Smith reported that citations to current year publications increased to 80 percent postweb and that postweb citations extended back further in time.24 Purpose of Study Objectives To date, there have been no known cita- tion analyses conducted on publications by atmospheric scientists—this study fills that gap. The main objectives to be an- swered by this study are to determine the following issues: 1) how well the TAMU Libraries collection meets the needs of faculty researchers in the TAMU Atmo- spheric Sciences Department by asking what sources were cited by these authors, and does TAMU Libraries own them in electronic or print format; 2) what types of publications are cited by the authors; and 3) the ages of the cited publications. The findings of this study should identify material that needs to be added to the col- lection, as well as provide assistance with the selection of material for placement in remote storage. Methodology Faculty Publications Publications of the TAMU Department A Citation Analysis of Atmospheric Science Publications by Faculty 359 of Atmospheric Sciences were acquired from Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science. Publications were found by searching the department name and ZIP code in the Address field of “Web of Science” (that is, Atomsph* SAME 77843) and limiting the publication years to 2008 and 2009. The answer set was refined further to include only journal articles, proceed- ings, and review articles. The results were then exported to EndNote and an Excel spreadsheet. Local holdings were checked to determine whether TAMU Libraries has online or print access to the cited journals. To clarify cited works in subsequent analyses, a PDF of each faculty publication was attached to their respective record in the EndNote library for consultation. Cited Works The cited works of each faculty publica- tion were located in “Web of Science” and exported into a spreadsheet. An alphanumeric code was assigned to each publication so that cited works could be tracked back to the original faculty publication. The spreadsheet was then divided into journals and nonjournals spreadsheets. An International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) was added to the journals spreadsheet, which provided the basis for tabulating and sorting. A table of the most frequently cited journals was then compiled, which was composed of journals responsible for 80 percent of all cited journal articles. The age of the journal articles (the difference between the date of original article and the date of the publication cited) was also calculated and added to the spreadsheet. After examining the nonjournal lit- erature cited, a classification scheme was developed and the cited works sorted into their respective categories. Individual titles of the nonjournal literature were then checked to see if the cited work was locally accessible or owned. The number and percentage of all publication catego- ries owned by TAMU Libraries was then determined. The age of the nonjournal publications was also calculated and added to the spreadsheet. Results Faculty in the Atmospheric Sciences cited journal articles most frequently (see table 1). Of the 5,082 total citations, 4,610 (91%) were to journal articles. This faculty also cited monographs (albeit to a lesser extent TABLE 1 Citations by Format Format Number of Citations % of Total Citations Journals (Articles) 4,610 91 Books and Book Chapters 258 5 Reports, including Planning, Policy, & Technical 92 1.8 Conference Papers and Proceedings 58 1 Theses & Dissertations (T&D) 20 0.4 Computer Programs 12 0.2 Government Documents 11 0.2 Other 9 0.2 Manuals/Documentation (Mostly for Software) 7 0.1 Maps 3 0.06 Data Sets 2 0.04 Total 5,082 100 360 College & Research Libraries July 2013 TABLE 2 Most Frequently Cited Journals Ranked by Frequency Rank Journal Name Number of Articles % of Total Journal Citations Cumulative % of Total Journal Citations 1 Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 789 17 17 2 Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 446 10 27 3 Geophysical Research Letters 265 6 33 4 Journal of Climate 184 4 37 5 Applied Optics 182 4 40 6 Atmospheric Environment 164 4 44 7 Science 147 3 47 8 Monthly Weather Review 146 3 50 9 Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 138 3 53 10 Journal of Applied Meteorology 117 3 56 11 IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 100 2 58 12 Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 97 2 60 13 Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 96 2 62 14 Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer 95 2 64 15 The Journal of Physical Chemistry. A 78 2 66 16 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 74 2 68 17 Aerosol Science and Technology 71 2 69 18= Nature 68 1 71 18 Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 68 1 72 19 Environmental Science & Technology 64 1 74 20= Journal of Chemical Physics 41 1 74 20 Atmospheric Research 41 1 75 21 Journal of the American Chemical Society 39 1 76 22= Chemical Physics Letters 37 1 77 22 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 37 1 78 23 Journal of Aerosol Science 35 1 79 23 Air & Waste Management Association 30 1 79 24 Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 28 1 80 25 Optics Express 26 1 80 26= Icarus 24 1 81 26 Journal of Physical Chemistry 24 1 81 A Citation Analysis of Atmospheric Science Publications by Faculty 361 at 5%), followed by reports (1.8%), and conference papers and proceedings (1%). The remaining format categories were cited at below 1 percent with the lowest (data sets) at 0.04 percent. Journals The original 119 Atmospheric Science fac- ulty publications consisted of 113 journal articles and six review articles. These 119 publications contained citations to 4,610 journal articles from 297 different journals. The 31 most frequently cited journals from this set are shown in table 2. As shown in this table, the top three journals, which included 33 percent of all cited articles, were the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR)—Atmospheres (17%); the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (10%), and Geophysical Research Letters (6%). Four “ties” occurred in the totals with journals with equal num- bers of articles for the 18th, 20th, 22nd, and 26th places. The cumulative percent of the total of the journal citations hits 80 percent with the journal at 24th place, thus following the 80/20 Rule with 80 percent of the most cited journal titles being fulfilled within just the top 8 percent of the titles. FiguRE 1 Citations Accumulated According to the Number of Journals that included Them 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 % C it a� o n s (a cc u m ) Number of journals FiguRE 2 Citation Age Distribution, Emphasizing Ages 0 to 68 Years 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 C it a� o n s Age (years) 362 College & Research Libraries July 2013 The 31st journal listed ranks 26th in the listing due to the four “ties.” This cumulative percentage data is presented graphically in figure 1. Here, the cumulative percent of the total of the journal citations is presented as a bar graph. This figure illustrates how well the data follows the 80/20 rule. Figure 2 illustrates the distribu- tion of the journal citations by age. Notably, the highest number of citations (389) occurs at the age of five years, with the oldest shown citation age of 67 years. Not shown in the figure are several outliers: two at 100 years, and one each at 104 years, 108 years, 128 years, 156 years, and the very oldest at 323 years. Among the oldest cited titles were an article from the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London from 1880, an article from the Transac- tions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society from 1852, and another from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety of London from 1686. As shown in table 3, TAMU Libraries owned 99.3 percent of the 4,610 journal articles cited by TAMU Atmospheric Science faculty. Nonjournal Age Of the 472 nonjournal items cited, more than half were less than ten years in age (see table 4). The oldest nonjournal citation was to a 73-year-old conference paper. Those citations that were less TABLE 3 Selected Formats Held by Texas A&M Libraries Format % Held by Texas A&M Libraries Journals (Articles) 99.3 Books and Book Chapters 86.5 Conference Papers and Proceedings 47 Maps 33 Computer Programs 0 Data Sets 0 Government Documents 82 Manuals/Documentation (Mostly for Software) 0 Reports, including Planning, Policy, & Technical 2 Theses & Dissertations (T&D) 30 Other 1 TABLE 4 Citation Formats by Age (Years) Format Average Age Oldest Cited Newest Cited Journals 10.1 323 <1 Books and Book Chapters (Book) 15.6 58 <1 Conference Papers and Proceedings (Conf) 7.6 73 <1 Maps 14.3 34 4 Computer Programs 8.4 16 2 Data Sets* N/A N/A N/A Government Documents 15.9 43 2 Manuals/Documentation (Mostly for Software) 6.4 12 3 Reports, including Planning, Policy, & Technical 10.5 62 1 Theses & Dissertations (T&D) 9.1 59 1 Other 1.6 6 <1 *Age not given. A Citation Analysis of Atmospheric Science Publications by Faculty 363 than a year old were to books, conference items, and “other” items. Government documents and books averaged 15.9 and 15.6 years, respectively. The longest age range observed was in conference items (from less than one year to 73 years), fol- lowed by reports (from one to 62 years). The age ranges for books and theses and dissertations were very close (from less than one year to 58 and from one year to 59, respectively). The shortest age range in years was seen in the two categories of manuals and “other” (from three to twelve and from less than one year to six years, respectively). Nonjournal Holdings Of the 472 nonjournals cited by the at- mospheric faculty, 276 (58.5%) titles are owned by the TAMU Libraries, and 135 (25.8%) are freely available on the web, leaving only 61 (12.9%) not owned or immediately accessible. None of the 258 books cited are freely available on the web. Almost half of the total 58 confer- ence papers cited are freely available, and more than two-thirds of the 92 reports cited are freely available on the web. Considering the books cited that were not owned by the library, eleven titles had pre-1979 publication dates, fourteen were published in the 1990s, and eleven were published in the 2000s. They were published by standard academic pub- lishers (such as Wiley, Academic Press, various university presses). With a few exceptions, nothing unusual could be at- tributed to these books not owned by the library. A small number of these books were published by publishers not rou- tinely covered by the library’s Approval Plan. One title was a foreign language book published in Germany, two were published by China Meteorological Press, and two were published by small presses in the United States. Discussion Format Dispersion This study confirms the importance of journals to science researchers. However, previous citation analyses have reported article citation rates that are lower and book rates that are considerably higher than rates reported in the current study (see table 5). Investigators have reported conflicting results for book citation rates over time. Leiding reported book use to be higher preweb, but could not determine a trend.25 For sciences, Conkling et al. reported a decrease in book citations26 while Smith reported an increase.27 Regardless, faculty in the current study cited books at a rate notably lower than those reported in the studies summarized in table 5. Journal Title Dispersion (the 80/20 Rule) and Holdings Journal title dispersion in the current study supports the findings of previous science analyses28 by following the 80/20 Rule, which states: “80 percent of use is derived from 20 percent of the titles.”29 In fact, 80 percent of the cited references in the current study were contained in only 24, or 8 percent, of the 297 journals cited. The TAMU Libraries owns at least 90 percent of all material cited by the atmospheric science faculty (99.3 percent of journals and 86.5 percent of books—see table 3). However, as Leiding pointed out, focusing on the holdings of all titles cited is misleading.30 Considering holdings in the context of the 80/20 Rule, a better focus would be on the ownership of the most cited titles. While other studies reported a high percentage of ownership for fre- quently cited titles,31 the TAMU Libraries is fortunate in being able to provide 100 percent of the most frequency cited titles (top 20 percent). Confirmation that librar- ies own the majority of the most cited journal titles in a given area would be an indication that the collection development practices for that portion of the collection are effective. Some investigators have speculated that ownership and/or ease of access has contributed to these materials being cited more frequently. In her 1994 article, Walcott emphasized the importance of 364 College & Research Libraries July 2013 TABLE 5 Citations by Format within Science Disciplines in Previous Studies Biology & Marine Science Author users Year Range % Journal Articles % Books % Conference Proceedings McCain F & Gs 1975–1977 F& GS 91 F 88 PhD 94 GS 91 N/A N/A Crotteau F 1989–1990 84 Pancheshnikov F & GS 2002–2004 F&GS ~75 F ~89 GS ~78 F & GS ~10 F ~9 GS ~13 Miller GS 2006–2009 84 11 Walcott 1994 Marine Science F 1986–1991 78.8 21.2 Chemistry, Physics & Astronomy Gooden GS 1996–2000 85.8 8.4 Vallmitjana (incl Chemical Eng) GS 1996–2003 79 12 N/A Conkling Astronomy GS 1990–1993 2003–2006 82 88 10 6 6 3 Conkling Biochemistry GS 1990–1993 2003–2006 91 94 7 5.7 0.8 0.4 Conkling Physics GS 1990–1993 2003–2006 82 76 8 11 4 3 geosciences Walcott 1991 Geoscience GS 1981–1985 80 Walcott 1991 Paleontology GS 73 24 Walcott 1991 Geology GS 80 15 Walcott 1991 Geophysics GS 83 12 Walcott 1991 Geochemistry GS 80 16 Conkling Geology GS 1990–1993 2003–2006 64 75 24 19 6 3 Kimball Atmospheric Sciences F 2008–2009 91 5 1 Sciences (Cross-disciplinary Studies That included Results in Sciences) Smith GS 1991 & 2001 79 64 14 18 Leiding Honor UG 1993–2003 58.6 20.2 Conkling GS 1990s & 2000s 76 82 14 9 3 3 Key: F=Faculty, GS=Graduate student, PhD=PhD student, Honor UG=Honor Undergraduate student A Citation Analysis of Atmospheric Science Publications by Faculty 365 providing easy physical access to the types of materials important to her fac- ulty.32 Conkling et al. speculated that the increased use of journal articles pre- to postweb for all but two subjects “might be a reflection of the ease with which researchers can access these materials on the Web.”33 For astronomy, they reported an increased use of older material in the postweb era and suggested the possibility that universities might have acquired ac- cess to online backfiles of journals, which may have led to increased use and sub- sequent citation of these journals. On the other hand, Smith reported that the type of material cited by her local research- ers from pre- to postweb did not always reflect availability (ownership).34 Citation analyses cannot determine if users cite titles because of their availability and/ or ease of access,35 but it is interesting to note that holdings evaluated in the cur- rent analysis, as in other analyses, tend to include the most cited titles. Publication Age The results of this study support the find- ings of previous science analyses with regard to the age of material cited. In gen- eral, science researchers do occasionally cite older materials, but newer publica- tions are cited most frequently.36 In 1981, McCain and Bobick reported that the most frequently cited journals conform to Griffith’s half-life model, which asserts that 50 percent of the “citedness” of a volume is completed within five years, and 90 percent within twenty years.37 This pattern seems to hold true for the sciences38 and is supported by the findings of the present study (see figure 2). Such citation age findings have implications for collection management (particularly preservation, weeding and storage, and journal backfile decisions)—as well as for interlibrary loan. Conclusions From the analysis, the authors conclude that, in their 119 publications from 2008 through 2009, the faculty of the Atmo- spheric Sciences Department at Texas A&M University cited journal articles as their primary source format at 91 percent of the total citations, followed by books as the secondary format at 5 percent. The most frequently cited jour- nal titles satisfied the 80/20 Rule, with 80 percent of the most cited journal titles being fulfilled by just 8 percent of the titles. The authors had not expected the article citations to be concentrated in so few journals. These most cited journals (the journals containing 80 percent of the citations) are all available electroni- cally through TAMU Libraries. These most cited journals (the journals con- taining 80 percent of the citations) form a core journal list for these researchers— providing key collection development knowledge to the TAMU Libraries. Of the nonjournal publications cited, 84.3 percent were owned by the libraries or were freely accessible on the Internet. The age of the publications cited is primarily current, although some older materials are cited as well. Overall, it is clear that the TAMU Libraries’ collection for this group of researchers meets their needs quite well. Academic libraries could benefit from a citation analysis for a particular depart- ment, subject area, or broader discipline to determine how well their library is providing access to the most cited journal and nonjournal items and discovering any coverage gaps. While the current study showed that the TAMU Libraries’ journal collection served the atmospheric sciences faculty’s need well, it did identify other material for possible acquisition. In hard economic times, many libraries are forced to cancel journals. So the results could also form the beginnings of a broader list of infrequently used titles (across multiple departments) as candidates for potential cancellation or for storage. Currently, the authors of this study have a similar project underway in the area of Aerospace Engineering, and several colleagues are undertaking similar studies in nonscience subjects. 366 College & Research Libraries July 2013 Notes 1. “Research and Teaching in Atmospheric Science at Texas A&M University,” Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, available online at http://atmo.tamu.edu/files/ tamu_atmo_overview.pdf [accessed 20 October 2011]. 2. Reba Leiding, “Using Citation Checking of Undergraduate Honors Thesis Bibliographies to Evaluate Library Collections,” College & Research Libraries 66, no. 5 (Sept. 2005): 417–29; Erin T. Smith, “Assessing Collection Usefulness: An Investigation of Library Ownership of the Resources Graduate Students Use,” College & Research Libraries 64, no. 5 (Sept. 2003): 344–55. 3. Leiding, “Using Citation Checking of Undergraduate Honors Thesis Bibliographies,” 417–29; Graham Sherriff, “Information Use in History Research: A Citation Analysis of Master’s Level Theses,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 10, no. 2 (Apr. 2010): 165–83; Smith, “Assessing Collection Usefulness,” 344–55. 4. Mark Crotteau, “Support for Biological Research by an Academic Library: A Journal Cita- tion Study,” Science & Technology Libraries 17, no. 1 (1997): 67–86; Katherine W. McCain and J.E. Bobick, “Patterns of Journal Use in a Departmental Library: A Citation Analysis,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 32 (July 1981): 257–67; Laura N. Miller, “Local Citation Analysis of Graduate Biology Theses: Collection Development Implications,” Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, no. 64 (Winter 2011), available online at www.istl.org/11-winter/index. html [accessed 2 May 2011]; Yelena Pancheshnikov, “A Comparison of Literature Citations in Faculty Publications and Student Theses as Indicators of Collection Use and a Background for Collection Management at a University Library,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 33, no. 6 (Dec. 2007): 674–83; Rosalind Walcott, “Serials Cited by Marine Sciences Research Center Faculty, University at Stony Brook, 1986–1991,” Science & Technology Libraries 14 (Spring 1994): 15–33. 5. Nuria Vallmitjana and L. G. Sabate, “Citation Analysis of Ph.D. Dissertation References as a Tool for Collection Management in an Academic Chemistry Library,” College & Research Libraries 69, no. 1 (Jan. 2008): 72–81. 6. Angela M. Gooden, “Citation Analysis of Chemistry Doctoral Dissertations: An Ohio State University Case Study,” Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, no. 32 (Fall 2001), available online at www.istl.org/01-fall/index.html [accessed 2 May 2011]. 7. Thomas W. Conkling, Kevin R. Harwell, Cheryl McCallips, Sylvia A. Nyana, and Bonnie A. Osif, “Research Material Selection in the Pre-Web and Post-Web Environments: An Interdisciplin- ary Study of Bibliographic Citations in Doctoral Dissertations,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 36, no. 1 (Jan. 2010): 20–31; Rosalind Walcott, “Characteristics of Geoscience Doctoral Dissertations Accepted in the United States Academic Institutions 1981–1985,” Science & Technology Libraries 12 (Winter 1991): 5–16. 8. Conkling et al., “Research Material Selection in the Pre-Web and Post-Web,” 20–31; Gooden, “Citation Analysis of Chemistry Dissertations”; Leiding, “Using Citation Checking of Undergradu- ate Honors Thesis Bibliographies,” 417–29; Miller, “Local Citation Analysis of Graduate Biology Theses”; Pancheshnikov, “A Comparison of Literature Citations,” 674–83; Smith, “Assessing Collection Usefulness,” 344–55; Vallmitjana and Sabate, “Citation Analysis of Ph.D. Dissertation References,” 72–81; Walcott, “Characteristics of Geoscience Doctoral Dissertations,” 5–16. 9. Leiding, “Using Citation Checking of Undergraduate Honors Thesis Bibliogra- phies,”417–29. 10. Smith, “Assessing Collection Usefulness,” 344–55. 11. McCain and Bobick, “Patterns of Journal Use,” 257–67; Pancheshnikov, “A Comparison of Literature Citations,” 674–83. 12. Paul Kelsey and Tom Diamond, “Establishing a Core List of Journals for Forestry: A Cita- tion Analysis from Faculty at Southern Universities,” College & Research Libraries 64, no. 5 (Sept. 2003): 357–77; McCain and Bobick, “Patterns of Journal Use,” 257–67; Miller, “Local Citation Analysis”; Vallmitjana and Sabate, “Citation Analysis of Ph.D. Dissertation References,” 72–81. 13. Gooden, “Citation Analysis of Chemistry Doctoral Dissertations”; Miller, “Local Citation Analysis”; Walcott, “Characteristics of Geoscience Doctoral Dissertations,” 5–16. 14. Marian A. Burright, Trudi Bellardo Hahn, and Margaret J. Antonisse, “Understanding In- formation Use in a Multidisciplinary Field: A Local Citation Analysis of Neuroscience Research,” College & Research Libraries 66, no. 3 (May 2005): 198–210; Conkling et al., “Research Material Selection,” 20–31; Smith, “Assessing Collection Usefulness,” 344–55. 15. Burright et al., “Understanding Information Use in a Multidisciplinary Field,” 198–210; Miller, “Local Citation Analysis of Graduate Biology Theses”; Pancheshnikov, “A Comparison of Literature Citations,” 674–83; Vallmitjana and Sabate, “Citation Analysis of Ph.D. Dissertation References,” 72–81. 16. Vallmitjana and Sabate, “Citation Analysis of Ph.D. Dissertation References,” 72–81. A Citation Analysis of Atmospheric Science Publications by Faculty 367 17. Gooden, “Citation Analysis of Chemistry Doctoral Dissertations.” 18. Miller, “Local Citation Analysis of Graduate Biology Theses.” 19. Burright et al., “Understanding Information Use in a Multidisciplinary Field,” 198–210; Conkling et al., “Research Material Selection in the Pre-Web and Post-Web Environments,” 20–31; Walcott, “Characteristics of Geoscience Doctoral Dissertations,” 5–16. 20. Walcott, “Characteristics of Geoscience Doctoral Dissertations,” 5–16. 21. Conkling et al., “Research Material Selection in the Pre-Web and Post-Web Environments,” 20–31. 22. Smith, “Assessing Collection Usefulness,” 344–55. 23. Conkling et al., “Research Material Selection in the Pre-Web and Post-Web Environments,” 20–31. 24. Smith, “Assessing Collection Usefulness,” 344–55. 25. Leiding, “Using Citation Checking of Undergraduate Honors Thesis Bibliographies,” 417–29. 26. Conkling et al., “Research Material Selection in the Pre-Web and Post-Web Environments,” 20–31. 27. Smith, “Assessing Collection Usefulness,” 344–55. 28. Kelsey and Diamond, “Establishing a Core List of Journals for Forestry,” 357–77; McCain and Bobick, “Patterns of Journal Use,” 257–67; Miller, “Local Citation Analysis of Graduate Biol- ogy Theses”; Vallmitjana and Sabate, “Citation Analysis of Ph.D. Dissertation References,” 72–81. 29. Thomas E. Nisonger, “The 80/20 Rule and Core Journals,” The Serials Librarian 55, no. 1/2 (2008): 62–84. 30. Leiding, “Using Citation Checking of Undergraduate Honors Thesis Bibliographies,” 417–29. 31. Crotteau, “Support for Biological Research,” 67–86. 32. Walcott, “Serials Cited by Marine Sciences Research Center Faculty,” 15–33. 33. Conkling et al., “Research Material Selection in the Pre-Web and Post-Web Environments,” 29. 34. Smith, “Assessing Collection Usefulness,” 344–55. 35. Miller, “Local Citation Analysis of Graduate Biology Theses.” 36. Burright et al., “Understanding Information Use in a Multidisciplinary Field,” 198–210; Conkling et al., “Research Material Selection in the Pre-Web and Post-Web Environments,” 20–31; McCain and Bobick, “Patterns of Journal Use,” 257–67; Smith, “Assessing Collection Usefulness,” 344–55. 37. B.C. Griffith, P.N. Servi, A.L. Anker, and M.C. Drott, “The Aging of Scientific Literature: A Citation Analysis,” Journal of Documentation 35, no. 3 (1979): 179–96, quoted in Katherine W. McCain and J.E. Bobick, “Patterns of Journal Use in a Departmental Library: A Citation Analysis,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 32 (July 1981): 265. 38. Smith, “Assessing Collection Usefulness,” 344–55; Vallmitjana and Sabate, “Citation Analysis of Ph.D. Dissertation References,” 72–81.