INTRODUCTION:

E-Resources

E-Resources encompass digital archives accessible to library users through computer-based information retrieval systems. The Internet serves as the primary and most widely utilized channel for accessing the majority of e-resources, alongside a few offline databases in CD/DVD format that can also be accessed independently of the Internet and find their place in libraries. E-resources include e-journals, eBooks, online databases, electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs), e-articles, e-reference sources, and e-newspapers, as well as offline databases.

E-Journals:

An examination of published literature reveals the absence of a standardized and universally accepted definition of an electronic journal. E-journals are often referred to as 'virtual journals', 'paperless journals', 'online journals', 'academic electronic journals', 'structured journals', and 'CD-ROM journals', among others. According to the Cooperative Online Serials indexing program (2004), an e-journal is an electronically accessed serial publication that is accessed via computer networks. It is issued in a series of discrete parts typically bearing numbering and does not have a predetermined conclusion. This differs from directly accessing the electronic resource, which is issued on a physical carrier such as CD-ROM or floppy disk.

Additionally, it must meet certain criteria, including: Issued in successive parts with numerical or alphabetical designations, intended for indefinite continuation.

Accessible via the Internet.

Has the characteristics of a traditional journal, magazine, or periodical.

E-Journals can be broadly classified into three categories:

Online Journals: Accessible on a 'pay-as-you-go' or 'Cost-per-access basis', utilizing online hosts.

CD-ROM Journals: Full-text journals distributed and distributed on CD-ROM, often with search software for access.

Networked e-Journals: Electronic versions of existing journals or solely electronic versions available over networks like the Internet or BITNET. These can be further categorized into various types, including:

Electronic-only versions.

Electronic versions of print journals.

Electronic versions with archived print editions.

Electronic guides provide a Table of Contents, Abstracts, and selected articles from print journals.

In today's ICT environment, e-journals can be classified into four main types:

Pure e-journals: Journals distributed solely in digital format.

E-journals: Primarily distributed electronically but may have limited distribution in print form.

P+e-journals: Initiated with both paper and electronic versions, often widely distributed.

What is a Hypothesis?

Testing a hypothesis involves quantifying both the factors being studied and the outcome. A hypothesis is an educated guess or proposal that seeks to explain a set of facts or natural phenomena, primarily used in the field of science where the scientific method is applied to test it.

Types of hypotheses:

Logical hypothesis: Based on past studies and observations that cannot be explained by current theories.

Working hypothesis: Widely accepted and serves as the basis for further experimentation.

Examples of hypotheses:

Children exposed to regular singing of the alphabet will show greater letter recognition than children exposed to regular reciting of the alphabet.

If the temperature of water is increased, the amount of sugar that can be dissolved in it will increase.

More students fall ill during the last week of exams than at other times.

A health education program influences the number of people who smoke.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

The primary objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To investigate the correlation between the demographics of research scholars and their utilization of e-resources in selected institutions of southern Tamil Nadu.

2. To identify the various categories of information accessed from the web or web resources.

3. To identify and analyze the specific factors that promote or hinder the utilization of e-resources.

4. To explore the satisfaction level of users regarding infrastructure supporting access to e-resources.

5. To examine the extent of user satisfaction regarding the availability and coverage of e-resources.

6. To investigate the preferred format, user awareness of available e-resources, and assess the usage of e-resources.

7. To assess the adequacy of information in digital resources and the challenges faced by research scholars in accessing them.

8. To evaluate the effectiveness of information in digital resources and the obstacles encountered by research scholars during access.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

Research scholars across various fields utilize e-resources for their inquiries. The study confirmed that research scholars are aware of e-resources and various types such as e-databases and e-journals. The current study aims to assess the impact of e-resources, identify access issues, and propose solutions to these issues, as well as evaluate the effects of e-resources available in selected institutions of southern Tamil Nadu.

Supporting research and learning activities has become a primary mission for academic libraries. In recent years, academic libraries have faced challenges such as reduced budgets, increased patron demands, and rising costs for book purchases and periodical subscriptions. The growing prominence of electronic publications is transforming collection practices and methods of accessing information in libraries. Traditional print resources now contend with their electronic counterparts in delivering information more quickly and efficiently and providing enhanced access. Among various resources for learning, faculty, and students worldwide can access vast volumes of information from around the globe in a short period.

INFORMATION USE PATTERN MODELS:

Early studies focused on scientists and the practice of science have demonstrated that scientific research is not isolated, generic, or rigid, but rather collaborative, reflecting a robust interpersonal network of interconnected researchers. Formal and informal channels for exchanging information exist within this network.

Wilson (1981)¹ introduces the concept of information-seeking behavior. The figure below illustrates a mindset prevalent in the field, reflecting user studies. Its purpose is not to create a "model" of information-seeking behavior but to highlight the interrelationships among concepts used in the field. It suggests that information-seeking behavior arises from the recognition of needs perceived by the user. The user may make requests upon formal systems typically defined as information systems or upon systems that may perform information functions in addition to a primary, non-information function. This model also indicates that information-seeking behavior may involve other individuals through information exchange, and the information perceived as valuable may be shared with others and used by the individual themselves.

Figure 1: Wilson’s Concept of Information-Seeking Behavior Model

Leckie et al., (1996)²described a model of information-seeking by professionals as seen in Figure 1.

Figure 2: Information-seeking behavior; grouped by the level of granularity

Marchionini (1997)³ outlines the information-seeking process in seven steps, providing a structured approach for users to effectively identify relevant information. His model (depicted in Figure 2) highlights key stages, emphasizing defining the problem, formulating a query, executing the query, and extracting information as crucial steps in the process.

Recognize and Accept the Need for Information

Define and Understand the Problem

Choose an Appropriate Search System

Formulate a Query

Execute the Search

Examine the Results

Extract Information

Additionally, the model encourages users to reflect on their findings, iterate the process if necessary, and know when to conclude their search.

Figure 3: User Behavior Model

Gopalakrishnan and Gopalakrishnan (2007)⁴ developed a user behavior model based on the information-seeking behavior of professionals across various fields. Users typically experience a state of uncertainty when seeking desired information. Known and unknown sources play a significant role in locating the desired information. When users are certain about the source of information, they first approach the library or information center to retrieve accurate information from established sources. Alternatively, users have the option of accessing e-resources to explore unknown sources. Upon retrieval, users access and analyze the collected information and complete their search. If users are not satisfied with the results, they may contact the librarian to inquire about additional sources of information. Figure 3 illustrates the user behavioral model.

HYPOTHESIS:

1. There is no significant difference between the demographic profiles of research scholars and the factors influencing the usage of e-resources by research scholars.

2. There is no significant difference between daily internet usage and the purposes for which the internet is used.

3. There is no significant difference between the usage of e-resources and the reasons for visiting the library.

4. There is no significant difference between the type of publications and the number of seminars/conferences/workshops attended by research scholars.

5. There is no significant difference between the level of familiarity with digital resources and the choice of browser when using e-resources.

6. There is no significant difference between the level of familiarity with digital resources and the methods used to acquire knowledge about e-resources.

7. There is no significant difference between the level of expertise with computers and the methods used to acquire knowledge about e-resources.

8. There is no significant difference between the experience in using e-resources and the scholarly databases regularly used by research scholars.

9. There is no significant difference between the preference level for using e-resources and the behavior related to accessing e-resources.

LIMITATIONS:

The study's scope is limited to six universities in Southern Tamil Nadu. The opinions of research scholars are influenced not only by their current experiences but also by their past experiences accessing E-resources. It is important to note that the findings may not remain applicable if the circumstances during the study period change.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE:

Schopfel (2014)⁵ emphasizes the complexity of managing "small data" in the realm of electronic theses and dissertations (ETD). He highlights the need for specialized approaches to data curation, including specific metadata, identifiers, workflows, and systems tailored to these diverse and heterogeneous content types. Schopfel suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable, advocating instead for the careful evaluation and separate treatment of data sets associated with ETDs.

On the other hand, Dhanasekaran (2016)⁶ discusses the significance of e-journals in academic and knowledge advancement. With the advent of ICT tools, access to and utilization of e-journals have become prevalent. The study conducted at the University of Madras employed simple random sampling with a replacement method to gather data from students and researchers. The findings revealed a strong preference for e-journals over traditional printed journals among the majority of users. Additionally, popular search engines such as Google, Yahoo, and MSN were preferred as initial search platforms for accessing e-journals, with the UGC-info net web portal being commonly utilized.

Yoon and Kim (2014)⁷ found that review participants preferred Korean resources due to language barriers, with the Internet being their primary source. They faced challenges in identifying appropriate health information sources and comprehending medical information. Seeking online health information to address personal or family health issues was common, with individual relevance and accuracy being crucial evaluation criteria.

Sohail and Alvi (2014)8 concluded that 100% of students were familiar with and used web resources for accessing quick information, primarily in cybercafés or through personal connections. They were satisfied with the internet services provided by the school.

Singh (2015)⁹ investigated the utilization of electronic resources by students, research scholars, and faculty at IIM Ahmedabad. The study examined users' awareness of the various types of e-resources available in the library, the purpose and frequency of e-resource usage, factors influencing resource utilization, the impact of e-resources and services on academic work, and suggestions for effective utilization of e-resources and services provided by the library.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING:

Differences between demographic profiles of the research scholars and factors influencing the usage of e-resources among research scholars.

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the demographic profiles of research scholars regarding factors influencing the usage of e-resources.

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference between genders regarding factors influencing the usage of e-resources among research scholars.

Since the p-value is less than 0.01 for internet usage, the purpose of library usage, selection of browser in using e-resources, search engine usage, method of acquiring knowledge on e-resources, database usage, and e-resources accessed in the library, and the p-value is less than 0.05 for the benefits of e-journals over conventional journals, it is concluded that there is a significant difference between male and female research scholars regarding the purpose of internet usage, the purpose of library usage, selection of browser in using e-resources, search engine usage, method of acquiring knowledge on e-resources, database usage, e-resources accessed in the library, and benefits of e-journals over conventional journals. Mean values suggest that female research scholars tend to use e-resources more compared to male research scholars.

Table 2: Difference between daily internet usage and purpose of internet usage

Purpose of using the Internet	t value	p-value	Result
Usage for educational purposes	3.320	0.001**	H0 Rejected
Usage for checking e-mails	5.168	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Usage for entertainment	9.461	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Usage for communication	4.650	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Usage for social networking	6.278	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Usage for chatting	6.061	0.000**	H0 Rejected

**Significant at 1 percent level

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference that exists between daily internet users regarding the purpose of internet usage.

With a p-value less than 0.01 for all-purpose Internet usage, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a significant difference in daily internet usage concerning the purpose of Internet usage. Mean values indicate that research scholars who use the Internet daily have a higher level of purposeful internet usage compared to those who do not use the internet daily.

Table 3: Difference between library dependency and purpose of library usage

Purpose of using the Library	t value	p-value	Result
To gain CAS	7.277	0.000**	H0 Rejected
To study course materials	9.095	0.000**	H0 Rejected
To consult journals/periodicals	8.800	0.000**	H0 Rejected
To use internet	9.339	0.000**	H0 Rejected
To support research work	7.116	0.000**	H0 Rejected

**Significant at 1 percent level

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in library dependency concerning the purpose of library usage.

Since the p-value is less than 0.01 for all-purpose library usage, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a significant difference in library dependencies concerning the purpose of internet usage.

The mean value indicates that research scholars who rely on the library for their research and teaching have higher levels of purposeful library usage compared to those who do not depend on the library for their research and teaching.

Table 4: Difference between the type of publications and the number of seminars/conferences/workshops attended by the research scholars

No conferences, seminars, or workshops attended	F value	p-value	Result
No International Seminar or Conference attended	6.469	0.000**	H0 Rejected
No National Seminar or Conference attended	4.919	0.000**	H0 Rejected
No International Workshop attended	4.689	0.000**	H0 Rejected
No of the National Workshops attended	2.926	0.013*	H0 Rejected

*Significant at a 5 percent level

**Significant at 1 percent level

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference exists between the type of publications, and number of seminars/ conferences/ workshops attended by the research scholars

The p-value is less than 0.05 for the number of national workshops attended, and the p-value is less than 0.01 for the number of International seminars and conferences attended, the number of National seminars and conferences attended, the number of international workshops attended, and the number of national workshops attended. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a significant difference between the type of publications and the number of seminars/conferences/ workshops attended by the research scholars.

Post hoc analysis reveals that research scholars interested in publishing books exhibit significant differences from those interested in publishing research articles, conference papers, newspaper articles, and reports regarding the type of publications and the number of seminars/conferences/workshops attended.

Table 5: Difference between the level of familiarity with digital resources and Selection of browser in using e-resources

Selection of browser in using e-resources	F value	p-value	Result
Google Chrome	4.570	0.011*	H0 Rejected
Mozilla Firefox	2.930	0.054	H0 Accepted
Internet Explorer	3.085	0.046*	H0 Rejected
Opera	0.215	0.806	H0 Accepted
Netscape Navigator	1.211	0.298	H0 Accepted

*Significant at a 5 percent level

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference exists between the level of familiarity with digital resources with regards to the selection of browser in using e-resources

The p-value is less than 0.05 for browsers like Google Chrome and Internet Explorer, indicating rejection of the null hypothesis and suggesting a significant difference in the level of familiarity with digital resources concerning browsers like Google Chrome and Internet Explorer.

Post hoc analysis reveals that research scholars with a low level of familiarity with digital resources highly prefer using Google Chrome and Internet Explorer for searching e-resources. Conversely, respondents with medium and high levels of familiarity with digital resources moderately prefer using Google Chrome and Internet Explorer for searching e-resources.

However, there is no significant difference between respondents with medium and high familiarity with digital resources and respondents who use Google Chrome and Internet Explorer for accessing e-resources

Table 6: Difference between the level of familiarity with digital resources and Selection of search engines for searching e-resource

Selection of search engine for searching e-resources	F value	p-value	Result
Google	4.201	0.015*	H0 Rejected
Yahoo	2.674	0.070	H0 Accepted
Alta Vista	0.488	0.614	H0 Accepted
Lycos	1.174	0.310	H0 Accepted
Excite	0.081	0.922	H0 Accepted
MSN	0.220	0.802	H0 Accepted
Others	0.919	0.399	H0 Accepted

*Significant at a 5 percent level

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference exists between the level of familiarity with digital resources with regards to the selection of search engines for searching e-resources

The p-value is less than 0.05 for search engines like Google, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis, indicating a significant difference in the levels of familiarity with digital resources concerning respondents who use the Google search engine for searching e-resources.

Post hoc analysis reveals that research scholars with a low level of familiarity with digital resources highly prefer using the Google search engine for searching e-resources. Conversely, respondents with medium and high levels of familiarity with digital resources moderately prefer using the Google search engine for searching e-resources.

However, the level of familiarity with digital resources regarding respondents' preferences of search engines for searching e-resources does not show significant differences except for the Google search engine.

Table 7: Difference between the level of familiarity with digital resources and the method of acquiring knowledge on e-resources

Method of acquiring knowledge on e-resources	F value	p-value	Result
From the library staff	3.273	0.038*	H0 Rejected
From colleagues	4.418	0.012*	H0 Rejected
Self-thought	4.153	0.016*	H0 Rejected
Formal training	2.568	0.077	H0 Accepted
External courses	1.947	0.143	H0 Accepted
Training at the workplace	2.251	0.106	H0 Accepted
Trial and error method	4.655	0.010*	H0 Rejected
Workshop/seminar	3.846	0.022*	H0 Rejected
Internet/online tutorials	6.498	0.002**	H0 Rejected

*Significant at a 5 percent level

**Significant at 1 percent level

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference exists between the level of familiarity with digital resources with regards to the method of acquiring knowledge on e-resources

The p-value is less than 0.05 for methods of acquiring knowledge on e-resources such as through library staff, colleagues, self-taught methods, trial and error, and workshops/seminars. Additionally, the p-value is less than 0.01 for methods like the Internet/online tutorials. Consequently, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a significant difference in the level of familiarity with digital resources concerning the methods of acquiring knowledge on e-resources.

Post hoc analysis reveals that research scholars with a high level of familiarity with digital resources significantly differ from those with low and medium levels of familiarity. Specifically, there are significant differences observed among research scholars with varying levels of familiarity with digital resources regarding their preferences for acquiring knowledge through library staff, colleagues, self-taught methods, trial and error, workshops/seminars, and Internet/online tutorials.

Table 8: Difference between reasons for using e-resources and scholarly databases regularly used by the research scholars

Scholarly databases regularly used by research scholars	F value	p-value	Result
Emeralds	7.326	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Elsevier’s science direct	8.304	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Scopus	9.022	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Springer Verlag’s link	8.752	0.000**	H0 Rejected
EBSCO database	7.592	0.000**	H0 Rejected
DOAJ	8.484	0.000**	H0 Rejected
JSTOR	12.016	0.000**	H0 Rejected
IEEE and IEE Online	6.094	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Pub Med, Math Science net	12.675	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Web of Science	10.962	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Taylor and Francis	9.637	0.000**	H0 Rejected
OCLC	5.623	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Thomson Reuters	9.181	0.000**	H0 Rejected

**Significant at 1 percent level

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference exists between scholarly databases regularly used by the research scholars with regards to reasons for using e-resources

The p-value is less than 0.01 for all scholarly databases regularly used by the research scholars. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a significant difference in the scholarly databases regularly used by the research scholars concerning the reasons for using e-resources.

Post hoc analysis reveals that research scholars who use e-resources for more useful reasons significantly differ from those who cite other reasons such as time-saving, access to more information, and cost-effectiveness. Specifically, there are significant differences observed among the reasons for using e-resources with regard to the scholarly databases regularly used by the research scholars.

Table 9: Difference between preference level of using e-resources and E-resources access behavior

E-resources access behavior	F value	P-value	Result
Type of E-Resources accessed in the library	14.576	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Purpose of using e-Resources	3.982	0.019*	H0 Rejected
E-Resources download formats	1.336	0.264	H0 Accepted
Search options for accessing the e-resources	7.224	0.001**	H0 Rejected

*Significant at a 5 percent level

**Significant at 1 percent level

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference exists between the preference level for using e-resources and with regards to E-resources access behavior

The p-value is less than 0.05 for e-resources access behavior factors such as the purpose of using e-resources, and it is less than 0.01 for search options in accessing e-resources and the type of e-resources accessed in the library. Consequently, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a significant difference in the preference level of using e-resources concerning e-resources access behavior factors.

Post hoc analysis reveals that research scholars who prefer electronic formats significantly differ from those who prefer print media, as well as those who prefer both print and electronic media. These differences are observed with regard to e-resources access behavior factors such as the purpose of using e-resources, search options in accessing e-resources, and the type of e-resources accessed in the library.

SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING:

Gender differences among research scholars are significant concerning various aspects of e-resource usage, including the purpose of internet usage, library usage, browser selection, search engine usage, method of acquiring knowledge on e-resources, database usage, e-resources accessed in the library, and the benefits of e-journals over conventional journals. Mean values indicate that female research scholars tend to use e-resources more than male research scholars.

Furthermore, there is a significant difference in daily internet usage regarding the purpose of Internet usage. Mean values suggest that research scholars who use the Internet daily have a higher level of internet usage purpose compared to those who do not use the internet daily.

There is a significant difference in library dependencies concerning the purpose of internet usage. The mean value indicates that research scholars who rely on the library for their research and teaching purposes have a higher purpose of library usage compared to those who do not depend on the library for their research and teaching.

Additionally, a significant difference exists between the type of publications and the number of seminars/ conferences/workshops attended by research scholars. Post hoc analysis reveals that research scholars interested in publishing books show significant differences from those interested in publishing research articles, conference papers, newspaper articles, and reports regarding both the type of publications and the number of seminars/conferences/workshops attended.

Moreover, there is a significant difference in the level of familiarity with digital resources concerning browsers like Google Chrome and Internet Explorer. Post hoc analysis indicates that research scholars with a low level of familiarity highly prefer Google Chrome and Internet Explorer for searching e-resources, while those with medium and high familiarity moderately prefer these browsers for the same purpose.

There is a significant difference in levels of familiarity with digital resources concerning respondents who use the Google search engine for searching e-resources. Post hoc analysis indicates that research scholars with a low level of familiarity highly prefer the Google search engine for searching e-resources, while those with medium and high levels of familiarity moderately prefer it for the same purpose.

Moreover, a significant difference exists in the level of familiarity with digital resources regarding the method of acquiring knowledge on e-resources, such as through library staff, colleagues, self-thought, trial and error methods, workshops/seminars, and Internet/online tutorials. Post hoc analysis concludes that research scholars with a high level of familiarity with digital resources show significant differences compared to those with low and medium levels of familiarity.

Additionally, there is a significant difference in scholarly databases regularly used by research scholars concerning their experience in using e-resources. Post hoc analysis reveals that research scholars with less than 1 year of experience in using e-resources have significant differences with experience groups of 1-2 years, 2-3 years, and above 3 years regarding scholarly databases regularly used by them.

There is a significant difference in the preference level for using e-resources concerning e-resources access behavior, including the purpose of using e-resources, search options in accessing e-resources, and the type of e-resources accessed in the library. Post hoc analysis indicates that research scholars who prefer the electronic format show significant differences compared to those who prefer print media or both print and electronic media, with regards to e-resources access behavior such as the purpose of using e-resources, search options, and the type of e-resources accessed in the library.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY:

1. Both publishers and librarians face the crucial challenge of understanding and anticipating the evolving expectations of their clientele. While change occurs rapidly in some domains and more gradually in others, publishers and librarians must strive to comprehensively grasp shifts in scholarly information usage and anticipate their impact on the services they provide.

2. A proactive approach to collection development regarding e-resources should be adopted in every institution to ensure the acquisition of relevant e-resources.

3. To enhance the efficiency of accessing e-journals, libraries should offer hands-on experience, short-term courses or workshops, and conduct user orientation programs for both students and faculty members.

4. Creating awareness among users about the advantages and potential uses of e-journals is essential. This will encourage more users to explore the prospective benefits of e-journals. Proper marketing of e-journal services available in institutions is crucial. Administrative staff can also contribute to raising awareness about e-journals. Regular updates and enhancements to the library's web pages will enhance the utilization of e-journals.

5. Presently, licensing and accrediting bodies often provide exclusive subscriptions to e-journals that may not align with the needs of institutional users. However, libraries continue to adapt their operations and budgetary requirements for online access to e-journals. Therefore, publishers must offer subscription options that do not burden libraries with unwanted print materials. Recognizing the diminishing prospects for institutional print subscriptions, publishers should explore possibilities to serve individual subscribers or members independently of their subscription arrangements with libraries.

DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY:

Further research directions include:

1. Expanding the in-depth study to specific domains within the institutions.

2. Extending the research to encompass other professionals such as doctors, lawyers, etc.

3. Broadening the study on the use of e-journals to a national level.

CONCLUSION:

In the evolving information landscape of the digital age, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and its electronic resources are proving essential for research activities. Libraries should enhance their facilities, such as Current Awareness Services (CAS), to keep researchers updated and provide study materials to support their academic pursuits. Moreover, expanding internet services and increasing web resources are crucial to bolster research endeavors. Libraries should strategically subscribe to e-resources based on the needs and preferences of users. Regular announcements should be made to inform library users about the availability of new e-resources or the addition of new databases. Additionally, the library should facilitate user access to subscribed e-resources, possibly through organized presentations by relevant publishers or vendors. Specialized training programs should be developed for researchers to maximize their utilization of e-resources, enabling them to effectively search for pertinent information. Furthermore, the library should conduct annual orientation programs to familiarize users with available resources and services.

REFERENCE:

1. Wilson, T. D. On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation. 1981; 37(1): 3-15.

2. Leckie, G. J., Pettigrew, K. E., and Sylvain, C. Modeling the information seeking of professionals: A general model derived from research on engineers, health care professionals, and lawyers. The Library Quarterly. 1996; 66(2): 161-193. DOI: 10.1086/602864

3. Marchionini, G. M. Information seeking in electronic environments. London: Cambridge University Press. 1997

4. Gopalakrishnan, S. Information seeking model in an ICT environment. National Seminar on Library Users’ Expectations in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Environment, Library, MIT Campus, Anna University Chennai (India). 2007

5. Schopfel, J., Chaudiron, S., Jacquemin, B., Prost, H., Severo, M., and Thiault, F. Open access to research data in electronic theses and dissertations: An overview. Library Hi Tech. 2014; 32(4): 612-627.

6. Dhanasekaran, P., and Chandrakumar, V. Perception of usage of e-journals. IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering and Technology. 2016; 3(2): 50-59.

7. Yoon, J. W., and Kim, S. J. Internet use by international graduate students in the USA seeking health information. Aslib Journal of Information Management. 2014; 66(2): 117-133.

8. Sohail, M., and Alvi, A. Use of web resources by medical science students of Aligarh Muslim University. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology. 2014; 34(2): 125-130.

9. Singh, V. K. Use of e-resources and services by users at Indian Institute of Management Ahmadabad: A study. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2015; 20(11): 38-53.

Received on 18.06.2024 Modified on 06.07.2024

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2024;15(3):183-191.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2024.00028

Factors influencing the usage of e-resources the research scholars	F value	p-value	Result
Purpose of Internet Usage	90.959	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Purpose of library usage	172.959	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Selection of browser in using e-resource	13.792	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Search engine usage	14.876	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Method of acquiring knowledge on e-resources	29.726	0.000**	H0 Rejected
Database usage	8.474	0.004**	H0 Rejected
E-Resources accessed in the library	8.144	0.004**	H0 Rejected
Purpose of using e-Resources	0.533	0.466	H0 Accepted
E-Resources download formats	1.482	0.224	H0 Accepted
Search options for accessing the e-resources	0.790	0.374	H0 Accepted
Benefits of e-resources on academic efficiency	2.818	0.094	H0 Accepted
Benefits of e-journals over conventional journals	4.677	0.031*	H0 Rejected
Satisfaction with the quality of e-resources and services	0.324	0.569	H0 Accepted
Issues with the use of e-resources	1.096	0.296	H0 Accepted