ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Home⇛Information Generation & Management⇛vol. 4 no. 2 (2025)

Citation Patterns and Resource Availability in Undergraduate

Janice D.C. Peñaflor | Efren M. Torres Jr | Jojie A. Gonda

Discipline: library and information science

 

Abstract:

Statement of the Problem / Objectives. This study examines how undergraduate students in the College of Science at a private higher institution in the Philippines use information sources in their theses. It analyzes the types, age, and availability of cited materials to assess how well the library supports student research and to identify collection and instruction needs. Methods. Using proportional stratified sampling, 194 theses (2022–2024) were selected from the institutional repository. A total of 15,012 citations were extracted, coded by source type and publication year, and checked for availability via the library discovery system and open access. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patterns. Results. Journal articles dominated citations (77.6%), especially in Biology and Chemistry, while Mathematics and Physics showed lower citation volume and more varied formats. 57.76% of sources were published within the past 10 years, indicating a strong preference for current literature, with foundational works retained in some disciplines. Overall, 89.25% of sources were accessible either through the library or open access, yet only 26.02% were available directly through the library's holdings, underscoring reliance on open access to fill gaps. Conclusion. Library resources support significant portions of undergraduate research, but subscription and monograph gaps remain. Targeted acquisitions, discovery optimization, and discipline-tailored citation instruction are recommended. Originality. This is among the first large-scale, discipline-specific citation analyses of undergraduate science theses in the Philippines that links use patterns to availability, highlighting open access as a critical complement to local holdings.



References:

  1. Adam, A., & Kiran, K. (2021). Exploring information literacy practices in institutional  repositories. Library Management, 42(6/7), 395–410.
  2. ASEAN Citation Index (ACI). (2023). Why ACI. Retrieved October 24, 2025, from 
  3. ASEAN University Network Inter-Library Online (AUNILO). (2025). ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø AUNILO.  ASEAN University Network. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from
  4. Bashir, H., Mahmood, K., & Shafique, F. (2022). Sustainability of digital repositories in  academic libraries: A developing country perspective. Library Philosophy and  Practice, 1–16.
  5. Baxter, J. (2009). Content analysis. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of  Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 112–115). SAGE Publications. 
  6. Biesenbender, S., Peters, I., & Vowinkel, J. (2019). Tracking open access policy  implementation in research organizations: A theoretical framework. Publications,  7(3), 60.
  7. Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). Read the declaration. Retrieved May 13,  2025, from
  8. Campbell, L., & Jeffery, K. (2024). Using UX testing to optimize discoverability of non traditional resources. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 19(4), 2–17. 
  9. Chulalongkorn University. (2025). Chulalongkorn University Intellectual Repository  (CUIR). Retrieved May 13, 2025, from
  10. Chulalongkorn University Intellectual Repository. (2025). ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø CUIR. Chulalongkorn  University. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from
  11. Confederation of Open Access Repositories. (2020). COAR community framework for  good practices in repositories.
  12. CoreTrustSeal. (2023). Trustworthy data repository requirements: 2023–2025.
  13. Creative Commons. (2022). ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø CC licenses.
  14. Drakes, M. A. (2004). Digital preservation policy for the institutional repository. Library  Review, 53(8), 442–448.
  15. Farida, I., Tjakraatmadja, J. H., Firman, A., & Basuki, S. (2015). A conceptual model of  open access institutional repository in Indonesia academic libraries: Viewed from  knowledge management perspective. Library Management, 36(1), 168–181.
  16. Jisc. (2024). Open Policy Finder / SHERPA services.
  17. Johnson, B., & Dubinsky, E. (2022). Open science and institutional repositories:  Synergies and strategies. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 53(2), 89–104.
  18. Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship in  the digital age. ARL: A Bimonthly Report, 226, 1–7.
  19. Mahroofa, M. M. (2015). Open access revolution: Is it a paradigm shift of scholarly  publishing practices? A literature review of global scenario. Journal of the University  Librarians Association of Sri Lanka, 19(1), 15–32.
  20. National University of Singapore. (2025). ScholarBank @ NUS. Retrieved May 13,  2025, from
  21. OpenDOAR. (n.d.). Directory of Open Access Repositories. Retrieved June 23, 2025,  from
  22. Pinfield, S. (2015). Making open access work: The “state of the art” in providing open  access to scholarly literature. Online Information Review, Vol. 39 No. 5 pp. 604–636,  doi:
  23. Pinfield, S., Salter, J., & Bath, P. A. (2017). A “gold-centric” implementation of open  access: Hybrid journals, the “total cost of publication,” and policy development in the  United Kingdom. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,  68(9), 2248–2263.
  24. Pontika, N. (2019). Open science and open access: The dual role of institutional  repositories. Insights, 32(1), 1–9.
  25. Roy, B. K., Biswas, S. C., & Mukhopadhyay, P. (2023). Access policies in institutional  digital repositories: Analysis of global trends. International Journal of Information  Science and Management, 21(2), 245–269.
  26. Sheikh, A., & Richardson, J. (2023). Open access movement in the scholarly world:  Pathways for libraries in developing countries. Journal of Information Science, 0(0).
  27. SHERPA/RoMEO. (n.d.). Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving. Retrieved June  23, 2025, from
  28. Singapore Management University. (2019). Open access policy. Retrieved May 13,  2025, from
  29. Singapore Management University. (2025). SMU Institutional Knowledge – InK.  Retrieved May 13, 2025, from
  30. Rampin, R., & Rampin, T. (2021). Taguette: open-source qualitative research tool (Version 1.2.2) [Computer software].
  31. Universitas Indonesia. (2025). ScholarHub UI. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from
  32. Universiti Malaya. (2025). UM Eprints. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from
  33. Universiti Putra Malaysia. (2025). PSAS Institutional Repository. Perpustakaan Sultan  Abdul Samad. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from
  34. Universiti Sains Malaysia. (n.d.). ePrints@USM: USM Institutional Repository.  Perpustakaan Hamzah Sendut, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Retrieved May 13, 2025,  from
  35. University of the Philippines Diliman. (2025). Digital Archives @ UP Diliman. Retrieved  May 13, 2025, from
  36. University of the Philippines Diliman. (2025b). IR & ETD Policy, Digital Archives @ UP  Diliman. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from
  37. UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO recommendation on open science.
  38. van Wyk, B., & Mostert, J. (2011). The role of institutional repositories in promoting  open access to research output at South African universities: Opportunities and  challenges. The South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 77(2),  85–95.
  39. Woutersen-Windhouwer, S., van der Graaf, M., & Dijk, E. M. (2020). Institutional  repositories and the visibility of science in Latin America. Data Science Journal, 19,  1–10.
  40. Xia, J. (2007). Assessment of self-archiving in institutional repositories: Across  disciplines. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(6), 647–654. 
  41. Xia, J., Myers, R. L., & Wilhoite, S. K. (2011). Multiple open access availability and  citation impact. Journal of Information Science, 37(1), 19–28.

Tools


Copyright © 2026   ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø