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. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-11- 2020-0155
  2. ASEAN Citation Index (ACI). (2023). Why ACI. Retrieved October 24, 2025, from  https://asean-cites.org/view?slug=why_aci
  3. ASEAN University Network Inter-Library Online (AUNILO). (2025). About AUNILO.  ASEAN University Network. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from https://aunilo.net/about/
  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. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/6797/
  5. Baxter, J. (2009). Content analysis. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of  Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 112–115). SAGE Publications.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n65
  6. Biesenbender, S., Peters, I., & Vowinkel, J. (2019). Tracking open access policy  implementation in research organizations: A theoretical framework. Publications,  7(3), 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030060
  7. Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). Read the declaration. Retrieved May 13,  2025, from https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/
  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.  https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30594
  9. Chulalongkorn University. (2025). Chulalongkorn University Intellectual Repository  (CUIR). Retrieved May 13, 2025, from https://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/
  10. Chulalongkorn University Intellectual Repository. (2025). About CUIR. Chulalongkorn  University. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from https://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/dspace/sidebar/about.html
  11. Confederation of Open Access Repositories. (2020). COAR community framework for  good practices in repositories. https://coar-repositories.org/coar-community framework-for-good-practices-in-repositories/
  12. CoreTrustSeal. (2023). Trustworthy data repository requirements: 2023–2025. https://www.coretrustseal.org/why-certification/requirements/
  13. Creative Commons. (2022). About CC licenses. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
  14. Drakes, M. A. (2004). Digital preservation policy for the institutional repository. Library  Review, 53(8), 442–448. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530410553704
  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. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-03-2014-0038
  16. Jisc. (2024). Open Policy Finder / SHERPA services. https://openpolicyfinder.jisc.ac.uk/
  17. Johnson, B., & Dubinsky, E. (2022). Open science and institutional repositories:  Synergies and strategies. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 53(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.53.2.89
  18. Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship in  the digital age. ARL: A Bimonthly Report, 226, 1–7. https://www.cni.org/wp content/uploads/2003/02/arl-br-226-Lynch-IRs-2003.pdf
  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. https://doi.org/10.4038/jula.v19i1.7864
  20. National University of Singapore. (2025). ScholarBank @ NUS. Retrieved May 13,  2025, from https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/
  21. OpenDOAR. (n.d.). Directory of Open Access Repositories. Retrieved June 23, 2025,  from https://v2.opendoar.org/
  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: https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2015-0167
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23742
  24. Pontika, N. (2019). Open science and open access: The dual role of institutional  repositories. Insights, 32(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.451
  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. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijism.2023.1977429.0
  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). https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515231202758
  27. SHERPA/RoMEO. (n.d.). Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving. Retrieved June  23, 2025, from http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/
  28. Singapore Management University. (2019). Open access policy. Retrieved May 13,  2025, from https://library.smu.edu.sg/sites/library.smu.edu.sg/files/library/pdf/OpenaccesspolicyS MU20190228.pdf
  29. Singapore Management University. (2025). SMU Institutional Knowledge – InK.  Retrieved May 13, 2025, from http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/
  30. Rampin, R., & Rampin, T. (2021). Taguette: open-source qualitative research tool (Version 1.2.2) [Computer software]. https://www.taguette.org
  31. Universitas Indonesia. (2025). ScholarHub UI. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/
  32. Universiti Malaya. (2025). UM Eprints. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from https://eprints.um.edu.my/
  33. Universiti Putra Malaysia. (2025). PSAS Institutional Repository. Perpustakaan Sultan  Abdul Samad. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from http://psasir.upm.edu.my/
  34. Universiti Sains Malaysia. (n.d.). ePrints@USM: USM Institutional Repository.  Perpustakaan Hamzah Sendut, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Retrieved May 13, 2025,  from http://eprints.usm.my/
  35. University of the Philippines Diliman. (2025). Digital Archives @ UP Diliman. Retrieved  May 13, 2025, from https://digitalarchives.upd.edu.ph/
  36. University of the Philippines Diliman. (2025b). IR & ETD Policy, Digital Archives @ UP  Diliman. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from https://digitalarchives.upd.edu.ph/policy
  37. UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO recommendation on open science. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949
  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. https://doi.org/10.7553/77-2-47
  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. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-010
  40. Xia, J. (2007). Assessment of self-archiving in institutional repositories: Across  disciplines. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(6), 647–654.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.09.020
  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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551510389358

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic