Philip M. Davis has written a “review of the empirical literature on access to scholarly information. This review focuses on surveys of authors, article download and citation analysis.” The pre-print is available in Arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3953v1
Excerpts:
In reviewing the literature, there is surprising consistency in the conclusions of these studies: access to the published literature is improving, and those who generate knowledge view access issues as largely unimportant. We should emphasize the phrase “those who generate knowledge,” since there has been very little work on the dissemination of scientific information to those who use – but do not contribute to – the literature (i.e. teachers, medical practitioners, industrial researchers, and the lay public).
Moreover, most studies have focused on access to the formal, published literature and assume that access is provided either directly from the publisher or through a library intermediary. We should not ignore the many informal ways academics share documents among informal networks of peers. Lastly, we should understand that most of the surveys and interviews cited below were conducted prior to the recent economic downturn, which have resulted in significant material reductions in major academic libraries.
from the Conclusion:
In conclusion, the literature on the access indicates that access to the scientific literature is improving, and that compared to other research-related concerns, access is a low-priority concern. There is a dearth of research on whether free access to the scientific literature is making a difference in non-research contexts, such as in teaching, medical practice, industry and government policy making. Moreover, more work needs to be done on the dissemination of scientific papers through non-formal models such as peer-to-peer sharing networks.
