1 / 45

David F. Kohl Dean and University Librarian University of Cincinnati

New Tools, New Data, New Ideas: Electronic Collection Use and Collection Building in the New Millennium. David F. Kohl Dean and University Librarian University of Cincinnati. CONCERT 2001 Electronic Resources and Consortia October 3-4, 2001 Taipei, Taiwan. Mars via the Hubble Telescope.

yelena
Download Presentation

David F. Kohl Dean and University Librarian University of Cincinnati

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New Tools, New Data, New Ideas: Electronic Collection Use and Collection Building in the New Millennium David F. Kohl Dean and University Librarian University of Cincinnati CONCERT 2001 Electronic Resources and Consortia October 3-4, 2001 Taipei, Taiwan

  2. Mars via the Hubble Telescope

  3. The Historical Process New Tools (Computer Tracking of Journal Usage) New Data (Reliable Use Statistics) New (and better) Understanding (Better Basis for Providing Journal Access to Patrons)

  4. The Plan Today • Introductory Proposition: • The Serials problem is not primarily a money, but more fundamentally, an access problem • The Resulting OhioLINK Model and Data • Conclusions for Collection Development • Primarily, title by title selection does not serve our patrons well

  5. All academic libraries in Ohio, public and private – 79 libraries Over 500,000 faculty, students and staff • 4,500+ simultaneous users possible • 120 service locations • 24,000,000 volumes

  6. One publisher’s revenues from OhioLINK libraries • 94 - $4,250,000 • 95 - $4,600,000 • 96 - $5,500,000 • 97 - $6,100,000

  7. One publisher’s subscriptions held by OhioLINK libraries • 94 - 4,100 • 95 - 3,950 • 96 - 3,750 • 97 - 3,600

  8. ARL National Statistics • Median serial expenditures (per ARL library) • 1986: $1,517,724 • 1996: $3,393,307 • Median number subscriptions (per ARL library) • 1986: 16,198 • 1996: 15,069

  9. The Problem How to use major increases in expenditures to increase access, (not to slow the rate of decline)

  10. Proportion of Journal Literature Originally Available in Ohio Higher Education Ohio State 53.2% Cincinnati Average 38.7% 24.1% c. OhioLINK 2000

  11. The OhioLINK Model (A Consortial Deal) • Price: • Sum of all members’ present print subscriptions • Plus a negotiated inflation rate • Plus a no-revenue reduction pledge during contract period • Perhaps an electronic surcharge • Receive: • Each library continues to receive their ongoing print copies • Plus all libraries receive access to all the publisher’s journals electronically

  12. Library “Win” • Expanded access to the journal literature* • Established control over inflationary costs (negotiated, not imposed!) • Created universal ownership (within consortium) • Eliminated ILL costs (within consortium) * Every library at least doubled their journal holdings, even the largest

  13. Publisher “Win” • Stopped steady cancellation of journal titles • Increased overall revenue stream • Expanded visibility of their journals • Established predictability and stability in the market

  14. Academic Press Elsevier Kluwer Springer Wiley Project MUSE American Physical Society MCB Press Royal Society of Chemistry Institute of Physics American Chemical Society Thieme Blackwell Publishers Blackwell Science Partial List of OhioLINK Publisher Partners

  15. Consortial Purchasing is Monetarily Significant • OhioLINK spends over $19,000,000 annually on these deals • University of Cincinnati spends about a quarter of its collection budget on consortial purchases

  16. The Real Payoff • Every OhioLINK library has at least doubled the number of journals received from these publishers • Most OhioLINK libraries have increased access by much more • OhioLINK libraries together have added a total of over 100,000 new journal titles to their collections

  17. OhioLINK Model is a Win-Win for Libraries and Publishers But the model focused on mass additions to increase our journal access; Not a thoughtful selectivity taking into account university instruction, research and service

  18. The Research Question: How much use were these newly available journals getting compared to previous, ongoing subscriptions? (Was conventional wisdom correct?)

  19. The Research Context • The data investigated were article downloads • Viewing the article on screen, OR • Printing the article off in hard copy • A “use” was any step past viewing the abstract

  20. What was Available • 1998: • Academic Press and Elsevier Science and Elsevier titles • 1999: • Project Muse titles (at first 40, now 135) • Wiley, Kluwer, Springer, and American Physical Society titles • 2000: • MCB Press and Royal Society of Chemistry titles • Institute of Physics, AIP and American Chemical Society titles • 2001: • Thieme, Blackwell and Blackwell Science titles

  21. Electronic Use Started Strong and Built Rapidly • Weekly Downloads: • 2-3,000 articles (Spring/Summer 1998) • 12,500 articles (End of first 12 month period) • 22,800 articles (Fall 1999) • 30,100 articles (Winter 1999) • 45,000 articles (Winter 2000) • 12 Month Downloads • 1st: 280,000 (Apr. 1998 – Mar. 1999) • 2nd: 740,000 (Apr. 1999 – Mar. 2000) • 3rd: 1,100,000 (Apr.2000 – Mar. 2001)

  22. State Library 13 Public Universities 2 Private Universities 38 Private Liberal Arts Colleges 23 Public 2-year colleges 2 Stand-alone Medical Schools (7 total Medical Schools) Includes 7 Law Schools OhioLINK User Population A substantial cross section of US higher education

  23. Journal Use Patterns are Consistent, but not 80-20 (1999 data) c. OhioLINK 2000

  24. Low Use 80/40 High Use

  25. Intensity of Use by Publisher Groupings APS 2% Articles/downloads for a 6 month period (1/1/00-6/11/00)

  26. Articles/Journals not Interchangeable c. OhioLINK 2000

  27. Not Interchangeable -- II

  28. We were surprised! Access is more important than selection?!

  29. Access Trumps Selection?! • Overall, 58% (502,000) articles were from journals not previously available at that institution vs. 42% from journals which were previously available, i.e. “selected” journals • based on 865,000 articles were downloaded June 1999 through May 2000 • Based on 1,120,00 articles downloaded January thru December, 2000: same percentage!

  30. Size Helps, Somewhat • Universities: 51% of the articles came from non-selected titles vs. 49% from selected titles • OSU: 31% from non-selected titles • U.Cincinnati: 44% from non-selected titles • CWR: 46% from non-selected titles • Small 4 year/2 year schools: 90%+ of the articles came from not selected titles

  31. Articles From Non-selected Journals (%) N=625,500 Smaller schools Larger Schools c. OhioLINK 2000

  32. Can There Be Confounding Factors? • Unresolved Issues • Selected journals at each institution had print copies available • Some libraries charge patrons for printing out copies • Bottom Line: Unlikely!

  33. Selection is Useful, but Seriously Incomplete • A comparison of the of the average article downloads for selected journals at UC versus non-selected journals showed: • Selected journals – 51 avg. downloads/title • Non-selected journals – 23 avg. downloads/title

  34. Significantly More New Titles Available – And Used 2,501 titles 1,253 titles c. OhioLINK 2000

  35. The Problem with Selected Journals • Selected journals are more heavily used but represent too small a portion of the needed literature (e.g. 25%) • Unselected journals are less heavily used but represent a huge portion of the needed literature (75%)

  36. The Implications Are… • There is a huge unmet need • Libraries have not been selecting materials so much as rationing them • The solution is not finer or better selection, but providing broader access

  37. HEAL-Link E-Journal UseYear 2000 • The HEAL-Link deal with Academic effectively increased access system-wide • 6 fold increase in titles available • In 2000, the Greek academic libraries downloaded 15,459 Articles from Academic Press journals • 62% were from journals not previously held in that library

  38. Transforming Collection Development Can a Sumo wrestler learn ballet?

  39. We Need a New Argument for Funding • W e want more money to buy fewer resources • We want more money to significantly expand library resources

  40. The logical outcome of a defensive war is surrender. Napoleon Bonaparte

  41. Increase Access, not Selection • There is a huge unmet information need • Library selection is library rationing – let the patron choose • Increased access will be used – heavily used

  42. Repricing, not Cancellation • Half of the journals together account for only 10% of the use • Electronic use data allows those journals to be identified and priced more appropriately

  43. The Importance of Consortia(Abandoning the Library as “Island”) • Increases the power and opportunities for individual libraries • The development of super consortia • The Lexis/Nexis Academic Universe deal • 53% of US colleges and universities • 23 consortia, 600 institutions, 3.7 million FTE students • Single contract • Oxford English Dictionary deal • Even larger • World wide implications

  44. Consortium = Cooperation = Success

  45. In Conclusion… • New Tools New Data New Vision • Mass purchase provides more: • Bang for the buck • Access • Publisher/librarian win-win

More Related