Transcript What If What We Know Isn’t True?

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
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)
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
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
One publisher’s revenues from
OhioLINK libraries
7000
•
•
•
•
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
94 95 96 97
94 - $4,250,000
95 - $4,600,000
96 - $5,500,000
97 - $6,100,000
One publisher’s subscriptions
held by OhioLINK libraries
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
•
•
•
•
94 95 96 97
94 - 4,100
95 - 3,950
96 - 3,750
97 - 3,600
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
The Problem
How to use major increases in
expenditures to increase access,
(not to slow the rate of decline)
Proportion of Journal Literature Originally
Available in Ohio Higher Education
Ohio State
53.2%
Average
24.1%
c. OhioLINK 2000
Cincinnati
38.7%
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
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
Publisher “Win”
•
•
•
•
Stopped steady cancellation of journal titles
Increased overall revenue stream
Expanded visibility of their journals
Established predictability and stability in
the market
Partial List of OhioLINK
Publisher Partners
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
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
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
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
The Research Question:
How much use were these newly
available journals getting compared to
previous, ongoing subscriptions?
(Was conventional wisdom
correct?)
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
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
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)
OhioLINK User Population
• 2 Stand-alone Medical
State Library
Schools (7 total
13 Public Universities
Medical Schools)
2 Private Universities
• Includes 7 Law
38 Private Liberal Arts
Schools
Colleges
• 23 Public 2-year
colleges
•
•
•
•
A substantial cross section of US higher education
Journal Use Patterns are Consistent,
but not 80-20
(1999 data)
c. OhioLINK 2000
OhioLINK-WIDE DISTRIBUTION OF TITLE%-ARTICLE%
ACROSS 6 PUBLISHERS Calendar 2000
100%
90%
Low Use
CUM % of Articles Downloaded
80%
70%
80/40
Elsevier
60%
Academic Press
50%
Wiley
Kluwer
40%
Springer-Verlag
30%
Project MUSE
20%
10%
High Use
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
CUM % of Titles Downloaded
70%
80%
90%
100%
Intensity of Use by Publisher
Groupings
0.6
APS
2%
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Wiley
Kluwer
MUSE
Academic Elsevier
Springer
Articles/downloads for a 6 month period (1/1/00-6/11/00)
Articles/Journals not
Interchangeable
c. OhioLINK 2000
Not Interchangeable -- II
Annual EJC Downloads by Publisher
excluding Elsevier
160,000
150,000
140,000
130,000
120,000
Wiley
Kluwer
110,000
100,000
90,000
A Press
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
Springer
All others
40,000
30,000
MCB
20,000
Jul
Oct
Jan
Apr
Jul
10,000
ACS
MUSE
0
Oct
Jan
00
Apr
Jul
Oct
Jan
01
Apr
We were surprised!
Access is more
important than
selection?!
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!
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
Articles From Non-selected
Journals (%)
N=625,500
c. OhioLINK 2000
Smaller schools
Larger Schools
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!
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
Significantly More New Titles
Available – And Used
2,501
titles
1,253
titles
c. OhioLINK 2000
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%)
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
HEAL-Link E-Journal Use
Year 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
Transforming Collection
Development
Can a
Sumo
wrestler
learn
ballet?
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
The logical outcome of a
defensive war is surrender.
Napoleon Bonaparte
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
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
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
Consortium = Cooperation =
Success
In Conclusion…
• New Tools
New Data New Vision
• Mass purchase provides more:
– Bang for the buck
– Access
– Publisher/librarian win-win