New Tools, New Data, New Ideas: Electronic Collection Use and Collection Building in the New Millenn

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 publishers revenues from OhioLINK libraries

• 94 - 4,250,000
• 95 - 4,600,000
• 96 - 5,500,000
• 97 - 6,100,000

7
One publishers 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
  publishers 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
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

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
OhioLINK User Population

• 2 Stand-alone Medical Schools (7 total Medical
  Schools)
• Includes 7 Law Schools

• State Library
• 13 Public Universities
• 2 Private Universities
• 38 Private Liberal Arts Colleges
• 23 Public 2-year colleges

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 ()
N625,500
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