Results: Survey on moving to 'electronic-only' for journals
Thanks again to all those who took part in this informal survey. It has
certainly informed our thinking here at UEA and I hope the results will be
beneficial to others who are debating this issue.
This is a summary of the more detailed write-up of this survey which is
available here: http://www.uea.ac.uk/~l002/eonlysurvey.html
The purpose of this survey was to take a “snapshot in time” to see how
many libraries are taking steps towards electronic-only for their journal
collections.
It asked the recipients to comment on the extent to which they had
implemented each of four scenarios, each representing a different level of
commitment to moving to electronic-only. At the end of the survey, they
were prompted to comment on any constraints they had experienced in moving
to electronic-only, such as archival arrangements, non-cancellation
policies, future price increases and reliability of access. Quotations
used are taken directly from comments made by respondents.
Thirty-one institutions replied to this ‘Moving to electronic-only for
journals’ survey, which was circulated via the lis-e-journals discussion
list in January 2004. Respondents included 27 academic libraries, 3
special libraries and one health library. (26 were from the UK, 5 from
other countries.)
Question 1. Have you withdrawn print back copies of titles that are
included in bundled electronic archive deals, like JSTOR?
Yes: 45% No: 55%
In addition to JSTOR, other archive services mentioned included: Institute
of Physics backfiles, Science Direct backfiles, American Chemical Society
archives and IEEE Archives.
Question 2. Have you stopped taking print for titles included in major
ongoing bundled deals, such as Science Direct (i.e. moved to electronic-
only for these)?
Yes 80% No 20%
This question did not just refer to Science Direct but to any bundled
deals that have led to the cancellation of equivalent titles in print.
Other bundled deals mentioned included: Blackwells Full Collection,
American Chemical Society (ACS), American Institute of Physics (AIP),
Cambridge University Press (CUP), Oxford University Press (OUP), Wiley,
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW), IEEE, Emerald, Association for
Computing Machinery (ACM), Springer, American Physical Society (APS), CRC
Press, Nature and the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE).
Question 3. Have you decided that all new individual journal subscriptions
should be ‘electronic-only’, unless electronic is not available?
Yes 22% No 78%
Comments on this are available in the full version of this paper.
Question 4. Have you decided to purchase both print and electronic for
individual titles but to withdraw print after a certain period of time
(e.g. 2-5 years)?
Yes 9% No 91%
Comments on this are available in the full version of this paper.
Question 5. Having made these decisions, what are your concerns about the
future in terms of archival arrangements, non-cancellation policies,
future price increases, reliability of access, etc.? Any other comments?
Other concerns mentioned included: VAT, complexity of bundled deals and
impact on the readers.
A full commentary on the results is available in the full version of this
paper at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/~l002/eonlysurvey.html
Whilst few institutions have moved to a completely e-only model, there is
clearly considerable movement in this direction. Sometimes this is
underpinned by a strategy or policy, but more often it seems to happening
as a reaction to other pressures: “we are being forced along this route by
shrinking bookfunds and lack of space," one librarian explained.
Most institutions seem to be adopting an incremental approach owing to
constraints that vary in importance depending on local circumstances. Some
of these constraints are external, such as the terms of the licence
agreements, others are internal such as opposition from the users.
What is apparent is that there is no one right approach. One library had a
cautionary tale that even if you have institutional backing for an
electronic-only policy, the working out of it in reality may be quite
different: “We haven't moved forward with electronic-only as quickly as
expected. Despite having once had institutional backing for the policy,
there was opposition from academics in some areas.” But other institutions
feel we should be more proactive and that we need to show how
the “benefits outweigh any negatives." Commenting on the list of possible
concerns in question 5, one librarian wrote: “These are all concerns both
for the Library and academics, but if we wait until all are resolved we'll
never make the move to electronic resources which present great benefits
for many researchers.” This comment is a timely reminder of all the
benefits of electronic access in terms of multi-user and off-site access,
searching functionality and speed of access, etc. We must keep reminding
people of these very considerable benefits, so that they can be weighed
fairly against the disadvantages.
There are some examples of good practice, for example the University of
York is withdrawing print collections, such as some titles in JSTOR, to
a ‘closed store’ on a trial basis. They are involving the user community
in this experiment and are measuring usage to get some objective data to
back up their decision-making. At the end of the trial period, they will
still have a choice as to whether to make this change permanent or to
return all or some of the print to the shelves. Now other institutions may
not have the time, space or resources for this kind of approach, but it is
a good example of thinking ahead and not just going for the short term
solution.
Whilst there are few surprises in this survey, the fact that 80% of
institutions who responded have already moved to electronic-only for at
least part of their collections cannot be ignored. Yet the considerable
reservations expressed by the participants of the survey, when taken as a
whole, seem to suggest that it is still too soon to make radical steps
towards electronic-only until issues such as archiving, VAT and long-term
pricing have been resolved. It seems we need to avoid making short-term
decisions that ignore long-term sustainability. As we sign license
agreements for electronic-only and send our print volumes to store, or
possibly the bin, we need to keep that uncomfortable question in
mind: “are we burning our boats?”
This is a summary of the more detailed write-up of this survey which is
available here: http://www.uea.ac.uk/~l002/eonlysurvey.html
Nicholas Lewis
Electronic Resources Librarian & Subject Librarian
The Library, University of East Anglia,
Norwich, Norfolk, England, NR4 7TJ
Tel: +44(0)1603-592382 Fax: +44(0)1603-591010
[log in to unmask]
|