Hi Nicholas,

I realize there may be confidentiality issues, but is it possible to
know which institutions responded to you survey [without wanting/needing
to know their individual responses)?

Many thanks in anticipation.

Regards
Steve Cramond.

Nicholas Lewis wrote:
>
> 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 Have you withdrawn print back copies of titles that are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]

--

Regards,
    ___________________________________________________________________

Steve Cramond
Electronic Information Resources Librarian
University of Adelaide Libraries

eMail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +61 8 8303 3629
Fax: +61 8 8303 4369
Postal Address: Barr Smith Library
University of Adelaide
Adelaide SA 5005
Australia

 ____________________________

This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains
information which may be confidential and/or copyright. If you are not
the intended recipient please do not read, save, forward, disclose, or
copy the contents of this email. If this email has been sent to you in
error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete this email
and any copies or links to this email completely and immediately from
your system. No representation is made that this email is free of
viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is the responsibility of the
recipient.