Library Collections to Maximize Research Impact & Student

Achievement優化學術研究影響力及學生成績的館藏

Keith Webster

The 11th Annual Library Leadership InstituteRepositioning Libraries and Librarians for the Next GenerationTaiwan, 10-14 May 2013

Overview• Library collections

• Collections policies

• Budgets

• Legacy issues, long-term costs and storage

• Open access

• Digital migration

• Impact on scholarship

Collection development policy

• Important document to frame library decision-making in context of research and teaching priorities

• Helps set faculty expectations

• Informs librarian selections

• Supports budget decisions - allocations and reductions

https://www.library.uq.edu.au/about-us/collection-development

Broad principles• Collections to support teaching, learning and

research

• A balance between teaching and research is necessary

• The library’s collection spend will be no less than 45% of total budget

• No more than 80% of collections spend will be on subscriptions

• Preference for digital format

• Collection use will be assessed

• Lesser-used materials will be stored off-site

Topics addressed

• Links to University and Library planning and priorities

• Historical overview

• Selection tools and decision making

• Collection maintenance

• Document delivery

• Co-operative activities

Disciplinary approach

• Subject breakdown - by classification/national codes

• Purpose of collection

• Notable strengths

• Scope of current activity

• Languages, geography, chronology, formats, special considerations

Budgets

• Sources of funds

• Allocations

• Special funding

• Costs of collection maintenance

• Costs of document delivery

Two sides of the argument

Librarians complain about pricing

•Price increases greater than budget uplift•Big deals limit ability to cancel titles•Books are sacrificed for journals•Costs would be lower in a not-for-profit model•‘Our academics did the work - why should we pay (so much)?’

Publishers point to explosion in output and

value they add

•Great increase in number of articles•Cost per download decreasing•Big deals offer wider access at discount•e-journal transition required massive investment•‘We will try open access if we can cover costs’

Support open access Find new sources of funds

How publishers add value

• Sorting and assessment of research outputs;

• Publication of primary literature, supplementary data, and patents;

• Aggregation of content;

• Distillation of evidence – reference works and meta-reviews;

• Creating standards and consensus seeking;

• Granularisation, tagging, and prioritisation of content, identification, and application of rules;

• Systems integration, data structure and exchange standards, content maintenance, and updating procedure;

• Integration of content from multiple sources;

• Development of workflow analytics and best practice benchmarking at the level of the individual, department, institution, and geopolitical entity.

The big deal - librarians

• Access to vast numbers of titles

• Bundles bought on basis of package value - titles, downloads etc - than on assessment of individual title quality

• Harder to select or cancel individual titles

• Journal brands replaced by package brands

The big deal - clients

• Access to vast quantities of content

• Access to deep archives

• Wider dissemination of publications

• Search and discovery tools - eg Google Scholar and Summon - taking people direct to article

• Clients expect sophisticated data mining tools

The big deal - publishers

• Economies of scale in the big few making it hard for smaller publishers to compete

• Only the big few can afford to develop sophisticated services

• Bundling has allowed publishers to drop major price increases for specific titles for incremental increases on the bundle

• This is justified often by quality rather than quantity

An Impacts Framework

http://www.humanities.org.au/Events/NSCF/NSCF2007/PowerPoints/NSCF2007-Houghton.ppt

RESEARCHMost/Many served,

but not all

CONSUMERS/SOCIETYFew served

INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT

Part served, but not all

SUBSCRIPTION PUBLISHINGCurrent reach

OPEN ACCESSPotentially serves all

RESEARCHAccess for all, research participation based on merit, not means.

Potential benefits:Speeding up discovery.Reduction of duplicative research.Fewer blind alleys.New research possibilities.Better educational outcomes & enhanced research capabilities.

SOCIETYAccess as needed, informed consumers (e.g. health and education).

Potential benefits:Contribution to the 'informed citizen' and 'informed consumer', with implications for better use of health and education services, better consumption choices, etc. leading to greater welfare benefits, which in turn may lead to productivity improvements.

INDUSTRY(1) Access as needed,

more informed producers & policy.

(2) New businesses add value to content (e.g. Weather Derivatives).

Potential benefits:Accelerate and widen

opportunities for collaboration,

commercialisation & adoption.

The potential for much wider access for

GPs/nurses, teachers/students, and

small firms in consulting, engineering,

ICT, nanotechnology,biotechnology, etc.

The potential for the emergence of new

industries based upon the open access

content.

• Currently, access to research is restricted and the means to gain access are determined by a market in which a small number of publishers have a dominant position.

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtd003182.pdf

•It is not for either publishers or academics to decide who should, and who should not, be allowed to read scientific journal articles. We are encouraged by the growing interest in research findings shown by the public. It is in society’s interest that public understanding of science should increase. Increased public access to research findings should be encouraged by publishers, academics and Government alike.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399.pdf

Overview• Gold OA is achieved by the publication of peer-reviewed

articles, either in wholly OA journals

Overview• Gold OA is achieved by the publication of peer-reviewed

articles, either in wholly OA journals or as individual articles in subscription-based journals

Overview• Gold OA is achieved by the publication of peer-reviewed

articles, either in wholly OA journals or as individual articles in subscription-based journals

• Green OA is achieved by depositing a version of a peer-reviewed article, which is available for purchase in its version of record form, in an online repository or archive

Institutional repositories

Disciplinary repositories

Funder repositories

30

31

The OA marketplace

Traditional Born OA

Disruptive

8,566 journals956,000 articles

524 papers

(last week)

Open Access 2013

The growth of OA

Open access mandates

Three broad sources

• Government - eg European Union, NIH• Research funder - eg Research Councils UK• Employer - eg Harvard University

Broad aim of mandates

• To make publications arising from research freely available - through green and/or gold• For example:–a university may require that its researchers deposit

copies of publications in its institutional repository (aim: showcase institution’s research);–a funder may offer money to cover costs of gold OA (aim:

inform the public about research results)

Main developments 2012-2013• Research Councils UK

- all articles arising from RCUK-funded research to be open access - via gold or green

- funding of ~$25million to be provided in 2013-14

• European Union- recommending member states to devise and implement

OA policies- OA requirements for research funded by EU

• USA- OSTP announced plans to extend NIH mandate to other

federal funding agencies

•Access to scholarly literature is an iterative process

•Researchers build upon the work of others as they make new discoveries and contribute new ideas

•Without access to literature, this would not be possible

•As we have seen already, the vast proportion of scholarly publishing is undertaken by a few companies and societies

•Libraries in the west pay vast amounts to access content

•Libraries in developing countries simply cannot afford to acquire even a small portion of literature

Source: prc; Access versus Importance; Phase I Results

HINARI• Run by World Health Organisation

• Launched in 2002 in partnership with six publishers

• Now offers 11,400 journals and 18,500 ebooks in 30 languages

• Available in more than 100 countries and territories

• Training available - courses and videos

Funding

• Ever-increasing expenditure on healthcare in most nations will support continued expansion of the medical subsegment of the STM market

• Publishers will look to offset the decline in print revenues through new solutions - eg workflow and performance measurement

• R&D growth in Asia and the US will continue to underpin the STM market

In the print library• Costs for users of accessing local

collections were low: time, travel and productive research

• Costs for libraries were high: buildings, infrastructure, staff, acquisitions, storage, maintenance

• The quality of library corresponded with the quality of research

• Distinguished research teams were built around distinguished library collections

• The payoff on investment was strong and in turn resulted in greater investment

• Publication of research findings facilitates the development of knowledge and collaboration, both of which are fundamental to scholarship

• New technology reduces costs of publication and dissemination, improving access

• Expensive production and distribution costs diminish and interventions can make access possible for all

• Increasingly, we observe that apart from the most esoteric, that which is not online is unread

Where do library clients go?

Where do student start a search? Where do academics begin research?

Perceptions of libraries 2010, OCLC

Faculty study 2009: key insights for libraries and

publishers, Ithaka

“The Library is at the heart of the

university”

... filling prime space with ‘dead’

collections...

... meanwhile, new research ventures

have nowhere to go...

... nor do increased numbers of

students

Libraries designed for learning, CLIR 2003

Disposition of library space

Use of print collections

Pittsburgh study1979

40% of collection never circulates

If a book isn’t borrowed during first 6 years, only 2% chance it will ever be used

Cornell study2010

55% of books purchased since 1990 never borrowed

65% of books purchased in 2001 hadn’t been borrowed

13%

Average circulation from open

shelf collections

1%Average

circulation from high density

collections

~0%Average

circulation from off-site

storage

Traditional usage declining

Changing user demands and IT

Financial challenges

New competitors

Changes in media access

The need for transformation

Library-based services24x7 accessCoffee shop

Collaborative spacesTutoring

Instructional support

Information literacye-Learning platforms

Multimedia productionInstructional designPathfinder guides

Research supportBibliometricsGrant writing

Institutional repositoryData curation

e-PressCopyright advice

Literature searching

Web servicesDatabases

Search enginesChat referenceMobile services

App development

Opportunity and uncertaintyCan the Library do everything? Where are the winners?

Traditional library

Current priorities in academic libraries

1. Continue and complete migration from print to electronic and realign service operationsRetire legacy collectionsContinue to repurpose library as primary learning spaceReposition library expertise and resources to be more closely embedded in research and teaching enterprise outside libraryExtend focus of collection development from external purchase to local curation

• Accelerate the reduction and removal of routine transactions

- Increase use of web-based activity

- Increase use of self-service

- Close labour-intensive low volume services

• Prefer digital form at all times

• Patron-driven acquisition as supplement

• Better discovery services - eg Summon

• Identify opportunities to leverage economies of scale

- Buy publishers’ bundles to reduce need for selection decisions

- Consolidate distributed collections, warehousing or disposing of obsolete material

- Consolidate and multi-purpose service points

JournalsCurrent state

Authors transfer copyright to publishers

Publishers sell access, often in title bundles

Gaps in access filled by slow and expensive inter-library loans

Future state

Authors reserve rights and self-archive

Subscription models blend with on-demand and open access models

Researchers have scope to make data accessible, share pre-prints etc

Current barriers

Research assessment, promotion and tenure tied to traditional publishing in high impact journals

Publishers concerned about open access ‘tipping point’

Book migrationCurrent state

Large collections of unused books occupying prime real estate

Duplicate holding across a university, consortium, region

Books purchased just in case, and before the go OOP

Future state

Ebook lists larger than physical collection

Legacy collections shared through offsite consortial stores

Ebooks purchased only when required (PDA)

Current barriers

Copyright limitations on orphaned works and local digitisationEbook versions of academic books not always availableEbook procurement and licensing more complex than printDRM limitations and transfer to mobile devices

• Perpetual access to online tools - with Portico and LOCKSS backup

• Off-site (or onsite) warehouse

• Collaborative retention

• Disposal - not every library is a library of last resort and we need to ditch sentiment over “destruction” of books

Methodology

• Contingent valuation

• Respondents were presented with different hypothetical scenarios

• They were asked about their willingness to pay, and the amount they would expect to pay

Time devoted to using information resources

Ease of access

Meets my needs.....Very well

Adequately

Sometimes

fails

Often

failsN/A

Journal articles (academic, scholarly, technical, etc.)

281 81 14 1 2

Books 184 141 39 7 8

Datasets (e.g. numeric data, surveys, etc.) 85 91 24 3 176

Abstracts, indexes, and bibliographies 196 113 19 1 50

Standards and specifications 45 51 18 2 263

Conference proceedings 96 142 55 10 76

Technical papers 84 70 19 5 201

Patents 38 34 12 3 292

Government publications 87 114 34 5 139

Audio-visual media 72 85 36 6 180

Overall range of information resources 165 131 25 2 56

Other 4 1 6 3 40

Value for money

Excellent

Very good

Good Fair Poor

Value for money relative to the

level of expenditure

disclosed

182 118 53 16 10

Where else would you go for stuff?

Obtain from colleagues/authors 183Other universities to which I have no affiliation 173Purchase from publishers or document delivery intermediaries 172

Institutional and open access repositories 160State libraries 149National Library of Australia 113Another university to which I am also affiliated 106Overseas universities 97Specialist subject-focused research institutions 73Other public libraries 58Learned Societies 36Other 23

Time mattersLess time than now – I could work more efficiently 1

None – it would make no difference to me 8

Up to 10 per cent more time 15

11-15 per cent more time 15

16-20 per cent more time 33

21-25 per cent more time 44

26-30 per cent more time 36

31-35 per cent more time 17

36-40 per cent more time 19

Over 40 per cent more time 191

Medium-long term effect on research

Volume of research outputs

Volume will increase 16

Volume will remain unchanged 37

Volume will decrease 326

Total responses: 379

Quality of research

Quality will increase 15

Quality will remain unchanged 62

Quality will decrease 302

Total responses: 379

Key impacts of free access to information on research

• Access to information is indispensible for research (91% strongly agree)

• Maintain comprehensive overview of developments in field (77%)

• Eliminate unproductive time (74%)

• Avoiding duplication of research done elsewhere (50%)

Funding scenarios• Current spent on information resources across

the three sites is $2,496 per capita

• Respondents were asked to recommend a budget for the purchase of single-user access to the resources they need - average $3,511 per capita

• Respondents were also asked to estimate the costs if they had to be self-sufficient (purchases, travel to libraries etc) - average $5,894 per capita

Summary finding

• The final scenario would result in total costs to the institution of $81.4m compared to actual spend of $34.5m - a financial return of 136 percent