Rethinking electronic only subscriptions...

I never thought I'd say that. I love electronic. It's available 24/7, can be searched in a variety of ways, and doesn't require binding or storage. However, the past couple of weeks have been an eye opener for me.

Due to budget issues, we had to cancel many subscriptions. This led to a project to verify access information in in my a-z list and, of course, close out records in our OPAC. For a variety of reasons that shall not be mentioned in this post, there is no record in my OPAC for when the subscription went electronic only. I can gather this information for the most part from either the order record or the subscription vendor, but those records only go back three to five years. So, I've made use of the information available via the publishers admin interface, which in most cases is quite robust. What I discovered was that perpetual access to electronic only subscriptions, i.e. the ability to continue to access electronically my electronic subscriptions once I've canceled the subscription, varies widely from publisher to publisher. And, it's not good.

The problem here isn't with the large publishers (the Wiley's or the Elsevier's); it's with the academic presses and the societies. What many say - no access to electronic content once your subscription ceases. Several will send the content that my institution subscribed to on disc or another format of their choice or we can purchase the print backfiles at the current price. One publisher even requires that we purchase the disc or the print if we want what we subscribed to electronically. It's that simple. I understand this with an aggregated database, but was honestly surprised at the degree to which many publishers do not provide perpetual access to e-only subscriptions. With these publishers it's not an electronic subscription, it's a lease and I wish they would call it that. It is in the license agreement, unfortunately, these were switched to electronic several years ago and the process for license review then wasn't all that good. So, for some titles, we subscribed e-only for two to three years and now have nothing.

So, this leaves me with the question of whether I should have an e-only subscription to a title that will not give us perpetual access should we have to cancel it. It makes no sense to do print plus electronic, however, it doesn't make sense to "subscribe" to a journal and have nothing for it should it be canceled. If I subscribe to any title in electronic format, I expect some form of ownership to accompany it. In today's budget landscape, I can't in all good conscience recommend spending money on a e-only subscription for a title that I won't own, which means I'm left going with a print only subscription if I don't want duplicate formats. Which really doesn't provide the access my patrons want or the access we want to provide to the patrons. I'm not really sure what the answer is.

Out of the box solutions...

Over the past several months it has become apparent that we need a system for tracking issues with electronic resources, i.e. which database is going down for maintenance, which one has a search interface that isn't working, etc. Problems were reported in a variety of ways - via e-mail or a screen shot dropped off on my desk or simply someone stopping by my desk and telling me what wasn't working. And, sometimes, it's the same problem being reported, because there was no central system to track these types of problems.

My first instinct was to use the Track Issues module of my ERM (implementation of which has proven to be klunky beyond my wildest imagination, but that's a different story). The back end interface was cumbersome and provided no way (at least not that I could see) to add updates to individual issues/problems. Also, it would have required the activation of the staff mode, which is not currently used and would most likely not have been embraced by users.

Fortunately, we are using Drupal for our new intranet site and it comes with a support ticket module. It's beautiful. It may not use terminology I would have picked (for example, client area for department), but I was able to basically figure this module out in less than a day. I tested it for a couple of weeks and officially rolled it out for use yesterday. We customized nothing.

I've implemented software in a previous life and understand the ramifications of over customizing applications. This module does the job. Maybe we would have changed a few words here and there, but in the end I didn't think it was worth it. It isn't always necessary to customize something. If it works, just use it and move on.

Why can't you use Google?

This is basically the question that came to us today from our procurement office. The resources in question were several specialized A&I Databases. The query was for further justification on why we couldn't use other free search engines like Google. I might have been able to deal with a reference to Google Scholar better, as it's a little more focused than just searching the web. As it was, we were surprised, but took it for what it is - a basic lack of knowledge from the general public on how libraries work and how information is really provided.

I began the justification by pointing out that the products in questions were not search engines but Abstract and Index databases, with definition, added what made them much more than Google and ended by saying they were vital to the support of the curriculum. I hope it's enough.

I want to shake my head and say this person should know, but really why would they? The majority of people can find the information they need on the internet. The average user doesn't distinguish between a database and a search engine. Hopefully, this person will now be a little more educated.

This is actually the second justification for electronic resources I've had to help with (our Acquisitions department handles this end of renewals/purchases) and I suspect it won't be the last.

Print only, anyone...

MPOW is trying to finalize a serials cancellation project. Since I gather and analyze usage statistics, I'm a big proponent of using them to help determine what to keep and what to cancel. Granted, there are some titles that need to be kept usage statistics aside, mainly those required to maintain accreditation. The rest, especially in times of declining budgets, to me, are fair game.

Faculty and librarians got a chance to lobby for those titles they considered essential. In a few cases, titles have been declared essential that have little or no usage. At least not electronic usage. There in lies the rub with usage statistics - we only have them for our electronic subscriptions (and a few vendors still don't provide them). Here until very recently, print and electronic was the standard subscription, so some titles could have print usage that I'm not aware of.

What then is the solution when the usage stats say no one is using this title and the faculty and/or librarians say we must have this title? The trend of course is to go electronic for everything. While most of the time, electronic subscriptions are equal in price or cheaper, there are still cases where print only is cheaper (Nature for example, at least at MPOW). So, my query is, if the usage doesn't back up the subscription, but the journal is still given priority, and print only is the same or cheaper, why not consider dropping the electronic piece and go print only? Even if the prices are the same, in some cases, it may still be better to go print only. Electronic only requires a license agreement and several vendors actually set a minimum spend on their agreements, meaning once you sign that agreement, nothing can be cancelled (spend level must be maintained for the life of the license agreement) or a title may be canceled as long as it is replaced with a title that is of equal or higher cost. These vendors may also prefer a multi-year agreement, which given the current budget situation, may not be doable for some libraries. In this case, the overall spend may be the same as electronic, however, there is increased flexibility in managing your subscriptions and there is no set spend amount to the vendor for the next three to five years. Added consideration here is the requirement for shelve space and potential binding costs. Not every vendor requires spending to remain the same, but for those that do, unless the publisher is willing to come up with a more flexible license agreement, libraries will have to look at other options and print only will have to be one of them. Right now, for MPOW, this mainly applies to journals that are not held in aggregators.

Part of this is simply thinking out loud. Trying to maintain electronic subsriptions is tricky when budgets are cut, but I sometimes wonder if we've gotten ourselves over a barrel with our reliance on electronic versions and the ease of use and access they bring. Maybe there are still times when carrying the print and not the electronic is what is most cost effective for the library. The content is still available to patrons, but the convenience is lost. Distance education is the one ara where electonic versions would, of course, win out over print.

Usage & Processes...

It's been a long time since I posted. A good portion of that time has been spent gathering usage statistics. As most libraries are probably doing, we are trying to reduce our journal and database subscriptions. Naturally one of the factors we looked at/are looking at is usage statistics not only for databases, but for individual journal subscriptions. Gathering usage statistics for individual journal titles has proven to be easier said than done.

At past places of work, focus has been on database usage statistics. For some reason, electronic journal subscriptions were left out of the usage statistics gathering equation. However, these statistics are available and should be considered. Tracking usage statistics for print journals (if done) is time consuming. Getting these usage statistics online, however, at least at my place of work, has also proven time consuming and at times it has been about as easy as herding cats.

Without something like Scholarly Stats or 360 Counter, one has to go to each individual journal publisher's site or to the vendor hosting the publication (such as Ingenta) to get the usage statistics. In many cases, gathering statistics for electronic subscriptions involves two steps - activating the IP range for access and activating the Admin account for access to things like maintaining the IP range, branding, and running usage reports. The jobber we use sets up the IP access, however, here the Admin accounts at the publisher sites were not being activated. This isn't a big surprise since until this year there had been no great interest in the usage stats for our electronic subscriptions. It did hinder the usage stat gathering process, though, as it takes time to activate. Another hindrance was when the online access was activated one of two people from our Acquisitions department, the former Electronic Access Librarian, or the Collection Development Librarian were listed as the account Administrator. There was no consistency in how this was set-up meaning there was also no consistency in who received notifications regarding the subscriptions or changes to the Administrative account. In most cases, the admin account had never been accessed. I couldn't begin to count the number of places I've gone or the e-mails I've sent trying to set up access to usage stats for particular journals. Regardless of whether or not it's one title or twenty, the same amount of work is involved to set up the Administrative access. I'd never before realized how many electronic journal subscriptions were single titles from a publisher. It's given a whole new aspect to tracking login information as in many cases it needs to be tracked by journal title as well as publisher.

For some reason, I naively expected when I began this process, that someone already had all of this information on a spreadsheet and I could just use that. This is how it worked at previous jobs. Most of the databases were on a spreadsheet; none of the publishers were. This is where processes come in. As electronic subscriptions increase, there needs to be an understanding between all departments as to who does what and what that requires. The Acquisitions department never gathered usage stats or branded a database, so while they forwarded outage e-mails or upgrade e-mails, sadly, in many cases e-mails advising of platform switches or other admin account changes were simply left in someone's inbox. Creating the process that in essence changes, and in some ways questions, old processes can be daunting. Not only does there need to be a primary person for this process, who does what and the account access information should be documented. People move on to other jobs; whoever follows behind them should be able to pick up where they left off.

I'm such a geek...

So, this morning, I got email from ILLiad telling me that some of my items had arrived through Inter-library Loan. I went to pick them up and had 3 things instead of 2. One of which was a fed-ex package and had me puzzled. Well, I opened it up and apparently I had submitted a request for someone's dissertation on Cognitive Learning Styles in relationship to web-based learning. I didn't remember that.

I'm sitting here starting to read through it and I'm getting all giddy. So much so that I had to hop on here and write about it. (which if you've been following this blog a while you know I'm the slacker in writing articles) See, I have this 1st draft of a paper due Sunday at midnight that I've not been very diligent about -- and this piece is PERFECT!! It's such a shame that plagerism is frowned on because the lit review of this thing would be something I could pass in. Ah well, there's the ethical side of me I guess.

However, I'm certainly going to use the references list to ensure that I have the quintessential works I need to be able to craft my own masterpiece... (ok, a 20 pg paper is not a masterpiece, but it is going to be a MIRACLE)

Demos - a good thing....

In the past several years, I've run my fair share of trials for different electronic resource products. Generally, if you're familiar and comfortable with databases and electronic resources, you can get a good feel for the product without a demo. However, with some products, a demo is a very good thing. This was brought home in the past week with demos on two products that afterwards I realized I wouldn't have figured out all they have to offer without the demo. At least not in a two week trial.

I arranged the first demo for me and a couple of other librarians, because we were given the option to add on the module to an existing product when we renewed (through our consortium), but I had never seen it or heard of it. And, honestly, I wasn't getting much information from the brochure sent by our rep. So, we set up a trial. Next thing I know, the Product Manager is offering to do a 20 minute web demo. I figured what the heck and arranged for the business librarians to join me. Incredibly robust product; I doubt we would have realized half of what it can do without the demo. It was about a 20 minute demo, but it was 20 minutes well spent. Very, very nice product.

The second demo was yesterday. Brief and in person. Again, amazing product. We might have gotten a lot of what it has to offer during the trial, but there are things we would have missed. Another 20 minutes well spent.

Now I'm thinking maybe I should do more demos or at least remember that for some products a demo will be needed. In case you're interested, the products demo'd were Mergent Horizon and West's Campus Research.

Usage statistics

When databases come up for renewal, one of the first things we do is look at usage statistics. Well, I have a tax database due for renewal -- the vendor does not provide usage statistics and has no intention of doing so. When I asked, the reply was that the cost was the same regardless of usage and if we wanted to know, they recommend that their corporate customers send out an e-mail to gauge usage. Well, we're a library, so that's not really an option for us. So, do you just blow off usage statistics?

The first professional conference I ever attended was the Charleston Conference. I had been in my first full time job less than six months when I went, but I'm still learning from one of the sessions I attended. It was a session on Counter compliant statistics. They didn't teach that in library school, so it was all new to me. One of the presenters stated that they finally implemented a policy to not subscribe to a database/resource if the usage statistics were not Counter compliant. I didn't quite understand it until I spent a week gathering usage statistics for my library's annual report. Then, I got it.

Now, I'm wondering if I shouldn't have such a policy for databases that provide no usage statistics. The above mentioned database will cost us thousands of dollars and I have no way of gauging if it's being used. My business librarians tell me one facutly member in the business department uses it for one of her classes. We do have a MS in Taxation which adds a little wrinkle to it. However, ProQuest now has an Accounting and Tax database that offers most of what this database does in addition to accounting journals. Their interface is familiar to most and usage stats (Counter compliant ones no less) would be available.

I have no desire to take away a resource that is being used. I also have no desire to pay thousands of dollars for a resource for one class, especially if the information could be provided by another resource that would have broader applicability.

Which begs another question. Is any type of usage statistic better than none?

How much overlap?

I'm currently in the process of reviewing a database and it's usage for renewal while looking at a new product from the same company, and upgrading another database from a different company. Same discipline, but different areas.

The information in the renewing database is specific to a certain group, but I think it is also available in other database's, but the user would have to do a more specific (advanced) search. So, I've looked at several of the other database's we have in this field to see where the overlap might be, while taking into consideration what is offered in other database's we are considering. The questions that are coming to mind: a) how many different ways do you offer the same information (i.e. DataMonitor reports), b) is there a way to define what type of different information or feature would justify the overlap, and c) what criteria should we use to determine what we can drop, taking into account we might lose features and or information, or d) should we not lose anything and go with the overlap?

At previous job, we used Serials Solutions, thus I had access to their wonderful Overlap Analysis tool. Alas, not so here. So, now I'm stuck with the question of the best way to compare overlap of one of the databases under consideration with two other databases, which we subscribe to, offering the same type of information. This time, the database is rather specialized, so it may not be as much of an issue, but what about the next time? After using SS, I really hate think that I might have to go in and (gasp) manually compare the full-text holdings for each database. Gads. It just seems so archaic to me. But, we do what we gotta do and I just may have to.

How many users?

At current work place, we're running quite a few database trials right now. So, this morning I was checking some of them out and giving feedback. One of them is a spiffy little database - Literary Reference Center by Ebsco. I also ran a trial at previous work place. That previous trial is what made me begin to seriously look at the number of users when licensing a database. This database does not solely license unlimited users. You start with one user and work your way up from there. My first thought, was gosh, good price, but only one user?

Then I really thought about it. I would be replacing print editions of criticisms with the database. With a print edition, only one person can use it a time and if it has been used and is laying on a table somewhere waiting to be shelved, then the next user does not have ready access. So, I'm not losing anything, except the amount of money I'm paying. I did the math, the print costs for the titles the database would replace were more than the cost of the database itself. And, the database doesn't require shelf room. Plus, you have the added functionality of being able to search across all reference volumes, articles, criticisms; you get author biographies, books are assigned categories; and it's accessible 24x7 from anywhere. So, only one person can access it a time, but now we have increased accessiblity.

After thinking about this and realizing that realistically, I'd probably want 2-4 user seats, I also realized that based on the type of resource and who would be using it, unlimited usage was really not required. And, given my limited budget, that was a liberating realization. Some standard databases do need unlimited access, Ebsco Academic Search Elite/Premier or ProQuest Research Library, for instance. However, look at the subject areas they cover and the fact that all students, undergraduate and graduate, as well as faculty will use it. Literary Reference Center is a very nice database, but it's usuage is most likely limited to undergraduate students in lower level writing and English courses. It is is not a resource for the graduate or faculty researcher.

Here we're actually taking a hard look at the number of users for a database we already have, which has about four users. We looked at the past year. Some months we had turnaways in the hundreds, but other months we had just two turnaways, other months, there were no turnways, and for a couple of months there was no usage. What we're looking into are the instructional sessions. Are these tying into the high number of turnaways? If so, perhaps, the sessions could be adapted away from "hands on" with the knowledge that a) not everyone will be able to get on (or put them in groups to match the number of logins), and b) when the time comes for the students to do research, odds are they'll be able to get it. If the turnaways are occuring due to the training sessions, then the turnaway numbers aren't really an accurate picture of the number of users we need for the database.

End result: now I approach database licensing and number of users differently. If the "default" is unlimited users, good. If not, then I look more closely at the resource, but I also take a hard look at who my user population will be. Odds are having less than five users will be sufficient. And, if it's not, then we can always evaluate the usage and increase the license if needed.

Electronic Resource - Gartner

In fall of 2004, we at the library were approached to participate in bring the electronic resources of the Gartner Group to campus. An agreement of understanding was drawn up between the Business School, Information Science, CyberCollege, Computing Services, and the Library. Each of the units would contribute significantly to the price tag while the library would take on the administration and maintenance of the contract and resource.

In spring of 2005, the proposal to purchase the resource went the the legislature. -- Yes, in Arkansas, any purchase over $20,000 has to be approved directly by the legislature. -- Members of the agreement of understanding went to the floor of the state congress and obtained the approval to sign the two-year contract.

At our price point, we received the following with our contract - 2 seats at a Gartner conference, Research Analyst assistance, unlimited access for the campus to their online resources, and a monthly audio newsletter for the collection. The library commenced to setup the requisite PGP authentication required by Gartner as well as logging. Access was provided to the campus through validation with their network login and password - thus allowing access to all university affiliated patrons no matter their location. Once established, a couple of the core participants started to use the resources as an integral part of their instruction.

During the course of the first year, the Computing Services department experienced some issues with the Research Analyst assistance. While working on a portal implementation project amongst many others, they ran into roadblocks in how to most effectively use this service. What they had been hoping for was that anyone from the Computing Service department would be allowed to call and use this service to aid in the research behind starting a new project. What they experienced was a need for the actual seat holder - in this case the CIO - to be present on each phone call that was being made. In addition, the assistance that was received was limited to 30 minute sessions and ended in the university staff member simply being pointed to appropriate online resources, not being given a consolidation or analysis of what the literature said.

When the renewal for year two approached, Computing Services began to mention that they would not be renewing the contract. At this point, the library started working with the other players to see where they stood on the resource. The two academic units that had integrated the resource into their curriculum were very strong for renewing the contract. The third unit found itself in a budgetary quandary and would not be able to continue its support. Between it and Computing Services, this left a shortfall of roughly $14,000.

We worked with Gartner to see what other service levels might be available to continue its presence. What we learned was that the unlimited access to the electronic resource was a benefit of the Advisor/Analyst seats and therefore could not be purchased separately. After a careful analysis of the usage logs and the library's budget, we were able to increase our portion to cover half of the difference. Unfortunately, this was not enough to save the product on our campus.

The electronic resources were wonderful for our academic units and we have been quite dismayed to have to release them. In a time where most libraries are clamoring for vendors to package more of their services to keep from the constant stream of "add-ons", we hope that in the future Gartner will find a method to provide this access separate from the overhead of the rest of their services.