OAPEN-UK librarian survey
This survey was conducted in summer 2014 to test more widely the findings of OAPEN-UK’s
institutional case studies. The case studies looked in some depth at the role of monographs within
four UK universities, including how they are currently managed by university libraries. Through the
case studies, we identified some important issues to do with the way that university libraries
currently acquire and supply monographs to their users, both researchers and students, which
would affect the introduction of open access monographs to universities.
The survey attracted a total of 109 responses from librarians at UK universities. Because it covered
such a diverse range of issues we invited librarians in a number of different roles to complete the
survey, asking them to ignore the questions where they felt unable to supply a response. We offered
respondents the option of identifying the university where they work; 35 respondents chose not to
take up this option. Among those who did identify their employer, two universities had responses
from two people, and two had responses from three people. This may have slightly affected the
results, but we have chosen not to amalgamate the data for these institutions as in some cases the
respondents may work in different libraries within the same institution.
Although the sample is small, it covers a large number of universities and we are therefore confident
that the findings give a useful insight into how libraries currently manage monographs, and how they
might handle the introduction of open access for monographs.
This analysis of the survey is separated into four main areas:
-
Acquiring monographs
Providing access to monographs
New business models for monographs
Open access
Within each section, we consider what the survey findings might mean for plans to introduce open
access for monographs.
Acquiring monographs
The most common main way to select books for acquisition was to use reading lists, followed by
subject librarians selecting individual titles. That said, almost all respondents involved academics in
some way in the acquisitions process – this was more commonly a supplementary way of acquiring
books and tended to be done on an ad-hoc basis rather than through organised or structured
methods such as regular committees or liaison with nominated members of academic staff.
Most (64%) of respondents have more than one ‘main’ way of selecting books for acquisition,
suggesting that librarians use a number of strategies to ensure their monograph collections remain
up-to-date and useful for their users.
1
Figure 1: Methods of monograph acquisition
80
74
71
70
58
58
60
55
Percentage
50
40
49
40
39
36 37
30
29
27
25
21
21
20
13
13
10
12
14
7
2
0
Subject
Librarians
Academics
Academics
Patron-driven
librarians select select e-book recommend request titles
acquisition
individual titles packages from individual titles on ad-hoc basis
vendors
in a structured
way
Reading lists
Student
requests
Method of selecting monographs
Main way of selecting monographs
Supplementary way of selecting monographs
Rarely/never select monographs in this way
Most respondents used a library vendor as a main way of acquiring print content – only 5% did not.
Among those who used a library vendor, the majority (56%) used just one as a main way of acquiring
books. The picture was broadly similar for e-books: 7% did not use a library vendor as a main way of
acquiring books, while 46% used a single vendor as a main way of acquiring books. In general,
librarians seemed to work with more vendors as main or supplementary suppliers of e-books than
they did of print books.
2
Figure 2: Number of library vendors worked with
40
34
35
Percentage
30
27
26
28
25
19
20
18
Print
15
11
10
7
4
3
5
Electronic
12
8
2
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Number of library vendors worked with
Respondents were roughly evenly divided between preferring to buy books in electronic format,
preferring to buy them in both print and electronic, and not having a policy on print versus
electronic. Only 9% of respondents preferred to buy in print.
10% of respondents said that they would rarely or never buy a book they already held in an
alternative format if requested to do so by an academic, and a similar number said that they would
always buy a book in an alternative format if requested to do so by an academic. The remainder
were happy to do so, as long as money was available in the budget or the academic was able to
demonstrate that they needed it in that specific format.
When asked to agree with various statements about the monograph collection at their institution,
the one which elicited the strongest agreement was ‘the first priority for our book budget is to
ensure we have the right material for students’. This aligns with the importance placed upon reading
lists as a way of selecting content. Many respondents also agreed that ‘our library has a strong
monograph collection in the areas where our staff are active in research’. But most respondents
disagreed with the statement that ‘our budget for textbooks is separate from our budget for
monographs and other book-based materials’, and respondents were roughly equally split on
whether they had enough money to buy all the monographs they needed each year. This suggests
that in many libraries student needs take priority, and it may be the case that these sometimes come
into conflict with what researchers want or need.
3
Figure 3: Book budgets and collections
100
87
90
83
80
Percentage
70
61
60
50
46
42
40
30
30
20
12
9
10
7
7
11
7
0
We usually have
Our library has a strong The first priority for our
Our budget for
enough money to buy monograph collection
book budget is to
textbooks is separate
all the monographs we in the areas where our ensure we have the
from our budget for
need each year
staff are active in
right materials for monographs and other
research
students
book-based materials
Statement
Strongly agree / agree
Neutral
Strongly disagree / disagree
Acquiring monographs – how does this relate to open access?
Student needs seem particularly important when deciding which books to buy – something which is
strongly supported by our findings from the case studies. It suggests that librarians are most likely to
engage with open access books if they are required by students, meaning that publishers of open
access monographs may want to highlight their usefulness for teaching and learning as well as
research.
Library vendors are clearly important resources for both print and e-books, and most respondents
use these for their acquisitions. Publishers of open access monographs need to ensure that their
titles are fully integrated into such systems, particularly if their business models rely upon selling
alternative versions of the book (such as print books or formatted e-books).
Most respondents are happy at least to consider buying books they already hold in an alternative
format, if the academic requests it. Again, this is encouraging for business models which might rely
upon sales of alternative formats for their main income stream. However, the increasing pressure on
book budgets, indicated in the large number of respondents who felt they did not have enough
money to buy all the books they need, suggests that this may not be the most sustainable revenue
stream.
Providing access to monographs
Most respondents said that usage restrictions applied to at least some of their e-books. The most
common kind of restriction was only permitting a certain number of users to view the book
simultaneously. Only 2 respondents said that none of their e-books were subject to any usage
restrictions.
4
Figure 4: Usage restrictions on e-books in libraries
70
62
60
56
51
51
Percentage
50
40
31
27
30
20
25
18
24
21
23
11
Most of our e-books
Some of our e-books
Few/none of our e-books
10
0
Limited
download
periods
Limited number Limited number No download to
of users
of accesses
local devices
accessing
before further
simultaneously
payment
Restriction type
Librarians currently make the monographs that they hold discoverable to end users on a range of
platforms: the library catalogue is the most common, followed by a web-scale discovery system such
as Summon, Primo or WorldCat. Very few currently use an institutional repository for discoverability,
and around a third use Google or Google Scholar to indicate the books that are available to
researchers.
We asked respondents where they would expect researchers to find open access books. The results
were broadly similar, although note the fifth of respondents who would not put open access books
in their library catalogue, though they do currently use it for non-open access books. Respondents
anticipate much higher use of institutional repositories (both their own and those of other
institutions) and of Google or Google Scholar for open access books than for books that are not open
access.
5
Figure 5: Discovery locations for open access and non-open access books
80
70
69
58
Percentage
60
50
41
44
37
40
Only non-OA
26
30
22
20
10
OA and non-OA
33
Only OA
20
Neither OA nor non-OA
14
13 12
6
4
1
0
0
Web-scale
discovery
system
Library
catalogue
Institutional
repository
Google/Google
Scholar
Resource
30% of respondents currently identify open access monographs for inclusion within their library
collections – 49% do not, while 21% were unsure. Almost half of respondents knew that their
institutional repository contained some combination of monographs and book chapters, and a
relatively large number of respondents were unsure – only 14% were certain that their repository
did not contain monographs or book chapters.
Figure 6: Book content currently held in institutional repositories
40
38
35
Percentage
30
25
20
25
19
14
15
10
4
5
0
I don't know Book chapters Monographs
and book
chapters
No
Monographs
Type of output
6
Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about hosting open access monographs within their own
institutional repository, with nobody ruling it out completely. Most expressed a preference for
hosting only content which has an association with their own institution, rather than content
produced elsewhere but which might be valuable to their own users.
Figure 7: Book content that may be held in institutional repositories in future
100%
90%
80%
15
18
11
I don't know
19
Percentage
70%
60%
50%
52
40%
30%
67
20%
10%
18
Yes, anything we want
our researchers/
students to be able to
read
Yes, if edited by
current/former member
of staff
Yes, if produced by
current/former member
of staff
0%
Monographs
Book chapters
Type of output
We asked respondents to agree or disagree with a number of statements relating to long-term
access to monographs and Green open access for monographs. The results show that, for the most
part, librarians are concerned about long-term access to e-books, and many are unconvinced that
publishers are going to be able to supply this in the long-term. When it comes to OA monographs,
most are happy for their institutional repository to be the long-term source of work produced at
their institution, but slightly fewer would be happy to rely on other institutions to provide the same
service for their own research outputs. In this context, it is not surprising that a centralised
repository was a popular suggestion, although it would not necessarily replace storage in the
institutional repository. Respondents also agreed that a central repository should play a role in
standards for metadata and licensing for open access books.
7
Figure 8: Long-term availability of open access and non-open access monographs
100%
90%
2
12
2
8
28
80%
16
3
22
22
26
70%
Percentage
16
2
8
60%
50%
40%
86
48
82
70
30%
89
74
59
20%
10%
24
0%
Ensuring long-term I have confidence in I would be happy for I would be happy to I would support the A central repository A central repository
access to electronic the arrangements that the institutional
rely upon other
development of a
should ensure
would not replace
books that we acquire publishers have made repository to be the
instiutions'
central repository for
standardised
storage of open access
is a major priority for for long-term access main long-term source repositories for long- open access books, to
metadata and
books produced by
my library
to the electronic
of open access
term access to open
provide long-term licensing information our researchers in our
books in my library
versions of
access versions of access to open access for open access books
institutional
collection
monographs produced monographs produced
versions of
repository
by researchers at my by their researchers
monographs and
institution
ensure these are
available within library
discovery systems
Statement
Strongly agree/agree
Neutral
Disagree/strongly disagree
8
Providing access to monographs – what does this mean for open access?
Usage restrictions apply to a large number of e-books currently held by academic libraries. Open
access could help to resolve these problems by making books available under more liberal licences,
but only if the third-party vendors which supply these e-books to libraries via platforms for endusers are able to accommodate such liberal licences. Evidence from other OAPEN-UK work packages
suggests that this may be a challenge.
Respondents made some distinctions between open access and non-open-access monographs in
terms of where they would make them discoverable. Most striking is the 22% of respondents who
would not make open access monographs available through the library catalogue: it may be
important to understand more about why they would take this decision, as it would not necessarily
be helpful to make a distinction between open and non-open content for researchers undertaking
discovery. Similarly, it would be helpful to know why the 37% of respondents who would only make
open content available via Google would make this choice – is it a technical issue, or a library policy
decision?
The survey suggests that many librarians are already engaging with Green open access for
monographs or book chapters, although findings from the institutional case studies indicate that this
is not necessarily something that is done routinely. Overall, there was great positivity about the idea
of hosting OA books in institutional repositories, and a reasonable level of confidence in long-term
availability of books via this route. That said, most respondents also supported a central repository
operating in tandem with their own institutional repositories, and felt that it could add value by
working to standardise metadata and licence conditions for OA books. This may be particularly
important since institutions are, for the most part, only keen to host content that has some
connection to their university rather than content that may be useful to their researchers. Without
some kind of centralised discovery facility for institutional repositories, this may not be particularly
helpful to the end user.
New business models for monographs
Respondents showed a high level of awareness of open access business models for monographs. The
most widely-known model was the library consortium, and over two-fifths of our respondents were
actively participating in one of these models (probably Open Library of the Humanities, Knowledge
Unlatched, or both). In terms of other business models, the most common response was awareness
but not familiarity, suggesting that some work still remains in ensuring librarians understand what
the options are for open access monograph publishing.
9
Figure 9: Familiarity with new open access publishing models
100%
5
5
36
37
90%
80%
43
70%
Percentage
60%
50%
19
40%
30%
20%
10%
My institution actively
participates in this
model
I'm familiar with this
model
39
47
25
13
19
0%
Library-funded
consortuim based
models
New open access
presses
I'm aware of this model
but not familiar with it
I've never heard of this
model
11
Open access from
commercial publishers
OA model
New business models – what does this mean for open access?
Most respondents had some level of awareness of new business models, which is encouraging for
those who would like to see more widespread adoption of open access for monographs. But
institutions don’t yet seem to be actively participating in models other than library-based
consortium funding. This may be, at least in part, because we did not define what we meant by
‘participating’ – respondents may be buying or ingesting OA books published by new or established
presses, but may have thought that ,participating, means supporting publication with those presses
by researchers employed at the institution.
Attitudes towards open access
Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about the principle of open access, although only 32%
considered themselves ‘very positive’ about open access for monographs, compared with 54% who
considered themselves ‘very positive’ about open access for journals.
10
Figure 10: Attitudes towards the principle of open access
120
Percentage
100
1
2
3
5
11
80
Don't know
60
Negative/ very negative
96
40
Neutral
80
Very positive/ positive
20
0
Journals
Monographs
Type of output
Respondents were less confident about the ease of implementing open access. For both journals and
monographs, Green open access was seen as the less difficult option, although in neither case did
large numbers of respondents consider it easy or very easy. Gold open access for journals was seen
as difficult or very difficult by just over half of respondents, and Gold open access for monographs
was seen as difficult or very difficult by 71% of respondents, a large majority.
Figure 11: Beliefs about ease of implementing open access
Percentage
120
100
5
80
32
60
40
8
11
55
54
9
71
40
20
23
0
Green journals
26
24
11
10
Gold journals
Green monographs
17
3
Gold monographs
Type of output
Very easy/ easy
Neither easy nor difficult
Difficult / very difficult
Don't know
11
Attitudes towards open access – what does this mean?
Respondents’ positivity about the principle of open access for both books and journals is
encouraging. But it is worth noting that fewer of them were ‘very positive’ about open access for
monographs than for journals. This may mean that there is less appetite within libraries to engage
with open access for books, compared to their enthusiasm in relation to journals – or it may simply
mean that advocates of open access for monographs need to do a better job of explaining why it is a
good idea.
When it comes to the practicality of implementing open access, there is a strong sense that journals
will be easier than books, and that Green is easier than Gold for both books and journals. Anybody
seeking to promote open access for monographs will need to engage with librarian concerns on this
issue.
12