Making the Transition from Print to Electronic Serial Collections:
A New Model for Academic Chemistry Libraries?
Paper originally presented at the TriSociety Symposium June 9, 2002
Tina E. Chrzastowski
Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Chemistry Librarian,
255 Noyes Lab, 505 S. Mathews, Urbana, Illinois, 61801. E-mail: chrz@uiuc.edu
Submitted to
Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology
August 8, 2002
KEY WORDS: collection assessment, journal use, electronic journal use,
collection measurement
Abstract
A “new model” academic chemistry library is proposed at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in which primary access to journals is
electronic, replacing traditional print access, binding and shelving. Print journals
will continue to be purchased and archived unbound in a remote storage facility
following unbound display and access for twelve months. The new model,
initially proposed by administrative chemistry faculty, was assessed in a
feasibility study which looked at the stability, quantity, and quality of electronic
journals; it also included a survey of chemistry faculty, a review of internal
management data, and an analysis of use of chemistry journals, both print and
electronic. The feasibility study found support for the model in every area, but
with a few caution flags and speed bumps predicted along the way.
Introduction
The transition from a print-based to an electronic journal collection has
taken place at a very swift pace at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
(UIUC). Within the last five years, the UIUC electronic journal (e-journal)
collection has grown from a handful of titles to approximately 500 in chemistry
alone, hundreds more when interdisciplinary subjects are included. Probably
more than any other discipline, chemistry journal titles have been at the focus of
this transition, with publishers recently producing backfiles of important and
locally heavily used chemistry serials.
Like planets lining up to signal a special event, circumstances aligned at
UIUC in 2001 to signal that a new-model approach to chemistry library research
might be at hand. These circumstances began with a School of Chemical
Sciences (SCS) faculty and student population who strongly expressed their
desire for electronic journals. In addition, as a growing collection of e-journals
and backfiles became available, a chemistry library remodeling plan was
proposed that allowed for zero growth and a University Library remote storage
facility was announced to be available in 2003. The climate at the University
Library also favored the migration to electronic journals, with the library entering
into licensing agreements with major publishers for entire suites of titles.
These factors led the SCS Chemistry Library Committee to suggest a new
model for the chemistry library. They proposed the library would 1) actively
acquire electronic access to journals including backfile packages; 2) store bound
volumes (to Volume 1) of electronically-available journals off site; and 3) keep
only current year issues in print in the library, sending complete volumes to the
remote storage facility (when e-journal access is available).
The purpose of the
model is to continue to archive print journals, storing them off-site, while making
library space available to patrons for using monographs and print journals (as not
every journal is online - yet), for studying, for accessing electronic resources, and
for a computerized classroom for library resource instruction. This proposal
would freeze the square footage of the chemistry library, hosted by the School of
Chemical Sciences within one of their four chemistry buildings on campus, at
approximately 8,000 square feet. Administrators with long-range planning
responsibilities could breath a sigh of relief knowing that those normally evergrowing serial shelves and the ever-expanding library would be now firmly in the
past.
Environment
The UIUC Chemistry Library directly supports the research and teaching
of the School of Chemical Sciences, including the Department of Chemistry and
the Department of Chemical Engineering. In addition, the Chemistry Library also
directly supports biochemistry, a part of the School of Molecular and Cellular
Biology. Approximately 90 faculty and 300 graduate students are primary users
of chemistry materials and peripheral users number in the hundreds, from areas
such a plant pathology, polymers, materials science, and biology, to name only a
few. Print serial subscriptions in chemical sciences number approximately 500,
with another 300 book series subscriptions. The budget for chemistry serials
was $598,103.00 in 2002 and the library presently occupies about 7,500 square
feet within Noyes Laboratory.
Present and Future Research
Although this presentation is focused on the feasibility of remote storage
at the UIUC Chemistry Library and local journal use, a myriad of other studies
and publications concerning these and related issues are appearing with
increased frequency. Librarians are well aware of the value of management
data, and these data, coupled with technological advances making data
collection easier and more reliable, are shaping many of the day’s collection
decisions. Recent publications addressing electronic use data and collection
management decisions include those by Mercer (2000), Morse and Clintworth
(2000), and Rogers (2001). In addition, Jaguszewski and Probst (2000) and
Seeds (2000) have addressed remote storage issues.
Feasibility Studies
Since the proposed new model library calls for changes which will
dramatically affect service to chemistry library users, a number of analyses were
undertaken to determine the feasibility of the model. These included calculating
space savings made possible, estimating the quality, quantity and stability of
online journals, conducting a faculty survey and examining management data
and use data from previous studies.

SPACE SAVINGS
To begin to look at the effect that the new model would have on current
library space, the total linear feet of shelving devoted to journals was measured.
The result was rounded to 6,850 linear feet. This number reflects nearly total
capacity of available journal shelving. Next, major publisher backfile packages
were examined to determine how much linear shelving these “duplicate” journals
were occupying. Table 1 shows a few of the available publisher packages, their
corresponding linear feet, and the percentage of total journals’ shelving they
represent in the Chemistry Library. This simple exercise determined that 14% of
current shelf space could become available if titles fully duplicated online (volume
1 to the present) were sent to a remote storage facility, with an additional 9% in
projected backfiles and those packages expected to be purchased before remote
storage becomes available. This means that nearly 25% of print journals now
found in the Chemistry Library would be relocated to remote storage under the
proposed model. And since the model calls for adding backfile collections as
they become available and affordable, this percentage is predicted to grow over
the years, gradually reducing the volumes kept in the Chemistry Library.
(Insert Table 1)

QUALITY, QUANTITY, STABILITY OF ONLINE JOURNALS
Before exploring the new model any further, it was necessary to take stock
of the online journal environment that was being actively promoted. With
approximately 500 e-journals in chemistry and chemistry-related subjects
available in 2002, the list has more than doubled since 2000. “Taking stock”
meant a quick analysis of the number of complaints, problems, and pitfalls
encountered. Although unscientific and anecdotal, this analysis determined that
the electronic serial collection compared positively to the print collection in a
number of areas: issues were rarely claimed (and when publishers were notified,
these “claims” were quickly and satisfactorily resolved), issues were received
more quickly than print, they were never torn or mutilated, they were available
24/7, and outages of service were very rare. When access problems have
occurred, they could often be traced to our own internal problems with payment
and acquisition.
Not surprisingly, we also found that large packages of journals
from publishers have been easier to manage than many single subscriptions
from a single publisher. Numbers of electronic journals and backfile packages
continue to multiply, making the model even more feasible. Quality issues
remain a concern, but in the past two years, only one problem arose and was
quickly addressed by the vendor. Ultimately, this analysis determined that the
electronic journal collection was no more troublesome (and frequently less so)
than the print collection and that the model “had legs” and was worth further
consideration.

FACULTY SURVEY
Although the new model was proposed by administrative chemistry
faculty, in order to determine the “will of the people,” a survey was sent to all
faculty in biochemistry, chemistry, and chemical engineering. The survey was
purposely kept short (5 questions) to encourage responses and to begin to
gauge the feasibility of the proposed model. The survey was conducted in spring
of 2001, and full results are available on the web at
http://www.library.uiuc.edu/chx/Newmodelsurvey/results.htm .
The questions were worded so that faculty could rank their replies from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” on issues such as whether the library
should actively pursue the purchase of electronic backfiles, and if we should
focus on building a current electronic journal collection. One fill-in-the-blank
question was asked at the end, “A remodeled chemistry library should have the
following features and services:” Responses confirmed that the faculty were
ready to envision a new type of library.
Although the survey response was small (about a 33% return rate), the
overwhelming majority of responses were positive and supported the new model.
Previous surveys and collection questions asked of chemistry faculty have also
resulted in low response rates. An apparent cause of this lack of response is that
if faculty believe the library is well managed and headed in the right direction,
they feel no reply is necessary. This is the “no news is good news” library
management model, and it works fairly well in the UIUC Chemistry Library. The
key is offering the opportunity for comment, and keeping at least one-way
communication from the library flowing.
It is critical to invite and include user feedback in any major change to a
library environment. And it is just as critical to examine other types of data
available to confirm the feedback provided by users. In this case, management
data and use data were available to take a closer look at library activity.

MANAGEMENT DATA
Management data have been collected at the UIUC Chemistry Library
since 1987, providing a wealth of information over the years. Data collection
includes copier statistics, patron head counts, reshelving, and a myriad of
acquisition/use data. For this study, data on reshelving, head counts, and
copiers were examined for 1995/95 to the present. Figures 1- 3 show the
downward trend in each of these areas, trends initiated and encouraged by the
library. Every effort has been made to move to web accessible services,
including adding electronic course reserve materials for students (reported by
Chrzastowski, 2001). In turn, with fewer students coming into the library for
reserve materials and the trend towards using journals online, other services
within the library have declined in use.
One of the most important outcomes of this trend is the effect on library
staffing. As we begin to implement the new model, fewer staff members are
needed in public service areas, and fewer student workers are needed for
reshelving materials. Job responsibilities have been reassigned, and in 2002 a
full time and a part time job were combined at a higher grade (and salary) in
order to hire a more experienced, computer-oriented employee.
(Insert Figures 1-3)
These management data inform the proposed move to a new model. The
data show that the number of patrons visiting the library have decreased, along
with use of in-library services. The acceptance of the proposed model by faculty
most likely means they already routinely use online library materials and
therefore the model fits well with their research. Journal-use data shed further
light on what appears to be a migration away from in-house use to “anywhere
use” of the library’s collections and services. While the management data show
a slowly changing environment, use data show journal-use habits changing at a
swifter pace.

USE DATA
Journal-use data were collected at the UIUC Chemistry Library in 1988,
1993, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002. Chrzastowski (1991) and Chrzastowski and
Olesko (1997) have previously reported data for the first three studies. Partial
data for all six studies over the past 14 years are reported here for the first time.
Electronic journal use data were collected beginning in 2000, but at that time only
a limited number of publishers were willing and able to supply the data.
Therefore, e-journal statistics in 2000 represent use for only about 15% of titles.
Even in 2002, with over 500 e-journals available on our chemistry e-journals web
page, use data were available for only 64% of titles. It is hoped that by the 2004
study, e-journal use data will be available from 100% of suppliers.
While the UIUC library does monitor e-journal use locally through a proxy
counter, the most effective and accurate method is publisher-supplied use data.
Even when proxy counters are in place, users often bookmark direct access to ejournals, bypassing the counter. It is also common practice to “surf” from one
reference to another through linked bibliographies without coming back to the list
of e-journals.
The methodology for measuring print use has been previously reported by
Chrzastowski and Olesko (1997). However, beginning in 1998, barcodes, a
scanner and a database have been employed for measuring print use within the
library. A Microsoft Access database of titles linked to barcodes was created to
store and analyze the data, a methodology based on that reported by Rick
Ralston (1998). Four categories of use were measured: 1) circulation of bound
and unbound journals; 2) use within the library determined through reshelving; 3)
interlibrary lending; and 4) interlibrary borrowing. Electronic journal use was
obtained from publishers. When available, “use” of an electronic journal meant a
download in either PDF or HTML formats. Publishers report e-journal use in a
number of different ways and never uniformly. In fact, the broadest definition of a
use is simply viewing or connecting to a selected electronic journal. This
definition would match the one used for print use, where we have no idea if a
user looked at the Table of Contents, copied an article, or copied ten articles – in
print this is counted as a single “use,” which undoubtedly has led to
undercounting.
Table 2 shows the results of UIUC Chemistry Library journal use studies
from 1988 to 2002. Data have been corrected to show six months of use. The
first study was conducted for six months and later studies have been conducted
for three months and doubled for comparison. As observed, print use of the
chemistry library’s journal collection is decreasing, and has been since the late
1990s, when electronic journals became available and popular. The steep
increase (50%) in use between 1988 and 1993 has been attributed to the
introduction of the Current Contents online database. Current Contents, which
indexes approximately the 300 top chemistry journals, made bibliographic
searching faster and easier. Unlike access to online Chemical Abstracts at that
time, Current Contents was licensed for use and distributed with no additional
online fees to users and was/is available 24/7. This increased access to citations
thereby increased journal use in the chemistry library. A similar jump shows up
between 2000 and 2002, which can be attributed to not only a new wealth of fulltext e-journals available 24/7, but also the licensing and distribution of SciFinder
Scholar (24/7) at UIUC. The question becomes “how high can they go?” With no
barriers to when and where e-journals can be used, it remains to be seen what
maximum use will be. With nearly 700,000 annual e-journal uses estimated in
2002 and recognized undercounting (data available for only 64% of chemistry or
chemistry-related titles), a million uses seems closer to actual annual use. Our
print collection, even in some very busy years, could not support nor approach
this level of use. Sky high use, even considering the additional costs of online
access, results in a more cost-effective collection.
Table 3 shows the migration towards use of e-journals taking place
between 1998 and 2002. Although this migration was observed and predicted, it
has still taken place more swiftly than expected. In early 2000, just over 200 ejournals were available on the UIUC Chemistry Library web site (access to
Elsevier titles at UIUC began mid-2000, after this use study). Use data was then
available for only 36 titles (about 15%). This “40/60” split favoring access to e-
journals is obviously grossly undercounting actual e-journal use, and the
documented 29% decline in print use between 1998 and 2000 is more than
compensated by e-journal use which is double that of print. It is not so much a
migration as a stampede. Print use fell again by 36% between 2000 and 2002,
but is totally overshadowed by e-journal use, which increased due to more title
availability, backfiles, ease of use, and 24/7 availability.
The new model is informed by these data, which document the obvious:
print use is decreasing and e-journal use is increasing. Not as obvious or
intuitive is the fact that use is increasing overall, not just replacing print use with
electronic use.
Another increasing number in libraries is cost. However, sky-high
increases in use can absorb some increases in cost and continue to result in
cost-effective collections. Table 4 shows cost-use ratios for the UIUC Chemistry
Library journal collection for 1988 to 2002. A “cost-use ratio” is a way to broadly
view the collection’s cost effectiveness. It cannot truly be labeled “cost per use”
since annual costs are divided by use covering many years, with different years
and numbers of volumes available for each title. Still, this ratio provides an
overview of how effectively dollars are being utilized. An added wrinkle to this
table is the difficulty in determining how much is being paid for online access,
complicated even further by one-time purchases of backfiles, consortial
purchases, and free trials. Some publisher packages are paid “off the top” and
are not charged to the chemistry library budget. In 2000, only the American
Chemical Society (ACS) e-journal package was purchased, and the chemistry
library paid for its costs. For 2002, a 10% increase was added to the cost of
serials to try to determine the cost-use ratio of print and online.
Table 4 shows
a decline of the cost-use ratio in 2000 and 2002, due to the huge increases in
use, which more than compensate for the cost increases due to inflation and
purchase of online access. A closer look at the cost effectiveness of e-journal
packages was conducted and the results are shown in Tables 6, 7 and 8.
Table 6 shows use and the cost-use ratio for the ACS package plan in
2000 and 2002. Print use declined by 10% in two years, but e-journal use
increased by 85%. In this case, full, similar access to electronic journals was
available both years of study, with reliable, publisher-provided statistical data
reporting. This is a good example of the migration to e-journal access that could
be due to any number of factors (faster computers in offices, behavioral changes)
but which definitely document higher use overall. The result is very cost-effective
access to this suite of titles.
To answer the question, “does e-journal access change print use?” three
ACS titles were examined for use over 14 years. Table 6 shows that while ejournal access increased use dramatically for all three titles, print use remained
fairly steady for JACS , while dropping for the other two titles.
Biochemistry
shows a greater decline in print use, perhaps reflecting the differences in
discipline use, since e-journal access to Biochemistry increased while e-journal
access to Analytical Chemistry actually decreased slightly between 2000 and
2002. JACS steady, nearly uniform use in print is probably due to the large
number of older articles still needed in pre-1996 issues. The answer to the
question concerning the effect of e-journal availability is therefore mixed – some
titles have maintained their print use levels with the introduction of e-journal
access, while other see a more definite migration to using the electronic version.
Full access to all ACS journal backfiles was made available May 1, 2002.
While it will be interesting and informative to have backfile use data, it may not be
possible to compare it to print use during the 2004 study since print volumes are
scheduled to be sent to remote storage in late 2003. The new model will
effectively put an end to this type of use comparison, although any use from
remote storage (predicted to be fewer than 2%) will greatly inform the model. It
remains to be seen if the storage facility will be finished on time or if an early
2004 journal use study will include those titles that are earmarked for remote
storage.
Table 7 shows overall (all subjects) use of the Elsevier suite of electronic
journals at UIUC from April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002. The data show total ejournal use divided into the annual cost for both print journals and electronic
access (since print use is not available for all UIUC titles). Even without print use
data, a fairly cost-effective cost-use ratio of $11.24 is found. Since the cost of
interlibrary loan has been estimated by Jackson (1997) at $30.00 per article, and
locally Wiley (Head, Illinois Research and Reference Center, 2002) estimates an
article obtained via document delivery averages $26.00 per article at UIUC,
$11.24 per article is within reason for a commercial publisher.
It is important to remember that the UIUC experience and use levels may
not match those of other institutions. “Your mileage may vary” is an important
phrase to keep in mind. The critical pieces of a cost-use analysis are cost and
use, both of which will differ depending on local circumstances. In fact, it is
guaranteed that your mileage will differ, as will the locally defined threshold for a
cost-effective cost/use ratio.
Because print and electronic use data are available for Elsevier titles in
chemistry, a cost/use analysis was conducted for this subset of titles. As
expected, Table 8 shows a lower cost/use ratio for Elsevier titles when limited to
chemistry since print use is included in addition to electronic use. Another
reason why looking specifically at chemistry titles reduces the cost/use ratio
dramatically is that high use (including the Tetrahedron suite of titles) is
concentrated in this group of journals.
An overview of the most heavily used titles was also conducted. Table 9
(in two parts) shows the top ten titles in both print and electronic formats. Four
titles appear on both lists, and, as expected, the e-journal use list is heavily
populated by interdisciplinary titles while the print list is focused more on pure
chemistry. Even considering interdisciplinary influences, the huge differences in
numbers of “uses” reflects e-journals’ ease of use, behavioral changes in
research, and the migration (stampede?) to e-journals for primary access.
Positive and Negative Features of the New Model
As with any new model, both positive and negative features can be found.
Choosing the road to be taken requires that both the good and the bad be
analyzed and weighed. With the proposed model, the negatives are more
correctly described as barriers that inhibit wider acceptance and adoption of the
model. In 2002, these barriers include a reliance on the speed and accessibility
of the Internet, the cost of maintaining both print and electronic journals, patron
acceptance of the model, the need for staffing realignment and retraining,
repercussions for resource sharing, archiving issues, and the ability and
feasibility of measuring use in order to determine local “mileage.” None of these
barriers are insurmountable, and by working closely with patrons, vendors,
publishers, and other libraries, solutions can be found.
The positive features of the proposed model include huge increases in
use, which in turn positively affect cost effectiveness, patron satisfaction, cost
savings in binding and storage, and a more effective use of local, physical space.
In addition, a number of issues need to be addressed and solved in order
to move the model forward. These include unlinking print and electronic journals
subscriptions, segmenting e-journal packages and moving to a “pick and choose”
format for purchase, increasing backfile production and availability (preferably
with a one-time fee, not a subscription fee), the creation of regional
clearinghouses or archives to house shared print collections, and, needed
immediately, access to all e-journal use statistics collected by publishers.
Conclusions
The UIUC Chemistry Library is moving toward a new model based on the
wishes of its clientele and on a number of monitors. It is far better to shape and
direct the model than to react to it later. Through the use of a number of data
sets collected over many years, it has been possible to measure activity and
literally monitor the progress of the evolving model. Data collection is critical to
library and collection management, and is especially important when dealing with
a group of scientists who live with and process data everyday in their own work.
Library administration is also influenced by data and recognizes that responsible
librarianship means the best use of library resources, from space to dollars.
It is also important to remember that when long established research
models are facing dramatic change, data can only help to inform decisions.
Ultimately, life-changing decisions need a human face and the ability to listen to
and work with the clientele, making changes that make sense.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge and thank UIUC Chemistry Library
Graduate Assistants Beth Tarr (2000-02), Tom Auger (1999-00), and Steven
Werkheiser (1999-00), who assisted with the journal-use surveys and database
creation. Thanks also go to Chemistry Library staff who have provided
indispensable help with data collection and analysis over the past 15 years.
References
Chrzastowski, Tina E. (2001). Electronic Reserves in the Science Library: Tips,
Techniques, and User Perceptions. Science and Technology Libraries, 20,
107-119.
Chrzastowski, Tina E. (1991). Journal collection cost-effectiveness in an academic
Chemistry Library: results of a cost/use survey at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. Collection Management, 14, 85-98.
Chrzastowski, Tina E. & Olesko, Brian M. (1997). Chemistry journal use and cost:
Results of a longitudinal study. Library Resources and Technical Services ,
41, 101-111.
Jackson, Mary L (1997). Measuring the performance of interlibrary loan and
document delivery services.
Available online at http://www.arl.org/newsltr/acc.html
Jaguszewski, Janice M. & Probst, Laura K (2000). The impact of electronic
resources on serial cancellations and remote storage decisions in academic
research libraries. Library Trends, 48, 799-820.
Mercer, Linda S. (2000). Measuring the use and value of electronic journals and
books. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship.
Available online at http://www.library.ucsb.edu/istl/00-winter/article1.html
Morse, David H. & Clintworth, William A. (2000). Comparing patterns of print and
lectronic journal use in an academic health science library. Issues in
Science and Technology Librarianship.
Available online at http://www.library.ucsb.edu/istl/00-fall/refereed.html
Ralston, Rick (1998). Use of a relational database to manage an automated
periodical use study. Serials Review, 24, 21-32.
Rogers, Sally A. (2001). Electronic journal usage at Ohio State University. College
and Research Libraries, 62, 25-34.
Seeds, Robert S. (2000). Impact of remote library storage on information
consumers: “Sophie’s Choice?” Collection Building, 19, 105-108.
Wiley, Lynn (2002). Personal communication 7/30/02.
Tables
Table 1. Table 1 shows that an estimated 14% of linear shelving could
be made available if print copies of journals fully available online were
sent to remote storage and access was directed to online copies.
Linear Feet of
Journals
Total UIUC Chemistry Library
Packages Purchased:
ACS Journals
Elsevier Organic Package
Science, PNAS, Phys Revs
Subtotal
Packages Wanted:
Other Elsevier Chemistry
Backfiles
Wiley Polymer Package
(available '03)
Percent of Total
6,850
100%
483
178
300 (est)
7%
2.5%
4.3%
961
14%
626
9%
?
?
Table 2. Table 2 shows journal use for the UIUC Chemistry Library
for six months (January – June) in 1988, 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002.
Electronic journal use is included in 2000 and 2002, but with
limited data available. In 2001, data were available for only 36 titles.
By 2002 64% of e-journals (260) had use data available.
1988
Library Use 28,357
1993
45,632
1996
41,178
1998
43,342
2000
30,038
2002
18,944
2-hr Circ
1,689
476
276
298
108
124
ILL Lending
1,445
716
812
818
554
898
31,501
46,824
42,266
44,458
30,700
19,966
ILL
Borrowing
202
160
224
192
534
532
E-Journal
Use
0
0
0
0
64,590 323,146
31,703
46,984
42,490
44,650
95,824 343,644
Subtotal
TOTAL
USE
Table 3. Table 3 shows the migration from print to
electronic journal use from 1988 to 2002. Use for
electronic journals is undercounted due to the
unavailability of use data from publishers.
1998
Print Use
Electronic Use
Total Use
Percentage Split Print
E
2000
44,458
0
44,458
100% Print
0% E
2002
30,700
64,590
95,290
32% Print
68% E
19,966
323,146
343,112
6%
94%
Table 4. Table 4 shows cost-use ratios for the UIUC Chemistry Library journal collection for 1988 to 2002. Cost-use
ratios are determined by doubling use figures (to estimate annual use) and dividing them into annual subscription costs.
1988
Chemistry Collection
Journal Costs
(Annual)
Print Use (6 mo)
Electronic Use (6 mo)
TOTAL
Cost/Use Ratio
$ 223,823.18
1993
1996
1998
2000
2002
$ 313,356.19 $ 373,693.98 $ 455,422.89 $ 540,665.94 $657,913.30**
31,501
0
31,501
46,824
0
46,824
42,266
0
42,266
44,458
0
44,458
30,700
64,590
95,290
19,966
323,146
343,112
$3.55
$3.35
$4.42
$5.12
$2.84
$0.96
** Added 10% for E journals
Table 5. Cost-use ratio is shown for the ACS journal packages in
2000 and 2002. Both print and electronic uses are available for these years.
ACS was one of the first package publishers to offer e-journal use statistics
uniformly and regularly. In 2000, 27 titles were available, in 2002 31 were
available. Use data are corrected to 12 months and costs are annual.
2000
Print Use (12 mo est)
Print Cost (Annual)
Cost/Use Ratio
Electronic Use (12 mo
est)
Electronic Cost(Annual)
Cost/Use Ratio
Total Use (12 mo est)
Total Cost (Annual)
Total Cost/Use Ratio
2002
17,876
13,628
$29,081.0 $35,650.00
0
$ $
2.61
1.66
67,624
%
Change
-24%
23%
57%
110,696
85%
$ $ 5,197.06
4,842.66
$ $
0.05
0.07
7%
85,500
124,324
$33,923.6 $40,847.06
6
$
$
0.33
0.40
-42%
45%
20%
-17%
Table 6. Three ACS titles are examined over fourteen years to determine if ejournal use affects print use.
JACS
Print Use (6 mo)
E Use (6 mo)
TOTAL
Analytical Chemistry
Print Use (6 mo)
E Use (6 mo)
TOTAL
Biochemistry
Print Use (6 mo)
E Use (6 mo)
TOTAL
1988
1993
1996
1998
2000
2002
3176
0
3176
5334
0
5334
5094
0
5094
5266
0
5266
2894
7674
10,568
2860
13,066
15,926
1988
1993
1996
1998
2000
2002
402
0
402
630
0
630
540
0
540
570
0
570
524
3564
4088
236
3444
3680
1988
1993
1996
1998
2000
2002
540
906
958
1018
540
906
958
1018
804
3940
4744
294
5822
6116
Table 7. All Elsevier titles at UIUC were analyzed to determine the
cost/use ratio. This analysis includes the cost of both print and electronic
access, but use statistics were only available for e-journals. Therefore the
c/u ration determined is a maximum, which would be much lower when
print use were factored in. For that analysis, see Table 8, where print
and e-journal use was available for titles in Chemistry.
2002
Cost for All Print Elsevier
Cost for Electronic Elsevier
Total Annual Cost
Annual Use/Electronic
Cost (Print + E) / Use (E)
$1,144,662.66
$114,154.00
$1,258,816.66
112,038
$11.24
Table 8. Cost/use ratio determined for Elsevier titles in Chemistry only.
Print use was measured January to March 2001 and 2002, and multiplied to
predict annual use. Electronic use was measured April 1, 2002 to March 31,
2002.
Print Cost
Print Use
Cost/Use Ratio
2000
$181,244.48
10,024
$18.08
E Use
E Cost
Cost/Use Ratio
Total Use
10,024
Total Cost
$181,244.48
Total C/U Ratio
$18.08
2002
$205,696.95
9,248
$22.24
$
30,288
19,541.21
$0.65
39,536
$225,238.16
$5.70
Table 9. The top ten titles in print and electronic form are shown in Table 9.
Only four titles appear on both lists; e-journal are heavily influenced by
interdisciplinary titles, those that include chemistry but are obviously being
accessed by other, related disciplines as well.
Top 10 print journals (6 months)
1 Journal of Amer. Chem Soc
2 Journal of Organic Chem
3 Journal of Chem Ed
4 Tetrahedron Letters
5 Inorganic Chemistry
6 Angewandte Chemie
7 Journal of Physical Chem
8 Journal of Chemical Physics
9 Biochemistry
10 Synthesis
2,860
1,736
580
560
344
342
334
320
294
290
Top 10 electronic journals (6 months)
1 PNAS
2 Journal Biol Chemistry
3 Applied Physics Letters
4 Physical Review Letters
5 PROLA
6 Angewandte Chemie
7 Journal of Chemical Physics
8 Physical Review B
9 Journal of Amer. Chem Soc.
10 Biochemistry
31,706
30,162
25,412
24,426
17,720
17,252
15,676
14,826
13,066
5,822
Figure 1. Reshelving in the UIUC Chemistry Library shows
significant declines in the past six years, reflecting the
impact of e-journals and remote library resources.
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Series1
95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Reshelving by Year
Figure 2. Patron counts in the UIUC Chemistry Library
shown as average persons visiting the library per hour.
These data help to inform staffing changes that are
attributable to a library model focussing on remote access
to library resources.
15.0
10.0
Series1
5.0
0.0
95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Average Persons Per Hour
Figure 3. Copier statistics for the past six years at the UIUC Chemistry
Library showing predicted declines.
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
Series1
400,000
200,000
0
95/96
96/97
97/98
98/99
99/00
Copier Statistics by Year
00/01