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 Institute
Repositioning Libraries and Librarians for the Next Generation
Taiwan, 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 decisionmaking 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)?’
Support open access
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’
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
RESEARCH
Access 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.
SOCIETY
Access 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.
An Impacts Framework
(2) New businesses add
value to content (e.g.
Weather Derivatives).
OPEN ACCESS
Potentially serves all
RESEARCH
Most/Many served,
but not all
SUBSCRIPTION PUBLISHING
Current reach
CONSUMERS/
SOCIETY
Few served
INDUSTRY
(1) Access as needed,
more informed
producers & policy.
INDUSTRY/
GOVERNMENT
Part served,
but not all
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.
http://www.humanities.org.au/Events/NSCF/NSCF2007/PowerPoints/NSCF2007-Houghton.ppt
• 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 peerreviewed 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
Open Access 2013
8,566 journals
956,000 articles
524 papers (last week)
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?
Perceptions of libraries 2010,
OCLC
Where do academics begin research?
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
Disposition of library space
Libraries designed for learning, CLIR 2003
Use of print collections
Pittsburgh study
1979
Cornell study
2010
40% of collection never
circulates
55% of books purchased
since 1990 never borrowed
If a book isn’t borrowed
during first 6 years, only 2%
chance it will ever be used
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 Changes in media
declining
access
New competitors
Changing user
demands and IT
Financial
challenges
The need for
transformation
Opportunity and uncertainty
Can the Library do everything? Where are the winners?
Library-based
services
24x7 access
Coffee shop
Collaborative spaces
Tutoring
Instructional support
Information literacy
e-Learning platforms
Multimedia production
Instructional design
Pathfinder guides
Web services
Traditional library
Databases
Search engines
Chat reference
Mobile services
App development
Research support
Bibliometrics
Grant writing
Institutional repository
Data curation
e-Press
Copyright advice
Literature searching
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
Journals
Current state
Future state
Authors transfer copyright to
publishers
Authors reserve rights and selfarchive
Publishers sell access, often in title
bundles
Subscription models blend with ondemand and open access models
Gaps in access filled by slow and
expensive inter-library loans
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 migration
Current state
Future state
Large collections of unused books
occupying prime real estate
Ebook lists larger than physical
collection
Duplicate holding across a
university, consortium, region
Legacy collections shared through
offsite consortial stores
Books purchased just in case, and
before the go OOP
Ebooks purchased only when
required (PDA)
Current barriers
Copyright limitations on orphaned works and local digitisation
Ebook versions of academic books not always available
Ebook procurement and licensing more complex than print
DRM 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
Some
Adequ
Often
times
N/A
ately
fails
fails
Meets my needs.....
Very
well
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
Value for money
relative to the level
of expenditure
disclosed
Excellent
Very
good
Good
Fair
Poor
182
118
53
16
10
Where else would you go for stuff?
Obtain from colleagues/authors
183
Other universities to which I have no affiliation
Purchase from publishers or document delivery
intermediaries
Institutional and open access repositories
173
State libraries
149
National Library of Australia
113
Another university to which I am also affiliated
106
172
160
Overseas universities
97
Specialist subject-focused research institutions
73
Other public libraries
58
Learned Societies
36
Other
23
Time matters
Less 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