Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources

Preliminary data for 1999-2000 indicate that the long-term growth trend in spending is continuing, and many suspect that it will increase more rapidly over the next few years as more and

Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources

Timothy D Jewell

University of Washington Libraries

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2 Selection Policies, Guidelines, and Plans

3 Organization and Roles [section to be added]

4 Purchasing Strategies, Consortia, and Publishing Initiatives

5 Licensing Practices

6 Web Presentation Strategies

7 User Support

8 Evaluation and Usage Information [section to be added]

9 Procedure Streamlining and Support Systems

10 Summary and Conclusions [section to be edited and expanded]

11 References

12 Appendices

A Commercial E-Resource Good Practice Candidates and Web Sites

B Consortial Purchasing of Major Databases and E-Journal Packages

C Functions and Data Elements for Managing Electronic Resources

As is true of the other two essays in this series, the goal of this one is to review and discuss practices that various libraries have put in place for developing their digital collections – and especially those practices that stand out in some way as “good or best.” Here the focus is on selection and implementation of “third party” electronic resources that libraries spend their resource dollars to acquire

This category of resources is very broad – perhaps impossibly so – since even the crudest

inventory would have to include such tools as indexing and abstracting databases, electronic journals, hybrid “aggregator” databases that combine features of both, full-text encyclopedias and similar products, historical full-text collections, and now electronic books Most ARL libraries now have well-established websites, on which are typically to be found extensive lists

of widely accessible electronic resources From the imagined perspective of a hypothetical library user of ten years ago the extent, richness, and variety of these offerings must be striking (and a little bit daunting), since it is common to find hundreds of databases, and literally

thousands of electronic journals, on the larger ARL member library web sites

It is hardly surprising that spending on electronic resources has been gradually rising for over a decade Among ARL libraries, expenditures for these products and services has increased from 3.6 % of resources budgets in 1992-1993 (or about $172,000) to over 10% (an average of about

$742,000) in 1998-1999 Preliminary data for 1999-2000 indicate that the long-term growth trend in spending is continuing, and many suspect that it will increase more rapidly over the next few years as more and more material becomes available on the web, established companies modify their offerings to emphasize electronic access, and new companies begin to offer a range

of electronic resources directly to users – thus possibly becoming serious competitors to libraries,

or at least occupying a “new competitive space.” (Hughes 2000) The rapid development of the Internet, followed by the dramatic emergence of the Web, has clearly been among the more obvious drivers of recent growth in these expenditures Although reliance on “linear models” of change may be risky (Brown and Duguid 2000) it does seem quite safe to assume that in another ten years the typical ARL library will be spending considerably more for electronic resources and access than they do now, and will have plunged much further ahead into an “electronic future” though it may hard to guess at more than the contours of that future

It may seem surprising that the subset of ARL libraries that also belong to the Digital Library Federation – which have typically taken strong leadership positions in developing digitized collections and thus might be expected to have made more radical moves in acquiring access to fee-based electronic resources – appear to spend roughly the same proportion of their materials budgets on electronic resources as do other ARL libraries For example, Table 1 shows that while the median percentage spent by ARL libraries on electronic resources was 10.18%, the corresponding percentage for reporting DLF member libraries was actually a little less than that: 9.65% Interestingly, in 1998-1999 several non-DLF ARL libraries spent more as a percentage

of their materials budgets than did the DLF libraries at the high end of either measure

Nevertheless, Table 1 also shows that reporting DLF member libraries, as a group, invested significantly more money on average in electronic resources (about $1.1 million) than did the typical ARL library

Table 1 DLF Member Libraries’ Expenditures for Electronic Resources

(As reported to ARL for 1998-1999)

Reporting DLF Institutions E-resource

Expenditures Percent of resources

New York Public Library $ 741,819 6.75%

North Carolina State $ 1,309,592 17.08%

If DLF libraries are not spending a larger portion of their resources budgets for electronic

resources, the fact that they are spending larger amounts of money does suggest that they share problems of operational scale

Perspectives and Definitions

Most readers of this essay will be well acquainted with developments in electronic resources and – given the levels of expenditures just sketched will appreciate the breadth of the topic in the DLF context, the great diversity among electronic resources currently offered for sale or

subscription and of interest to its members, and the amazing rapidity with which relevant

developments continue to take place Such readers may well wonder whether it is possible to identify “best practices” in this area, or to do much more than offer a “time slice” that will quickly be outdated Perhaps above all, they may wonder what level of treatment “granularity” for such a broad topic might be both achievable and useful?

The research that I have done for this project has led me to conclude that – whether or not

examples of “best practices” are readily identifiable there are plenty of good, interesting, and even inspiring practices and documents that can be adapted by other libraries to their local situations Since locating them wasn’t always easy, I suspect they may have had little impact beyond their local settings With this in mind, I have tried to select and organize pointers to documents and websites that strike me (as a fellow “practitioner) as especially useful, interesting,

or illustrative of one thing or another

In line with the goals of the DLF initiative, I have tried to pay particular attention to practices that I feel help foster “sustainability and scalability” – though the idea of “sustainability” merits some discussion in the context of commercially available electronic resources The first meaningthat many librarians will now associate with the word relates to the economics of the “system” ofscholarly communication or publishing For example, the “Tempe Principles” adopted in May

2000 by a group librarians, university administrators, and others states that the “ current system of scholarly publishing has become too costly for the academic community to sustain.”

<reference> This may well be the single most important “sustainability” question, and a variety

of approaches and strategies (such as consortial buying arrangements and such initiatives as SPARC <reference>) have recently been introduced and will be discussed These appear to merit “global” treatment as “best practices” – but they are fairly few in number, and their long-term effects are unknown

As important as such initiatives are to the marketplace within which purchase or subscription decisions are made, there is a very wide array of operational activity that goes into selection, presentation, and support of electronic resources Well-organized and effective practices can contribute to sustainability by minimizing the amount of time and effort that must be expended

by users and staff

Aims, Methodology and Organization

The idea of putting together useful practices and internal documents is, of course, hardly new ARL SPEC Kits perform a similar function and are highly valued by those interested in the topics they cover This essay and its supporting documents depart in several ways from the SPECKit model, however For instance, because of time constraints and the broad scope of possible topics, I did not attempt to write a questionnaire that I thought would cover all or most relevant points As a result, this report is probably somewhat more impressionistic and less representative

of the state of the art than it could be However, I have tried to provide somewhat more context and discussion than might typically be found in a SPEC Kit In addition, I have tried to present

an idealized model or list of practices that, taken together, depict my own view of “how things should work” in this area – not with a view to establishing a set of standards, but to assist with local decision-making Lastly, a summary table is presented (see Appendix A) which includes document links and descriptions that could be posted with little modification to the DLF website for the use of the membership and other interested parties

My approach to the research I conducted for this article involved a variety of things First, I found the recent ARL SPEC kits on Managing the Licensing of Electronic Products (number 248) and on Networked Information Resources (number 253) to be especially helpful Although the documents reproduced in both were interesting and useful in themselves, they also often provided jumping off points for web searching for similar documents, other documents from the

same institutions, or names of people for me to contact with exploratory questions I also spent substantial time simply looking at the websites of DLF members and of other ARL libraries with similar levels of investment in electronic resources The opportunities that I have had over the last few years to attend meetings of the International Coalition of Library Consortia have also been extremely helpful, and led to further questions and contacts.

The remainder of this essay has been organized into several rough topical categories:

 Selection Policies, Guidelines, and Plans

 Organization and Roles

 Purchasing Strategies, Consortia, and Publishing Initiatives

 Licensing Practices

 Web Presentation Strategies

 User Support

 Evaluation and Usage Information

 Procedure Streamlining and Support Systems

Few of these topics can really be treated in isolation from the others, and any given document or practice could conceivably fall into multiple categories I hope that by organizing them in this way and making them more visible and “findable,” this review will lead to wider discussion and improved and innovative practice

Selection Policies, Guidelines, and Plans

Most libraries have decided that the selection and implementation of commercially available electronic resources is different enough from selection of non-electronic (sometimes now called

“traditional”) resources to warrant trying to arrive at a commonly understood frame of reference through formalized policy documents Nevertheless, a common observation made by librarians about decision-making with respect to electronic resources at their own institutions is that it tends to be “ad hoc” or “opportunistic,” which suggests some understandable ongoing tensions between formal policy and actual practice

Perhaps the single most common thread running through the selection policy documents sampledfor this project is that although electronic resources raise some new and different questions, the value system brought to bear on selecting other resources is still valid and is to be applied For instance, Penn State’s document on Evaluating Electronic Resources begins by stating that “the guidelines for evaluating print publications can also be applied to electronic resources,” and the California Digital Library’s “Collection Framework” document that “conventional collection development criteria should be paramount and should be applied consistently across formats, including digital resources.” The Library of Congress’ “Collections Policy Statement for

Electronic Resources” notes that “the criteria used to evaluate electronic resources do not differ greatly from those used for books or materials in other formats Following a similar statement, USC’s “Collection Policy Statement for Information in Electronic Formats” states somewhat more specifically that these general criteria are:

a The resource contributes to the University Library’s mission of providing support for instruction and research

b There is a demonstrated curricular or informational need or an identifiable potential audience for the resource.

Lastly, the University of Texas’ “General Libraries Digital Collection Development Framework”notes that

“As with all formats, digital material should meet the same subject, chronological, geographical, language and other guidelines as outlined in the library’s subject collection policies; and possess the same standards of excellence, comprehensiveness, and authoritythat the library expects from all of its acquisitions.”

Though attempting to anchor decision-making in broader and older understandings, selection guideline documents also typically list and discuss factors that are unique to electronic resources,and which need to be considered although in some cases these are presented in checklist form.These questions are often grouped together in internal documens, although different institutions have done so in slightly different ways Yale’s “Examining Networked Resources” checklists, are unusually thorough extending to 13 pages – but have much in common with those in use elsewhere Several of the following topical categories are drawn from that list:

 Content Comparisons to printed versions in terms of completeness/selectivity,

backfile coverage, update frequency, etc

 Added Value Wider access, searchability, potentially greater currency, etc.

 Presentation or Functionality Usability, searching and limit functions, linking, etc

(The Yale checklist and a similar one in use by the California Digital Library have especially useful lists of these considerations The CDL list differentiates between those that are seen as “critical” and others, and assigns them a higher score for

evaluation purposes.)

 Technical Considerations Typically includes standard or preferred vendor/interface,

hardware and software requirements, including storage space, web browser

compatibility, plug-in requirements, authentication, etc

 Licensing and Business Arrangements Problematic license restrictions, ongoing

access rights, costs, etc

 Service Impact Documentation, publicity, staff training needs, etc.

Other interesting considerations mentioned in some of the documents include the perceived need

to maintain a balance among disciplines or subject areas, or with traditional formats, when choosing electronic resources The Texas “Framework” document also contains a useful section

of “Observations and Qualifications” on different categories of resources, such as electronic journals, indexing and abstracting databases, etc – describing the context for each, along with anattempt to delineate goals

This feature of the Texas framework makes it both a policy and a planning document Several other DLF member libraries, including Carnegie-Mellon, Cornell, Illinois, and Virginia have recently emphasized this future orientation by developing strategic plans for electronic resources

– each with its own emphases and approaches For example, the time span covered by Cornell’s

“Digital Futures Plan” is the current two years, Virginia’s “Library of Tomorrow” plan is for fiveyears, Carnegie-Mellon’s “Digital Library Plan” is for seven, and the Illinois “Electronic

Collections Strategic Plan” is open-ended The projected future states articulated by these plans and the issues identified in them are somewhat different, but as with the selection policy

documents there are a number of common themes:

 Value context Decision-making needs to be done with reference to the kinds of

traditional values articulated by the policy documents mentioned earlier in this section

 Funding issues The digital future will be more expensive, additional internal funds

will be reallocated to fund electronic resources, and consortial arrangements will be pursued to conserve funds but existing funds are inadequate and new sources of funds will need to be found Carnegie-Mellon’s plan interestingly poses three

different financial “levels of commitment” to its digital future: “steady state,”

“higher profile,” and “leading digital library.”

 Scholarly Publishing It is important to be proactive and help develop alternative

services and publications that libraries and their institutions will be able to afford overtime

 Licensing and Fair Use The emerging reliance on licensing as the basis for access

rights poses threats that must be understood and actively resisted The Illinois plan mentions the challenge licensing poses to its traditional role as a resource for other libraries in the state – which is probably of particular concern to many DLF and ARLlibraries

 Evaluation and usage information Vendors have generally not supplied the kinds of

quantitative information that libraries need to evaluate the resources they have

licensed, and efforts across libraries are needed to motivate vendors to correct the situation

 Archiving This is a serious unsolved problem that may require maintaining both

local print and electronic subscriptions while working toward better long-term

solutions

This could be considered a “core set” of concerns that could serve as useful starting points for other libraries interested in forming their own strategic plans for electronic resources, and severalwill be touched upon later in this essay

Organization and Roles <section to be added; notes follow>

Committee Structures – widely recognized need to pull a variety of players into decision-making process

How do these work in practice?

Do committees sometimes slow down/impede decision-making?

Selection roles

E-resource coordinators

HarvardMITStanfordYaleResource-specific coordination/stewardship (key to scalability – recognition that a single resource coordinator can’t deal with everything)

CDL – Resource LiaisonsHarvard – Resource Stewardship ProgramMIT – Product sponsor

Yale – contact info

Collaborative Purchasing Strategies and Publishing Initiatives

As discussed in the Introduction, DLF member libraries spend considerable amounts of money acquiring electronic resources or access to them, but as noted in the segment on selection policiesand strategic planning, it is widely felt that costs and finances are a major problem Not only are costs considered to be high, but fee structures are also extremely variable from one vendor to another and can be quite complex Terms of license may undermine well-established

cooperative relationships among libraries, require ongoing commitments that may be difficult to evaluate or have other consequences that may be hard to foresee Above all, there is a common perception that individual libraries are at a decided disadvantage when acting alone in this environment – especially when they negotiate with large corporate entities and that

collaborative efforts are necessary

The rapid growth of consortial purchasing is one obvious response that has taken place within the last few years, and the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) has emerged as

an active and influential umbrella organization through which consortia can work toward

common interests There are a variety of types of consortia, including those that are only or multi-type, and state-oriented or regional Consortia also vary widely as to funding – with some receiving significant amounts of money from their state governments and others beinglargely or exclusively self-funded Some have broad mandates to foster resource sharing throughonline catalogs and to develop systems of shared databases, while others function primarily as opportunistic “buying clubs” that attempt to leverage available funds for the benefit of their members

academic-Pricing structures and issues have occupied a prominent position on the ICOLC agenda, althoughthere is recognition within the group that a product or service must be profitable for it to be

“sustainable” from a vendor’s perspective One reason why consortial arrangements “work” for vendors is that they help reduce the costs of marketing – thus contributing to profitability For libraries, better pricing must be weighed against the other costs of doing business consortially, which can include staff time and some potential losses in control and flexibility Price is not the only concern that libraries have, of course, and ICOLC has actively discussed and come forth with influential documents on a variety of other issues, such as technical requirements, licensing,and statistical reporting

Not surprisingly, most DLF member libraries are members of at least one major consortium with

an interest in cooperative database licensing, and the majority are members of more than one

(see Table 2.) Many group buying arrangements seem to be ad hoc, however, and difficult to

identify As a consequence, it seems likely that the typical ARL and DLF library will actually beinvolved in many different collaborative buying arrangements having varying degrees of

formalization

Table 2 DLF Member Libraries’ Major Consortial Memberships, Fall 2000

Library of Congress

Consortium

New York Public Library

Southern California Big 12 Plus

Stanford

ASERL = Association of Southeastern Research Libraries

CDL = California Digital Library

CIC = Center for Inter-institutional Cooperation

NERL = Northeastern Research Libraries

<Question: include links to consortia home pages?>

Assessing the role that consortial membership plays in the buying behavior of DLF members is difficult, as is evaluating the efforts of a given consortium (For example, although it is tempting

to try to establish “cost savings” attributable to consortial buying, some consortia find that phrase misleading, and speak instead about “cost avoidance” when making the case for their

effectiveness to funding agencies.) Nevertheless, as suggested by the two tables in Appendix B (Consortial Purchasing of Major Databases, and Consortial Purchasing of E-journal Packages), there is clearly significant impact – and that impact appears to be more important in some cases than others

Of the few “major databases,” selected for this review (principally aggregator services, plus a couple of expensive STM databases and full text services) the most widely held is Academic Universe As is well known, this service is only available via consortial arrangement through a

“national deal,” with aggregated “FTE’s” dictating the price to all, and it is interesting to note that

all of the academic DLF member libraries currently subscribe to it The situation with the

competing full-text “aggregator” databases offered by EBSCO, Gale, Proquest/Bell&Howell and H.W Wilson Company is much less clear The Proquest ABI/INFORM and Research Library

databases are the most commonly held of these services, but consortial arrangements seemed to

be involved only a quarter (or less) of the time Gale’s Expanded Academic Index and Business databases are also relatively popular, but consortial buying appeared to be involved in only 4 cases EBSCO’s general academic and business databases were somewhat less popular, but statewide contracts appeared to be the major factor where they were available And, lastly, H W Wilson's databases appear never to be available from DLF libraries as a result of consortial buying

ISI’s Web of Science databases are very nearly as popular among DLF libraries as Academic Universe, with 21 of the 22 academics offering it The importance of consortial pricing is

suggested by the fact that 80% of the subscribing libraries were purchasing it through consortia – most through either the CIC or NERL All eight of the nine DLF libraries having access to Scifinder Scholar purchased it through consortia: of those, six were buying through NERL Fourteen DLF member libraries have significant full text databases from Chadwyck-Healey, of which six were buying through NERL Of the seven libraries determined to be subscribers to Early English Books Online (EEBO) five are NERL members

A somewhat more mixed picture emerges with respect to E-journal packages (somewhat crudely defined for purposes of this study to include both JSTOR’s archival offerings and the current journal coverage offered by other publishers.) The three most widely-owned packages are

JSTOR 1 and 2, and Project Muse (no differentiation between levels of Project Muse coverage was made) Consortial purchasing was involved only in a few cases – which is not surprising because JSTOR has rejected consortial pricing as a matter of policy, and consortial pricing for Project Muse is relatively new There are a number of other e-journal packages with somewhat lower but still significant levels of apparent adoption (i.e more than half the academic

membership) by DLF libraries – including Academic Press Ideal, Elsevier’s Science Direct, ACM, American Chemical Society, Annual Reviews, IEEE, Springer, and Wiley Most of these had relatively low levels of consortial activity, but with several – including Academic Press (whose policy on consortia is opposite JSTOR’s, since they sell only to consortia), Science Direct,and Wiley, consortial purchases stood at 40% or more NERL played a role in a number of these arrangements

The meaning of all this is a good deal less than clear, but it seems apparent that NERL has

succeeded very well in offering attractive buying opportunities to its members, and it appears necessary for other consortial arrangements to be developed or become available for other DLF libraries to find some of these services affordable (What else to say here?)

Another set of important cooperative initiatives has recently been organized by the Association of Research Libraries under the name SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Research Cooperative) As

is well known in academic library and publishing circles, the Association for Research Libraries has actively tracked the rapidly increasing costs of scholarly journals, and shown convincingly that those costs – particularly those associated with a handful of important commercial publishers

of scientific and medical journals have far outstripped the growth of ARL libraries budgets and