At the crossroads

CHAPTER 8

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians Having begun as a public services generalist the early 1990s, the electronic resources librarian position is most likely to be found in technical services units in the late 2010s (Stachokas, 2018). Even as contemporary academic libraries are redefined through the addition of new services, questions around electronic resources management are of ongoing importance, particularly in the deployment of personnel, tools and best practices to provide increasingly electronic collections to users, but also in terms of the professional identity and skills of librarians. Since electronic resources account for the majority of scarce financial resources spent on collections and many academic libraries continue to spend roughly half of their budgets on collections, how these questions are resolved is of paramount importance to the survival and value of libraries. Improvements in analytics tools and techniques of assessment, as well as the broad conversation within the profession of library and information science, and between librarians, patrons, and stakeholders will help guide libraries to make positive changes, but it is important to consider where we have been as well as where we are going.

8.1 The electronic resources librarian in technical services Rather than relying on surveys that sometimes produce skewed or more limited results, the author systematically reviewed the websites of large academic libraries of North America to determine if each institution had an electronic resources librarian (ERL) position, and to the extent possible using publicly available information, where that the position existed in terms of the organizational structure. The author used online staff directories, organizational charts, and other web pages to find references to positions that referenced the term “electronic resources librarian” or close variants. Serials librarians or positions in licensing and acquisitions that The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian ISBN 978-0-08-102925-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102925-1.00008-8

Copyright © 2020 George Stachokas. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

123

124

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

might have similar functions were not included since their precise duties, including any management of print materials, could not be easily confirmed using available information. Positions that referenced continuing resources, digital resources, or simply resources were also deemed insufficient to be included. Association of Research Libraries (ARL) academic libraries were included in this study, numbering 114 in total, as well as all member institutions of the Association of the College and Research Libraries (ACRL) that had materials budgets exceeding $4.4 million in 2014. This added another 52 libraries to the study making the sample encompass 166 libraries in all (Stachokas, 2018, pp. 6e7). Cross-referencing the results of the study of library websites with research on position announcements previously conducted by others (Albitz, 2002; Bednarek-Michalska, 2002; Engel & Robbins, 2008; Fisher, 2003; Hartnett, 2014; Heimer, 2002) suggested that the ERL as a standalone position responsible for the entire life cycle of electronic resources throughout the library was increasingly anachronistic. Part of this was due to the reorganization of technical services to manage electronic resources with multiple positions involved rather than continuing to manage electronic resources as a separate silo with limited numbers of personnel. Another factor was that for positions with the electronic resources librarian (ERL) job title, or some variant thereof, there seemed to be an increasing divergence between librarians whose primary role was focused on licensing and acquisitions and other ERLs whose primary focus was on metadata or discovery (Stachokas, 2018). For both the ARL academic libraries included in the sample and the 52 ACRL academic libraries not included in ARL, most libraries had some type of ERL position with the larger academic libraries sometimes having two or more such positions (Stachokas, 2018). When one considers the differences between libraries with or without ERL positions, the former generally had larger library materials budgets and more professional staff. For the ARL academic libraries with ERLs, the average number of professional staff was 110 while libraries without ERLs had an average number of 87 professional staff. Library materials budgets for the former were an average of $14,243,882 in fiscal year 2013e14 while only $11,914,530 for the latter (Stachokas, 2018, p. 8). Interestingly, the number of support staff was nearly identical for both groups with an average of 113 and 112, respectively. Regarding other measures such as the number of e-books held on average, libraries with ERLs actually held a slightly smaller number of

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

125

eBooks at 992,289 while ARL academic libraries without ERLs held slightly more with an average number of 1,012,246 (Stachokas, 2018, p. 8). However, electronic resources management (ERM) continues to drive considerable organizational change in academic libraries. Taking another look at ARL academic libraries in July 2019, the author discovered considerable differences from data gathered in 2016 and 2017. Since ARL statistics for two of the newest ARL members, Simon Fraser University Library and Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries, have not yet been published, these two institutions were left out of the study. Looking at the original 114 academic libraries included in the original study, 74 now have an ERL position or 65% of the total. Part of this larger number may be accounted for in terms of greater accuracy in that fewer institutions are listed as “unknown” in this second round of review in 2019 in comparison to earlier review in 2016 and 2017, but there does seem to be significant growth in the use of “e-resource” job titles. For academic libraries with ERLs, the average number of professional staff has increased slightly from 110 to 111 while the overall number of staff, particularly support staff have declined somewhat. For libraries without ERLs, overall staff numbers are also down but the average number of support staff still slightly outnumbers professional staff by 97 to 95, respectively. Overall, the ARL academic libraries with ERLs have an average higher library materials expenditure over $15 million while institutions without ERLs have a lower average materials expenditure under $13 million (Table 8.1). Finally, adoption of some type of Webscale Discovery Service has become almost universal. The departmental home of ERLs has also shifted somewhat in comparison to the results from just a few years ago. While it is difficult to ascertain precise departmental functions and responsibilities, not to mention local distinctions between different types of professional or support staff positions, a great deal of information is publicly available online. While the specific responsibilities of individual ERLs still seem to be clustered in acquisitions and licensing work, ERLs in ARL academic libraries as of July 2019 are to be found in technical services units or departments that address not only acquisitions, but also discovery, metadata, and other back-end operations more than any other type of unit with 36.3% of positions identified in the study. Interestingly, units or departments focused explicitly on ERM with references to e-resources, e-serials, or similar nomenclature in their titles are now the second largest category followed by collection development. The few ERLs found in public services units are almost exclusively associated with branch or special libraries. Thirty-three

Table 8.1 Summary Comparison of ARL Academic Libraries with Electronic Resources Librarians vs. ARL Academic Libraries without Electronic Resource Librarians Number of ARL Academic Libraries that have an Electronic Resources Librarian Position or Close Variant

Electronic Resources Librarian

Without Electronic Resources Librarian

Unknown

74 Average Average Number of Total Number of Staff Professional Staff 268 111 Does NOT have Webscale Discovery Service?

65% Average Number of Support Staff 105

37 Average Average Number Number of of Total Staff Professional Staff 238 95 Does NOT have Webscale Discovery Service?

32% Average Number of Support Staff 97

0

0%

2

5%

Average Number of eBooks Held

Average Number of eBooks Held

1,346,099

1,239,111

Average Library Materials Expenditure

Average Ongoing Resource Purchases

Average Library Materials Expenditure

Average Ongoing Resource Purchases

$115,128,747

$10,688,966

$12,739,617

$9,850,184

3

Note. Average numbers of total staff, professional staff, support staff, eBook holdings and library materials expenditures were calculated using statistics from Morris, S. & Roebuck, G. (2019). ARL Statistics 2016-2017. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. The author compiled all other statistics using information gathered from library websites between July 17th, 2019 and July 25th, 2019.

3%

Departments in ARL academic librarians that have an electronic resources librarian position or close variant Acquisitions

18

14.9%

Cataloging or metadata

4

3.3%

Electronic resources

31

25.6%

Other technical services

44

36.3%

Collection development

19

15.7%

Public services

5

4.1%

ARL, Association of Research Libraries. Note. The author compiled all statistics using information gathered from library websites between July 17th and July 25th, 2019.

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

Table 8.2 Departmental/unit designation of electronic resources librarians in ARL academic libraries.

127

128

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

academic libraries have more than one ERL. Additional information, including job titles and department names, is listed in the appendixes following this chapter. Overall, these results speak to the ongoing transition within technical services to focus predominately on ERM as library collections, at least the active use of library collections, become predominately electronic (Table 8.2). Of course, academic libraries without ERL positions, if other trends hold, still have to manage electronic resources. A recent survey of academic librarians reveals that professional librarians who work with electronic collections tend to have broadly similar responsibilities whether they have ERL in their job title or not, although some tasks seem to be more routinely assigned to positions with the ERL title. Most importantly, ERM in most academic libraries tends to be a group effort, not within the responsibility of a single librarian. For some examples, usage statistics were reported as an ERM responsibility by 91% of ERLs, but only 63% of nonERLs while the numbers were 82% and 59%, respectively for the configuration of electronic resources (Maculay, 2018, p. 266). Regarding the sharing of ERM responsibilities, 63% of ERLs worked with other librarians to troubleshoot access problems, manage trials, and conduct assessment of electronic resources. The management of holdings records and Electronic Records Management System (ERMS) records was shared between ERLs and paraprofessional staff by 57 and 51% of respondents, respectively (Macaulay, 2018, p. 267). Overall, the respondents to the survey indicated that the specific responsibilities of the ERL were focused on “complex communication tasks involving licensing, price negotiation for ER products, and liaison with library consortia” (Macaulay, 2018, p. 271), while responsibilities that Macaulay defines as “technical tasks” or collection development were more routinely shared with other personnel, professional, or paraprofessional (Macaulay, 2018). Anna Hulseberg has discussed technical communicator as a new role for the ERL, partly because the ERL must often serve as a bridge between the library and external groups such as vendors and library consortia. ERLs must also work in intensive and ongoing collaboration with subject specialists, library personnel responsible for metadata management, university counsel or institutional attorneys, as well as other units within and outside libraries (Hulseberg, 2016). Monica Moore stresses how the work of the ERL is fundamentally interdepartmental and collaborative within academic libraries, partly due to the nature of digital content itself, but she also cites the impact of new uses of electronic resources such as text and data mining.

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

129

According to Moore, the work of the ERL “has begun to evolve from a workflow to a project, from coordination of an acquisition to collaboration in order to create something new” (Moore, 2018, p. 31). While the roles of a technical communicator and “project collaborator” are new areas of emphasis, these still fit well with the growing emphasis on licensing and acquisitions work for most ERLs. The fact that metadata management and discovery are often seen as separate functions from typical ERM is highlighted by the fact that some libraries with multiple ERL positions make this kind of distinction. For example, one ARL library in the author’s study had the following three positions: Electronic Resources Librarian, Electronic Resources Metadata Librarian, and Electronic Resources Management Librarian (Stachokas, 2018, p. 25). Some larger academic librarians also distinguish between the licensing, acquisitions, communication cluster, and the back-end management cluster by providing positions such as “Electronic Resources Support Librarian” in addition to the ERL (Stachokas, 2018, p. 26). To some extent, the emerging role or roles, if one considers the secondary metadata/discovery variant of the ERL, exist in tension with more recent and formal definitions of electronic resources librarianship. The development of the Core Competencies for E-Resources Librarians has its origins in the previous work of the American Library Association (ALA) in developing and publishing the Core Competencies of Librarianship in 2009 (Sutton, 2018, p. 170). Since ERL positions were not included, Prof. Sarah Sutton embarked on a course of professional study that began with her own dissertation and led to her serving as chair of the North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG) Task Force charged with developing such competencies. The seven competencies, greatly simplified, include (1) knowledge of the e-resource life cycle greater than that of a generalist librarian; (2) practical and theoretical knowledge of the structures, hardware, and software of ERM; (3) knowledge of research and assessment; (4) communication with a broad range of stakeholders; (5) supervision/ management; (6) keeping up with relevant trends with library and information science (LIS) and related fields relevant to technology, scholarly communication, licensing best practices, and the law; and (7) a wide range of personal qualities that include adaptability, intellectual curiosity and the ability to handle complexity, flexibility, and tolerance for ambiguity (Sutton, 2018, pp. 172e173). As a practical matter, no single individual serving as an ERL likely fulfills all of the Core Competencies as written, but this important cluster

130

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

of skills and characteristics speaks to the overall complexity of the challenge-facing libraries in their transition to predominately electronic collections. Any work that an ERL performs has to consider potential library-wide impacts, however, and that is the great value of the Competencies. Most ERLs exist in a web of complex communication chains based on a circular, not linear, life cycle of acquisition and ongoing management of electronic resources from activation and metadata to troubleshooting. While primary or specific responsibilities may vary, ERLs have to understand how any particular task might affect another, even if they themselves do not perform or manage that task. Depending on the overall size and resources of the academic library in question, successful ERM will require careful coordination of complex, overlapping, and ambiguous work increasingly performed by librarians, nonlibrarian professionals, support staff, automated tools, as well as the work of vendors and contributions from other external sources.

8.2 The role of professional organizations Apart from LIS higher education and the work of individual academic libraries in defining and supporting ERM, professional associations, including many Divisions of the ALA, have played a prominent role in helping to educate and train ERLs. Apart from the Competencies developed by NASIG and later endorsed by ALA, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) has been particularly active through its support of such interest groups as the Electronic Resources Interest Group, the Collection Management Electronic Resources Interest Group, and the Electronic Resources Management Interest Group, with the latter being cosponsored by the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA). Created to sponsor discussions, these Interest Groups (IGs), as well as others that do not focus exclusively on electronic resources, have provided forums and programming that have addressed licensing, business models, negotiation strategies, troubleshooting, ERM systems, and many other topics relevant to ERM. ALCTS has also provided webinars and supported e-resource management topics in the ALCTS E-Forum, 2-day sessions in which librarians discuss questions and common problems via email. The Electronic Resources & Libraries (ER&L) Conference organized by Bonnie Tijerina was first held in Atlanta, Georgia at the Georgia Institute of Technology on March 23e25, 2006 with Robert H.

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

131

McDonald and Bonnie MacEwan as keynote speakers (Agnew et al., 2006). Intended to address gaps in programming at other contemporary library conferences, the first ER&L was reported to be a great success by multiple participants. Shantel Agnew, a new librarian, commented “that it is amazing how much I had learned over the course of three days. I participated in two sessions on usage data” (Agnew et al., 2006, 197). Christine E. Ryan reported that “well-constructed sessions dealt with federated searching, developing Web database applications, usage statistics, along with several sessions involving workflow, organizational structure, and communications” (Agnew et al., 2006, 199). The NASIG 2006 Conference in the same year dealt with many issues relevant to electronic resources as well such as the reorganization of technical services (King, Metcalf, & Larkin, 2007). The Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), Library Leadership and Management Association (LLAMA), and the Charleston Conference organized by Katina Strauch have also provided programming relevant to ERM. Specialized conferences and resources for continuing education were also provided by regional and national library consortia. As previously mentioned, the ALA, like many of the most prominent professional associations, continues to help define what librarianship is through development of professional competencies, guidelines, and standards, advocate on behalf of librarians, as well as provide opportunities for leadership and networking. Apart from learning on the job, the lack of formal coursework in ERM in most LIS programs has meant that many ERLs have arguably been more dependent on these types of opportunities than other specialists. Given the need to stay connected, to track important trends, network with peers and library vendors, academic libraries that continue to provide travel funding for ERLs likely realize a greater benefit than those institutions that do not support these types of activities. While professional associations have provided great support over the years, the ALA is undergoing more change, arguably, than it has in many decades. The Steering Committee on Organizational Effectiveness (SCOE) with support from consultants from Tecker International is currently reviewing every aspect of the organizational and legal structures, governance, membership, activities, and benefits of ALA. Much of the driving force behind SCOE and other “streams of change” discussed at recent national conferences is changes in membership and the need to reorganize, rebrand, and rethink ALA in order to remain a relevant and sustainable organization (What’s the Buzz about SCOE, 2019). Particularly important

132

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

to ERLs and others who work in ERM is the proposed merger of three ALA Divisions, the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS), the LITA, and the LLAMA. ALCTS and LITA, in particular, have served as a professional home for three electronic resources IGs as well as other committees, IGs, forums, and programs that have greatly furthered the development of ERM in American libraries. The new Division that may emerge from these three formerly separate units could serve as a great opportunity for furthering the ongoing process or reform and reorganization within libraries, as well as ALA itself.

8.3 Measuring our success: electronic resources management and assessment of information services The development of COUNTER usage statistics, previously mentioned in other chapters, SUSHI harvesting, and other types of usage statistics for electronic resources is a giant step forward from the previous statistics available to measure the usage of print resources, but meaningful assessment of electronic resources must be undertaken as part of a larger library-wide strategy of assessment that addresses multiple services and functions in order to serve the institutional mission of the academic library. The code of practice for the fifth release of COUNTER usage statistics, COUNTER R5, was originally developed in 2016 with subsequent revisions. COUNTER R5 replaces the 24 reports of COUNTER R4 with four master reports: platform, database, title, and item around which all other reports are grouped together (Pesch, 2017). Overall, R5 improves gathering of eBook statistics and the overall ability of libraries to measure usage by year of publication. SUSHI harvesting is much improved with the switch to the Representational State Transfer (REST) approach to web service rather than the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) use for COUNTER R4. Other improvements include additional documentation provided by Project COUNTER for SUSHI implementation, including an OpenAPI specification, as well as more filters to use that enable ad hoc reports (Pesch, 2017, p. 203). Furthermore, R5 dispenses with optional versus mandatory reports, is format-agnostic, and enables some flexibility by combining metric types with attributes (Bull & Beh, 2018). ERM, particularly in collection analysis, overlaps considerably with collection development since electronic collections are the primary object of analysis. Eugene Garfield’s journal impact factor (IF or JIF), based on the annual average of number of citations to recent articles published in a

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

133

journal, is intended to serve as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal in the scientific literature with a higher number being better. Some have criticized IF for its lack of granularity such as devaluing a highly cited or highly valuable scientific paper published in a low IF journal (Balaban, 2012). The Eigenfactor score developed by Jevin West and Carl Bergstrom at the University of Washington takes a very different approach in providing additional weight for citations in highly ranked journals (Bergstrom, 2007). Fisher and Steiger have measured change in IF over time, reviewing data from 1961 through 2016 while looking most intently at data from 1997 through 2016. Noting an almost continuous increase in the mean IF from 1.1 to 2.2, Fischer and Steiger anticipate a plateau in the IF, partly due the biological and practical limits on increasing the overall number of citations in journals (Fischer & Steiger, 2018). The Journal Usage Factor (JUF) developed by the UKSG essentially consists of the total usage over a given period multiplied by the number of items published during a given period divided by the total number of items published during that period. Oliver Pesch, Chief Strategist of EBSCO, while recognizing the potential value, this general type of usage-based metric noted that it was not possible to compare JUF across disciplines, outliers such as unusually highly used articles and adjusting the time period for calculations could skew results, and more infrastructure and rules were needed such as a code of practice, subject classification scheme, and audit procedures were needed to make JUF more useful to libraries (Pesch, 2012). Of course, beyond more traditional bibliometrics or measurements of the relative importance of a journal or academic publication are altmetrics, including the presence or lack thereof, for a given publication in social media. The altmetrics manifesto published online in 2010 argued for crowdsourcing peer review and relying on a diverse group of web-based online metrics that were arguably more thorough, comprehensive, and altogether faster than traditional metrics such as IF (Priem et al., 2010). Given the proliferation of new tools and metrics, ERLs and other academic librarians need to be aware of the potential value of such resources as Google Scholar, Mendeley, SciMago, VIVO, and the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) among others (Roemer & Borchadt, 2012). However, despite ongoing changes in scholarly communications and the proliferation of new types of information resources online, academic libraries need to make sure that their collections also align with practical considerations such as providing access to electronic resources that directly support identifiable institutional priorities, including how the parent

134

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

institution measures the value of academic journals and other information resources in terms of research and teaching. For many ERLs working in ERM, the careful management of acquisitions data, licensing data, particularly use permissions, and COUNTER usage data are the most important priorities in terms of providing data for the academic library’s assessment requirements. Some metrics are actually proprietary and can only be reliably obtained through tools licensed by specific vendors. Making sure that basic data types are routinely harvested, available to stakeholders, and subject to analysis for both new and existing acquisitions is extremely important to academic libraries, given ongoing cost increases and limited funding. Given the complexity of choices and varying circumstances, there is likely no single set of best practices that will fit all academic libraries. However, knowing how much is paid for a given information resource, how the resource can be used, how the resource actually is used, and the general applicability in terms of current academic programs could be considered bare minimum requirements in all academic libraries.

8.4 Consideration of ongoing problems, opportunities, and future possibilities Contemporary academic libraries in 2019 are still hybrid libraries that provide both electronic/digital and physical information resources, but there is arguably an ongoing shift toward predominately electronic collections in that the majority of financial resources of the libraries, the time of users, and increasingly the time of library staff are focused on virtual information, not books. Just as most of the time of public services librarians is spent teaching information literacy about online information resources rather than physical items, answering reference questions about databases, eBooks, and online journals, or otherwise engaged with the online information universe, technical services units are now mostly engaged with the work of ERM. One of the ongoing problems and opportunities for libraries is the fact that unlike the print era in which the role of publishers was over after materials were shipped to the library, the role of the vendor in ERM is persistent and nonlinear. Working relationships with vendors are required to ensure ongoing online access, troubleshoot problems, coordinate upgrades to software and systems, and help keep the libraries informed regarding important changes in the services and content provided by vendors. The library also faces direct competition from alternative

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

135

information service providers, including vendors who also sell content directly to users. The need for ongoing and direct work with vendors is one of the key aspects of contemporary electronic resources librarianship. However, constructive and successful engagement requires good communication and is arguably best handled by a group of specialists within the libraries who coordinate their communication with the vendors rather than a single librarian. While the library is best served in speaking with one voice regarding contract negotiations and pricing, communication about metadata, complex legal questions, usability, and the value of content requires input or communication from metadata and discovery experts, attorneys, usability experts, IT specialists, and subject matter experts within the library. Based on the author’s own experience, this would mean that business communication, including everything from price quotes to negotiating license terms, is best handled by a single librarian or one closely coordinated team in a single department just as vendors usually designate one sales representative or closely coordinated sales team to manage their respective sales territories, but other issues require more careful thought and coordination of communication, with specific strategies dependent on the overall size, personnel, and distribution of knowledge and skill sets within the library. Concerns about rising costs and the ongoing mergers and reorganization of vendors in ways that tend to further increase costs continue to raise problems for libraries. Open-access journals and other freely available electronic resources have helped to expand access and reduce costs, but most academic research libraries continue to invest in very expensive big deal journal packages and databases because the needs of their users leave little practical choice. This may change in the future, but since publishing is not free, there will be ongoing discussion of how to transition paid information resources to open access and how manage the costs of online publishing. Leaving aside some of the other complex questions in scholarly communications for the moment, as a practical matter, ERLs and the libraries that they serve will continue to have to develop good negotiation skills, closely track the ever-changing information marketplace, and develop modern collection strategies that are carefully tailored to fit the unique needs of local user populations. Some information can be gathered in person, via email, social media, and by other online methods, but investment in analytics tools that help to measure usage and better understand all aspects of information needs will be even more important over time.

136

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

As part of a larger transformation of technical services in academic libraries, improvements in ERM intersect with changes in metadata management. Finding a way to escape the increasingly antiquated machinereadable cataloging (MARC) record, essentially a machine readable form of the card catalogs of the 20th century, is critical. BIBFRAME 2.0, including its Linked Data model, holds considerable promise. The Library of Congress (LC) has mapped around 2000 MARC elements in its BIBFRAME 2.0 conversion tools. Librarians who reviewed LC’s conversion tools found some issues in 2.0, including Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) formation, as well as ongoing problems with converting local MARC elements, but overall, noted considerable improvement versus 1.0 (Xu, Hess, & Akerman, 2018). Knowledge bases continue to be the single most important tool for managing electronic resource collections. Some of the most commonly used commercial knowledge bases, as reviewed by Kristen Wilson in 2016, include the EBSCO Integrated Knowledge base with around 4200 customers (Wilson, 2016, p. 28), the ProQuest knowledge base with 2800 users (Wilson, 2016, p. 30), and the WorldCat knowledge base with 4700 libraries (Wilson, 2016, p. 30). Open knowledge bases that do not require payment to use also exist such as the Global Open Knowledgebase (GOKb) supported by the Kuali Foundation and Jisc, as well as the Knowledge Base Plus (KBþ, also supported by Jisc (Wilson, 2016). Most of the commercial providers of knowledge bases are also active in developing or have developed library service platforms (LSPs) that are intended to replace integrated library systems (ILSs). Having acquired Ex Libris, ProQuest is now investing its resources in further development of Alma while continuing to support existing customers still using legacy 360 products originally developed by Serials Solutions, as well as Intota. EBSCO is playing a key role in the development of a new open source library services platform (LSP) based on microservice architecture as part of the FOLIO project. FOLIO, standing for the Future of Libraries is Open, is intended to create a modular system, effectively an environment rather than a single system that would enable libraries, software developers, and other service providers to develop unique apps that could be updated quickly or swapped out as needed due to changes in technology or the desire for new functionality (Breeding, 2017). The electronic resources life cycle is relatively complex, but an important attempt to synthesize and standardize general best practices of ERM across institutions has been the Techniques in E-Resource Management (TERMS) project. TERMS 1.0, as described by Jill Emery and

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

137

Graham Stone in 2013, consisted of six general steps, (1) Investigating new content for purchase or addition; (2) Acquiring new content; (3) Implementation; (4) Ongoing evaluation and access; (5) Annual review; and (6) Cancellation and replacement review (Rinck, 2017, p. 54). Working together with Peter McCracken on Terms 2.0, as well as in consultation with others such as Liam Emery at Jisc, Emery and Stone, will collapse the fourth and fifth categories in the original so that the new steps will include (1) Investigating new content for purchase or addition; (2) Acquiring new content; (3) Implementation; (4) Ongoing evaluation, and access and annual review; (5) Cancellation and replacement review; and (6) Preservation (Rinck, 2017, p. 54). Other anticipated changes include the expansion of each section to include basic and advanced materials, as well as an additional subsection to address differences in handling open-access materials (Rinck, 2017). COUNTER Release 5 has the potential to improve how electronic resources usage statistics are gathered and analyzed by academic libraries. Release 5 requires greater consistency from vendors than previous versions of COUNTER in order to be compliant which should reduce discrepancies, at least to some extent, in how user activities are measured. SUSHI harvesting, an important tool for the automated gathering of usage statistics, is also better integrated with the rest of the online world, given the use of a RESTful interface and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)-formatted reports. The less complicated version of SUSHI or SUSHI-Lite is no longer needed as well (Liebst & Stachokas, 2018). ERLs will need to understand the specific improvements that COUNTER Release 5 brings to usage statistics and how best to make use of them, but also need to consider how electronic resource usage contributes to overall improvements in digital analytics as used for assessment in libraries. As Tabatha Farney notes, Overall, there is much to be gained by embracing a digital analytics culture. It is more than just understanding the library user journey; it is about answering those big, seemingly unanswerable questions about how the library’s online presence contributes to the organization’s purpose and mission Farney (2018, p. 13).

For ERLs in practice, this might mean not only combining COUNTER statistics with acquisitions cost data, but also considering web analytics, statistics provided by Discovery services, and the increasing use of authentication tools such as Open Athens that permit identifying who is using what, not just that a resource has been used. Of course, libraries must

138

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

also be careful to observe privacy rights when handling data, but it is of great interest whether a given information resource is more useful to faculty or students and how the library supports particular research goals and projects. As technical services departments become ever more focused on ERM, change management will be an increasing problem for academic libraries. Many librarians and staff fear change, both in terms of the consequences for their daily work and also their personal status, comfort, and anxiety regarding the need to learn new skills, adopt new best practices, or even in some cases, take a fundamentally different approach to their work. Some ERL positions that previously worked alone or in coordinating roles have transitioned to leadership or managerial roles within libraries during the past 5 to 10 years in academic libraries. Listening, sensitivity, and respect for their ideas and feelings of others are indispensable to positive leadership, but one must also be prepared to move forward after having exercised all due diligence and analysis in charting the best path forward for the library and on behalf of users (Thompson, Maringanti, Anderson, Soehner, Comer, 2019). As Angie Ohler puts it, “Library missions must change, libraries must do a better job of identifying what their core services should be, and they must stop maintaining services that are longer core to their new mission” (Ohler, 2018, 113). The ERL has helped to bring academic libraries into the 21st century and the use of the job title or close variants seems to be growing, at least at the time of writing, in academic libraries in North America. Having begun as a type of specialized reference librarian, often a CD-ROM manager, in academic libraries in the 1990s, the ERL has become an expert in licensing and acquiring online information resources in the 2000s. Situated at the organizational nexus of communication between libraries and vendors, as well as between in-house and outsourced services, contemporary ERLs spend a great of their time in business communication, as well as negotiating business terms and complex license agreements that address online access, other use permissions such as text and data mining rights, and intellectual property rights. Having originally emerged as a separate area of specialization, ERLs retain the need to be at least conversant with the entire life cycle of ERM, but tasks requiring highly specialized skills outside the business management, acquisitions, and licensing framework are increasingly handled by reorganized and repurposed technical services departments. For institutions with more than one ERL, a professional emphasis on metadata management, discovery, updating knowledge bases,

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

139

troubleshooting, and other more technical functions seems to be increasingly common. Questions to be answered for academic libraries include how to handle the transition to library service platforms (LSPs), the consequences of which continue to impact technical services, as well as how ERLs relate to the overall process of collection development and the library’s online web presence, metadata, and discovery strategies. Issues in the transition toward open access, which may or may not be linear or complete, as well as broader changes in scholarly communication and higher education, will continue to affect the development of the ERL and all other positions in academic libraries.

References Agnew, S., Gray, L., Blocker, L., Ryan, C. E., Smith, K. A., & Johnson, K. (2006). The balance point: Experiencing the electronic resources and libraries conference. Serials Review, 32(3), 195e203. Albitz, R. S. (2002). Electronic resource librarians in academic libraries: A position announcement analysis, 1996-2001 (Vol. 2, p. 589). Portal: Libraries & the Academy (4). Balaban, A. (2012). Positive and negative aspects of citation indices and journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 92(2), 241e247. Bednarek-Michalska, B. (2002). Creating a job description for an electronic resources librarian. Library Management, 23(8/9), 378e383. Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor. College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314e316. Breeding, M. (2017). Chapter 5: Folio: A new open source initiative. Library Technology Reports, 53(6), 27e31. Bull, S., & Beh, E. (2018). Release 5 of the COUNTER code of practice. The Serials Librarian, 74(1e4), 179e186. Engel, D., & Robbins, S. (2008). Evolving roles for electronic resources librarians. In H. Yu, & S. Breivold (Eds.), Electronic resources management in libraries: Research and practice (pp. 105e120). Hershey, PA: information Science Reference. Farney, T. (2018). Understanding digital analytics. In T. Farney (Ed.), Using digital Analytics for smart assessment (pp. 3e14). Chicago: ALA Editions. Fischer, I., & Steiger, H.-J. (2018). Dynamics of journal impact factors and limits to their inflation. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50(1), 26e36. Fisher, W. (2003). The electronic resources librarian position: A public services phenomenon? Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 27, 3e17. Hartnett, E. (2014). NASIG’s core competencies for electronic resources librarians revisited: An analysis of job advertisement trends, 2000-2012. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(3/4), 247e258. Heimer, G. (2002). Defining electronic resources librarianship. Public Services Quarterly, 1(1), 27e43. Hulseberg, A. (2016). Technical communicator: A new model for the electronic resources librarian? Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 28(2), 84e92. King, S., Metcalf, M., & Larkin, M. (2007). Tackling the reorganization chart. The Serials Librarian, 52(3e4), 311e316. Liebst, A., & Stachokas, G. (2018). Report of the ALCTS electronic resources interest group meeting. In American library association midwinter meeting, Denver, february 2018 (Vol. 35, pp. 387e389). Technical Services Quarterly (4).

140

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Macaulay, D. (2018). Sharing the load: Distribution of electronic resources management responsibilities among U.S. Academic librarians. Serials Review, 44(4), 259e274. Moore, M. (2018). “Oh, the places you’ll go!” Managing electronic resources across the institution. In G. Stachokas (Ed.), Reengineering the library: Issues in electronic resources management (pp. 13e34). Chicago: ALA Editions. Ohler, A. (2018). From electronic resources management to library services platforms. In G. Stachokas (Ed.), Reengineering the library: Issues in electronic resources management (pp. 91e117). Chicago: ALA Editions. Pesch, O. (2012). Usage factor for journals: A new measure for scholarly impact. The Serials Librarian, 63(3e4), 261e268. Pesch, O. (2017). COUNTER release 5: What’s new and what it means to libraries. The Serials Librarian, 73(3/4), 195e207. Priem, J., Taraborelli, P., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (October 26, 2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org.manifesto. Rinck, E. M. (2017). Coming to TERMS with electronic resource management: An interview with Jill Emery, Graham Stone, and peter McCracken. Serials Review, 43(1), 51e54. Roemer, R. C., & Borchadt, R. (2012). From bibliometrics to altmetrics. College & Research Libraries News, 73(10), 596e600. Stachokas, G. (2018). The electronic resources librarian: From public service generalist to technical services specialist. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(1), 1e27. Sutton, S. (2018). Core competencies for electronic resources librarianship. In G. Stachokas (Ed.), Reengineering the library: Issues in electronic resources management (pp. 169e180). Chicago: ALA Editions. Thompson, G. C., Maringanti, H., Anderson, R., Soehner, C. B., & Comer, A. (2019). Strategic planning for academic libraries: A step-by step guide. Chicago: ALA Editions. What’s the Buzz about SCOE?.(June 6, 2019). Retrieved from https://www.acrl.ala.org/ acrlinsider/archives/17814. Wilson, K. (2016). The knowledge base at the center of the universe. Library Technology Reports, 52(6), 1e35. Xu, A., Hess, K., & Akerman, L. (2018). From MARC to BIBFRAME 2.0: Crosswalks. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 56(2/3), 224e250.