- Email: [email protected]
Canceling print serials in favor of electronic: criteria for decision making
Pergamon Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 26 (2002) 369 –378
Canceling print serials in favor of electronic: criteria for decision making Karen Rupp-Serranoa,*, Sarah Robbinsb, Danielle Cainc a
Head, Collection Development, University of Oklahoma Libraries, 401 West Brooks, Norman, OK 73019, USA b Electronic Services Coordinator, University of Oklahoma Libraries, 401 West Brooks, Norman, OK 73019, USA c Serial Acquisitions, University of Oklahoma Libraries, 401 West Brooks, Norman, OK 73019, USA
Abstract Libraries have welcomed electronic serials into their collections. Publishers have encouraged this trend by offering titles in electronic format at little or no additional cost to the print subscription. This trend may, however, be in decline, forcing libraries to reconsider what they are receiving and in what format(s). This article discusses several potential criteria that may be utilized by libraries in developing documents to guide their format cancellation decisions. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Electronic serials; Guidelines; Cancellation; Criteria; Academic libraries
1. Introduction Most academic libraries have welcomed electronic serials into their collections. Features such as ease of access and convenience make electronic serials hard to ignore. Publishers have made the decision easier still by offering electronic access at no additional, or minimal, cost. As a safety net, many academic libraries have not canceled subscriptions to the traditional print counterpart of the electronic serial. However, the safety net may soon be taken away. Some publishers that have offered electronic access at no additional, or minimal, cost are
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Rupp-Serrano). 1464-9055/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 4 6 4 - 9 0 5 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 7 4 - 9
370
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
beginning to charge, sometimes substantially, for that access, forcing academic libraries to review what they are receiving and in which formats. In light of the recent economic downturn and demands on limited resources, cancellation of formats will be considered in order to realize savings; the ability to maintain titles in multiple formats may be fading. In an ideal world, the cancellation process would be orderly and relatively straightforward because we would have used time-honored selection criteria to guide our initial acquisition of duplicate electronic serials. Alas, we do not live in an ideal world, and it is time for us to admit that many times we did not adhere to those fine selection criteria we were taught in library school. Rather, we greedily added duplicate electronic serials and left thinking about the consequences for another day. Publishers, who offered the titles to us at minimal or no additional charge, aided us in this. Many of us did not concern ourselves much as to whether the electronic version was the equivalent of the print; rather, focusing instead on giving our customers what we thought they would want and on the possibility that we were helping to create a demand that, in the future, we might not be able to meet. Cancellation of print in lieu of electronic should be approached with more care and consideration. It is always harder to subtract than add, and each subtraction must be carefully scrutinized. Often this scrutiny will involve many of the criteria used in selecting materials, although applied “in reverse.” All the questions we did not ask as we added electronic products will be asked, will be argued over, and will be answered. This article will explore criteria academic libraries may utilize when developing policies or guidelines with regard to canceling the print version of serial titles in lieu of electronic access. By providing a smorgasbord of potential criteria from which to choose, we hope to make it easier for academic libraries to develop policies that meet their local needs.
2. Literature review Many libraries are finding themselves faced with the difficult decision of whether or not to cancel print subscriptions to serial titles that they also receive electronically. The cost of acquiring both formats of the same title is often the driving factor behind this decision though there are other concerns such as storage, archiving, user expectations, and demands on library personnel. These factors must all be considered. However, most collection development policies were written before this became an issue and have not evolved to provide the needed guidelines for making these decisions. Much has been written about collection development policies and even about selecting electronic resources for a library collection, but little has been written about reducing duplication between print and electronic formats of serial titles and the factors libraries should consider when making such decisions. When evaluating and selecting journals in any format, there is a list of criteria one must consider. Davis summarizes the basic criteria for traditional selection as the reputation of the publisher, the scope and breadth of the content, and details for the specific formats. When selecting and evaluating electronic formats, additional criteria to consider include the equipment needs (software, hardware, etc.), method of access, whether the item is being purchased or leased, and the varying cost structures [1]. Additional considerations when selecting electronic resources mentioned by Stewart include looking at the value added by
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
371
having the information available electronically, whether or not the library’s technology can support the product, the overlap between indexed publications and the library’s collection, how the product will impact service needs, and archival concerns [2]. Ashcroft and Langdon state that the, “[f]actors in selection include: high quality publication, long life expectancy, and titles that are peer reviewed” [3]. Much has been written about the advantages and disadvantages of e-serials in libraries. Stewart lists currency, occupying less physical space, and access to the material by multiple people at once as the advantages of e-serials [4]. In addition to these advantages, Lee notes the search capabilities, the ability to link to other sources and include multimedia elements, and the unlikeliness that they will be misplaced or stolen are part of the appeal of e-serials [5]. Archival issues and continued access to electronic information seem to be the major concerns facing library’s considering going electronic-only for certain titles. Davis states, “For electronic products, assuring access to, and storage of, files is a critical issue. Selectors must never assume that this responsibility is safe in the hands of the database producers. Publishers have not traditionally maintained paper stock, and they have quickly realized that they are not in the business of storing large sets of data and maintaining ready access to them.” Davis also notes that libraries attempting to store these large files and maintain access to them soon realize that there are significant costs associated with this task in terms of staff, time, and resources [6]. Walravens predicts that libraries may soon be forced to face this issue because academic publishers may cease to offer parallel print and electronic editions. This is because many customers are being pushed to choose between the two formats as a result of budget constraints, thus reducing publisher revenue and, in turn, causing publishers to no longer produce print [7]. However, in a study of the usage of electronic journals done at Texas A&M University, Suzanne Gyeszly found that the usage of electronic journals by their patrons was not enough to warrant or justify canceling the print subscriptions to titles carried in both electronic and print formats [8]. Drexel University has been one of the first universities to aggressively seek electronic formats in lieu of print formats. Carol Hansen Montgomery has documented Drexel’s experiences and has found “that the electronic collection is substantially more expensive to maintain” and that the conversion to primarily electronic access has resulted in drastic restructuring of staff responsibilities [9]. Although less time is spent on “tasks such as checking in print issues, claiming non-arrivals, replacing missing pages, and preparing and receiving bindery shipments,” the work has merely shifted to other activities that require professional level skills [10].
3. Criteria and discussion In the spring of 2002, all Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member institutions were queried via e-mail as to whether they had policies, guidelines, or criteria in use at their institution for the cancellation of print journals when electronic equivalents are available; these libraries were queried because it was theorized that they are heavily invested in electronic resources and, thus, are likely to have developed documents to assist them in such a process. Of the 123 ARL members queried, 47 responded. Of the respondents, only 6 had
372
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
documents in place. Most respondents indicated that they had no formal document and, in the face of recent pricing structure changes by publishers, were just beginning to contemplate creating such a document. What follows is a discussion of some potential criteria academic libraries may consider when developing policies or guidelines to determine in what format a serial should be retained when multiple formats are available. Local considerations will, of course, always need to be taken into account when developing any documents for use at a specific institution. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, nor is the criteria listed in order of importance. Indeed, almost any organization of these criteria is somewhat arbitrary, since most are deeply interconnected.
4. Licensing 4.1. Licensing restrictions Determine if license restrictions allow cancellation of print. This is a complicated task, as the restrictions in a license can be many: ● A license may be a multi-year commitment, in which case one may be able to do next to nothing until the license is up for renegotiation unless the provider is amenable to change. Such changes will most likely require a renegotiation of the contract and will possible increase the cost of the product. ● Some licenses are consortial in nature, and thus changes become even more complex, as they must be negotiated with consortial partners. ● Some licenses have restrictions on ILL that allow lending only from print copies of a title; these restrictions force libraries to retain print copies in order to fulfill ILL obligations. ● Some licenses restrict how many titles, or what percentage of a provider’s titles, may be cancelled in a given year. ● Some licenses provide a price break for retaining print. In such cases, a determination must be made as to whether the price break is worth maintaining the print in the face of other criteria such as space limitations and savings to be realized. 4.2. Accessibility Ideally, the electronic product should be available to all valid users anywhere at anytime. If there are there license restrictions, such as limiting access to certain geographic areas or maintaining a print subscription to the title in question, these must be considered before cancelling. 4.3. Archiving Decide if the title will be archived electronically or in print format, and whether long-term access is an important consideration for this title. How does the library define a reliable
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
373
electronic archive? Does the provider support a reliable electronic archive for the title? If not, is there a need for a print archive? Does the print archive have to be an original print subscription, or can printing the electronic version of the title and binding it create a suitably equivalent print archive? Are there restrictions in the license regarding this? Would preserving the title in microform be a feasible alternative? 5. Provider 5.1. Provider reliability/stability Examine the library’s need to “always” have access to the title. Is the electronic provider sufficiently reliable and stable? In the strictest interpretation of this criterion, the answer would usually be no. No provider is immune from technological difficulty or corporate buyout; even the United States government has not proven to be a reliable provider. Some judgment must be made as to what constitutes sufficient reliability when considering cancellation. Aggregators of journals from multiple publishers such as Gale, EBSCO, Faxon/Divine and Lexis-Nexis are most often questioned in regard to product stability. Databases from such providers have journal lists that change with alarming frequency and have demonstrated a variable ability to acquire and retain title back-files. 5.2. Aggregator duplication Assess if titles duplicated by aggregators are important to the user and worth the cost to the library. Many of the same titles are available through multiple aggregators and from providers such as Catchword, Divine’s Information Quest (IQ), and OCLC Electronic Collections Online (ECO). Should duplicate providers of the same title be maintained or eliminated through cancellation? With aggregators there is little recourse at the title level; you either take the package as a whole or take nothing at all. Services such as Catchword and IQ have no direct cost to the library, but there is an indirect cost in keeping track of what is available from these providers and maintaining links to them. Electronic Collections Online costs but also provides full-text linking between itself, the other OCLC databases, and some outside providers, such as Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA); is the extra cost worth the enhanced linking capabilities provided to the user? This is an especially difficult question to answer at this time as more providers work to enhance linkages between databases. An equally important question is whether the aggregated title is an adequate substitute for the paper copy or for a publisher-produced electronic version. 6. Local politics 6.1. Availability in local consortia Determine if the library is required to keep a “copy of record” for the print title as part of a consortial agreement. If so, cancellation is out of the question until such time as the
374
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
signatories review the agreement. On the other hand, if another consortial partner holds the journal as a “copy of record,” the library may consider whether it wishes to cancel the print subscription and rely on its consortial partners for supply of the title when necessary. 6.2. Discipline/curriculum/research importance Examine the significance of the title to the users of the library. Is the title of such significance to a discipline that canceling print is out of the question? Is the title of importance to a wide variety of disciplines, making print and electronic access critical? Each discipline can name core journals, a number of which remain core year in and year out, and these may be considered essential to maintain in multiple formats and, therefore, immune from cancellation of the print. Librarians can also research core journals through library and disciplinary literature, syllabi analysis, analysis of citations in faculty publications, and by using tools such as the Institute for Scientific Information’s Journal Citation Reports. Furthermore, while most regional accrediting bodies are moving away from title lists and volume counts, some specialized accrediting bodies may still prefer the maintenance of certain core titles in print format, and this may have to be taken into account in cancellation decisions. 6.3. Faculty input Consult faculty on the proposed change in format. For most academic libraries, serial cancellation decisions, even when it is a question of format rather than wholesale loss of a title, are not made without seeking input from faculty members. Often faculties have insights into scholarly communication in their fields of which a librarian may not be fully aware. Seeking input of faculty members assures that a primary clientele is consulted before decisions are made while also providing an opportunity to educate faculty as to scholarly communication issues impacting libraries and potentially opens the door to a wider discussion of faculty’s library needs. 6.4. Institutional commitment Determine the significance of the title to the library. What is the commitment of the institution to the item in question? Some materials have deep, time-honored support for print format and cancellation is unlikely. Conversely, although electronic resources are relatively new, some have already garnered deep support within the library and academic communities. Full-text titles within these resources may be excellent candidates for print cancellation. 6.5. Subject Ascertain if the subject is one that requires the retention of print in addition to electronic. Perhaps the subject is one reflecting local or traditional collection strengths, in which cancellation may not be an option. Perhaps campus politics simply will not support the cancellation of print in select subject areas until such time as the environment changes. In
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
375
some subjects, electronic access may be the preferred method of access due to large distance education student enrollments, thus making print cancellation viable. 6.6. User preference/usage Examine if users display a format preference for given titles and if that preference is an overriding concern. Even though some titles might be available in an electronic format, use statistics may indicate more frequent usage of the print counterpart. While this can be due to other issues such as disciplinary communication patterns, publication completeness, provider reliability, search interface or even how widely a title is indexed, at times it may truly be user preference. Furthermore, heavy usage of a title in electronic format may be considered a reason for maintaining a print archive as a backup.
7. Publication structure 7.1. Completeness Determine if the title is reproduced electronically exactly as it was printed. While the substance of a publication may be full-length articles, many readers require access to smaller elements of the publication such as letters to the editor, editorial essays, and the like. If a title is not reproduced cover to cover, most likely a case-by-case determination will have to be made as to whether the missing material is of enough importance to eschew cancellation. 7.2. Nature of publication Assess the nature of the publication. Do most issues tend to be monographic in nature? Are articles generally quite lengthy? This practice can be frequently observed in Law journals, but the phenomenon is certainly not limited and can be found throughout the sciences, humanities and social sciences. How realistic is it to expect users to print 50 pages or more for one article? What is a reasonable expectation with regard to printing? This would become an even larger issue if the library supports free public printing.
8. Technological considerations 8.1. Reproduction capabilities Ascertain the library and/or the user’s ability to reproduce articles and other materials in a manner approximating the original when necessary. For example, is color printing available for photos? Are oversize items such as maps or posters reproducible? In print environments, oversize materials may not be easily reproduced, but can be seen as a whole object rather than in parts on the computer screen, so this is a valuable consideration to weigh in cancellation decisions. For some titles, cancellation decisions may also have to take into
376
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
account the document display options provided. Is display available in HTML, plain text, full-page digitization, or some combination thereof? 8.2. Authentication Determine the need for authentication. Many resource providers require that access be limited to “authorized users,” and to limit this access, providers often use either IP-based recognition or username and passwords. If a subscription is based on IP recognition (often the preferred method of authentication), libraries must have a way of allowing off-campus users to access this material either through proxy or some other method. Does the library have such a system in place? If a subscription is based on passwords and usernames, someone must be responsible for disseminating these passwords to authorized users at their point of need. This can be a tremendous strain on staff as the number of resources available electronically increases. 8.3. Hardware, software, etc. If serials are going to be offered primarily electronically, it is important to consider the potential wear and tear on the hardware within the library. Software requirements often change as providers make upgrades. Can the library commit to upgrading the hardware and software needed to access electronic serials on a regular basis? If not, having the material available electronically may be of little or no value because users may not be able to access it, and cancellation of print will be untenable.
9. Local resources 9.1. Monetary savings Examine the actual costs of canceling print in favor of electronic access. Some savings can be realized by ceasing to order, track, claim, and check-in serials; additional savings accrue when ceasing to bind, circulate, and shelve print volumes. More visible savings may also be realized in subscription costs; some titles will charge less for electronic access only, as opposed to keeping both print and electronic. But the savings in subscription costs, while more visible, may be small due to licensing restrictions. Furthermore, as noted in the literature review, savings may not occur at all; rather, costs may merely be shifted and may indeed increase if higher order skills are required to manage the changes in serials. 9.2. Space limitations Ascertain the space to be saved if print is cancelled. Even with off-site storage, collection space is a finite resource. Are there space considerations that can be used as a criterion for the cancellation of print? Ceasing to retain print may allow the library to reallocate newly
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
377
available space to other needs such as additional workstations to access electronic resources or quiet study areas. 9.3. Staffing Determine staffing needs. A major cancellation project requires staff time, and once the shift to electronic has been made, staffing demands will continue. As noted in the literature review, a different skill level may be required to manage the new serial format in areas such as serial acquisitions. More will also be required of public service librarians as they assist users in adapting to format and access changes. 10. Conclusion Libraries creating a document to guide them in these decisions may want to preface their work with a statement of principles, assumptions, or philosophy. Several elements might be included in such a preface: ● State preference for electronic over print unless other factors make the print version more desirable ● Support of duplicate formats will not be allowed without strong justification ● Support publications seeking to transform scholarly communication ● Support publications maintaining reasonable pricing strategies ● Expedite library decision making and workflows ● Value interdisciplinarity ● Pursuit of short-term gain will not be allowed to override long-term goals ● Development of hard data to support cancellation decisions will be pursued ● Signing licenses with undue restrictions will not be allowed It is apparent from those ARL libraries responding to the initial e-mail query for this article that most are just now beginning to face drafting a document to guide them on the issue of canceling print in favor of electronic. Many of us have put this decision off, but we must now face it as responsibly as we can without the benefit of a crystal ball to assist us. It is our hope that this article will provide a starting point for many of us as we take on this task. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank colleagues at the University of Washington, the University of Alberta, and Boston University for their input. References [1] Davis, T. L. (1997). The evolution of selection activities for electronic resources. Library Trends, 45 (3), 391– 403.
378
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
[2] Stewart, L. A. (2000). Choosing between print and electronic resources: the selection dilemma. The Reference Librarian, 71, 79 –97. [3] Ashcroft, L., & Langdon, C. (1999). Electronic journals and university library collections. Collection Building, 18 (3), 105–113. [4] Stewart, L. A. (2000). Choosing between print and electronic resources: the selection dilemma. The Reference Librarian, 71, 79 –97. [5] Lee, S. D. (2002). Electronic collection development: a practical guide. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers. [6] Davis, T. L. (1997). The evolution of selection activities for electronic resources. Library Trends, 45 (3), 391– 403. [7] Walravens, H. (2001). The happiness we dream of: the future of serials—realism or utopia? The Serials Librarian, 41 (2), 149 –155. [8] Gyeszly, S. D. (2001). Electronic or paper journals? Budgetary, collection development and user satisfaction questions. Collection Building, 20 (1), 5–10. [9] Montgomery, C. H. (2000). Measuring the Impact of an Electronic Journal Collection on Library Costs. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (10). Retrieved June 2, 2002 from OCLC FirstSearch database Library Literature on the World Wide Web: http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org. [10] Montgomery, C. H. (2000). Fast track transition to an electronic journal collection: a case study. New Library World, 101 (7), 294 –303.
Canceling print serials in favor of electronic: criteria for decision making Karen Rupp-Serranoa,*, Sarah Robbinsb, Danielle Cainc a
Head, Collection Development, University of Oklahoma Libraries, 401 West Brooks, Norman, OK 73019, USA b Electronic Services Coordinator, University of Oklahoma Libraries, 401 West Brooks, Norman, OK 73019, USA c Serial Acquisitions, University of Oklahoma Libraries, 401 West Brooks, Norman, OK 73019, USA
Abstract Libraries have welcomed electronic serials into their collections. Publishers have encouraged this trend by offering titles in electronic format at little or no additional cost to the print subscription. This trend may, however, be in decline, forcing libraries to reconsider what they are receiving and in what format(s). This article discusses several potential criteria that may be utilized by libraries in developing documents to guide their format cancellation decisions. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Electronic serials; Guidelines; Cancellation; Criteria; Academic libraries
1. Introduction Most academic libraries have welcomed electronic serials into their collections. Features such as ease of access and convenience make electronic serials hard to ignore. Publishers have made the decision easier still by offering electronic access at no additional, or minimal, cost. As a safety net, many academic libraries have not canceled subscriptions to the traditional print counterpart of the electronic serial. However, the safety net may soon be taken away. Some publishers that have offered electronic access at no additional, or minimal, cost are
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Rupp-Serrano). 1464-9055/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 4 6 4 - 9 0 5 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 7 4 - 9
370
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
beginning to charge, sometimes substantially, for that access, forcing academic libraries to review what they are receiving and in which formats. In light of the recent economic downturn and demands on limited resources, cancellation of formats will be considered in order to realize savings; the ability to maintain titles in multiple formats may be fading. In an ideal world, the cancellation process would be orderly and relatively straightforward because we would have used time-honored selection criteria to guide our initial acquisition of duplicate electronic serials. Alas, we do not live in an ideal world, and it is time for us to admit that many times we did not adhere to those fine selection criteria we were taught in library school. Rather, we greedily added duplicate electronic serials and left thinking about the consequences for another day. Publishers, who offered the titles to us at minimal or no additional charge, aided us in this. Many of us did not concern ourselves much as to whether the electronic version was the equivalent of the print; rather, focusing instead on giving our customers what we thought they would want and on the possibility that we were helping to create a demand that, in the future, we might not be able to meet. Cancellation of print in lieu of electronic should be approached with more care and consideration. It is always harder to subtract than add, and each subtraction must be carefully scrutinized. Often this scrutiny will involve many of the criteria used in selecting materials, although applied “in reverse.” All the questions we did not ask as we added electronic products will be asked, will be argued over, and will be answered. This article will explore criteria academic libraries may utilize when developing policies or guidelines with regard to canceling the print version of serial titles in lieu of electronic access. By providing a smorgasbord of potential criteria from which to choose, we hope to make it easier for academic libraries to develop policies that meet their local needs.
2. Literature review Many libraries are finding themselves faced with the difficult decision of whether or not to cancel print subscriptions to serial titles that they also receive electronically. The cost of acquiring both formats of the same title is often the driving factor behind this decision though there are other concerns such as storage, archiving, user expectations, and demands on library personnel. These factors must all be considered. However, most collection development policies were written before this became an issue and have not evolved to provide the needed guidelines for making these decisions. Much has been written about collection development policies and even about selecting electronic resources for a library collection, but little has been written about reducing duplication between print and electronic formats of serial titles and the factors libraries should consider when making such decisions. When evaluating and selecting journals in any format, there is a list of criteria one must consider. Davis summarizes the basic criteria for traditional selection as the reputation of the publisher, the scope and breadth of the content, and details for the specific formats. When selecting and evaluating electronic formats, additional criteria to consider include the equipment needs (software, hardware, etc.), method of access, whether the item is being purchased or leased, and the varying cost structures [1]. Additional considerations when selecting electronic resources mentioned by Stewart include looking at the value added by
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
371
having the information available electronically, whether or not the library’s technology can support the product, the overlap between indexed publications and the library’s collection, how the product will impact service needs, and archival concerns [2]. Ashcroft and Langdon state that the, “[f]actors in selection include: high quality publication, long life expectancy, and titles that are peer reviewed” [3]. Much has been written about the advantages and disadvantages of e-serials in libraries. Stewart lists currency, occupying less physical space, and access to the material by multiple people at once as the advantages of e-serials [4]. In addition to these advantages, Lee notes the search capabilities, the ability to link to other sources and include multimedia elements, and the unlikeliness that they will be misplaced or stolen are part of the appeal of e-serials [5]. Archival issues and continued access to electronic information seem to be the major concerns facing library’s considering going electronic-only for certain titles. Davis states, “For electronic products, assuring access to, and storage of, files is a critical issue. Selectors must never assume that this responsibility is safe in the hands of the database producers. Publishers have not traditionally maintained paper stock, and they have quickly realized that they are not in the business of storing large sets of data and maintaining ready access to them.” Davis also notes that libraries attempting to store these large files and maintain access to them soon realize that there are significant costs associated with this task in terms of staff, time, and resources [6]. Walravens predicts that libraries may soon be forced to face this issue because academic publishers may cease to offer parallel print and electronic editions. This is because many customers are being pushed to choose between the two formats as a result of budget constraints, thus reducing publisher revenue and, in turn, causing publishers to no longer produce print [7]. However, in a study of the usage of electronic journals done at Texas A&M University, Suzanne Gyeszly found that the usage of electronic journals by their patrons was not enough to warrant or justify canceling the print subscriptions to titles carried in both electronic and print formats [8]. Drexel University has been one of the first universities to aggressively seek electronic formats in lieu of print formats. Carol Hansen Montgomery has documented Drexel’s experiences and has found “that the electronic collection is substantially more expensive to maintain” and that the conversion to primarily electronic access has resulted in drastic restructuring of staff responsibilities [9]. Although less time is spent on “tasks such as checking in print issues, claiming non-arrivals, replacing missing pages, and preparing and receiving bindery shipments,” the work has merely shifted to other activities that require professional level skills [10].
3. Criteria and discussion In the spring of 2002, all Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member institutions were queried via e-mail as to whether they had policies, guidelines, or criteria in use at their institution for the cancellation of print journals when electronic equivalents are available; these libraries were queried because it was theorized that they are heavily invested in electronic resources and, thus, are likely to have developed documents to assist them in such a process. Of the 123 ARL members queried, 47 responded. Of the respondents, only 6 had
372
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
documents in place. Most respondents indicated that they had no formal document and, in the face of recent pricing structure changes by publishers, were just beginning to contemplate creating such a document. What follows is a discussion of some potential criteria academic libraries may consider when developing policies or guidelines to determine in what format a serial should be retained when multiple formats are available. Local considerations will, of course, always need to be taken into account when developing any documents for use at a specific institution. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, nor is the criteria listed in order of importance. Indeed, almost any organization of these criteria is somewhat arbitrary, since most are deeply interconnected.
4. Licensing 4.1. Licensing restrictions Determine if license restrictions allow cancellation of print. This is a complicated task, as the restrictions in a license can be many: ● A license may be a multi-year commitment, in which case one may be able to do next to nothing until the license is up for renegotiation unless the provider is amenable to change. Such changes will most likely require a renegotiation of the contract and will possible increase the cost of the product. ● Some licenses are consortial in nature, and thus changes become even more complex, as they must be negotiated with consortial partners. ● Some licenses have restrictions on ILL that allow lending only from print copies of a title; these restrictions force libraries to retain print copies in order to fulfill ILL obligations. ● Some licenses restrict how many titles, or what percentage of a provider’s titles, may be cancelled in a given year. ● Some licenses provide a price break for retaining print. In such cases, a determination must be made as to whether the price break is worth maintaining the print in the face of other criteria such as space limitations and savings to be realized. 4.2. Accessibility Ideally, the electronic product should be available to all valid users anywhere at anytime. If there are there license restrictions, such as limiting access to certain geographic areas or maintaining a print subscription to the title in question, these must be considered before cancelling. 4.3. Archiving Decide if the title will be archived electronically or in print format, and whether long-term access is an important consideration for this title. How does the library define a reliable
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
373
electronic archive? Does the provider support a reliable electronic archive for the title? If not, is there a need for a print archive? Does the print archive have to be an original print subscription, or can printing the electronic version of the title and binding it create a suitably equivalent print archive? Are there restrictions in the license regarding this? Would preserving the title in microform be a feasible alternative? 5. Provider 5.1. Provider reliability/stability Examine the library’s need to “always” have access to the title. Is the electronic provider sufficiently reliable and stable? In the strictest interpretation of this criterion, the answer would usually be no. No provider is immune from technological difficulty or corporate buyout; even the United States government has not proven to be a reliable provider. Some judgment must be made as to what constitutes sufficient reliability when considering cancellation. Aggregators of journals from multiple publishers such as Gale, EBSCO, Faxon/Divine and Lexis-Nexis are most often questioned in regard to product stability. Databases from such providers have journal lists that change with alarming frequency and have demonstrated a variable ability to acquire and retain title back-files. 5.2. Aggregator duplication Assess if titles duplicated by aggregators are important to the user and worth the cost to the library. Many of the same titles are available through multiple aggregators and from providers such as Catchword, Divine’s Information Quest (IQ), and OCLC Electronic Collections Online (ECO). Should duplicate providers of the same title be maintained or eliminated through cancellation? With aggregators there is little recourse at the title level; you either take the package as a whole or take nothing at all. Services such as Catchword and IQ have no direct cost to the library, but there is an indirect cost in keeping track of what is available from these providers and maintaining links to them. Electronic Collections Online costs but also provides full-text linking between itself, the other OCLC databases, and some outside providers, such as Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA); is the extra cost worth the enhanced linking capabilities provided to the user? This is an especially difficult question to answer at this time as more providers work to enhance linkages between databases. An equally important question is whether the aggregated title is an adequate substitute for the paper copy or for a publisher-produced electronic version. 6. Local politics 6.1. Availability in local consortia Determine if the library is required to keep a “copy of record” for the print title as part of a consortial agreement. If so, cancellation is out of the question until such time as the
374
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
signatories review the agreement. On the other hand, if another consortial partner holds the journal as a “copy of record,” the library may consider whether it wishes to cancel the print subscription and rely on its consortial partners for supply of the title when necessary. 6.2. Discipline/curriculum/research importance Examine the significance of the title to the users of the library. Is the title of such significance to a discipline that canceling print is out of the question? Is the title of importance to a wide variety of disciplines, making print and electronic access critical? Each discipline can name core journals, a number of which remain core year in and year out, and these may be considered essential to maintain in multiple formats and, therefore, immune from cancellation of the print. Librarians can also research core journals through library and disciplinary literature, syllabi analysis, analysis of citations in faculty publications, and by using tools such as the Institute for Scientific Information’s Journal Citation Reports. Furthermore, while most regional accrediting bodies are moving away from title lists and volume counts, some specialized accrediting bodies may still prefer the maintenance of certain core titles in print format, and this may have to be taken into account in cancellation decisions. 6.3. Faculty input Consult faculty on the proposed change in format. For most academic libraries, serial cancellation decisions, even when it is a question of format rather than wholesale loss of a title, are not made without seeking input from faculty members. Often faculties have insights into scholarly communication in their fields of which a librarian may not be fully aware. Seeking input of faculty members assures that a primary clientele is consulted before decisions are made while also providing an opportunity to educate faculty as to scholarly communication issues impacting libraries and potentially opens the door to a wider discussion of faculty’s library needs. 6.4. Institutional commitment Determine the significance of the title to the library. What is the commitment of the institution to the item in question? Some materials have deep, time-honored support for print format and cancellation is unlikely. Conversely, although electronic resources are relatively new, some have already garnered deep support within the library and academic communities. Full-text titles within these resources may be excellent candidates for print cancellation. 6.5. Subject Ascertain if the subject is one that requires the retention of print in addition to electronic. Perhaps the subject is one reflecting local or traditional collection strengths, in which cancellation may not be an option. Perhaps campus politics simply will not support the cancellation of print in select subject areas until such time as the environment changes. In
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
375
some subjects, electronic access may be the preferred method of access due to large distance education student enrollments, thus making print cancellation viable. 6.6. User preference/usage Examine if users display a format preference for given titles and if that preference is an overriding concern. Even though some titles might be available in an electronic format, use statistics may indicate more frequent usage of the print counterpart. While this can be due to other issues such as disciplinary communication patterns, publication completeness, provider reliability, search interface or even how widely a title is indexed, at times it may truly be user preference. Furthermore, heavy usage of a title in electronic format may be considered a reason for maintaining a print archive as a backup.
7. Publication structure 7.1. Completeness Determine if the title is reproduced electronically exactly as it was printed. While the substance of a publication may be full-length articles, many readers require access to smaller elements of the publication such as letters to the editor, editorial essays, and the like. If a title is not reproduced cover to cover, most likely a case-by-case determination will have to be made as to whether the missing material is of enough importance to eschew cancellation. 7.2. Nature of publication Assess the nature of the publication. Do most issues tend to be monographic in nature? Are articles generally quite lengthy? This practice can be frequently observed in Law journals, but the phenomenon is certainly not limited and can be found throughout the sciences, humanities and social sciences. How realistic is it to expect users to print 50 pages or more for one article? What is a reasonable expectation with regard to printing? This would become an even larger issue if the library supports free public printing.
8. Technological considerations 8.1. Reproduction capabilities Ascertain the library and/or the user’s ability to reproduce articles and other materials in a manner approximating the original when necessary. For example, is color printing available for photos? Are oversize items such as maps or posters reproducible? In print environments, oversize materials may not be easily reproduced, but can be seen as a whole object rather than in parts on the computer screen, so this is a valuable consideration to weigh in cancellation decisions. For some titles, cancellation decisions may also have to take into
376
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
account the document display options provided. Is display available in HTML, plain text, full-page digitization, or some combination thereof? 8.2. Authentication Determine the need for authentication. Many resource providers require that access be limited to “authorized users,” and to limit this access, providers often use either IP-based recognition or username and passwords. If a subscription is based on IP recognition (often the preferred method of authentication), libraries must have a way of allowing off-campus users to access this material either through proxy or some other method. Does the library have such a system in place? If a subscription is based on passwords and usernames, someone must be responsible for disseminating these passwords to authorized users at their point of need. This can be a tremendous strain on staff as the number of resources available electronically increases. 8.3. Hardware, software, etc. If serials are going to be offered primarily electronically, it is important to consider the potential wear and tear on the hardware within the library. Software requirements often change as providers make upgrades. Can the library commit to upgrading the hardware and software needed to access electronic serials on a regular basis? If not, having the material available electronically may be of little or no value because users may not be able to access it, and cancellation of print will be untenable.
9. Local resources 9.1. Monetary savings Examine the actual costs of canceling print in favor of electronic access. Some savings can be realized by ceasing to order, track, claim, and check-in serials; additional savings accrue when ceasing to bind, circulate, and shelve print volumes. More visible savings may also be realized in subscription costs; some titles will charge less for electronic access only, as opposed to keeping both print and electronic. But the savings in subscription costs, while more visible, may be small due to licensing restrictions. Furthermore, as noted in the literature review, savings may not occur at all; rather, costs may merely be shifted and may indeed increase if higher order skills are required to manage the changes in serials. 9.2. Space limitations Ascertain the space to be saved if print is cancelled. Even with off-site storage, collection space is a finite resource. Are there space considerations that can be used as a criterion for the cancellation of print? Ceasing to retain print may allow the library to reallocate newly
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
377
available space to other needs such as additional workstations to access electronic resources or quiet study areas. 9.3. Staffing Determine staffing needs. A major cancellation project requires staff time, and once the shift to electronic has been made, staffing demands will continue. As noted in the literature review, a different skill level may be required to manage the new serial format in areas such as serial acquisitions. More will also be required of public service librarians as they assist users in adapting to format and access changes. 10. Conclusion Libraries creating a document to guide them in these decisions may want to preface their work with a statement of principles, assumptions, or philosophy. Several elements might be included in such a preface: ● State preference for electronic over print unless other factors make the print version more desirable ● Support of duplicate formats will not be allowed without strong justification ● Support publications seeking to transform scholarly communication ● Support publications maintaining reasonable pricing strategies ● Expedite library decision making and workflows ● Value interdisciplinarity ● Pursuit of short-term gain will not be allowed to override long-term goals ● Development of hard data to support cancellation decisions will be pursued ● Signing licenses with undue restrictions will not be allowed It is apparent from those ARL libraries responding to the initial e-mail query for this article that most are just now beginning to face drafting a document to guide them on the issue of canceling print in favor of electronic. Many of us have put this decision off, but we must now face it as responsibly as we can without the benefit of a crystal ball to assist us. It is our hope that this article will provide a starting point for many of us as we take on this task. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank colleagues at the University of Washington, the University of Alberta, and Boston University for their input. References [1] Davis, T. L. (1997). The evolution of selection activities for electronic resources. Library Trends, 45 (3), 391– 403.
378
K. Rupp-Serrano et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 26 (2002) 369 –378
[2] Stewart, L. A. (2000). Choosing between print and electronic resources: the selection dilemma. The Reference Librarian, 71, 79 –97. [3] Ashcroft, L., & Langdon, C. (1999). Electronic journals and university library collections. Collection Building, 18 (3), 105–113. [4] Stewart, L. A. (2000). Choosing between print and electronic resources: the selection dilemma. The Reference Librarian, 71, 79 –97. [5] Lee, S. D. (2002). Electronic collection development: a practical guide. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers. [6] Davis, T. L. (1997). The evolution of selection activities for electronic resources. Library Trends, 45 (3), 391– 403. [7] Walravens, H. (2001). The happiness we dream of: the future of serials—realism or utopia? The Serials Librarian, 41 (2), 149 –155. [8] Gyeszly, S. D. (2001). Electronic or paper journals? Budgetary, collection development and user satisfaction questions. Collection Building, 20 (1), 5–10. [9] Montgomery, C. H. (2000). Measuring the Impact of an Electronic Journal Collection on Library Costs. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (10). Retrieved June 2, 2002 from OCLC FirstSearch database Library Literature on the World Wide Web: http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org. [10] Montgomery, C. H. (2000). Fast track transition to an electronic journal collection: a case study. New Library World, 101 (7), 294 –303.