• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Developing a Methodology for Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness of Journal Packages
 

Developing a Methodology for Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness of Journal Packages

on

  • 740 views

The purpose of this presentation is to share our experience in developeing a methodology for evaluating the cost effectiveness of journal packages. The presentation addresses a number of important ...

The purpose of this presentation is to share our experience in developeing a methodology for evaluating the cost effectiveness of journal packages. The presentation addresses a number of important issues and provides best practices that should be followed during review. Analyzing usage statistics data, costs per subscribed and unsubscribed titles, use of subscribed and unsubscribed titles will be discussed. Practical guidance in demonstrating the value, or lack of value, of a deal will be provided.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
740
Views on SlideShare
740
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Developing a Methodology for Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness of Journal Packages Developing a Methodology for Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness of Journal Packages Presentation Transcript

    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasDeveloping a Methodology in Evaluating CostEffectiveness of Journal PackagesNisa BakkalbasiHead, Electronic CollectionsYale University Library 1
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, Texas About today’s talkSince 1990s many academic libraries signed multi-yearcontracts to subscribe to electronic journal packages fromlarge publishers.With recent collection budget cuts, many academiclibraries are having second thoughts about journal packagearrangements, which force them to spend too much moneyon journals they dont need and which make it difficult topay for journals from smaller publishers and scholarlymonographs.In this presentation, I will share a methodology we havedeveloped for evaluating the cost effectiveness of journalpackages. 2
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, Texas Outline of methodology Identify the issue. Collect and analyze data for decision making. Identify and review options: pros and cons. Discuss decision time-line and implementation. 3
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasTo identify the issue, we need:  An overview of the product  How funding was established? 4
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasTo collect and analyze data, we use: Data source:  COUNTER-compliant usage reports  Accessible titles list from consortium or publisher  Publisher’s title-by-title list price  Subject categories assigned by the publisher or locally Data analysis technique  Exploratory data analysis using quantitative and qualitative variables Tool/software  Excel PivotTable Report 5
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasTo review options and discuss prosand cons, we need: Pricing model or the sales model  Base-value  Subscribed/non-subscribed titles, if relevant  Cancellation allowance  Price cap  DDP rate  Perpetual (or post-cancellation) access rights  Duration of the contract  Transfer titles  Third-party titles 6
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasLet’s get started!Using a case study, we will walk through a step-by-step evaluation of a journal package! 7
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasIssue An Academic Library has been subscribing to the ABC Publishers Complete Journals Collections since 2005. The initial base-value of the journal package arrangement was established based on historical print spend in 2004. The staff wants to gain an understanding of whether the package is worth retaining when it is up for renewal -- i.e. are we paying less in the package than we would if we broke the package and had to pay title-by-title for the journals we need to retain access to. Reductions in collection budget and different usage patterns among subjects are reasons to consider dissolving the journal package arrangement. 8
    • Product Overview ABC Publishers Complete e-Journal Collection:  Publishes academic and research journals.  Publishes in partnership with learned societies.  Publishes in physical and life sciences, medicine, social sciences, humanities, law, and mathematics.  Publishes 200. ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, Texas 9
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasData Collection Download COUNTER Journal Report 1: Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests by Month and Journal. Exclude all titles that are based on separate pricing models. Exclude journal archives usage if backfile purchase was a separate acquisition. Obtain a list of “Accessible Titles” list, which contains a list of all titles (subscribed and non-subscribed) included in the package arrangement. Obtain a list of e-only list prices. Aggregate all data in a single spreadsheet. 10
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasProducing data Each record should contain the following variables:  Journal title  ISSNs  Usage count (YTD Total from the COUNTER JR1 report)  List price  Categories for subscribed and non-subscribed variables  Categories for subjects 11
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasEnhance data to facilitate decisions Calculate cost-per-use (CPU) CPU= e-only price for the title /YTD Total (per year) Using ILL cost as a threshold, create two new categorical variables to filter for possible renewals and cancellations Let’s take a look at an anonymized data! 12
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasAnalysis: Title count Subscribed vs. non-subscribed title counts Subject Cluster NO YES Grand Total Humanities 9 38 47 Law 4 21 25 Social Sciences 11 26 37 Science & Medicine 32 41 73 Mathematics 10 8 18 Grand Total 66 134 200 13
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, Texas Analysis: Usage Subscribed vs. non-subscribed titles usage countsSubject Cluster NO YES Grand TotalHumanities 1,057 7,775 8,832Law 257 1,821 2,078Social Sciences 1,450 4,314 5,764Science & Medicine 10,544 60,246 70,790Mathematics 204 1,384 1,588Grand Total 13,512 75,540 89,052 14
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, Texas Analysis: Usage Cumulative Relative Frequency (%) 10% 20% 50% 80% 90% No use 1% (2) 2% (4) 8% (15) 24% (48) 40% (80) 010 % of use comes from two titles, 20 % of use comes from fourtitles, 50 % of use comes from fifteen titles, and so on. 15
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, Texas Analysis: Cost Subscribed vs. non-subscribed titles costSubject Cluster NO YES Grand TotalHumanities $2,074 $10,725 $12,799Law $1,666 $9,346 $11,012Social Sciences $4,511 $10,363 $14,874Science & Medicine $24,764 $42,071 $66,835Mathematics $6,402 $9,198 $15,600Grand Total $39,417 $81,703 $121,120 16
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasAnalysis: Candidates for renewalcancellation (based on $10/ILL) Count of possible candidates for renewal/cancellation Subject CPU>= $10 CPU<= $10 Grand Total Humanities 7 40 47 Law 13 12 25 Social Sciences 6 31 37 Science & Medicine 8 65 73 Mathematics 16 2 18 Grand Total 50 150 200 17
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasAnalysis: Candidates for renewal &cancellation (based on $25/ILL) Count of possible candidates for renewal/cancellationSubject CPU>= $25 CPU <= $25 Grand TotalHumanities 3 44 47Law 6 19 25Social Sciences 2 35 37Science & Medicine 3 70 73Mathematics 10 8 18Grand Total 24 176 200 18
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasAnalysis: Candidates for renewal &cancellation (based on $10/ILL) Cost of possible candidates for renewal/cancellationSubject CPU>= $10 CPU<= $10 Grand TotalHumanities $1,782 $11,017 $12,799Law $6,738 $4,274 $11,012Social Sciences $2,581 $12,293 $14,874Science & Medicine $7,745 $59,090 $66,835Mathematics $15,176 $424 $15,600Grand Total $34,022 $87,098 $121,120 19
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasAnalysis: Candidates for renewal &cancellation (based on $25/ILL) Cost of possible candidates for renewal/cancellation Subject CPU>=$25 CPU<=$25 Grand Total Humanities $588 $12,211 $12,799 Law $3,832 $7,180 $11,012 Social Sciences $649 $14,225 $14,874 Science & Medicine $1,329 $65,506 $66,835 Mathematics $9,110 $6,490 $15,600 Grand Total $15,508 $105,612 $121,120 20
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasMethodology reveals proof that users are using electronic resources. value for money. necessary but insufficient data to make strategic decisions. 21
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasMethodology does not reveal The users’ experience or perception of the utility or value of a collection or service. Low use can occur because the product’s user interface is difficult to use or because users are unaware that the product is available. 22
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasQuestions? 23
    • ER&L 2010 February 1-3, 2010 Austin, TexasThank you for coming! 24