• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Qs5 group b adey
 

Qs5 group b adey

on

  • 340 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
340
Views on SlideShare
340
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

    Qs5 group b adey Qs5 group b adey Presentation Transcript

    • 14 April 2014 1 Enhancing life-long learning, teaching and research through information resources and services
    • 14 April 2014 2 Helen Adey, Resource Acquisitions and Supply Team Manager Nottingham Trent University Tell us what you want, what you really, really want: a blank page approach to reviewing serial subscriptions
    • Abstract Nottingham Trent University (NTU) has traditionally conducted annual reviews of serial subscriptions in an attempt to ensure that maximum value for money is achieved and the best profile of subscriptions is maintained. Following a benchmarking survey in May 2013, NTU decided to pilot a ‘blank sheet’ approach to journal selection with three academic departments. This session outlines the findings of the benchmarking survey and presents initial outcomes from the blank page review, including an analysis of the pros and cons of different approaches to establishing a successful review of serial subscriptions 14 April 2014 3
    • Content • Background - what problems are we trying to solve? • NTU Benchmarking survey 2013 – Benchmarking responses on Serials Review Processes – Common Themes • Blank page review at NTU – Headlines, results, • Pros and cons of different serials review processes • Ideas for successful serials review methodologies • Conclusions - what have we learned? • Next steps…….. 14 April 2014 4
    • Background - What problems are we trying to solve? • Why review serials subscriptions? – Money - Journals subscriptions prices increasing whilst library budgets are flat or decreasing 14 April 2014 5 • How to review serials subscriptions?  Methodology at NTU: review of all current subscriptions £ in:£ out - often leading to only minor changes in subs profile  Is there a better more effective review methodology?  Identified savings rarely enough to support new areas of curriculum or research - “no point in asking for anything new as there’s never any money”  What happens when you’ve cut all you can?  ?? How have other libraries handled this?
    • 14 April 2014 6 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 %Inflation % Inflation Comparison RPI/CPI/Journals Price CPI RPI JNLS
    • NTU Benchmarking survey May 2013 • International Survey ran for 3 weeks in May 2013 • 97 responses from 12 countries : – 43% of the respondents were from the UK, – 34% from the US. – 87% were from Higher Education Institutions. 14 April 2014 7 Responses covered many aspects of managing serials including:  Serials selection  Roles and responsibilities  Budget allocations including Formula  Serials retention policies  Format preferences  Serials review processes
    • Q1: How frequently do you conduct reviews of your serial subscriptions? •Annually: 61 (64%) •Every 2-3 years: 16 (17%) •Every 4-5 years: 2 (2%) •Infrequently, when required: 17 (18%) 14 April 2014 8
    • Q2: If you review your serial subscriptions, which of the following methods do you adopt? 14 April 2014 9 • In depth review of all serials Subscriptions: 44 (47%) • Selective review (by subject, site or other: 33 (35%) • Other : 16 (17%)
    • Q3: If you review your serial subscriptions, which factors or data sources inform your review process? • Changes in subscription cost: 85 (16%) • Usage data (electronic and print): 89 (17%) • Qualitative feedback from academic: 81 (15%) • Qualitative feedback from students: 20 (4%) • Librarian discretion and expertise: 80 (15%) • Changes in research activity in the institution: 60 (11%) • Changes in teaching activity in the institution: 67 (13%) • Space considerations: 41 (8%) 14 April 2014 10
    • Q4: If you review your serial subscriptions and use a voting or scoring mechanism to rate serial titles, who is given the chance to vote? • No-one: don’t use voting: 71 (65%) • Academic staff 15 (14%) • Researchers 9 (8%) • Students 2 (2%) • Other 1 (1%) 14 April 2014 11
    • Common themes from Survey • Price / budget considerations: CPU; budget driven decision making • Usage: low usage as main driver for cancellation 14 April 2014 12 Varying review methodologies: • Annual reviews; • Subscription committee; • Discussion among library staff; • Discussion with faculty; • Annual review by academics; • Faculty ranking of journal titles; • 100 points scoring system which faculty allocate to journals
    • Blank page review at NTU • Attempt to inject some life into the review process • Start with a blank page and tell us what you want 14 April 2014 13 Piloted methodology in Summer 2013 with 3 NTU Schools: Art and Design Social Sciences Science Survey requested 2 types of data Q: Which journals do you use daily, weekly, monthly…….. Q: Desert Island Journals - which 7 journals would you take and which ONE would you save from the waves
    • Headlines from blank page review – expect the unexpected! • Level of engagement from Pilot Schools varied • Methodology – We DID • ask them to tell us about Serials they use in their Teaching, Learning and Research • ask which serials do they recommend to students – WE DIDN’T • Give them lists of their current subscriptions • Give them any stats or data to influence their thinking • Discuss costs at all - start from a completely blank page and tell us what you really, really want 14 April 2014 14
    • Results – Art and Design • Initial round of voting, • School consultation event with staff and students voting • Very visual approach, sample copies, colour photocopies of title pages, coloured stickers. • Huge spreadsheets capturing voting outcomes • Used combination of usage stats and low / no votes to identify possible cancellations from existing subs • Results: – 6 cancellations – 22 new subscriptions. – Net additional cost of £1559.02 14 April 2014 15
    • Results – Social Sciences • Awaiting sign-off by School Executive • Proposed cancellations - low/no votes and low usage stats • Pricing up proposed new subscriptions - harder than you might think • If total cost of new subs ≤ savings from identified cancellations  • If total cost of new subs ≥ savings from identified cancellations  • Priority order for new subscriptions based on: – total votes; – Cost; – balance of subject coverage across the school; 14 April 2014 16
    • Pros & Cons of traditional review processes 14 April 2014 17 Pros - Traditional £ in £ out Cons - Traditional £ in £ out
    • Pros & Cons of Blank page review processes 14 April 2014 18 Pros – Blank page review Cons - Blank page review Slow, not very responsive service Huge amount of work Poor fit with library subscription year Academic buy-in - Mixed levels of engagement More holistic view of what’s required Analysis of usage data and firm metrics embedded A fit for purpose collection to meet current needs? PR success – advocacy & engagement
    • Successful serials reviews - is there a better (Evidence based) way? What evidence do we have of what our users really want ??? • Talis Aspire Resource Lists reports of All Journals and All Journal Articles on Resource Lists • Analysis of Interlibrary Loan data • Analysis of Digitisation requests • Data from publishers on turnaways 14 April 2014 19 Dear xxxxxxxx, Demand for Emerald eJournals is high among users at Nottingham Trent University. In fact, your library users have tried to access Emerald eJournals 5664 times in the last 12 months.
    • Talis Report - Journal Articles on Resource Lists 14 April 2014 20
    • Top 30 Most requested ILLs by School Journals 14 April 2014 21 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 NoofILLRequestssince2009 AAH ARES NBS SOC SST
    • Successful serials reviews - is there a better (Evidence based) way? What evidence do we have of what our users really don’t want ??? Low usage figures CPU exceeds cost of Document Delivery / Interlibrary Loans Lost electronic access which goes unreported? In house knowledge and expertise from Liaison teams of subjects / courses no longer running at NTU 14 April 2014 22 Journal of public health medicine. 1 7 12 2 £157.49 Journal of public health. 114 57 88 96 £3.67 Journal of public policy 137 85 101 191 £1.16 Journal of research in crime and delinquency 137 £3.64 Journal of service research 478 £1.24
    • Conclusions - what have we learned? (1)  Never underestimate the importance of advocacy / carrying academics with you Don’t make the survey too complex - be wary of different types of voting Resist the temptation to ask too many questions Don’t try to conflate frequency of use with importance? Consider direct personal approach rather than impersonal surveys Feedback from pilot departments very positive. PR success – not seen as a cutting exercise 14 April 2014 23
    • Conclusions - what have we learned? (2) Don’t underestimate: Workload - pre and post review The unpredictable nature of voting patterns The likelihood of top wish list votes going to existing subscriptions - highlighting issues for training & discovery The need to feedback on actions taken & outcomes The need to have a good news to feedback to ensure future participation 14 April 2014 24
    • Next Steps – Options for Future Serials reviews Another set of Blank page pilots - maybe face to face & not survey?? Combination of both survey and face to face? Rolling cycle of Departmental blank page reviews every 3 years with incremental £ in £ out in intervening years? Evidence based metrics approach Plus Complete analysis and write up / publish outcomes of the survey 14 April 2014 25
    • Any Questions? helen.adey@ntu.ac.uk 14 April 2014 26