Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
81
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Managing Digital Collections and User ExpectationsSociety for Scholarly PublishingSan Francisco June, 2004James MouwThe University of Chicagomouw@uchicago.edu
  • 2. Topicsn Overview of the UofC Library collections and usersn Providing access to many products n Access mechanisms n Backroom issues n What suppliers can do to helpn Measuring usagen The impact of usage
  • 3. The landscapen ~12,500 FTEn ~$15,000,000 for materials n ~$2,000,000 for electronic resources • Does not include some multiple-format purchases
  • 4. Budget Categories$16,000,000.00$14,000,000.00$12,000,000.00$10,000,000.00 Electronic $8,000,000.00 Serials $6,000,000.00 Total $4,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $0.00 /00 /02 /93 /99 /01 /04 /90 /96 /03 99 01 92 98 00 03 89 95 02
  • 5. The landscapen Increasing reliance on electronic access n Actively canceling print to afford continued access when we cannot continue bothn Increasing number of titles available electronically
  • 6. Proportion electronic Total Electronic Percent Serials Full-text 1998 38,500 5,700 15% 2002 41,000 20,000 48% 2004 42,417 37,000 87%
  • 7. The landscapen Much attention paid to increasing access n OpenURL technology n Federated searching n Citation softwaren Viewed as a collection expensen Much attention paid to statistics
  • 8. The landscapen Linking is “mission critical” n SFX controls 29,963 full-text copies • 17,581 unique titlesn Backfiles are purchased and usedn Looking for ways to stabilize ongoing expenses –even when this means paying more nown Purchasing almost no new print titles when electronic version is available
  • 9. The landscapen Users always want more n LibQual study reveals that the only place we don’t meet “minimal expectations” is in the area of print and electronic resources • http://www.libqual.org/n Large differences in usage among products
  • 10. Many (redundant) accessmechanisms requiredn Catalogn E-resource listsn Various subject pagesn A-Z e-journal listingn The issues n Replication of data n Inconsistency of data n No single complete source n Limited resources available n Linking together various versions of the same content difficult
  • 11. Many (redundant) accessmechanisms requiredn The response n Various vended products available n MARC record sets available n NISO/Editeur joint working party n ISSN revision underway
  • 12. Many means to an end
  • 13. The catalog approach
  • 14. The e-resources approach
  • 15. The e-resources approach
  • 16. Various subject pages
  • 17. The A-Z journal titleapproach
  • 18. The A-Z journal titleapproach – appropriate use
  • 19. Major issues we facen Disentangling all of the aboven Maintaining consistencyn How to help the user select the best resourcen Maintenancen Our approach n Do as much as we can through a single behind-the-scenes ERM
  • 20. What suppliers can don Give us a contact pointn Aim for stability n Don’t change URL’s n Announce changes well in advancen Make renewals easier n Contact us before an auto-expire kicks in n Adopt the concept of “graced issues”
  • 21. Measuring usagen Why do we care?n What matters?n What is acceptable?n What some libraries are doingn Emerging standardsn Impact of usage
  • 22. Usage – why we caren Only measure we haven Enormous expenditure of resources – need to justifyn Want to provide the products that our patrons usen Beginning to matter for reportingn Used for continuation decisions
  • 23. Usage – what mattersn Product dependent n Total usage n Full-text usage n User group differences n Turnaways matter
  • 24. Usage – what is acceptablen Who knows?n Vary widely among productsn Usage cannot be the only factor in decision making process
  • 25. Usage – what some librariesare doingn Elaborate system of locally-mounted html pagesn Interactive databasesn Frequency n Monthly n At annual report time n At renewal time n Ad-hoc
  • 26. Usage – what we’re doing
  • 27. Emerging Standardsn Project COUNTER n Receiving wide acceptance n Growing list of participating publishers n Meant to be a short list of the most important measures n COUNTER code of practice • Release 2 now available in draft n Auditing process to ensure compliance n http://www.projectcounter.org/
  • 28. Emerging standardsn ARL e-metrics n E-measures included in statistics to be reported in fall of 2004 n Aimed at including e-measures as a factor used when judging libraries • Not only e-stuff, but also reference transactions, etc. • http://www.arl.org/stats/newmeas/emetric s/
  • 29. Emerging standardsn Other efforts n ICOLC Guidelines • http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/2001webstat s.htm n NISO Standard Z39.7 • http://www.niso.org
  • 30. The impact of usagen Usage drive retention decisionn Use of electronic can drive paper retention decisionsn Wide range of usage observedn Usage cannot be the only factorn Turnaways remain troublesome n Is metering by number of seats a valid tool?