Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Impact of Licensing Cuts on Research and Education
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Impact of Licensing Cuts on Research and Education

426
views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
426
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
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. Impact of Licensing Cuts on Research and Education: Results of a Focus Group Study Pat Higginbottom Tracy Powell T. Scott Plutchak University of Alabama at Birmingham November 5, 2010 The Charleston Conference [No Competing Interests]
  • 2. UAB State Appropriation History Year Amount ($) Change from FY08 FY11 254,204,273 (7.5%) (37.6%) FY10 274,654,620 (254,055,521)* (11.6%) (27.4%) FY09 310,812,676 (282,839,536)** (11.1%) (19.1%) FY08 349,829,308 14.1% FY07 306,529,308 19.7% FY06 256,142,651 13.4% FY05 221,933,880 2.9% FY04 215,741,009 0.7% FY03 214,198,718 2.3% FY02 209,387,365 3.5% FY01 202,271,904 (0.5%) * proration FY10 (7.5%), ** proration FY09
  • 3. Budget Impacts FY 07 $5,391,027 FY 08 $5,399,556 FY 09 $4,824,641 (12% reduction) $4,509,481 (9% proration) $4,439,481 (2% proration) FY 10 $4,372,418 $4,201,986 (7.5% proration)
  • 4. Revenue Sources State Funds 68% Tuition & Fees 3% Support from President 12% Support from Provost 1% Support from Schools 5% Other (primarily hospital) 11%
  • 5. Impact on Content Spending FY 07 $2,244,500 FY 08 $2,000,000 -10.8% FY09 $1,550,000 -22.5% FY 10 $1,200,000 -22.0%
  • 6. Potential Cancellations 2009 Break up bundles (ScienceDirect, et. al.) Low-use titles (<300 downloads/year) Selective moderate use Subspecialty titles
  • 7. Getting the word out Collections blog with potential cancellations lists Marked “potentially to be cancelled” in A-Z list and the catalog Liaisons communication to faculty Newsletter Personal contacts
  • 8. By the numbers Total titles available at UAB *2008: Approximately 38,000 *2009: Approximately 34,000
  • 9. Faculty Reaction From October ‘08 to June ‘09 65 faculty contacts 153 individual titles (21 after 1/1/09) Reinstated 147
  • 10. WTF? We need to do some focus groups
  • 11. 2010 Cancellation list of 300 titles Accreditation standards Clinical care Reduction in ILL charges Mediated PPV
  • 12. Four Sessions Public Health, Health Professions, & Nursing Faculty Medicine, Dentistry, Optometry Faculty Center For Clinical & Translational Science Postdocs & Grad Students in the Joint Health Sciences 36 participants total
  • 13. Process Brief introduction, fiscal background Focused questions Open discussion
  • 14. The Questions 1.How does the journal literature support your work? Does your work typically require that you use every issue of a specific journal? The most current issue? Older issues? 2.What problems have you experienced in getting the articles you need?
  • 15. 3.When you don’t find the articles you need at UAB, what do you do? 4.Have you had an experience where you have had to use something you could find easily rather than what you preferred? What was the impact?
  • 16. 5. Have you had an experience where lack of access to journal literature had a direct effect on your work? Such as a grant application, a teaching experience or treatment of a patient. 6. What have been your experiences with the new services we put in place to mitigate the effects of journal cancellations? 7. Do you have any additional thoughts and reactions to the budget cuts at UAB and how LHL’s responses have impacted journal holdings?
  • 17. Themes • Quality • Competitive Position • Recruitment • Reputation among colleagues • Overall quality of the institution • Training the next generation of researchers • Productivity • Cost • Getting the articles you need in a usable format • The nature of the literature
  • 18. Quality It’s partly, how can you know what the negative impact is cause you don’t know what’s in those. You know, there’s a whole chunk of the world out there that you’re essentially blind to. And, so, asking the question of has that had a negative impact, well, it’s just going to build over time as you become more and more disconnected from the world of what else is going on. I’m sure someday I’ll publish a paper that is exactly what someone else did in a journal I haven’t read. That’s going to take some time.
  • 19. Competitive position But it’s ultimately not a good thing for an institution that’s trying to join the top 20 of NIH funding to be begging other institutions to send us bootleg copies of PDFs.
  • 20. Recruitment When I moved here eight years ago from [redacted], it was actually a recruitment positive, the Lister Hill Library. Now, if someone were to ask me about the library, I could not give them the same endorsement that I was given.
  • 21. Training the Next Generation Or how about your students, how about the next generation, we try to pass down a history, and what we had before us was rich and fluid and we learned how to use that. Now there’s a new frustration where what new students are coming in to is far different than what we had in the past, and I don’t think they like it. We’ve lost this continuity on how we obtain the wealth of the literature.
  • 22. Conclusions Great variability in how the journal literature is used ILL/PPV not sufficient for all types of uses “Black market” is ubiquitous We are not as effective as we need to be in getting our message out High degree of concern, although it is not being communicated to us
  • 23. The Bright Side Engagement with faculty is better than ever We know that every dollar we spend is for content that is being well used We have systems in place to do a much better job of deciding what it is appropriate to license Our community has a much better understanding of the challenges that we face
  • 24. Budget increases for 2011 Federal stimulus funds Indirect expense recovery funds Protection from proration
  • 25. Going forward Will increase content spending by 8% Continue to query faculty who make requests for new titles Purpose of use Type of use Frequency of use Alternatives used to get content
  • 26. Acknowledgments Great thanks to the other LHL faculty & staff who assisted with this project: Liz Lorbeer Valerie Gordon Sylvia McAphee