2014 Charleston Conference Friday, Nov 7, 11:30 AM

1. PRESENTATION TITLE
We’re e-preferred.
Why did we get that book in print?
Ann Roll
Pollak Library, California State University, Fullerton
2014 Charleston Conference

2. About CSUF
• With 38,000 students, the largest campus in
the 23-campus Cal State system
• Predominantly undergraduate and masters-level
programs

3. Goals for e-books at Pollak Library
• Goal to provide as much content electronically
as possible
• Growing online programs
• Repurposing physical space for other uses

4. Menu of e-book options
• EBL is preferred aggregator for individual
purchases
• Also place firm orders from EBSCO
• CSU-wide subscriptions to ebrary Academic
Complete and Safari Books Online
• Subscription to ACLS Humanities E-Books

5. E-books and the approval plan
• Successful DDA plan with EBL in place since
2010
• Merged with YBP print approval plan in 2011
• Slipped titles that were simultaneously
available as EBL e-books added to DDA pool
• 4 STLs, then auto-purchase

6. A DDA-preferred approval plan
• FY2013-14, moved to an e-preferred approval
plan for all subject areas
• All books available as EBL e-books added to
DDA pool, whether profiled as books or slips
• Primary motivation: Provide access to more
content while spending less on the approval
plan

7. Why only EBL?

8. It worked!

9. What did we get in print?

10. Lost access to print monographs

11. What did we get in print?
• 3358 books from 670 publishers
• 852 (25%) of those were from eight publishers
• Oxford University Press
• Palgrave Macmillan
• Cambridge University Press
• Springer
• Routledge
• Yale University Press
• HarperCollins
• The University of Chicago Press

12. Why did we get them?
• Investigated electronic availability of print
receipts in GOBI.
• Primary reasons print was sent:
– Available from e-book aggregators, but not on the EBL
platform
– No e-book available to libraries (print only)
– E-book only available on publisher’s platform
– Timing, EBL e-book not simultaneously released with
print
– Profiling issues or errors

13. Profiling issues or errors?

15. What could be changed?
• Move to a multi-aggregator option with
EBSCO, ebrary, and titles available for
individual purchase from University Press
Scholarship Online.
• The cons of this:
– EBSCO and ebrary offer DDA options, but multi-user
access costs are higher
– UPSO has no DDA option

16. Caveats:
• Palgrave Connect data was
added to GOBI in March 2014
• Timing would have also affected
ebrary & EBSCO books in most
cases

17. What happened?
• Appears that Palgrave Macmillan intends to
release e-books on Palgrave Connect
simultaneously with the print publication, but
continue to delay the release to the aggregators
• Adding ebrary and/or EBSCO would have
minimal impact due to this embargo

18. What could be changed?
• Add Palgrave Connect as a preferred platform
• The cons of this:
– Lack of a DDA option
– Minimum purchase requirement
– Likelihood of high per-title costs based on our high
FTE

20. What could be changed?
• Like Palgrave, add the Cambridge publisher
platform
• The cons of this:
– While an Evidence-Based-Acquisition model is
offered with up-front payment, no DDA option

21. Note: Springer is the only publisher
for which “only available in print”
was not a factor.

22. What could be changed?
• Move to a multi-aggregator option with
EBSCO and ebrary
• The number of titles and subject distribution
are not likely to be significant enough to
remove Springer from the approval plan and
opt for Springer packages

24. What could be changed?

26. What could be changed?
• More than for any other publisher, adding
ebrary and/or EBSCO would have a significant
impact

27. Note: 47 (84%) of the titles were
available for purchase as e-books
by the public and school library
markets on the Axis360 platform.

28. What could be changed?
• Not much, but HarperCollins is a much
different publisher than the other seven

30. What could be changed?
• As with other publishers, a move to include
ebrary and/or EBSCO in the profile would
increase the number of e-books

32. Potential changes and their effects
Add ebrary and EBSCO Add publisher platforms Nothing to do?
Oxford University Press Palgrave Macmillan Routledge
Springer Cambridge University Press HarperCollins
Yale University Press
The University of Chicago
Press

33. Potential changes and their effects
Add ebrary and EBSCO Add publisher platforms Nothing to do?
Oxford University Press Palgrave Macmillan Routledge
Springer Cambridge University Press HarperCollins
Yale University Press
The University of Chicago
Press

34. Potential changes and their effects
Add ebrary and EBSCO Add publisher platforms Nothing to do?
Oxford University Press Palgrave Macmillan Routledge
Springer Cambridge University Press HarperCollins
Yale University Press
The University of Chicago
Press
No DDA; high price;
minimum purchase

35. Potential changes and their effects
Add ebrary and EBSCO Add publisher platforms Nothing to do?
Oxford University Press Palgrave Macmillan Routledge
Springer Cambridge University Press HarperCollins
Yale University Press
The University of Chicago
Press
No DDA; high price;
minimum purchase
No DDA, but
predictable prices
and EBA option

36. Potential changes and their effects
Add ebrary and EBSCO Add publisher platforms Nothing to do?
Oxford University Press Palgrave Macmillan Routledge
Springer Cambridge University Press HarperCollins
Yale University Press
The University of Chicago
Press
No DDA; high price;
minimum purchase
No DDA, but
predictable prices
and EBA option
Still allows for DDA, but possible user limits and/or increased costs

37. In total
• Choice of a single aggregator had the most
impact
• DDA would still be an option with additional
aggregators
• Adding publisher platforms would have some
impact, but not as much as expected
• With the exception of Springer, print only
content will continue to come from all
publishers

38. Questions?
Ann Roll
Collection Development Librarian
Pollak Library
California State University, Fullerton
aroll@fullerton.edu