Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Collaborating to Analyze  E-Journal Use DataA discussion of cross-institutional cost-per-use   analysis projects within th...
Outline•   Introduction•   2011 four-institution pilot project•   2012 UNC system-wide project•   Conclusions and moving f...
COUNTER• Sets a standard for e-resource use data  collection and reporting• Clear definitions of use measurements• Allows ...
The importance of usingthis data to measure and evaluate use is growing.
Cost-per-use• An e-resource’s annual subscription cost  divided by the use of the resource over  the term of the subscript...
What might we discover ifwe compare e-resource use data across institutions?
ECUUNC Charlotte
UNC Greensboro                                       ECUUNC Charlotte                      UNC Wilmington
AverageCPU                                                  UNC Charlotte                                                 ...
Now what?
UNC system-wide     survey
UNC system schools*  Appalachian State University              UNC Asheville  East Carolina University                  UN...
Table 1
Cambridge University Press             Elsevier             Informa Healthcare             Karger             Lippincott, ...
Table 2
Table 3
If the libraries are performing well, increases   in expenditures shouldresult in increases in access.
Metrics for access• Increases to the numbers of titles and  uses• Growth in cost-per-title (CPT) and cost-  per-use (CPU) ...
Overall findingsFrom 2009-2011, there was a:• 17% increase in e-journal expenditures• 10% increase in titles• 6% increase ...
Elsevier: $7.2 millionWiley-Blackwell: $3.6 millionSpringer: $2.1 millionTaylor & Francis: $1.5 million  SAGE: $1.3 million
Nature: $1.15    LW&W: $1.61  Oxford UP: $1.88   Karger: $33.00World Scientific: $83.08
UNC System expenditures (+5%)   E-Journal price increases (+9%)
How do wemaintain our lead?
1: Develop an onlinerepository in which UNClibraries can shareexpenditure and accessdata
2: Procure purchasesof common libraryproducts usingSciQuest
3: Develop a standardtemplate andchecklist for e-journallicensing
4: Evaluate and pursuestrategies to promote thepublication of the resultsof UNC research in OpenAccess venues
5: Develop a system-wide plan to containexpenditures andexpand access
System-wide plan• Give special attention to four “high-risk”  publishers: Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor  & Francis, an...
Imperfections• Emphasis on number of accessible titles  and CPT
Cambridge University Press CPT  $700  $600  $500  $400                            NC State  $300                          ...
Cambridge University Press CPU  $20  $18  $16  $14  $12  $10                    NC State   $8                    FSU   $6 ...
Imperfections• Emphasis on number of accessible titles  and CPT• Inconsistent data collection methods  among system schools
Goodenough.
Report Recommendations1. Developing a shared repository of use   data2.   SciQuest procurement software3. Developing syste...
5: Develop a system-wide plan to containexpenditures andexpand access
Are thesepublishers really  “high-risk”?
Context iseverything.
LWW    NC Central: $117       NC A&T: $287 CPU   WSSU: $399         System Average:                $1.61            UNC CH...
Oxford University Press CPU % increase: 10% CPU $ increase: $0.18   CPU 2009: $1.70   CPU 2011: $1.88
Taylor & Francis  System CPU: $13.31But this high CPU is due to thefact that many of the systemlibraries only have individ...
Lower CPU doesnot always equal a better deal.
The larger theschool, the lower    the CPU.
40000               35000               30000 Enrollment               25000               20000               15000  by s...
Are publishers’pricing models fair?
40000               35000               30000Enrollment               25000               20000               15000 by sch...
Schools by Carnegie Classification                                                                        Student         ...
In the future…•  Establish a working group to act on   recommendations• 5 year expenditure plan  • 4% reduction by year 3 ...
A tip ofthe hat.
Our FinalRecommendations
1: Carry out cross-institutionalCPU analyses of e-journalcollections to contextualize andmaximize ROI
2: Develop consistentcalculation guidelines andcentralized data collection
3: Avoid and/or sidestepconfidentiality clauses inlicenses
4: Strive to improve ROI byworking to enhance thediscoverability of e-journalcollections
5: Use cross-institutionalanalyses to make institution-level assessments rather thansystem-level assessments
6: Lobby publishers to developpricing models that factor inresearch intensiveness as wellas enrollment
Questions?Virginia Bacon   Patrick Carrbaconv@ecu.edu   carrp@ecu.edu
Collaborating to Analyze E-Journal Use Data: A Discussion of Cross-Institutional Cost-Per-Use Analysis Projects within the...
Collaborating to Analyze E-Journal Use Data: A Discussion of Cross-Institutional Cost-Per-Use Analysis Projects within the...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Collaborating to Analyze E-Journal Use Data: A Discussion of Cross-Institutional Cost-Per-Use Analysis Projects within the UNC System

563 views

Published on

Presented by Virginia Bacon and Patrick Carr (both from East Carolina University) at the 2012 Charleston Conference.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Collaborating to Analyze E-Journal Use Data: A Discussion of Cross-Institutional Cost-Per-Use Analysis Projects within the UNC System

  1. 1. Collaborating to Analyze E-Journal Use DataA discussion of cross-institutional cost-per-use analysis projects within the UNC System Virginia Bacon & Patrick Carr East Carolina University
  2. 2. Outline• Introduction• 2011 four-institution pilot project• 2012 UNC system-wide project• Conclusions and moving forward• Questions
  3. 3. COUNTER• Sets a standard for e-resource use data collection and reporting• Clear definitions of use measurements• Allows cross-platform comparisons• Imperfect but powerful
  4. 4. The importance of usingthis data to measure and evaluate use is growing.
  5. 5. Cost-per-use• An e-resource’s annual subscription cost divided by the use of the resource over the term of the subscription period• A powerful tool for assessing return on investment• Must be contextualized with qualitative data
  6. 6. What might we discover ifwe compare e-resource use data across institutions?
  7. 7. ECUUNC Charlotte
  8. 8. UNC Greensboro ECUUNC Charlotte UNC Wilmington
  9. 9. AverageCPU UNC Charlotte ECU UNC Wilmington UNC Greensboro$25.00$20.00$15.00$10.00 $5.00 $0.00 For additional data: http://hdl.handle.net/10342/3143
  10. 10. Now what?
  11. 11. UNC system-wide survey
  12. 12. UNC system schools* Appalachian State University UNC Asheville East Carolina University UNC Chapel Hill Elizabeth City State University UNC Charlotte Fayetteville State University UNC Greensboro NC Agricultural and Technical UNC Pembroke State University UNC Wilmington North Carolina Central Western Carolina University University Winston-Salem State NC State University University* Two system schools, UNC School of the Arts and North Carolina School ofScience and Mathematics, were not included in this project.
  13. 13. Table 1
  14. 14. Cambridge University Press Elsevier Informa Healthcare Karger Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins Mary Ann LiebertPublishers Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press SAGE Springer Taylor & Francis Wiley-Blackwell World Scientific
  15. 15. Table 2
  16. 16. Table 3
  17. 17. If the libraries are performing well, increases in expenditures shouldresult in increases in access.
  18. 18. Metrics for access• Increases to the numbers of titles and uses• Growth in cost-per-title (CPT) and cost- per-use (CPU) that is lower than growth in expenditure (as well as decreases in CPT and CPU)• Increases in the number of highly used titles (HUTs)
  19. 19. Overall findingsFrom 2009-2011, there was a:• 17% increase in e-journal expenditures• 10% increase in titles• 6% increase in CPT• 18% increase in use• 1% decrease in CPU• 25-33% increase in HUTs
  20. 20. Elsevier: $7.2 millionWiley-Blackwell: $3.6 millionSpringer: $2.1 millionTaylor & Francis: $1.5 million SAGE: $1.3 million
  21. 21. Nature: $1.15 LW&W: $1.61 Oxford UP: $1.88 Karger: $33.00World Scientific: $83.08
  22. 22. UNC System expenditures (+5%) E-Journal price increases (+9%)
  23. 23. How do wemaintain our lead?
  24. 24. 1: Develop an onlinerepository in which UNClibraries can shareexpenditure and accessdata
  25. 25. 2: Procure purchasesof common libraryproducts usingSciQuest
  26. 26. 3: Develop a standardtemplate andchecklist for e-journallicensing
  27. 27. 4: Evaluate and pursuestrategies to promote thepublication of the resultsof UNC research in OpenAccess venues
  28. 28. 5: Develop a system-wide plan to containexpenditures andexpand access
  29. 29. System-wide plan• Give special attention to four “high-risk” publishers: Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and Oxford University Press• Reduce annual growth in expenditures to the point that it parallels growth in use• Lower annual growth in CPU and CPT to the point that it is less than annual growth in expenditures• Reduce annual changes in CPU or CPT
  30. 30. Imperfections• Emphasis on number of accessible titles and CPT
  31. 31. Cambridge University Press CPT $700 $600 $500 $400 NC State $300 FSU $200 $100 $0 Cost-per-title
  32. 32. Cambridge University Press CPU $20 $18 $16 $14 $12 $10 NC State $8 FSU $6 $4 $2 $0 Cost-per-use
  33. 33. Imperfections• Emphasis on number of accessible titles and CPT• Inconsistent data collection methods among system schools
  34. 34. Goodenough.
  35. 35. Report Recommendations1. Developing a shared repository of use data2. SciQuest procurement software3. Developing system-wide licensing guidelines4. Promote Open Access publishing5. Develop a system-wide plan to contain expenditures and expand access
  36. 36. 5: Develop a system-wide plan to containexpenditures andexpand access
  37. 37. Are thesepublishers really “high-risk”?
  38. 38. Context iseverything.
  39. 39. LWW NC Central: $117 NC A&T: $287 CPU WSSU: $399 System Average: $1.61 UNC CH: $0.85 ECU: $1.56
  40. 40. Oxford University Press CPU % increase: 10% CPU $ increase: $0.18 CPU 2009: $1.70 CPU 2011: $1.88
  41. 41. Taylor & Francis System CPU: $13.31But this high CPU is due to thefact that many of the systemlibraries only have individualsubscriptions and do notsubscribe to a T&F ‘big deal’package.
  42. 42. Lower CPU doesnot always equal a better deal.
  43. 43. The larger theschool, the lower the CPU.
  44. 44. 40000 35000 30000 Enrollment 25000 20000 15000 by school 10000 5000 0 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00Average CPU 10.00 8.00 6.00 by school 4.00 2.00 0.00
  45. 45. Are publishers’pricing models fair?
  46. 46. 40000 35000 30000Enrollment 25000 20000 15000 by school 10000 5000 0 100 90 80 Downloads 70 60 50per enrolled 40 30 20 10 student 0
  47. 47. Schools by Carnegie Classification Student Carnegie 2011-2012 Full- Enrollment FallSchool Classification text downloads 2011 DPESNorth Carolina Central University Masters 18,776 7,587 2.47UNC Pembroke Masters 18,233 5,477 3.33Elizabeth City State University Baccalaureate 12,686 2,772 4.58Fayetteville State University Masters 31,133 5,199 5.99Winston-Salem State University Masters 35,414 5,765 6.14UNC Wilmington Masters 105,980 12,321 8.60Western Carolina University Masters 72,650 8,343 8.71Appalachian State University Masters 145,872 16,654 8.76UNC Charlotte Research 223,258 22,630 9.87NC A&T State University Research 110,023 10,063 10.93UNC Greensboro Research 214,738 16,855 12.74UNC Asheville Baccalaureate 67,464 3,466 19.46East Carolina University Research 484,984 24,588 19.72NC State University Research 1,248,504 30,950 40.34UNC - Chapel Hill Research 2,350,522 26,837 87.59
  48. 48. In the future…• Establish a working group to act on recommendations• 5 year expenditure plan • 4% reduction by year 3 • 8% reduction by year 5
  49. 49. A tip ofthe hat.
  50. 50. Our FinalRecommendations
  51. 51. 1: Carry out cross-institutionalCPU analyses of e-journalcollections to contextualize andmaximize ROI
  52. 52. 2: Develop consistentcalculation guidelines andcentralized data collection
  53. 53. 3: Avoid and/or sidestepconfidentiality clauses inlicenses
  54. 54. 4: Strive to improve ROI byworking to enhance thediscoverability of e-journalcollections
  55. 55. 5: Use cross-institutionalanalyses to make institution-level assessments rather thansystem-level assessments
  56. 56. 6: Lobby publishers to developpricing models that factor inresearch intensiveness as wellas enrollment
  57. 57. Questions?Virginia Bacon Patrick Carrbaconv@ecu.edu carrp@ecu.edu

×