(Kristin Calvert)Welcome audienceIntroduction of presentersBrief outline of Presentation:Background & Literature ReviewStudy Results from Each SchoolResults of studyDiscussion Topics
(Rachel Fleming)The literature review we conducted for the earlier study serves this study as well, and is written up excellently in Katherine Hill’s report of the WCU presentation at the North Carolina Serials Conference presentation in Serials Review. In Edward Warner’s 1981 study of faculty in 32 departments at the University of North Dakota, faculty identified ILL as an appropriate substitute for 77% of titles identified as marginal by librarians. In the early days of interlibrary loan, it was already seen by faculty as an effective method for cost control combined with access to content.A series of studies in the mid-to-late nineties (during the height and aftermath of the “serials crisis”) studied the effects of massive cancellations at several institutions. Crump & Freund conducted a study at the University of Florida in 1995, reviewing the impact of the cancellation of 1377 journals during a two year period. 38 requests for 24 cancelled journals were only 0.2% of total ILL requests during the study period.Kilpatrick & Preece studied the effect of cancellations of 1241 titles at SIU Carbondale in 1990 during a study period in 1994. 124 of 3143 requests came from 58 cancelled journals (just under 4% of requests).Wilson & Alexander studied the long term demand of 3095 titles cancelled in the early 1990s at Texas A&M, looking at four years of request data from 1995 to 1999. during the study period, 44 of the over 3,000 titles cancelled received over five requests, and the study authors determined that ILL remained a cost effective alternative to subscriptions.All of these studies found that journal cancellation projects have not led to significant increases in interlibrary loan demand that affects service provision, but concerns continue to arise when beginning journal cancellation projects.
(Rachel Fleming)So why are we concerned about ILL and ILL demand when going into a cancellation project or a budget reduction?The concern comes from librarians as we talk to faculty about cancellation projects. The desire to “maintain access” to titles or the intellectual content contained in them is pressing, so we forward Interlibrary loan as an alternate means of access. In order to claim that ILL is as useful as subscriptions, we feel a pressure to guarantee short turnaround times for requests, which in turn supposes the ability of ILL staff to handle the capacity of requests, so that if a significant increase is made in the amount of requests, our ability to deliver requests in a supremely timely way is hindered. (1) do we want to question this premise?(2) query audience as to how much this is a concern in their cancellations. Anecdotally, all three of our institution had concerns or expected to see an increase in ILL demand after cancellations.
(Rachel Fleming)The University of North Carolina System has faced a series of significant budget cuts over the past 5 years.The system faced cuts of up to 18% in 2011-2012. In these budget cuts, campuses were given the budget cut and were able to allocate the cuts within their individual campuses.WCU faced drastic library reductions, and we investigated the impact that these cuts had on WCU ILL demand, but we wanted to put our results in a larger context. While we are concerned about there being pressures on Interlibrary loan demand, the way we’ve constructed our cancellation projects has been designed to isolate the very titles that won’t be in demand.(1) This is another premise which we might want to reconsider(2) These are listed in a kind of “depth of cut” order, where deeper cuts mean going further down the list.(3) poll audience as to the number of them who have cut according to each criterion.All three schools used Aggregator access, and WCU & EDU used the other criteria as well.
(JanetMalliet)Comparing WCU, WSSU, and ECU:A range of research intensiveness, and a range of enrollment levels. additionally, WCU is rural former teaching college while WSSU is a more urban HBCU, so we’ve covered a lot of ground for three institutions. Enrollment numbers : Fall 2012 IPEDSLibrary Budgets 2012 Library IPEDSIn these data we are looking at the changes from 2011 to 2012.
(Kristin Calvert)Data from ECU 2011 and 2012 cancellation lists. Took bigger hits to staff wages and other operational funds and the book budget. http://www.ecu.edu/cs-lib/techsrv/cdv/Collection-Reductions-2011-2012.cfmMake a note of the “unique content” criterion.
(Kristin Calvert)Note the difference in scale: top number of requests by date is three.
(Kristin Calvert)As a check on whether ILL demand shown by our current study, we looked at the requested titles and reviewed the number of requests for those titles in previous years. Earlier requests might indicate some part of the journal backfiles are in use but not available through the library, although other reasons could explain the demand.The “first” and “more” columns indicate which requests represent a new demand for ILL on these titles. These data indicate that the ILL demand we reported could be lowered by as much as a third.First: first request for the title is after cancellationMore: there are more requests after cancellation than there were before cancellation (i.e. 2 requests before cancellation, but 4 requests after)Same: same amount of requests before/after cancellationFewer: fewer requests after cancellation.
(JanetMalliet)Cancelled journals with ILL requests: number, and also percent of total cancelled titles that have ILL requests
(Rachel Fleming)Encourage audience comment throughout these slides.I) Cancellation dates do not coincide with lack of access: publishers extend grace periods on online versionsII) Possible other factors influencing ILL demand: WCU implemented a discovery service around the time of the cut, which could have led increased demandIII) WCU also cancelled a number of “bridge” titles for titles available through aggregators, and saw an increase in ILL for articles published in those journals in the current years. This may create another category for review as they walk the line between which method of access (ILL or subscription) is better for the institution. -- would a subscription result in use that justifies it? IV) Finally, it is true that you can’t rely on database full text as a persistent subscription to an individual title. However, if there is enough demand, you will be able to spot the titles that you need to resume subscriptions to. We have an example.
(Rachel Fleming)WCU’s one outlier on the ILL demand was this aggregator access being restricted by the publisher.WCU cancelled most T&F titles because of their availability via EBSCOhost databases.After the cancellation project, T&F put an 18mo. embargo on most of their titles.Monitoring ILL demand allowed us to spot the individual titles to which we needed to resubscribe. Brings up the question of why the embargo was put in place in the first place, but we still ended up saving substantially on T&F titles because we limited our subscriptions to those titles with the highest use.
(Janet Malliet)I) Our results reconfirm the earlier research resultsII) We can see these results as a confirmation of our review criteria: we were successful in cancelling titles with low enough demand that our patrons and our services were not adversely affected. There was low “real” demand for the journals cancelled and ILL will continue to be cost effective. III) As earlier research both showed and speculated, we continue to move toward a collection of core journals duplicated throughout institutions -- only ECU had a unique content criteria.IV) However, we continue to operate with the same concerns as we have since that earlier research, when many things are new. Are we still reacting in a “serials crisis” mode when so much continues to change?
(Kristin Calvert)I) do our students need what we provide them? access drives use?II) how does this / would this influence the choices we make as collection developers -- is it the same consideration for mostly undergraduate institutions than graduate institutions? How do you address the specific research needs of faculty in this world? Some considerations:-- increasing reliance on e-journals with their related issues: contracts v. fair use of print, changes to ILL with methods of e-article lending. (i.e. cut even more with a fast ILL service?)III) In order to drive demand, journals need to be found and have use -- publishers are pressured to include content in aggregator databases, and aggregator databases are increasingly being relied on as a main avenue of content in the library. While we’ve made these decisions for practical reasons, we need to start thinking about what this new world means for all of the involved parties -- and how we move forward (especially as budgets continue to be constrained)
(Rachel Fleming)I) What kind of stress do we put on research institutions when we move forward with ILL-based access to specific texts -- is there a real alternate with paid article delivery service, either through vendors or through another kind of aggregatorII) If this is our model going forward, what kind of additional changes need to be made to ensure its continued feasibility for all parties involved -- i.e. e-article lending, contract negotiations, discovery venuesIII) what is the role of intentional shared collection development of electronic resources, as some libraries are doing with print collections to reduce duplication and costs – we’re already using big deals and consortial deals, but this idea would move beyond that and likely require increased vigilance to renegotiate license terms and copyright royalty payment schemes. A related concern is e-book ILL lending, but that is perhaps getting off topic … other than people are perhaps increasingly treating book chapters like articles.
Is ILL enough: Examining ILL demand after Journal Cancellations at 3 North Carolina Universities
Kristin Calvert, Electronic Resources Librarian, Western Carolina University
William Gee, ILL & Document Delivery Librarian, East Carolina University
Janet Malliet, Serials Librarian, Winston Salem State University
Rachel Fleming, Serials Librarian, Western Carolina University
Charleston Conference 2013
7 November 2013
Studies consistently showed marginal impact to ILL after
1981 University of North Dakota
1995 University of Florida
1996 Southern Illinois University – Carbondale
1999 Texas A&M
For full literature review see Hill Katherine, Kristin Calvert, and Rachel Fleming,
“Impact of Journal Cancellations on Interlibrary Loan Demand” Serials Review, 39:3
(September 2013) pp 184-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.006
Concerns about ILL Demand
“Selling” ILL to faculty as alternate means
of access to materials in cancelled journals
Timeliness of ILL delivery
Capacity of ILL staff
Significant increase in demand could
adversely affect delivery times
Factors Influencing ILL Demand
(or) Criteria for Cancellation
Available FT through aggregator database (to current)
Available FT through aggregator database (embargo)
Eliminate format duplication
Low Use (regardless of cost)
Connection to Curricula
Three North Carolina Schools
WSSU – Cancellations
Budget Increase of approximately $250,000
Cancellation of 110 subscriptions
Reviewed subscriptions based on criteria:
Do we have access electronically?
Do we have access to it from a library close by
(either public or another university)?
Maintained some level of access for nearly every title
WSSU – ILL Demand
For 110 cancelled subscriptions
there were 3 article requests from 2
Total article requests dropped 17%
4% of requests were for cancelled
(54 article requests filled in 2012)
WSSU – Notes
Very few requests for the cancelled subscriptions
because of extensive format duplication
Publication dates for the 3 article requests were from
…and would have most likely still have been only
available through ILL and not a current subscription.
WCU – Cancellations
Budget reduction of approximately $350,000
Cancellation of 799 subscriptions
Reviewed subscriptions based on criteria
Available through aggregator databases
Connection to curricula
Database review (content overlap)
WCU – ILL Demand
For the 626 cancelled journals
there were 50 article requests
from 29 journals
While total article requests
increased 11% in 2012, only 2% of
all requests were for cancelled
ECU – Cancellations
Budget decrease of approximately $205,000
Cancellation of 350 subscriptions
Reviewed subscriptions based on criteria:
Database review (overlap)
Strive to retain “unique” content
Low use and high cost-per-use
Journal citation practices, impact factors, etc.
Importance to curriculum and faculty research
ECU – ILL Demand
For the 348 cancelled journals
there were 18 article requests from
Total article requests dropped 3%
in 2012, and only 1% of all requests
were for cancelled titles.
Is the ILL demand new?
Reviewed requests for
cancelled journals in the
years prior to cancellation
Noted whether the
number of requests had
changed relative to
Cancelled Journals w/ ILL
Number of requests
Percent of total requests
Requests per journal
Journals with single requests
1.8% 4.6% 3.7%
Cancellation date may not be the same as the date that
Increased ILL requests may be due to many factors
High demand for current titles due to embargoed
Aggregator access is not totally reliable as replacement
for subscription access
WCU Demand: Article requests per journal
What does it mean?
Re-confirms earlier research findings
Confirms review criteria
More core journals across all libraries
What should we be worried about if ILL demand is not
a important concern?
Need for any material versus need for specific
What this means for collection developers
What does it mean for publishers and database
Lending and ILL Providers
Who will we borrow these articles from?
How does ILL-centered article procurement become a
What is the role of shared collection development?