As electronic serials have shifted from being the exception to the norm, libraries are becoming increasingly reliant on knowledge base driven systems to help manage their electronic resource holdings. In 2011, after over a decade of managing e-serials within a local database, the University of Toronto Libraries migrated its electronic serial holdings to a fully integrated commercial e-resource management system. Now, with two years of experience under our belts, we endeavored to take stock and analyze how our library is coping with e-serial management within this new environment. How accurate are our e-journal holding statements within the ERM? How effective are we at managing e-serial title changes? How well are we tracking journal purchases that fall outside of the big package deals? Throughout this study, we have encountered many of the benefits and pitfalls of managing electronic journals within a knowledge base-driven system. While using a commercial ERM and companion MARC record service has allowed the library to present better data to users and expose previously hidden collections, there are several new challenges that we must contend with in a knowledge base environment. A common issue hindering access to our e-journals is the supply of incorrect, outdated or incomplete metadata within the data supply chain. These metadata problems have a detrimental effect on libraries, and consequently on our users, as it affects the accuracy of our e-journal holdings within our e-resource inventories. Although the study began as an internal investigation of our e-serials management practices and workflows, the results highlight the need for greater standardization within the data supply chain, better communication with publishers and knowledge base providers, and increased collaboration to improve the e-resource management process. Presenters: Marlene van Ballegooie Metadata Librarian, University of Toronto Libraries Juliya Borie Cataloguing Librarian, University of Toronto Libraries

1. Facing Our E-Demons:
Challenges of E-Serial
Management in a Large
Academic Library
Marlene van Ballegooie & Juliya Borie
University of Toronto Libraries
NASIG 2014

2. Important Steps in Facing Your
E-Demons
• Take stock. We can’t begin to improve our ERM
practices without first taking stock of what’s
plaguing us.
• Give credit where credit is due. It’s so easy to get
bogged down in the problems. What are we
doing right? Celebrate our victories.
• Look ahead. Look to the future and think of all
the things we can do to make e-resource
management better.

3. UTL Context
• University of Toronto - Canada’s largest university
o 67,128 undergraduate students
o 15,884 graduate students
• Decentralized library system with 44 libraries
o ARL ranked #3
• Let’s look at the numbers:
o 7.6 million bibliographic records (over 11 million items)
o Over 1.5 million e-resources (approx. 227,000 serials)
o 1,379 content packages, 385 providers
• Managed e-resources in a home-grown system until
2011. Became unsustainable.
• Migrated to Serials Solutions product suite

4. Taking Stock

5. Setting the Stage
• Substantial investment in e-journals:
– At UofT in 2012/13:
– e-serials - 73% of the serials budget
– 28 million dollar acquisition budget
– 12 million spent on e-serials
– In many ARL libraries, e-serials account for
two-thirds of overall materials budgets
Does this investment in e-journals have an impact
on institutional research performance?

6. Do e-journals make a difference?
• E-journal expenditure correlates with use.
• Use of e-journals does not simply support
research success but also drives it.
Research Information Network, E-journals: their use, value and impact: final report
(London: RIN, January 2011, p. 29)

7. After the purchase…
“Massive investments in subscriptions to an
increasingly complex array of electronic
content products requires at least some
additional overhead expense to provide
simpler means of access and to ensure
adequate levels of use.”
(Marshall Breeding, Automation Marketplace 2013).
• ERMs are an essential component
in e-resource management
– Improves discoverability for users
– Streamlines maintenance for libraries
– Mechanism for inventory control

8. ERMs and the Data Supply Chain
• Main players in the e-resource
data supply chain
– Publishers
– Knowledge base vendors
– Subscription agents
– Libraries
• More interdependencies than
ever… all based on METADATA

9. • Joint project between UKSG and NISO
• Aim: Develop a recommended practice to
ensure the timely transfer of accurate data to
knowledge bases, ERMs etc.
• Phase 1- Completed in 2010
– Main focus was on metadata for serials
• Phase 2 - Completed 2014
– Build on Phase 1 recommendations
– Focus on e-book, Open Access and consortia metadata
Knowledge Bases and
Related Tools

10. • UKSG initiative
• Aim: to improve journal transfers from one
publisher to another
• 48 publishers, including Elsevier, Springer and
Wiley-Blackwell
• Enhanced Transfer Alerting Service database
• Currently in Version 3.0
TRANSFER
Code of Practice

11. • NISO recommended practice
• Addresses issues in e-journal presentation
practices on provider web-sites
-Titles for different formats
-Former titles
-Citations
-ISSN irregularities
Presentation and
Identification of E-Journals

12. The Study
• Comparison of title lists from
content providers to data in
Serials Solutions KB
• Serials analyzed: 12,121
• Content providers considered: 20
• Limitations – could not check all
holding dates due to variable date
formatting

13. Package Deals

14. Title Changes and
Ceased Titles
• Previous titles are not mentioned in
many title lists, despite us having access.
• Much research was required to put the
puzzle together of all the title changes.
• Ceased titles not listed in many instances.

15. Title Transfers
• Title transfers are generally dropped from KB,
even though they often still supply access
• 80% of electronic resource librarians have
spent significant time adjusting their serial
management systems due to journal transfers
• Perpetual access status can be unclear,
especially in titles that are part of “Big Deals”

16. ISSN Irregularities
• Some ISSN & URL discrepancies
hampered the matching process
• Some confusion over print and online
ISSNs.
• In some cases, where there was no print
ISSN listed in the publisher title list,
Serials Solutions substituted the Online
ISSN.

17. Titles missing
previously…
• Titles “found” in the process: 1,048
• Backfiles are most vulnerable as title list
rarely capture all relevant title changes.
• Titles transferred to another publisher
• Short runs of previous titles are most
often the ones that are missing

18. Single Title Purchases

19. Results - Single Titles
• Titles analyzed: 550
• Titles that were “found” in the process: 52
(10%)
• Serials Solutions has comprehensive
coverage, few titles are not in the
knowledgebase

20. How does it affect users?
Erroneous data from publishers
Knowledgebase
User Interface
Dead End!

21. This journal did
not exist in 1973!

22. Bad Metadata Meets Discovery
Same article, two
different citations!

23. How Did Our ERM Fare?
• Title changes are often properly
represented in ERM
• ISSN corrections
• Rule statements in KB
• Correct metadata in the
knowledgebase affects
all points of discovery
down the line

24. Lessons Learned
• Publisher/library data disconnect
– Latest title vs. successive title entry
• Title lists are static, yet content is fluid
• Title lists supplied by publishers are
marketing tools, not management tools
– Title lists often appear to be an afterthought, even
though it is the only tangible output of the purchase

25. Lessons Learned
• Incomplete metadata
affects perpetual access
–Perpetual access is not
just about access to the
resource.
–It is also about the
perpetual supply of the
metadata related to that
resource.

26. Lessons Learned
• Communication is key
• Electronic resource
management is an
ever-changing
environment
• Don’t underestimate
the importance of
communication in the
ERM process

27. Celebrating Our Victories

28. • Consortially-based repository of locally-
loaded e-journals, e-books, social science
data sets and geospatial data sets
• Primary advantage is stability and
preservation
• A “safety-net” for e-journal content that
has fallen through the cracks; though not
immune to the problems with content
provider metadata

29. Improved Catalogue
Access
• Prior to the commercial ERM, brief MARC
records were created for each e-serial holding.
• Minimal data, much duplication, high level of
confusion amongst users.
• With MARC service: CONSER records, multiple
holdings on a single record, holding dates
clearly identified, updated regularly.
• Happier users…and reference librarians!

31. Other ERM Successes
• Open Access
– Increased visibility/awareness of OA titles
– Revealed the instability of OA data feeds
• Exposing previously hidden collections
– Title level access where none was had before
• Knowledgebase can be used as a tool to help
inform purchases
– Prevents duplicative purchasing
– Usage statistics and overlap analysis tools

32. Greater Awareness
of ERM Issues
• In previous ERM, management of e-resources
was disconnected from purchasing
• Commercial system opened up access, allowing
different people with different skill sets to work
with the data
• Recognition of the fluidity of the knowledgebase
environment
• Knowing the issues makes us better prepared for
the future

33. Looking Forward

34. Collaboration
• Electronic Resources Management Group
• Aims to provide a comprehensive strategy
regarding e-resources:
– Focused on all aspects of e-resource lifecycle
(acquisition, licensing, cataloguing, ERM
maintenance, access)
• Working towards greater centralization in
e-resource management and improved
collaboration

35. Communication
• For ERM success, we need to work across
departmental boundaries
• Purchasers need to understand metadata
needs
• Bring metadata into the conversation with
content providers
– Discuss workflow, ERM pain points, end user
frustrations, etc.
– Act as an intermediary between content providers and
knowledgebase vendors when necessary

36. Standardization
• Promote the use of standards and best
practices (KBART, TRANSFER, PIE-J)
– Educate e-resource team members internally
– Emphasize the importance of compliance to
content providers
• Include metadata requirements in your license
agreements
– Insist on KBART compliant title lists
– Require knowledgebase participation
• Collective buy-in is necessary for success

37. Documentation
• Document your entitlements carefully
– Shared drives
– Naming conventions and versioning
• Policies and procedures
• Backup data regularly
– Take snapshots of your holdings data and
compare them
– You may be (unpleasantly) surprised!

38. New Directions

39. Cooperative Management
of Knowledgebase Data
• WorldCat® Knowledge Base Cooperative
Management
– Phase One – Members approve/deny data
changes
– Phase Two – Members submit changes
– Phase Three – Members add/delete title and add
new collections
• Global Open Knowledgbase (GoKB)

40. Automated Setting of
E-Resource Holdings
• Let’s take some people out of the process
• OCLC + Pubget
• EBL/Ebrary automated data feeds
• Metadata quality?
• Licensing requirement for publishers to
provide holdings data to KB for ERM and
discovery purposes

41. Increased Data
Integration
• Linked data – unlocking library data from its
record constraints
– BIBFRAME
– RDA
– Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory ???
• New data sources lead to new possibilities
• Allow for data verification and correction

42. It’s Time to Change
the Game
• As libraries, we need to come together as a
community
• Let’s agree on the rules of play
– Consistent expectations, consistent message
• Acknowledge that change is imperative
• Currently, it’s a game of frustration, let’s
change it to game of collaboration!

43. Thank You!
m.vanballegooie@utoronto.ca
juliya.borie@utoronto.ca

44. Resources
• Breeding, Marshall. “Automation Marketplace 2013: The Rush to Innovate”. Library
Journal 137(6), p.32.
• Breeding, Marshall. “Knowledge Base and Link Resolver Study: General Findings”.
http://www.kb.se/dokument/knowledgebase_linkresolver_study.pdf
• Research Information Network. “E-journals: their Use, Value and Impact: Final
Report”. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-
research/e-journals-their-use-value-and-impact
• NISO. KBART Phase II Recommended Practice Report.
http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart
• NISO. Recommended Practices for the Presentation and Identification of E-Journals
(PIE-J). http://www.niso.org/workrooms/piej
• UKSG. Transfer Code of Practice, Version 3.0. http://www.uksg.org/transfer

45. Image Credits
• http://www.theartofastralprojection.com/blog/confronting-fear-in-the-astral
• https://flic.kr/p/8aK6CS
• http://www.jmhdigital.co.uk/img/packages-point.png
• http://reclaiminghearts.com/monday-musing-46/
• http://www.bctransferguide.ca/news-highlights/twitter1/
• http://siliconangle.com/files/2012/03/lost-and-found-pic1.png
• http://blog.hostgator.com/2013/08/21/how-to-measure-website-success/
• http://miista.com/this-will-make-you-smile-promise/
• http://coffeewithdick.com/?p=4
• http://www.eurac.edu/en/newsevents/events/newsdetails.html?entryid=113601
• http://oclc.org/content/dam/support/knowledge-base/SC/SC_Guide_KBWC.pdf
• http://info.bluebirdstrat.com/blog/bid/338081/What-is-a-Marketing-Automation-
Consultant
• http://www.illustrationsource.com/stock/image/519991/two-men-and-a-woman-
holding-hands-on-top-of-globes/?&results_per_page=1&detail=TRUE&page=8