2014 Charleston Conference Friday, Nov 7, 3:15 PM

1. Reinforcing the Role of
the Library
Communicating Value, Increasing Access and
Knowledge
Elliot Hermann, VP Sales Operations & Strategy
NPG/Palgrave Macmillan
e.hermann@us.nature.com

2. Efficient Market Hypothesis
In finance, the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) asserts
that financial markets are "informationally efficient". In
consequence of this, one cannot consistently achieve returns in
excess of average market returns on a risk-adjusted basis, given
the information available at the time the investment is made.
Source: Wikipedia

3. Is the Librarian/Publisher
Marketplace Informationally Efficient?
 Bound by the Big Deal
 Researcher biases/favorites
 Budget Limitations/Staffing
 Use of agents/resellers as middlemen
 Aversion to doing the analysis required
 Absence of a universally agreed upon “currency”

4. How do librarians determine value?
Cost
Rental
Access
(e.g.
Readcube;
DeepDyve
Publisher
bulk article
purchases
Get It Now Document
Delivery
Interlibrary
Loan
But where do subscriptions fall?
Subscription
CPD?
Subscription
CPD?
But…librarians need to also factor in
 Absolute cost
 Speed of delivery
 Overall demand
 Acceptability of restrictions
 Will they need to purchase the content again?

5. ReadCube Access at the U of Utah
 Beginning of 2012 ReadCube approached the University of
Utah and NPG to participate in the development of ReadCube
access
 Two price points were created for a pilot study where no
articles could be printed, and all articles could only be
downloaded to a PC with the Readcube application installed
 Article rental at $2.99 (article could only be read with the
ReadCube software within 48 hours)
 Purchase tier at $7.99 (available indefinitely)
 At the time of the trial Utah held site licenses to 79 of the
108 journals available from NPG
 The trial ran for one academic year with approximately 1,320
participants
 Before the trial the library was concerned with runaway
usage/cost for nonsubscribed journals
 Overall conclusion: ReadCube access was found to be more
cost effective than subscription, pay per view, or ILL for two
NPG journals which the library had demand for but not
enough to justify a site license subscription.

6. How can we work together to
determine and establish value?
 Cost per Download
 Cost per Citation (Bergstrom study PNAS)
 Local citations
 Author submissions/affiliations
 Access Denied Stats
 Altmetrics
 Customized solutions – e.g. Nature.com Complete

7. Reinforcing the Role of
the Library
Communicating Value, Increasing Access and
Knowledge
Jill Emery, Collection Development Librarian
Portland State University
jemery@pdx.edu

8. Three C’s
 Collaboration
 Content
 Connections
Photo is from the Forest History Society
Photograph Collection 4 April 1940

9. Collaboration
 Librarians &
Publishers are
complimentary
 Both are invested in
the success of
authored content
 Both agree the
production of quality
academic content
carries a cost Beer photo taken by Mike Gifford 17
November 2013

10. Consortium Stories
 Librarians leverage
the crowd
 Publishers gain
markets
 Pilots can be tried
across multiple
institutions

11. Content
 Librarians and
publishers are
invested in the
success of authored
content
 Both agree the
production of quality
academic content
carries cost; at issue,
usually, is the cost
point
Untitled by mfcorwin taken 26
November 2006

12. Connections
 Librarians help add
context to quality
content
 Librarians expand on
the metadata of
content
 Librarians and
publishers partner to
make sure standards
employed
Connections taken by Chrissy H 21 July
2010

13. Conclusion
 Publishers & Librarians
are enmeshed in the
scholarly
communication network
 We continue to
experiment with ways
to move forward that is
affordable for all of us
 For the success of the
academy, we must
continue to work
together to insure
quality is maintained
Co-authorship network map of physicians
publishing on hepatitis C by Andy Lamb 15
December 2012

14. Reinforcing the Role of
the Library
Communicating Value, Increasing Access and
Knowledge
Maggie Farrell
Dean of Libraries, University of Wyoming
farrell@uwyo.edu

15. University Perspective
 Budget Pressures
 Parental & Society Expectations
 Research Competition
 Research Relevance

16. Role of Academic Libraries
 Research Collections
 Research Services
 Instruction on Research Skills
 Scholarly Repositories
 Digital Collections
 Data Management
 Usage Data

17. Metrics
 Simplistic usage
 Future:
 Link metrics to collection purchases
 Link metrics to collection impact
 Link metrics to value
 Link metrics to university pressures

18. Discussion
 How can publishers and librarians collaborate
more?
 How do we position ourselves as partners rather
than buyers/sellers?
 How can publishers help meet library needs?

19. References
Ahtola, A. A. (2002). How to evaluate and measure the impact of the library’s collection on the learning
outcome? IFLA.
http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s2/conf/ahtola.pdf
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2010). Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive
Research Review and Report. Researched by Megan Oakleaf. Chicago: Association of College and
Research Libraries.
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_report.pdf
Bosch, S. (2005). Buy, build, or lease: Managing serials for scholarly communications. Serials Review,
31(2), 107-115.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/57624002?accountid=14793
Lown, C. (2009). “Are You Worth It? What Return on Investment Can and Can’t Tell You About Your
Library” In the Library with the Leadpipe. April 1, 2009.
Retrieved from http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2009/are-you-worth-it-what-return-on-investment/
Luther, J. (2008). University Investment in the Library: What’s the Return? A Case Study at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Library Connect White Paper no. 1. San Diego: Elsevier.
Retrieved from http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/whitepapers/0108/lcwp010801.html

20. References
Mays, R., et. al (2010). “Lib-Value: Measuring Value and Return on Investment of Academic Libraries.”
Research Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC, no. 271 (August 2010): 36–
40. http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/rli/archive/rli271.shtml
Piternick, A. B. (1990, Summer). Decision factors favoring the use of online sources for providing
information. RQ, 29(4), 534+.
Retrievedfromhttp://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA9180045&v=2.1&u=wylrc_uwyoming&it=r&p
=AONE&sw=w&asid=d598eb8566e00c0e64ef4ec35c341783
Stern, D. (2010). EBooks from institutional to consortial considerations. Online, 34(3), 29-35.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/742889783?accountid=14793
Tennant, R. (2000). Beg, buy, borrow, license, or steal. Library Journal, 125(11), 30.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/57464299?accountid=14793
Tenopir, C. et. al (2010). University Investment in the Library, Phase II: An International Study of the
Library Value to the Grant Process. Connect White Paper no. 2. San Diego: Elsevier.
Retrieved from http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/university-investment-library-phase-ii-international-study-
librarys-value-grants-process-2010
(2012) Scholarly eBooks: Understanding the Return on Investment for Libraries. Springer Publishing.
Retrieved from http://www.pcgplus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/RoI-Whitepaper-
Brochurer_eBooks4_US.pdf