We’re E-Preferred. Why Did We Get That Book in Print?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•223 views
This presentation discusses California State University Fullerton's transition to an e-preferred approval plan for acquiring monographs. They found that using a single e-book aggregator (EBL) resulted in some print books being received, usually because the e-book was not available on EBL. The top 8 publishers accounted for over 25% of print received. Expanding the plan to include additional e-book aggregators like EBSCO and ebrary could reduce print receives but may increase costs. Adding publisher platforms directly may have limited impact due to lack of DDA options and embargo periods. In total, using a single e-book aggregator had the largest impact on the number of print books received.
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (19)
Similar to We’re E-Preferred. Why Did We Get That Book in Print?
Similar to We’re E-Preferred. Why Did We Get That Book in Print? (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
We’re E-Preferred. Why Did We Get That Book in Print?
- 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
- 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