ERC ST 050413
Electronic Resources Committee
Meeting
May 13, 2005 Portland Community College College Center Building, Cedar Room Cat Finney (COCC); John Creech (CWU); Pam Smith (Clark College); Sue Anderson (EWU); Brian Gerheim (Evergreen); Janis Tyhurst (GFU); Joanna Haney (L&C); Barbara Valentine (Linfield); Canon Crawford (Marylhurst); Diane Carroll (OHSU); Karen Kunz (OIT); Laurel Kristick (OSU); Lynda Larremore (Pac U); Flora Lippert (PCC); Ed Loera (PSU); Heather Whipple (Reed); Scot Harrison (St. Martin’s); Carrie Fry (SeaPacU); Jan Hartley (Sea U); Emily Miller-Francisco (SOU); Emily McElroy (UO); Susan Hinken (UP); Donna Bachman (UPS); Tim Jewell (UW); Lynn Chmelir (WSU); Camila Gabaldon (WOU); Donna Packer (WWU); Lee Keene (Whitman); Ford Schmidt (Willamette)
1. Business Meeting
a. Welcome (John Helmer, Tim Jewell)
John Helmer provided a general update on Orbis Cascade Alliance activities and reviewed the most recent International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) meeting.
This ICOLC was somewhat less focused on er's than is typically the case. Topics included Scopus, Google Scholar, ContentDM, Bepress, OCLC Collection Analysis, Library Dynamics Spectra CRC, CRL, shared storage and cooperative collection development, federated searching, MARC records standards for er's, and COUNTER.
Some of the most interesting discussions focused on Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. In brief, Scopus is produced by Elsevier and is a general search tool for scientific literature. It is said to include 14,000 titles, 4,000 publishers, and about 180 million scientific Web pages. Some Scopus development partners at ICOLC reported very high use. All found Scopus to be very expensive, but is there a comparable product?
Other ICOLC participants questioned the added value over Web of Science (WOS), which offers a superior back file and is more interdisciplinary. If a library has already invested in WOS, why would they also purchase Scopus?
An ICOLC presentation from Google reviewed Google Scholar functionality and plans for the future, including broader functionality with link resolvers. Google is also working to secure more agreements to have publisher content crawled (indexed).
Helmer noted that although there is much mystery about what Google Scholar is, will be, what is included, and how it works, it is remarkable to see how much promise there is in this free tool. Helmer reviewed Yale's recently completed study of article accessibility through Scopus, WOS, and Google Scholar. A Venn diagram from that study illustrates an early tentative finding: each of these tools shares something in common with the others but each also yields unique results.
It is important to note that the sample size for this study is small and that all three products are continually evolving. The Yale study can be found at http://silver.ohiolink.edu/ioclc/docs/coc16Plenary1YaleG-WoS-Scompare.doc
Other ICOLC updates included
· Google Print plans to add more non-English content and pursue integration with catalogs beyond WorldCat. · Discussion of COUNTER, a non-profit organization established to create standards for e-resource use statistics and rate products according to those standards. Many consortia, including the Alliance, have joined COUNTER but few are actively involved. · Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP): still seeking funding, currently about $1M short of the goal.
b. Alliance E-Resources in Review, 2004-2005 (Greg Doyle) Greg provided highlights of the year via PowerPoint, including:
· 77 active subscriptions handled by Alliance staff with 834 participants on the subscriptions · Alliance libraries spent $1,948,697 on the 77 subscriptions · 25 new products introduced; 10 ending in purchases · Subscriptions held by each library ranged from a high of 45 to a low of 3; average subscriptions per library: 20.5. · America History & Life is the resource subscribed to by the most libraries (22); ABI/INFORM the fewest (2) · On average, 8.3 libraries subscribe to a resource. · The Alliance instituted a formal ER purchasing program for libraries not qualified for full Alliance membership. Requires an initial fee of $300 that allows for 2 years of participation and a $30 invoice fee for each resource purchased. View the slideshow here
c. ERC Survey and Communication Strategies (Tim, Susan Hinken)
Tim and Susan started with a brief discussion of the “communication survey” held earlier in the year that pointed to the need to find ways to improve communication within the ERC. To some extent, there are two “meeting cultures” within the group based on different histories, while the group’s recent expansion has made it impractical to continue the practice within Orbis of holding full membership meetings multiple times per year to discusse e-resource purchases and priorities. This has tended to leave members who had that experience feeling disconnected. Since the newer members from Washington lack that history, they tend to feel more comfortable with the current arrangement. Various ways of overcoming communication barriers and problems were discussed, including the formation of “clusters” of members who might be contacted periodically by phone by members of the ERST, the formation of “interest groups”, more rapid dissemination of ERST agendas and meeting notes. The possibility of a joint meeting with the CDMC to focus on e-journal packages and other cross-cutting topics was also discussed, with general consensus that this would be worth pursuing.
2. E-journal Packages
a. Alliance ILL Study and Consortial Agreement Opportunities. Diane Carroll
Diane presented the results of this survey using PowerPoint and customized handouts for each library. The purpose of the study was to look for opportunities where consortial title sharing ejournal agreements may help load level ILL and to identify which consortial ejournal agreements would bring the most value to Alliance membership.
In April 2005, the Alliance-CDMC evaluated the usefulness of the Summit catalog for holdings information. Their report analyzed over 17,000 ILL requested by Alliance members in November 2004. Data collected by Alliance-cdmc included: institution requesting the article, ISSN of journal, year of publication, and the OCLC symbol of library that supplied the article. OHSU staff added the title and ISSN if missing, and the publisher/ ejournal provider.
Consortial title sharing agreements with the following publishers could provide some ILL relief (alpha order): Blackwell Synergy; Elsevier ScienceDirect; Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins on Ovid, Sage Publications (Highwire Press); Springer (MetaPress), and Taylor and Francis.
Analysis of the ILL data by provider can be used to identify agreements that may be of use to Alliance members. Ejournal agreements that allow title sharing can save costs and help to load level ILL as seen by the results of agreements that are already in place. View the slideshow here (passworded)
b. Current packages (Greg)
Springer
Greg presented a proposal from Springer that offered 2 options. The first was essentially a continuation of the current titles sharing agreement that 22 libraries take advantage of. This annually renewable agreement allows libraries to share all Springer subscribed titles and the ability to apply duplicate subscription credits towards non-subscribed titles.
The second option offered a 3-year agreement with a price cap and a cancellation clause. After discussion, members felt that unless the price cap could be lowered and the cancellation clause liberalized, the Alliance should continue the current agreement as proposed by Springer View the Springer proposal here (passworded)
Elsevier ScienceDirect
Greg presented a proposal from Elsevier to the Alliance for ScienceDirect. Major benefits of the proposal are:
· Access to subscribed titles back to 1995- · Annual price cap · Ability to create a Unique Title List (UTL) that provides access to the titles at a greatly reduced price. · Reduced content fee · Reduced pay-per-view article charge · ILL rights · 3 or 5 year agreement View the Elsevier proposal here (passworded)
Much of the discussion was centered on exactly what a UTL is, the mechanics of forming one with multiple libraries and the cancellation clause. Members felt there was enough interest to follow-up on the proposal.
Handouts were distributed with information on a potential agreement for Oxford Journals and a new look at the way the Alliance works with the American Chemical Society. However, nothing was discussed due to a lack of time. View the ACS handout here View theOxford handout here
3. E-Book Forum (Barbara Valentine)
Barbara Valentine began the forum by summarizing a separate document that detailed results of an e-book survey that she had conducted of the ERC membership. Key results from the survey included:
· Most Alliance libraries have e-books of some kind in their collections. · More than ½ of those responding define e-books as stand-alone monographs, along the lines of netLibrary. · Many respondents consider products like Oxford Reference Online to be more like an online reference tool or database than a collection of e-books. · Cataloging practices vary among the libraries. Many have catalog records for netLibrary books, but not for titles in a collection like Oxford. · Libraries range from not ever looking at usage data to using it for collection decisions. View the Ebook survey summary here
A discussion of what the ER group should be doing about e-books was somewhat inconclusive. However, there was general sentiment that priority should be placed on looking at products that:
· Allowed title-by-title selection. · Offered electronic versions of standard print reference books · Emphasized computer/IT collections (titles that quickly go out of date).
4. Future meetings and topics, meeting wrap-up, open discussion (Tim Jewell)
Tim thanked all the presenters and participants for their excellent work, and noted the importance of meeting as a group to generating energy and ideas, making connections, and reinvigorating communication. The ERST will take the comments and suggestions from the group to heart as it works during the coming year. It is highly likely that there will be a spring 2006 meeting, possibly conducted jointly with the CDMC. |