From Innovation to Transformation: Managing the Transition from Print to Electronic Journals


Patrick Carr, the Electronic and Continuing Resources Acquisitions Coordinator at East Carolina University, spoke next. He began by recapping the problem currently faced by libraries: rising serial subscription costs of roughly 10% a year and flat library budgets. Expenditures for serials consume an ever-greater percent of the library budget, and libraries have been faced with essentially two alternatives: consortial buying partnerships or pay-per-view access. Consortial partnerships have become the dominant model for acquiring e-journal content.


At Mississippi State University, where Patrick previously worked, the Library was able to increase the number of journals they subscribed to via their "journal expansion project." By working with liaison librarians and faculty subject experts, they identified duplicate titles and titles to be cancelled, and swapped them for desired titles. Working with vendors like Wiley and Elsevier, they were able to add new subscriptions for less or only slightly more money.


Patrick commented that the pay-per-view model isn't really a mainstream model. It requires libraries to develop accounts whereby authorized users can download articles at the library's expense. The problem with this model is that it's difficult to keep control of costs. However, some institutions have adopted this model, providing their users with access to journals they would normally be unable to use.


With regards to providing users with content, Patrick noted two trends.


Trend #1) Every user his or her access point
There is no one correct way of approaching or accessing information. For example, users might find their information via the OPAC, A-Z Journal lists, a metasearch engine, link resolvers, and so on.


Trend #2) Toppling information silos
There is a greater reliance on using a single knowledge base (a la VuFind, metasearch, etc.) to access information. The number of libraries using metasearch continues to grow as more and more librarians accept the reality (to paraphrase Jane Burke) that a federated search engine is a necessity, not a luxury.


Patrick next discussed the administration and support of e-resources, which are closely allied. In particular, he discussed several standards/initiatives that will impact e-resources:
1 - Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI) - Its goal is consistent, industry‐wide e‐resource management guidelines.
2 - Shared E-Resource Understanding (SERU) - This is a pragmatic alternative to license
negotiations. Patrick shared an instance when instead of renegotiating an unacceptable license agreement, he was able to persuade the vendor to accept the standard SERU license agreement. He was happy, the vendor was happy.
3 - TRANSFER - This refers to a code of practices dictating what happens when an e‐journal transfers from one publisher to another (not a pretty situation as every tech services and public services librarian knows)
4 - Knowledgebases and Related Tools (KBART) - Provides guidelines for the effective interaction between members of the knowledge base supply chain (e.g., publishers, aggregators, link resolvers, libraries).
5 - Cost of Resource Exchange (CORE) - Its goal is interoperability between the acquisitions'
data in a library’s ILS and ERM system.


He noted that "effective e-journal management requires personnel capable of adapting to and mastering a complex and constantly changing array of tools, interfaces, and workflows," and he demonstrated this complexity by showing us a flowchart taken from an article by Rick Anderson and Paoshan Yue, "Capturing Electronic Journals Management in a Flowchart" (Serials Librarian 51:3/4: 101-8, 2007).


One piece of e-journal management is evaluation. Formerly, when evaluating a print subscription, librarians had a pretty clear-cut decision: either maintain a subscription or cancel it. With e-journals, there are more questions to be answered:

• How many 'simultaneous users' does the library need to pay for?
• What interface is best when there are several to choose from?
• Should the library subscribe to individual titles or to a package?
• Should it subscribe to archives or just current issues?
• Should access be by IP address or password?
• And so on...

He next talked about the impact of e-resources on the print collection, noting that libraries are devoting less space to housing print materials and more space to areas for patron collaboration. Some of the challenges faced when weeding the print collection include identifying titles, evaluating the quality of online access, finding environmentally responsible means of disposing of the print, and (very important) avoiding negative PR.

Finally, libraries need to ensure that they will have perpetual access to their electronic journals. Libraries should become members of some initiative to ensure this such as LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe) and Portico, a non-profit initiative developed with support from JSTOR, Ithaka, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the Library of Congress.

Last of all, Patrick (who holds an MA in English) shared a poem by Samuel Beckett with us that sums up his belief that we need needn't be afraid to "Fail Better!":

Ever tried.
Ever failed.
No matter.
Try again.
Fail again.
Fail better.

Blogging "In the Transition Zone" - Part I, Judy Luther
Well, I'm finally getting around to blogging the excellent CRD workshop, "In the Transition Zone: Making the Move from Print to Electronic Journals," held in Grantville on Sept. 12. (I know, I should have live-blogged at the event itself, but I didn't, so that's that.)

Joe Fennewald, PaLA president-elect, opened the day by giving what Judy Luther called the absolute best 'pitch' to join an association she had ever heard. And I assume she's heard a few. (At PaLA Leadership Orientation this week, I suggested that Joe film his spiel for YouTube or some such and post it to the PaLA web site; it was that good.) Joe also distributed "Funds for the Future" brochures, which were snapped up by attendees apparently inspired to at least donate money to PaLA to support its advocacy work if not actually join it.

Judy Luther, president of Informed Strategies, gave her presentation entitled "Crossing the Digital Divide: Navigating the Changing Landscape." I had never heard Judy speak before and found her very engaging and easy to listen to. She compared an earlier study on growth in electronic resources with a newer one she recently completed with Rick Johnson for ARL, entitled, The E-only Tipping Point for Journals: What's Ahead in the Print-to-Electronic Transition Zone. Much of her talk was based on this study. The rate of change in ARL libraries from print only to electronic from 2002 to 2006 has exceeded her predictions, but there still remain some glitches or "bumps in the road" as she termed them. This quote from the study nicely sums up the problem:

Publishers and libraries today find themselves in an extended transition zone between print-only and e-only journals. The persistence of dual-format journals suggests that substantial obstacles will need to be surmounted if the transformation to e-only publication is to be complete. Approximately 60% of the universe of some 20,000 active peer-reviewed journals is available in electronic form. Online journals are popular with readers; online use of library-provided journals exceeds print use by a factor of at least ten, according to a University of California study. While electronic formats offer powerful attractions for users, the costs of supporting hybrid collections are straining library resources and the economies of the e-only collection are still speculative.

Just as libraries currently support hybrid collections, publishers are investing in both print and online publishing. A declining number of mostly smaller publishers still offer their journals only in print and a growing number of journals are available only in electronic form. But today’s norm is dual print and electronic publication of a title. A few publishers, having adjusted their pricing to the dual-format model, are trying to hasten the day when they can discontinue print and the associated costs. But most are either navigating a gradual transition or holding onto print.

Judy noted the difference in organizational perspective between libraries and publishers. Libraries have moved more quickly to e-only, while publishers are moving more slowly to drop the print. Publishers are still designing their publications as print ones and are challenged by the whole idea of metadata. She noted that XML is vastly preferred to PDF format for making this transition.

Factors affecting libraries' migration to e-only:
1) The readiness of readers to accept e-only
2) An e-only pricing model
3) Perpetual access and archiving provisions, such as those offered by LOCKSS and Portico
4) The management of e-only. For example, libraries should consider using SERU as an alternative to e-resource licenses. SERU stands for Shared Electronic Resource Understanding: "publishers and librarians agree on the products for which they wish to reference SERU and forgo a license agreement"

Factors affecting publishers' migration to e-only:
1) The readiness of readers
2) Assessment of risks of e-only option; for some publishers it means the potential loss of revenue, especially in clinical areas
3) Workflow and production issues
4) Distribution issues

She cited MIT's Technology Review as a good example of how more can be done with online publication but noted that change is and will be incremental.

Judy answered questions at the end of her session. Someone asked about the relationship between aggregators and publishers as more publishers are publishing electronically. She noted that there is lots of tension between the two groups. Aggregators do offer lots of content to libraries that could not afford it otherwise, and while the visibility is good on aggregator databases, it is also riskier for publishers, many of whose subscriptions are dropping 8-10% a year (for "core" publications in the Wilson indexes). If publishers are smart, they are imposing embargoes.

Someone else asked about the relationship between Open Access and e-only publishing. Judy said Open Access relies on e-only publishing but is not a business model. It works OK in the sciences, but not so well in the humanities and social sciences because of funding.