In the face of budget challenges, organizational strategy changes, and the new open access (OA) policy, the Pennsylvania State University Libraries (PSUL) are reevaluating negotiations and collections of ‘big deal’ journal packages. While a growing number of libraries are considering cancelling subscriptions to ‘big deals’, PSUL has been taking a careful approach in containing cost and making sure that faculty and students have access to resources that they need. Current efforts include: renegotiating ‘big deals’; cancelling low value titles in title-by-title agreements; obtaining single agreements for the entire Penn State; promoting green OA for future subscription negotiation purposes; and renegotiating OA related licensing terms. To achieve greater efficiency of acquisitions workflows and increase university-wide purchasing power, reallocation of the collection budget will be discussed in the near future. Auto deposit of accepted manuscripts from any Penn State author into ScholarSphere, Penn State’s institutional repository, as well as exploration of other OA models are also under consideration.
{"title":"Strategic Reinvestments of Journal Packages at the Pennsylvania State\u0000 University","authors":"Mihoko Hosoi","doi":"10.5703/1288284317155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317155","url":null,"abstract":"In the face of budget challenges, organizational strategy changes, and the new\u0000 open access (OA) policy, the Pennsylvania State University Libraries (PSUL) are\u0000 reevaluating negotiations and collections of ‘big deal’ journal packages. While a\u0000 growing number of libraries are considering cancelling subscriptions to ‘big deals’,\u0000 PSUL has been taking a careful approach in containing cost and making sure that faculty\u0000 and students have access to resources that they need. Current efforts include:\u0000 renegotiating ‘big deals’; cancelling low value titles in title-by-title agreements;\u0000 obtaining single agreements for the entire Penn State; promoting green OA for future\u0000 subscription negotiation purposes; and renegotiating OA related licensing terms. To\u0000 achieve greater efficiency of acquisitions workflows and increase university-wide\u0000 purchasing power, reallocation of the collection budget will be discussed in the near\u0000 future. Auto deposit of accepted manuscripts from any Penn State author into\u0000 ScholarSphere, Penn State’s institutional repository, as well as exploration of other OA\u0000 models are also under consideration.","PeriodicalId":287918,"journal":{"name":"\"The Time Has Come . . . to Talk of Many Things\"","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125143571","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Subject librarians are uniquely poised to facilitate conversations and assistance about scholarly communication topics to faculty and students -- helping make the connections between scholarly communication and discipline-specific research. The University of Central Florida (UCF) Libraries offers a unique intersection between scholarly communication and subject librarians by implementing a robust subject librarian model that includes activities related to scholarly communication and partnering with UCF’s Office of Scholarly Communication to provide support on a variety of topics to the campus community. In particular, this model has been particularly effective with STEM disciplines. The subject librarians in these respective disciplines have actively partnered with the Office of Scholarly Communication to provide a series of workshops targeted to STEM faculty on topics such as predatory publishing. These conversations have prompted invitations to speak at college and department meetings and to provide additional assistance and support on these scholarly communication topics. It has also led to a research project conducted by the science, engineering and computer science librarians and the Scholarly Communication Librarian on the open access publishing practices and trends of UCF STEM faculty to help better inform conversations and research support to these faculty. This article will explore the various ways in which this unique model aids UCF Libraries in providing scholarly communication support to faculty and students in an effective way and will share specific strategies and examples that readers can practically implement at their respective institutions.
{"title":"Falling Down the Rabbit Hole: Exploring the Unique Partnership between Subject\u0000 Librarians and Scholarly Communication","authors":"B. Basco, Sandy Avila, Sarah A. Norris","doi":"10.5703/1288284317194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317194","url":null,"abstract":"Subject librarians are uniquely poised to facilitate conversations and assistance\u0000 about scholarly communication topics to faculty and students -- helping make the\u0000 connections between scholarly communication and discipline-specific research. The\u0000 University of Central Florida (UCF) Libraries offers a unique intersection between\u0000 scholarly communication and subject librarians by implementing a robust subject\u0000 librarian model that includes activities related to scholarly communication and\u0000 partnering with UCF’s Office of Scholarly Communication to provide support on a variety\u0000 of topics to the campus community. In particular, this model has been particularly\u0000 effective with STEM disciplines. The subject librarians in these respective disciplines\u0000 have actively partnered with the Office of Scholarly Communication to provide a series\u0000 of workshops targeted to STEM faculty on topics such as predatory publishing. These\u0000 conversations have prompted invitations to speak at college and department meetings and\u0000 to provide additional assistance and support on these scholarly communication topics. It\u0000 has also led to a research project conducted by the science, engineering and computer\u0000 science librarians and the Scholarly Communication Librarian on the open access\u0000 publishing practices and trends of UCF STEM faculty to help better inform conversations\u0000 and research support to these faculty. This article will explore the various ways in\u0000 which this unique model aids UCF Libraries in providing scholarly communication support\u0000 to faculty and students in an effective way and will share specific strategies and\u0000 examples that readers can practically implement at their respective\u0000 institutions.","PeriodicalId":287918,"journal":{"name":"\"The Time Has Come . . . to Talk of Many Things\"","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122138311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Collection budgets are an essential tool for building collections yet the amounts of allocations can ebb and flow over the years. Modifying the budget structure is an intimidating, exhausting exercise with administrative and political ramifications that affect the workload of collections librarians as well as the workflows in acquisitions departments. External and internal forces such as impending budget cuts and serials reviews, a new library system, new department heads, newly minted librarians’ learning curves, and the creation or demolition of big deals seem like roadblocks to a budget revision process. They can also be seized as opportunities to look at new models. Libraries get by with the allocations provided in any given year, but would it be better for the collections if the approach to allocations was more flexible from the beginning, more of a proactive allocation instead of reactive? At Binghamton University Libraries, the hiring of a new Head of Collection Development and migrating to a new library system necessitated collaborative conversations concerning structures and roles for the two departments. This paper presents scenarios and recommendations for determining when and how to collaboratively evaluate a legacy budget structure, redefine allocations, and review staff roles.
{"title":"Change: Watch For The Right Time","authors":"Caryl Ward, J. Dixon","doi":"10.5703/1288284317177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317177","url":null,"abstract":"Collection budgets are an essential tool for building collections yet the amounts\u0000 of allocations can ebb and flow over the years. Modifying the budget structure is an\u0000 intimidating, exhausting exercise with administrative and political ramifications that\u0000 affect the workload of collections librarians as well as the workflows in acquisitions\u0000 departments. External and internal forces such as impending budget cuts and serials\u0000 reviews, a new library system, new department heads, newly minted librarians’ learning\u0000 curves, and the creation or demolition of big deals seem like roadblocks to a budget\u0000 revision process. They can also be seized as opportunities to look at new models.\u0000 Libraries get by with the allocations provided in any given year, but would it be better\u0000 for the collections if the approach to allocations was more flexible from the beginning,\u0000 more of a proactive allocation instead of reactive? At Binghamton University Libraries,\u0000 the hiring of a new Head of Collection Development and migrating to a new library system\u0000 necessitated collaborative conversations concerning structures and roles for the two\u0000 departments. This paper presents scenarios and recommendations for determining when and\u0000 how to collaboratively evaluate a legacy budget structure, redefine allocations, and\u0000 review staff roles.","PeriodicalId":287918,"journal":{"name":"\"The Time Has Come . . . to Talk of Many Things\"","volume":"40 9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129142200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. Borchardt, Polly D. Boruff-Jones, Sigrid Kelsey, Jennifer K. Matthews
The ACRL Impactful Scholarship and Metrics Task Force has created a framework draft that is designed to help librarians and libraries contextualize their impact within academic librarianship. To create this framework, the task force studied existing disciplinary models, institutional guidelines, and surveyed academic librarians. The task force discovered few standard practices regarding impact measurement from disciplinary societies or in institutional documentation, but did find some larger models outlining distinct impact areas. The proposed framework outlines evaluation in two primary impact areas for academic librarians, scholarly and practitioner impact, with suggested metrics for a range of research outputs in each category. It is envisioned that this framework will help initiate conversations at institutions with the aim of reviewing and revising existing documentation, alongside complementary ACRL initiatives that will similarly affect scholarly production and evaluation. The first framework draft was revised based on academic librarian feedback, and could be finalized as an ACRL document in 2020.
{"title":"A Proposed Framework for the Evaluation of Academic Librarian Scholarship","authors":"R. Borchardt, Polly D. Boruff-Jones, Sigrid Kelsey, Jennifer K. Matthews","doi":"10.5703/1288284317195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317195","url":null,"abstract":"The ACRL Impactful Scholarship and Metrics Task Force has created a framework\u0000 draft that is designed to help librarians and libraries contextualize their impact\u0000 within academic librarianship. To create this framework, the task force studied existing\u0000 disciplinary models, institutional guidelines, and surveyed academic librarians. The\u0000 task force discovered few standard practices regarding impact measurement from\u0000 disciplinary societies or in institutional documentation, but did find some larger\u0000 models outlining distinct impact areas. The proposed framework outlines evaluation in\u0000 two primary impact areas for academic librarians, scholarly and practitioner impact,\u0000 with suggested metrics for a range of research outputs in each category. It is\u0000 envisioned that this framework will help initiate conversations at institutions with the\u0000 aim of reviewing and revising existing documentation, alongside complementary ACRL\u0000 initiatives that will similarly affect scholarly production and evaluation. The first\u0000 framework draft was revised based on academic librarian feedback, and could be finalized\u0000 as an ACRL document in 2020.","PeriodicalId":287918,"journal":{"name":"\"The Time Has Come . . . to Talk of Many Things\"","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129644330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When the decision was made to migrate to Alma integrated library system, Rowan University libraries had an acquisitions department and a moderate understanding of how this migration would occur. With the official announcement of the migration to Alma, the entire acquisitions team announced their retirement shortly thereafter. While Alma provided the library with an opportunity to reevaluate workflows and collaborations this was a curveball that no one was expecting. Additionally, many resources were not traditionally tracked in Voyager, the previous library management system but tracked in Intota the previous electronic resource management system. However, these resources would now be tracked in Alma for a variety of reasons. This added another layer of complication to the retirements that occurred and the implementation that was well underway. This paper will discuss how Rowan University Libraries has managed the Alma migration without the historical institutional memory of the former acquisitions team. It will also examine how the libraries have examined workflows anew as a result of both the migration and these vacancies, and how Rowan University Library has taken advantage of these expanding opportunities since the beginning of the migration until and through the go-live date to account for these new integrations.
{"title":"Migrating to Alma Without an Acquisitions Staff: Evolving Acquisitions and\u0000 Electronic Workflows From Their Legacy Silos","authors":"Jennifer K. Matthews, C. Davidian","doi":"10.5703/1288284317187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317187","url":null,"abstract":"When the decision was made to migrate to Alma integrated library system, Rowan\u0000 University libraries had an acquisitions department and a moderate understanding of how\u0000 this migration would occur. With the official announcement of the migration to Alma, the\u0000 entire acquisitions team announced their retirement shortly thereafter. While Alma\u0000 provided the library with an opportunity to reevaluate workflows and collaborations this\u0000 was a curveball that no one was expecting. Additionally, many resources were not\u0000 traditionally tracked in Voyager, the previous library management system but tracked in\u0000 Intota the previous electronic resource management system. However, these resources\u0000 would now be tracked in Alma for a variety of reasons. This added another layer of\u0000 complication to the retirements that occurred and the implementation that was well\u0000 underway. This paper will discuss how Rowan University Libraries has managed the Alma\u0000 migration without the historical institutional memory of the former acquisitions team.\u0000 It will also examine how the libraries have examined workflows anew as a result of both\u0000 the migration and these vacancies, and how Rowan University Library has taken advantage\u0000 of these expanding opportunities since the beginning of the migration until and through\u0000 the go-live date to account for these new integrations.","PeriodicalId":287918,"journal":{"name":"\"The Time Has Come . . . to Talk of Many Things\"","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125528652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The University of Rhode Island (URI) University Libraries publishes five active open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journals on our DigitalCommons@URI platform. Our journal publishing program has grown slowly but steadily over the last decade, with new services added incrementally as needed. In early 2019, we conducted three focus group interviews with nine editors and assistants representing all of the journals on our platform in order to assess our journal publishing efforts. We asked editors to identify the successes, challenges, and unmet needs that they have encountered in the publishing process and what resources they have found to support their journals outside of library offerings. We highlight what we learned from our editors: what they value, what they need, and what they want from library publishing services. We also outline our plans going forward to facilitate ongoing conversations among editors and to find creative solutions to help them with their biggest challenges.
{"title":"What Do Editors Want?: Assessing a Growing Library Publishing Program and Finding\u0000 Creative Solutions to Unmet Needs","authors":"Julia A. Lovett, Andrée Rathemacher","doi":"10.5703/1288284317181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317181","url":null,"abstract":"The University of Rhode Island (URI) University Libraries publishes five active\u0000 open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journals on our DigitalCommons@URI platform. Our\u0000 journal publishing program has grown slowly but steadily over the last decade, with new\u0000 services added incrementally as needed. In early 2019, we conducted three focus group\u0000 interviews with nine editors and assistants representing all of the journals on our\u0000 platform in order to assess our journal publishing efforts. We asked editors to identify\u0000 the successes, challenges, and unmet needs that they have encountered in the publishing\u0000 process and what resources they have found to support their journals outside of library\u0000 offerings. We highlight what we learned from our editors: what they value, what they\u0000 need, and what they want from library publishing services. We also outline our plans\u0000 going forward to facilitate ongoing conversations among editors and to find creative\u0000 solutions to help them with their biggest challenges.","PeriodicalId":287918,"journal":{"name":"\"The Time Has Come . . . to Talk of Many Things\"","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131817567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gone are the days of unsecure access to electronic resources. Adoption of standards regarding secure access to resources is a step forward for the security and integrity of library resources. GALILEO, Georgia’s virtual library, is in the process of transitioning to authentication using OpenAthens. This paper discusses the technology behind single sign-on authentication, motivations for moving in this direction, and ends with a discussion of the Gwinnett Technical College library’s pilot site implementation of OpenAthens authentication.
{"title":"The Sun Shining in the Middle of the Night: How Moving Beyond IP Authentication\u0000 Does Not Spoil the Fun, Ease, or Privacy of Accessing Library Resources","authors":"M. Colquitt","doi":"10.5703/1288284317204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317204","url":null,"abstract":"Gone are the days of unsecure access to electronic resources. Adoption of\u0000 standards regarding secure access to resources is a step forward for the security and\u0000 integrity of library resources. GALILEO, Georgia’s virtual library, is in the process of\u0000 transitioning to authentication using OpenAthens. This paper discusses the technology\u0000 behind single sign-on authentication, motivations for moving in this direction, and ends\u0000 with a discussion of the Gwinnett Technical College library’s pilot site implementation\u0000 of OpenAthens authentication.","PeriodicalId":287918,"journal":{"name":"\"The Time Has Come . . . to Talk of Many Things\"","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127509252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Annual subscription reviews are a normal part of many libraries’ operations, but this process is time consuming and can be particularly challenging for institutions with small e-resources staffs. The approach pursued by the Michael Schwartz Library at Cleveland State University includes strategies other libraries may find helpful in moving beyond cost per use in their reviews. In early fiscal year 2019, the Michael Schwartz Library identified a need to systematically review all subscriptions annually. The library operates with a flat budget and cancellations are often required to manage inflation. Previously, subscription reviews were in response to immediate needs (e.g. budget cuts, changes in consortium offerings, etc.). Largely due to staffing and time constraints, examining the entire corpus of subscriptions was outside of the scope of past reviews. A new subscription review process was developed to prepare the library to make data-driven decisions regarding cancellations for the next fiscal year. The methodology developed for the new subscription review consisted of three phases with each phase narrowing the number of resources considered for cancellation. The first phase was an evaluation of resource performance from an acquisitions perspective and incorporated cost per use and annual price increases. In the next phase, subject librarians evaluated resources in their respective disciplines based on several criteria and were required to rank resources in order of retention priority. In the final phase, faculty were surveyed on content quality, frequency of use in instruction, and other criteria for those resources deemed “cancellation eligible.”
{"title":"Making Collection Management Manageable: A Three-Phase Approach to an Annual\u0000 Subscription Review","authors":"Hannah Pearson","doi":"10.5703/1288284317143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317143","url":null,"abstract":"Annual subscription reviews are a normal part of many libraries’ operations, but\u0000 this process is time consuming and can be particularly challenging for institutions with\u0000 small e-resources staffs. The approach pursued by the Michael Schwartz Library at\u0000 Cleveland State University includes strategies other libraries may find helpful in\u0000 moving beyond cost per use in their reviews. In early fiscal year 2019, the Michael\u0000 Schwartz Library identified a need to systematically review all subscriptions annually.\u0000 The library operates with a flat budget and cancellations are often required to manage\u0000 inflation. Previously, subscription reviews were in response to immediate needs (e.g.\u0000 budget cuts, changes in consortium offerings, etc.). Largely due to staffing and time\u0000 constraints, examining the entire corpus of subscriptions was outside of the scope of\u0000 past reviews. A new subscription review process was developed to prepare the library to\u0000 make data-driven decisions regarding cancellations for the next fiscal year. The\u0000 methodology developed for the new subscription review consisted of three phases with\u0000 each phase narrowing the number of resources considered for cancellation. The first\u0000 phase was an evaluation of resource performance from an acquisitions perspective and\u0000 incorporated cost per use and annual price increases. In the next phase, subject\u0000 librarians evaluated resources in their respective disciplines based on several criteria\u0000 and were required to rank resources in order of retention priority. In the final phase,\u0000 faculty were surveyed on content quality, frequency of use in instruction, and other\u0000 criteria for those resources deemed “cancellation eligible.”","PeriodicalId":287918,"journal":{"name":"\"The Time Has Come . . . to Talk of Many Things\"","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132464300","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In many countries, the proclamation "The king is dead, long live the king" heralds the demise of the old monarch and the accession of a new one. This tradition ensures that the throne never remains empty while facilitating a smooth transition of power. When the "Big Deal" journal subscription model debuted in 1996, few suspected the extent to which academic libraries would come to rely upon it, or that it would become the primary channel by which academic libraries procure academic journal content. As budget cuts take their toll on libraries, the demise of the Big Deal model seems inevitable as the true value of all-inclusive packages becomes less evident. But is it? Collection analysis reveals that many titles included within these Big Deal packages remain unused or underutilized, significantly decreasing the overall value of serial subscription packages. SPARC's Big Deal Cancellation Tracker shows an increasing number of libraries and consortia forgoing this model in favor of regaining local control over their collections and budgets. Binghamton University Libraries is no exception. Recent curriculum changes and financial developments have prompted us to adopt an ongoing evaluation of our users' information needs and proactively negotiate and cancel deals in order to better serve our constituents. This session described our fact finding, workflow modifications, and data analysis processes as well as the outcomes of our adventures in pursuing and planning for the cancellation of Big Deal agreements based on local collection development priorities and serials budget realities.
{"title":"The Big Deal Is Dead! Long Live The Big Deal!","authors":"James A. Galbraith, Stephanie P. Hess","doi":"10.5703/1288284317208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317208","url":null,"abstract":"In many countries, the proclamation \"The king is dead, long live the\u0000 king\" heralds the demise of the old monarch and the accession of a new one. This\u0000 tradition ensures that the throne never remains empty while facilitating a smooth\u0000 transition of power. When the \"Big Deal\" journal subscription model debuted in\u0000 1996, few suspected the extent to which academic libraries would come to rely upon it,\u0000 or that it would become the primary channel by which academic libraries procure academic\u0000 journal content. As budget cuts take their toll on libraries, the demise of the Big Deal\u0000 model seems inevitable as the true value of all-inclusive packages becomes less evident.\u0000 But is it? Collection analysis reveals that many titles included within these Big Deal\u0000 packages remain unused or underutilized, significantly decreasing the overall value of\u0000 serial subscription packages. SPARC's Big Deal Cancellation Tracker shows an increasing\u0000 number of libraries and consortia forgoing this model in favor of regaining local\u0000 control over their collections and budgets. Binghamton University Libraries is no\u0000 exception. Recent curriculum changes and financial developments have prompted us to\u0000 adopt an ongoing evaluation of our users' information needs and proactively negotiate\u0000 and cancel deals in order to better serve our constituents. This session described our\u0000 fact finding, workflow modifications, and data analysis processes as well as the\u0000 outcomes of our adventures in pursuing and planning for the cancellation of Big Deal\u0000 agreements based on local collection development priorities and serials budget\u0000 realities.","PeriodicalId":287918,"journal":{"name":"\"The Time Has Come . . . to Talk of Many Things\"","volume":"90 30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129860773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The methods in which e-books can be purchased vary greatly compared to print books. In the past, a print book was purchased either as an individual title (firm order) or through an approval plan. Once the books were received, there was little deviation in how the items were processed – purchase orders were created, books were processed, invoices were input and paid. However, with e-books, the work is more complex and there are a many ways to purchase e-books – firm order, Demand (or Patron) Driven Acquisiton (DDA), Evidence Based Acquisition (EBA), yearly front-file purchases, back-file purchases, or subscription to e-book packages. Each of the methods involves a workflow that goes from easy to somewhat complex. This begs the question of whether the acquisitions workflow can or should influence how e-books are purchased.
{"title":"Acquiring E-books – Does (Should) Workflow Play a Role?","authors":"Alexis Linoski","doi":"10.5703/1288284317166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317166","url":null,"abstract":"The methods in which e-books can be purchased vary greatly compared to print\u0000 books. In the past, a print book was purchased either as an individual title (firm\u0000 order) or through an approval plan. Once the books were received, there was little\u0000 deviation in how the items were processed – purchase orders were created, books were\u0000 processed, invoices were input and paid. However, with e-books, the work is more complex\u0000 and there are a many ways to purchase e-books – firm order, Demand (or Patron) Driven\u0000 Acquisiton (DDA), Evidence Based Acquisition (EBA), yearly front-file purchases,\u0000 back-file purchases, or subscription to e-book packages. Each of the methods involves a\u0000 workflow that goes from easy to somewhat complex. This begs the question of whether the\u0000 acquisitions workflow can or should influence how e-books are purchased.","PeriodicalId":287918,"journal":{"name":"\"The Time Has Come . . . to Talk of Many Things\"","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114777821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：