Using Evidence to Build Faculty Participation in Serials Collection Development

Carmel Yurochko, David Nolfi, and Tracie Ballock

Carmel Yurochko, David A. Nolfi and Tracie J. Ballock, Gumberg Library, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

In 2005, Gumberg Library formed a seven-person Electronic Resource Review Committee (ERRC) comprising staff from technical services, information technology and reference. Its charge was to review all electronic subscriptions with an eye toward making more effective use of library budgets. As costs continue to increase and as a greater portion of materials budgets is spent on electronic resources, libraries must be fiscally responsible when selecting journal titles.

Faced with the monumental task of reviewing thousands of journal subscriptions, the ERRC began by reviewing those with approaching renewal dates as well as collections allowing the freedom to pick and choose individual journal titles. Because Gumberg devotes a significant portion of its electronic resource budget to Elsevier journals, the ERRC began with ScienceDirect.

How We Gathered Data

To get a handle on the vast amount of data related to the library’s ScienceDirect license, the ERRC created a comprehensive holdings list. It drew from disparate sources and included descriptive information, costs, subject headings and statistics. The ERRC calculated cost per use by examining link resolver

requests, link resolver clickthroughs and vendor use statistics. Due to questions about the reliability of one statistic versus another, we created a logarithmic chart comparing all three types of statistics (see figure at right). It showed closely matched peaks and valleys for all three. Combining all three minimized errors caused by inconsistencies in the different counting methods.

The ERRC compared cost-per-use figures to an average document delivery cost (including copyright clearance fees) to develop an internal “hit list” of subscriptions representing poor value. Due to faculty sensitivity about potential journal cancellations, the hit list was not publicized. Instead we publicized the full e-journal list on the library website and sorted it by cost per use.

The ERRC sought faculty input through email lists, the library website, university committees and librarian liaison contacts. We requested written comments or attendance at one of three meetings. The ERRC stressed a positive approach, emphasizing its goal of maintaining spending levels while more closely aligning subscriptions to teaching and research needs.

To our surprise, faculty respondents recommended canceling several print subscriptions and high cost-per-use e-journals, with the caveat that savings be used to acquire additional e-journals.

A few faculty members focused narrowly on their departments’ needs, and some recommended canceling journals needed by other departments. Since the ERRC needed to be mindful of the entire university community’s needs, it published a list of “non-renewal candidates” on the library website and requested additional input to avoid canceling needed journals. Faculty then sent communications indicating the importance of certain journals for departmental accreditation, university prestige and other qualitative factors.

The final step was to reinvest savings in new titles. Faculty suggestions, previous requests, ILL statistics and user attempts to access “non-subscribed” journals contributed to a list of candidates for new subscriptions. But their sum total exceeded the savings realized from cancellations. Considering our goal of maintaining current electronic resource spending, something had to give. As the ERRC began pondering purchases, Elsevier offered a new consortium license option called the Unique Title List (UTL).

Results and Outcomes

Most faculty participants represented the sciences and health professions. The dialog between librarians and faculty helped both sides to understand each other’s needs and constraints. Faculty involved in this project expressed appreciation for the openness of the process. The library’s level of analysis helped faculty recognize existing underutilization of costly resources, while librarians learned that faculty’s evolving needs require new and innovative solutions. The library hopes this process demonstrates our willingness to listen to faculty and craft win-win solutions. This successful project illustrates that faculty/library cooperation results in increased access to essential, high-quality information resources.

Moving beyond our original goal of simply replacing underused titles led to innovative solutions such as participation in the UTL and enabled Gumberg Library to better meet the needs of Duquesne University’s students and faculty. Ultimately, this process helps the library fulfill our university’s commitment to excellence in liberal and professional education.

Thanks go to Barbara Adams, Robert Behary, Kitsa Lipecky and Bruno Mastroianni, original members of the Electronic Resource Review Committee, for their contributions to its success.