Joseph Mcgraw. Faculty Use of Interlibrary Loan Services and Their Confidence That Their Information Needs Can Be Met

Home , NIH Public Access Policy, Open access in Ukraine, Serials crisis

Joseph McGraw. Faculty Use of Interlibrary Loan Services and Their Confidence That Their Information Needs Can Be Met. A Master's paper for the M.S. in L.S. degree. May 2020. 46 pages. Advisor: Anne Gilliland

This study describes a mixed methods survey of faculty in ten departments at the University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill. The survey was conducted to determine the level to which faculty are aware of Interlibrary Loan (ILL) services, the level of satisfaction in ILL services, their confidence in ILL services, and where they turn, other than ILL, to find resources. The study discusses the findings in relation to journal cancellations related to the serials crisis.

Faculty are very aware that UNC-CH libraries offer ILL services and a large majority of faculty have used ILL services. Faculty view ILL services as satisfactory and are confident that ILL can fulfill their needs. When faculty search elsewhere for resources, they most often turn to internet search engines and Google Scholar. Explanations for these findings, drawn from qualitative portions of the survey, are discussed.

Headings:

Interlibrary loan use studies

Interlibrary loans in academic libraries

Academic libraries & faculty

Collection development in libraries

FACULTY USE OF INTERLIBRARY LOAN SERVICES AND THEIR CONFIDENCE THAT THEIR INFORMATION NEEDS CAN BE MET

by Joseph McGraw

A Master's paper submitted to the faculty of the School of Information and Library Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Library Science.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

May, 2020

Approved by:

______

Anne Gilliland, Advisor 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 2

Literature review ...... 5

Methods ...... 13

Results ...... 16

Demographics...... 16

Awareness of ILL services ...... 18

Awareness of ILL being provided at no cost to faculty, staff, and students ...... 18

Use of ILL Services...... 18

Satisfaction with ILL Services ...... 20

Confidence in ILL to deliver resources in a timely manner ...... 22

Faculty deciding not to use ILL services ...... 23

Use of other online resources ...... 24

Discussion ...... 26

Conclusion ...... 31

Bibliography ...... 34

Appendix ...... 42 2

Introduction The purpose of this study is to use a mixed method survey to determine which types of faculty (age, rank in tenure) at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

(UNC-CH) use Interlibrary Loan (ILL) services, the level to which they are aware of ILL services, the level to which they are confident that ILL services can fulfill their needs when UNC-CH does not have a resource they desire, and where they turn, other than ILL, to find those resources. The population studied includes faculty from ten different departments across a variety of disciplines including biomedical departments, sciences, social science, and art.

The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill is an R1 Research University where a very high level of research is being conducted. As such, the libraries are responsible for providing both a large amount and a large variety of resources to enable faculty to fulfill their research obligations. In 2016, the most recent year these stats are publicly available,

UNC-CH has 9,197,350 print and electronic volumes and 161,097 unique serial titles. Of course, UNC-CH does not always have resources available. To provide access to them, the library provides ILL services where they request the resource from a different library.

In 2016, UNC-CH libraries requested 21,655 titles from other libraries and received

20,472. Overall, these numbers show a decrease in both requests and titles received over the five years prior to this report (“Assessments and Statistics,” 2016). 3

However, there is reason to believe that the demand for Interlibrary Loan will soon grow. UNC-CH has recently announced that have they have declined to renegotiate their ‘big deal’ subscription to Elsevier, which provided access to many science journals.

Instead of continuing their ‘big deal’ subscription, UNC-CH opted to only subscribe to a much smaller number of Elsevier journals. The changes came into force on April 30,

2020. The announcement of this cancellation included promises to the university community that Elsevier resources will still be available through Interlibrary Loan. While this study was designed and carried out when negotiations were ongoing and there was still a chance that an agreement could be made, it provides important data for faculty opinions at the outset of this transition.

The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill is not the only library that has made this decision. As a result of shrinking budgets and rising prices, other large university libraries have had to ponder the cancellation of ‘big deal’ subscriptions for electronic serials. Big deal subscriptions are bundled groups of journals that libraries subscribe to through large publishers such as Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer and can often cost more than $1 million per year. Often, these deals are not worth the money, as patrons never use many of the journals. Even the libraries with the largest budgets are struggling to afford the subscriptions. In 2012, Harvard claimed in could not afford the prices (Sample,

2012). Florida State University cancelled their subscription with Elsevier in 2018 citing rising costs, especially as a percentage of the libraries’ material budgets, as the main reason for the cancellations (McKenzie, April 2018; McKenzie, May 2019). In February

2019, the University of California system also cancelled its contract with Elsevier and, as of early 2020, its negotiations are still ongoing (McKenzie, March 2019; “UC and 4

Elsevier”, 2020). The University of California cancellation has moved big deal cancellation into the spotlight in discussions of academic sustainability and the future of scholarly communication.

The pattern of cancelling deals with large publishers can also be seen outside the

United States. The less federated systems of European higher education mean that national governments are often involved in the negotiations which has led to entire nations cancelling their deals. For example, in 2018, both Germany and Sweden cancelled their deals with Elsevier. (Bastian, 2018) German Universities affiliated with

Projekt DEAL had already been in the process of cancelling Elsevier deals in 2016 and

2017. Universities in other European countries have also cancelled deals. VSNU (the

Association of Universities in the Netherlands) cancelled a big deal with Oxford

University Press in 2017 and Universities in Norway, Hungary, and France cancelled big deals and subsequently negotiated smaller bundled packages in 2019. (“Big Deal

Cancellation Tracking,” 2020)

The University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill’s Elsevier cancellation is not the first time that changes to ‘big deals’ have impacted the school. The university had already cancelled some other subscriptions, including big deal subscriptions from Wiley in 2018 and Cambridge University Press in 2017. Instead, the university bought the highest impact journals on a title by title basis (“Big Deal Cancellation Tracking,” 2020). The potential for cancelling the Elsevier contract was announced in 2019. Elaine Westbrooks, the Vice Provost for University Libraries and University Librarian, indicated support for the University of California System after their cancellation of Elsevier and stated that,

“renewing these packages is unaffordable and unsustainable.” (Westbrooks, March 2019) 5

Following the path the University of California system set, while negotiations were ongoing, librarians at UNC had already undertaken some steps to clue in faculty to the potential of losing these subscriptions, as well as highlight why the change was being considered. Librarians had been in contact with faculty about the unsustainable economics of the current publishing system and the ways in which the libraries will continue to fulfill their information needs, including through Interlibrary Loan services.

In December 2019, Elaine Westbrooks, in an update about negotiations, stated, “Changes to the way we access some Elsevier content are inevitable. For example, the Library expects to obtain and deliver more journal articles to you upon request, rather than by institutional subscription.” (Westbrooks, December 2019)

If the trend in libraries cancelling big deal subscriptions continues, interlibrary loan will take on a larger role than it currently holds in fulfilling faculty’s information needs. Set in this context, it is important for the UNC-CH library to understand how faculty is currently using ILL services and their confidence that ILL services can fulfill their needs. The information gathered for this project will enable UNC librarians to better understand faculty’s perceptions and needs and, thus, better enable the library to provide services to them. There is very little available literature that speaks to the confidence that faculty has in ILL services, so this is a novel study, in that respect.

Literature review I was motivated to begin this project because of the University of California system’s decision to cancel their subscription with Elsevier and the anticipated decisions that other universities will have to make regarding the serials crisis. It is not an exaggeration to say that the decision sent a shockwave through library faculty across the 6 country, because an institution with the clout of California could empower other universities to take the plunge. The University of California’s decision has primarily been chronicled in industry news sites like Inside Higher Ed, particularly by Lindsay

McKenzie (2019, March 1; 2019, May 8; 2019, August 8; 2019, August 9, 2019, August

30). Other sources of industry news have also been writing about the cancellation in the

Chronicle of Higher Education (Ellis, 2019, March 1; Ellis, 2019, July 10). The topic has even crossed into some more mainstream news sources like Science (Fox & Brainerd,

2019). Because the event occurred recently, the effects have not yet been studied in academic literature.

The serials crisis, on the other hand, has been extensively discussed in the literature. Discussions of the serials crisis have been happening since at least the 1980s.

Then, much like electronic journals now, the prices of print journals were increasing so much that libraries could not afford to maintain access to all material. (Douglas, 1990)

Roth compares the serials crisis of the early 1990s to a similar series of economically motivated cancellations from 1981. (1990) Discussion of the serials crisis during this time also often involved discussion of limited shelf space and other logistical problems associated with the physical bulk of journals and often looked toward electronic versions of journals to solve the problem. (Clement, 1994; Nisonger, 1999) While discussions of shelf space have largely disappeared from recent literature and the transition to electronic journals is complete, the fact that libraries cannot maintain access to all journals because of economic press is, by and large, the same situation facing libraries in the intervening years. 7

There have, of course, been new wrinkles added to the conversation. Much of the scholarly literature surrounding the serials crisis has been about methods of combatting the crisis. Many scholars support Open Access (OA) initiatives as an alternative (Collins,

2009; Hoskins, 2013; Igwe, Oyewo & Yusuf, 2013; Mullen, Pryor, Browne-Ferrigno &

Harris, 2013; Bulock, 2015). OA is the publishing of academic works free of cost for the reader and it possibly helps libraries to save money while still providing access to their patrons. There are different forms of OA, the most popular being Green OA and Gold

OA. Green OA is the self-archiving of works by their author in publicly accessible archives like UNC-CH’s Carolina Digital Repository. Green OA versions of articles are often “preprints,” versions of articles that have not yet gone through the peer review process. Gold OA articles are available through publisher websites for free. In order to publish Gold OA, the author often must pay a fee, often of more than $1000 (Lewis,

2016).

There have been many strident calls for different parts of the academic publishing industry to help mitigate the effects of the faculty crisis by adopting Open Access.

Nguyen put the onus on the faculty to pressure their institutions to support Green OA initiatives (2008). The University of Kansas also promoted the university repository as an important piece of the academic publishing puzzle (Mercer, Rosenblum & Emmett,

2007). In 2012, Harvard libraries communicated with faculty that they were struggling to afford subscriptions, and that faculty should consider publishing in Open Access journals to combat the problem (Sample, 2012). Peekhaus, in very strident tones, argued that already existing University Presses can, with institutional support, replace the large publishing companies and provide cheaper alternatives (2016). Others have argued that 8 the change needs to happen for reasons of equitable access. They argue that academic works must be open access to truly engage and benefit the public (Mullen, Pryor,

Browne-Ferrigno & Harris, 2013). The same ideas as in Mullen, et. al. have been used in mainstream sources like Wired and the Guardian, arguing that there needs to be reform in the academic publishing industry (Ito, 2019; Schmitt, 2019). Some have asserted that since a large amount of funding for research comes from public money, there is an ethical imperative that the public have access to the findings and be able to benefit from them.

(Parker, 2013; Stebbins, 2013)

Several practical strategies have emerged to encourage Open Access publishing.

Perhaps the most successful is for funders to implement Open Access policies. For example, since 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which invests $32 billion per year in biomedical research, mandates that final manuscripts of journal articles that stem from NIH funding be deposited into PubMed Central, an online archive, within twelve months of publication. (“NIH: Public Access Policy,” 2014; “Grants and

Funding,” n.d.) Similarly, in 2013, the Obama administration directed federal agencies that spend more than $100 million in research and development to develop policies to make that research available to the public. (Stebbins, 2013) In 2018, a group of twenty- two funders, primarily publicly funded European national research and science organizations, have formed a group called Coalition S. They have put forward a plan, called Plan S, that seeks to have all scholarly publications funded through public grants be published in Open Access journals or Open Access platforms by 2021. (“Plan S and cOAlition S,” 2020) 9

Another strategy to accelerate the transition to Open Access publishing has been the negotiation of transformative agreements where in libraries no longer pay publishers for subscription-based reading and instead pay publishers to publish works by scholars associated with that library as Open Access without a publishing fee. These are often called publish-and-read or read-and-publish deals. (Hinchliffe, 2019) In the long run these transformative agreements will lead to an increase in the proportion of articles that are published Open Access, increasing access and possibly saving money. Several institutions have signed transformative agreements with publishers, including a deal between UNC-CH and SAGE Publishing. (“Library to Debut Open Access Pilot,” 2019)

The signing of a transformative agreement is often the goal of recent negotiations between libraries and publishers. (Dunn, 2019)

The high prices of access to academic journals has created an illegal and semi- legal market for research articles, sometimes called Black Open Access. Perhaps the most infamous example is Sci-Hub, a website that downloads HTML and PDFs of research articles and saves them on its servers, illegally allowing free access. It contains 85% of all research articles and higher proportions of certain publisher’s articles. For example,

97% of Elsevier articles are available for free on Sci-Hub. (Nazarovets, 2018) The number of articles available illegally through Sci-Hub is significantly higher than the number of articles available through legal Open Access journals and platforms. (Bjork,

2017; Green, 2017) More than half the users of Sci-Hub report that they use it because they lack legal access to desired articles. (Travis, 2016) The users of Sci-Hub are primarily from developing nations, whose institutions often cannot afford the subscriptions. However, according to journalist John Bohannon a quarter of users are in 10 countries in the developed world. Areas around research universities are hot spots for usage. (Bohannon, 2016; Rosenwald, 2016) Although Sci-Hub has lost multiple legal cases, it has been difficult to enforce the rulings. Sci-Hub has been forced to give up some domain names, but it quickly resurfaces with a slightly different web address.

(Bjork, 2017)

Outside of fully illegal Black OA, academic social media networks, like Research

Gate, Academia.edu, and Mendeley, are also semi-legal methods to access articles usually behind paywalls. These sites allow researchers to upload their own copies of their articles and make them available to others, frequently breaking agreements the authors have with publishers. They have not been the target of legal action to the same extent as

Sci-Hub, however Elsevier did deliver takedown notices to Academia.edu in 2013.

(Bjork, 2017)

Another way of accessing copyrighted articles that has developed is #icanhazpdf on Twitter. Researchers will post an article that they would like access to using the above hashtag. Then, a researcher at an institution that has access will email them the article.

Those who share the articles are, in some cases, breaking copyright law, but there has not been legal action against them. Users of the hashtag have also developed practices meant to “cover their tracks” by deleting the tweet asking for the article and discouraging publicly thanking the deliverer of the article (Gardner & Gardner, 2015; Bjork, 2017)

The popularity of Black OA options has often been used as evidence that the current academic publishing system, including legal OA initiatives, is failing to provide for the information needs of researchers. There is demand for the research articles to be 11 free and easily accessible, but less than half of recent articles are available in legal open access. (Bjork, 2017) Black OA platforms are also reportedly easier to use than legal platforms. (Greenhill & Wiebrands, 2012; Gardner & Gardner, 2015) Seventeen per cent of users of Sci-Hub indicated convenience as the reason they use the platform. (Travis,

2016) Desire to protest the current academic publishing system is also a reason that some users opt for Black OA options. Twenty-three percent of users of Sci-Hub said they used the platform because they object to the profit that publishers make from subscription based journals and the originator of #icanhazpdf, Andrea Kuszewski, says that using the hashtag is an act of “civil disobedience” and a “way of saying things need to change.”

(Mohdin, 2016; Travis, 2016)

Besides Open Access, other strategies for combatting the serials crisis have also been discussed, many of which take advantage of the low usage of many big deal journals. Big deals, while providing many titles, are not good values for libraries because many of the titles are rarely or never used (Shu et. al., 2018). Many universities, including UNC-CH, have decided to cancel large subscriptions and have instead chosen to buy only the most important journal titles (“Big Deal Cancellation Tracking,” 2020).

Many universities that take this route expect to rely on Interlibrary Loan services to fill in any gaps that journal cancellations might create. The success of those will be discussed below. Other strategies include buying articles on an a la carte basis. Instead of buying the whole journal, libraries will buy a single article only after a patron requests it

(Weicher & Zhang, 2012; Lewis, 2016).

Heavier reliance on Interlibrary Loan is often paired with journal cancellations. In a self-described account of the development of the first practical alternative to big deals, 12

McGrath recounted the development of Plan B for Research Libraries UK which highlighted ILL as a key strategy to fill in the gaps after a big deal cancellation. (2012)

There are of course some debates in the literature about whether ILL is a good option.

One is whether the increased cost of ILL will offset any savings the library has from subscription cancellations. Evidence suggests that ILL requests (and thus cost) do not increase significantly after journal cancellations (Nabe & Fowler, 2012; Calvert, Fleming

& Hill, 2013; Nash & McElfresh, 2016; Jaskowiak & Spires, 2018). A study at Bradley

University did discover that the price of the unmediated ILL service Get It Now was too high on a per use basis and they had to scale back the number of titles available in order to get prices under control (Jaskowiak & Spires, 2016). However, the same authors agreed in a later study that relying on ILL saved the university money in a subsequent study (Jaskowiak & Spires, 2018). ILL statistics have also been used to identify which journals need to be resubscribed to after a big deal cancellation (Pedersen, Arcand &

Forbis, 2014). However, there has not been a study at a university that has cancelled a subscription the size of University of California’s cancellation, so the question is still open if ILL can make up completely for a big deal cancellation.

Another hazard of relying on ILL services is the resulting loss of access to sources of information. Even if information is ultimately available to patrons, the increased time that it takes to deliver the information is a barrier to access (Knowlton, Kristanciuk &

Jabaily, 2015). Many studies have concluded that because ILL requests do not increase, then the cancellations have not seriously impacted access (Nabe & Fowler, 2012; Calvert,

Fleming & Hill, 2013; Nash & McElfresh, 2016; Jaskowiak & Spires, 2018). There have been dissenting voices, however. A study at the University of Memphis found that there 13 were more hits on the page of a cancelled journal article than there were ILL requests.

This suggests that there is more demand for the cancelled article than what is captured in

ILL data and that patrons decided to not follow through on the request for a variety of reasons. The article suggests the reasons could include limited time (i.e. the patron cannot or does not want to wait) or a difficult to use request system (Knowlton, Kristanciuk &

Jabaily, 2015). Gardner & Gardner suggest that researcher’s usage of #icanhazpdf, which they analogize to ILL, shows that library patrons prefer alternative options to ILL that deliver documents more quickly and are easier to use. They also suggest that patrons turning to Black OA options could be reducing the use of ILL services. (2015)

Methods Data was collected using a fifteen-question online survey that utilized convergent mixed methods, collecting quantitative data as well as qualitative information. The survey used the Qualtrics survey software licensed by the University of North Carolina-

Chapel Hill. I created the instrument with input and advice from librarians and the Odum

Institute at UNC-CH, which provides social science research support, as well as looking at other mixed methods surveys (for example, Peekhaus & Proferes, 2015). The survey was sent to faculty, via email, in ten different departments, five in the School of Medicine and five in the School of Arts and Sciences. In the School of Medicine, it was sent to the

Neuroscience, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Oral Biology, Genetics and

Molecular Biology, and Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. In the School of 14

Arts and Sciences it was sent to Chemistry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Political

Science, Anthropology, and Art faculty. In all, about 700 faculty received the survey.1

Administrators sent the survey to faculty in the various departments in order to increase response rates above what they would be if library personal sent the survey. In addition, the survey included a plea to faculty that information about their use of

Interlibrary Loan could help librarians better serve them, especially considering potential journal cancellation. Survey participants were sent an invitation in their email and were informed that their participation was voluntary and confidential. The data collection period was January 27, 2020- February 24, 2020. Faculty received two emails with the survey link, one at the beginning of the data collection period, and a reminder two weeks later. 68 surveys were returned, of which 61 were analyzed as part of the dataset. Five surveys were discarded because the participant indicated that they were not UNC-CH faculty, one survey was discarded because they answered only that they were UNC-CH faculty but provided no other answers, and one was discarded because the participant answered zero question. The 61 surveys analyzed represent an estimated 8.7% return rate.

The population of the study is a convenient sample. The ten departments that comprise the population were those whose administrators were willing to disseminate the surveys on department email listservs. I attempted to cast as wide a net as possible and solicited help from administrators in more than twenty departments. I particularly targeted biomedical departments, however, because of anecdotal evidence that they were hostile to the idea of journal cancellations and were not knowledgeable about Interlibrary

1 The exact number is unknown because some administrators did not know the exact number of faculty on their listserv and they only provided me an estimate. 15

Loan services. Biomedical faculty are also overrepresented in the sample because of their large sizes relative to the number of faculty in other departments. Despite surveying five departments in the School of Medicine and five departments in the School of Arts and

Sciences, there are an estimated 422 faculty from Biomedical Departments from a sample of about 700. The precise proportion of faculty at different levels in the tenure system present in the sample is unknown.

The survey collected demographic information related to participant’s age and rank in tenure system. Exact ages were solicited, but they were grouped into ten-year increments for statistical purposes. The survey did not collect departmental affiliation in order to protect participant’s anonymity which was judged especially important because of its questions concerning potentially illegal use of Black OA options. It asked faculty if they are aware of ILL services, how often they used those services, and, using a Likert scale, it measured faculty satisfaction with ILL services and confidence among faculty that ILL could deliver resources in a timely manner. The survey then interrogated faculty, using multiple response questions and free response sections to determine what other sources faculty use to find resources that the UNC library does not provide, including both legal and illegal platforms. The full survey is available in the appendices.

Chi-square tests were used to determine if there was significance between demographic data and ordinal data and were considered significant if the alpha was

<0.05. However, no significance was found between the age of the respondents and their use of ILL services, satisfaction with ILL services, or confidence in ILL services. Nor was there any significance found between faculty member’s rank in tenure scale and their use of ILL services, satisfaction with ILL services, or confidence in ILL services. 16

Qualitative data from the free response questions add context to the quantitative data, and, give insight into the thoughts that went into answering the quantitative questions.

Despite the inability to speak more granularly about specific categories of faculty and their perception of ILL services, the data still illustrates faculty member’s general opinions of ILL services. However, conclusions must be drawn cautiously as the low number of surveys makes it difficult to draw statistically significant conclusion.

Results Demographics

54 of the participants provided their age. One of the participants did not give an exact age, instead answering, “>65.” The average age of the participants that provided their exact age was 52 years old. The median age was 55. Breaking the participant’s ages down by decade yields 2 (3.7%) faculty members in their 20s, 9 (17.0%) in their 30s, 9

(17.0%) in their 40s, 15 (28.3%) in their 50s, 15 (28.3%) in their 60s, and 3 (5.7%) in their 70s.

The University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill does not publicize the average age of faculty. However, a recent study of tenure-track faculty in the United States places the median age at 49 indicating that the participants could be slightly older than average compared to the rest of UNC-CH faculty. (Flaherty, 2020) This study also was not specifically aimed at tenured and tenure track faculty and includes adjunct faculty. It is unknown if there are other factors that could skew UNC-CH’s faculty to be older than average, for example, perhaps R1 institutions are older than average. 17

Faculty by Age

16 15 15

10 9 9

4 3 2 2

0 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s

Number of Faculty

Participants also provided their faculty rank. 9 (14.8%) participants were assistant professors, 18 (29.5%) were associate professors, 30 (49.1%) were professors, and 4

(6.6%) indicated that they were “other.” Of those 4, 2 were emeritus professors, 1 was a lab manager, and 1 was a research professor. 18

Faculty by Rank

4 9

18 30

Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Other

Awareness of ILL services

100 percent of participants indicated that they were aware that Interlibrary loan services were available at UNC-CH. It is possible that participants were self-selecting, in this regard, as perhaps only faculty that were aware of ILL services were willing to answer a survey labeled as being about ILL.

Awareness of ILL being provided at no cost to faculty, staff, and students

One hundred percent of participants indicated they were aware that ILL is provided at no cost to faculty and staff as well as students. This does not match anecdotal evidence from librarians that some faculty were not aware it was free. It is possible that this is also the result of self-selection on the part of the recipients.

Use of ILL Services

A large majority of the respondents (78.7%) indicated that they had used ILL services at

UNC-CH. Respondents that indicated that they had used ILL services were also asked 19 how many times they had utilized ILL services in the last year. Of the 48 respondents that answered yes, 5 (10.4%) had not used it at all in the last year, 6 (12.5%) used it 1-2 times,

8 (16.7%) used it 3-4 times, 10 (20.8%) used it 5-6 times, 4 (8.3%) used it 7-8 times, 4

(8.3%) used it 9-10 times, and 11 (22.9%) used it more than 10 times in the last year.

This data suggests that faculty using ILL generally use the service a relatively few times per year as the median number of uses is 5-6 times per year. However, a significant portion of respondents are using it at least twice as many times as the median.

Have you ever used ILL services at UNC-CH?

13 respondents

48 respondents

Yes No

How many times have faculty used ILL in the last 12 months? 12

0 0 Times 1-2 Times 3-4 Times 5-6 Times 7-8 Times 9-10 Times >10 Times

Satisfaction with ILL Services

Faculty that had used ILL services (n=48) reported a very high level of satisfaction with

ILL services. 79.1% of faculty report being very satisfied, 12.5% were satisfied, 4.2% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2.1% were dissatisfied, and 2.1% were very dissatisfied. Overall, 91.7% of faculty were satisfied or very satisfied and 4.2% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. A chi-square test did not indicate a statistically significant link between the number of times faculty used ILL services and satisfaction. 21

Faculty Satisfaction

1 1 2

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied

Comments received from faculty were mostly positive. 34 participants provided substantive comments on ILL services. 25 (73.5%) of those comments were positive, 4

(11.8%) comments were neutral, and 5 (14.7%) comments were negative. Many commented on the importance of ILL to their research, as it provides access to resources that are not in the UNC collection. For example, “I love UNC's Interlibrary Loan service, which contributes constantly to my research and teaching.” Others commented on the quick turnaround time, “In my experience, ILL services have always been fast and easy to use.”

Negative comments from faculty, however, also comment on the amount of time it takes to receive documents. For example, one faculty member responded, “Interlibrary loan is pretty good, just a bit slow in some cases.” Other complaints mentioned the short amount of time that faculty can keep a book borrowed through ILL, “The problem was that I could only keep the loaned piece for a short time.” Another faculty member referenced 22 the Triangle Research Libraries Network, a consortium of libraries through which UNC fulfills some of its ILL requests, “The shorter loan periods and restricted renewals for

TRLN direct loans are a big problem that needs to be addressed.”

Faculty Feedback

Positive Neutral Negative

Confidence in ILL to deliver resources in a timely manner

Paralleling the level of satisfaction, faculty were confident that documents would be delivered in a timely manner. Of 61 respondents, 33 (54.1%) thought timely delivery was very likely, 16 (26.2%) thought it was likely, 8 (13.1%) thought it was neither likely nor unlikely, 2 (3.3%) thought it was unlikely, and 2 (3.3%) thought it was very unlikely. If semantically similar options were combined then 80.3% of respondents thought it was likely or better that the documents would be delivered in a timely manner, 6.6% thought it unlikely, and 13.1% were unsure. There is a statistically significant relationship (Chi- square, p=.0005) between confidence in ILL and having used ILL in the past. Faculty that have used ILL are much more confident that ILL services can deliver resources in a 23 timely manner. There is also a predictable relationship (Chi-square, p=<.0001) between faculty who were highly satisfied with ILL services and those who were confident in timely delivery of documents.

Faculty Confidence in Timely Delivery 35 33

20 16 15

10 8

5 2 2

0 Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Likely Nor Likely Very Likely Unlikely Number of Faculty

Faculty deciding not to use ILL services

16.4% of faculty reported considering using ILL but decided against it. Open responses to this question reveal some barriers to use of ILL services. Again, worries about the time it takes to have a book delivered surfaced. 66.7% of responses mentioned not wanting to wait or ILL services not being timely as the reason they did not put in an ILL request.

One faculty member responded, “I needed some articles right away from some journals that we do not have subscription with. Inter library loan takes roughly 3 days to arrive

(which is quite long, actually).” Another added, “Too much work/time. Instead I just find a journal we have a subscription to.” Other responses indicated that they weighed the expected importance of a document to their work against the ease with which they could 24 access it, “It was unlikely the work would be useful for my work. But had it been on the shelf in Davis, I would have consulted it.” Another agreed, “Didn't need the item badly enough to bother putting in the request.” A third reason a faculty member suggested was that they preferred to recall the book rather than use TRLN. The same faculty member highlighted the short loan periods from TRLN in another response, perhaps providing an answer as to why they preferred to recall it.

Use of other online resources 62.3% of participants indicated that when UNC libraries did not provide a resource, they would try other ways of gaining access. Of those respondents, 76.3% used common internet search engines like Google, 65.8% used Google Scholar, 28.9% used

Academia.edu, 31.0% used ResearchGate, 7.9% used Mendeley, 10.5% used Sci-Hub,

5.3% used Twitter, 21.1% used Institutional Repositories, 36.8% reported contacting the resource’s author, 36.8% had asked another scholar, and 18.4% reported searching in

“other” places. Other locations included Amazon, Alibris (and online network of booksellers), WorldCat, and another university library that they had access to through a family member. There was not any statistically significant relationship between the demographics of the participants and whether they were looking for resources in other places nor was there a link between satisfaction with or confidence in ILL services and searching in other locations. To determine if there are any links there would have to be a larger study with more participants.

Respondents were also asked why they chose to use those locations to find resources. They were presented with a list of predetermined options as well as the option to choose other and provide their own answer. The small number of users who reported 25 using some of the options, for example only two faculty members reported using Twitter to find resources, means that the results should be interpreted with caution as the sample sizes are very low. Results of free entry answers are discussed below.

Why Faculty Used Different Online Locations to Find Resources Online Location A search I consider it a I heard about it Other (Number of engine sent me reputable from a Faculty there source Colleague Reporting Use) Internet Search N/A 44.4% 0% 55.6% Engine (29) Google Scholar 16.7% 62.5% 0% 20.8% (24) Academia.edu 20.0% 60.0% 0% 20.0% (10) ResearchGate 37.5% 62.5% 0% 0% (8) Mendeley (3) 33.3% 33.3% 0% 33.3% Sci-Hub (4) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% Twitter (2) 0% 50.0% 0% 50.0% Institutional 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 0% Repositories (8)

The most reported location to search for resources were internet search engine.

The majority of respondents chose to enter their own reason for using them. Predictably most of the free response answers indicated that search engines were quick and easy way to look for a desired resource. One respondent said that they would use search engines to find an author’s site. Another said that they would use search engines to gauge whether a resource was important enough to pursue through ILL. Google Scholar elicited similar responses from faculty, although many also liked that it is quick, easy, and free.

Users of scholarly social media sites like ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and

Mendeley mostly agreed that those sites were reputable sources for resources. Faculty 26 said that they used Academia.edu because they were part of the network, because authors sometimes posted resources there for free, and, “It is available. You never know what you might find.” One user of Mendeley also reported that they already used Mendeley as a citation manager and formatter, so it was convenient for them to search for resources there.

Very few faculty members reported using Black OA resources like Sci-Hub or

Twitter. One individual used Sci-Hub, because, like Google Scholar, it provided, “instant results.” The lone respondent who answered ‘Other’ about Twitter mentioned Twitter’s ability to connect them to the wider scholarly community in order to find resources responding, “Good way to reach people outside by direct contacts.”

Discussion This study set out to determine which types of faculty at the University of North

Carolina- Chapel Hill use Interlibrary Loan services, the level to which they are aware of those services, whether they are satisfied with ILL services, whether they are confident that ILL can fulfill their needs and where they search when UNC libraries cannot fulfill their needs.

Perhaps the clearest conclusion from the data, and the one that should give heart to Interlibrary Loan librarians at UNC-CH, is that the majority of respondents were satisfied with ILL services. More than 90% of faculty that had used ILL services in the last year reported being satisfied or highly satisfied. Confidence in ILL services was also high, especially among users who had previously used ILL services. This suggests that using ILL services raises faculty member’s confidence that the library can fulfill their future needs and thus the ILL system successfully provides for the needs of faculty. 27

There is also evidence that even among faculty members who have not used ILL services, they are confident that ILL could fulfill their needs (46.1% confident vs 23.1% not confident). This suggests that there is a significant level of confidence, though not overwhelming, even among faculty that are not using library services. The source of this confidence is harder to identify using this study. Perhaps, as an institution, the faculty trust the library whether they make use of library services or not. It is also possible that the respondents that were willing to answer a graduate student’s survey about ILL services are predisposed to being confident in the library.

The relatively few negative comments about ILL services point to areas that could be improved. There were five negative comments in all. Three were about the amount of time it could take to deliver a resource through Interlibrary Loan and two were about the short amount of time that a faculty member could keep a loaned resource. The former complaint is predictable as ILL cannot provide the instant response of resources in

UNC’s collections. The second complaint applies only to physical materials and is predictable as faculty can keep university materials for a practically indefinite period unless another patron recalls the item. As a result, the time limits on physical items checked out through ILL would be particularly noticeable to them.

Awareness of Interlibrary Loan services was also universal among the respondents. As stated above, it is certainly possible that the section of the faculty willing to answer a survey about ILL services were already aware of it. That said, Interlibrary

Loan services have a long history in libraries, so general awareness may indeed be universal. Of course, awareness does not mean that individual faculty members know the details of how to use ILL services and this study was not designed to determine that 28 information. The high confidence level faculty expressed gives some indication of comfort with UNC-CH’s Interlibrary Loan system.

The number of faculty reporting that they look in other online locations for a resource that UNC does not provide is surprisingly low (62.3%). Perhaps this again points to faculty’s confidence in the library, since even if UNC does not provide access to a source, the access that they do provide is sufficient that faculty opt to not look elsewhere. It could also mean that faculty immediately turn to ILL services rather than looking for the source elsewhere. However, the reasons that faculty turn to these other online locations, rather than ILL, can help paint a picture of problems in ILL that librarians can attempt to address.

Less surprising are the locations that most faculty turn to when looking outside the library for resources. About three-quarters of faculty reported using common internet search engines. Users reported that search engines are the quickest and easiest way to search. Another interesting finding was that some faculty used the search engine to determine whether the desired source was worth making the effort to submit an ILL request, presumably by reading an abstract or review. This suggests that they use search engines as a supplement to their effort to find academic resources. Still, the speed and ease of search engines could suggest that ILL services are not being quick and easy for faculty. After all, faculty were willing to add an extra step, searching for an abstract or review, before going through the effort of submitting an ILL request.

Search engines were also a common gateway for finding other locations that might house sources. Some users of Institutional Repositories, academic social media 29 networks, and Black OA all reported that they were directed to those sights through search engines. This could point to search engines being even more important than the numbers suggest and that other sources could be less important to faculty as they would not access them except when they find them through a search engine.

The other site that most faculty reported using was Google Scholar. This is not surprising given its relationship with the internet search giant, ease of use, and that

Google Scholar tries to capture scholars in every field rather than its more science focused competitors. Again, the comments about Google Scholar that describe it as quick and easy could give librarians pause. Poor user experience is a problem often attributed to

ILL platforms and these faculty comments highlight that the library’s patrons highly prize being quick and easy. While it might be disheartening that library patrons are using discovery systems that the library does not control, it can still inform library practice. For example, this should underline the importance of library projects that aim to make their collections more discoverable on Google Scholar and other search engines. UNC-CHs adoption of metadata that is compatible with these external indexing sites for its

Institutional Repository is a part of this process.

The next most likely place faculty turned to were private communications with authors or other scholars in the field, as 36.8% of faculty used both. These two categories do not completely overlap, as 52.6% of faculty were in one, the other, or in both categories. This suggests that scholars are often leveraging the community of scholars to find resources rather than relying on the library. If this knowledge could (or even should) affect library practice is unclear. If faculty consider this strategy faster than using ILL, it again raises the same issues discussed above. Whether it is faster is a different question 30 and would vary from instance to instance. There is also utility in scholars participating in their communities and sharing resources among themselves (i.e. networking) and library services cannot substitute for this. Also, person to person sharing of materials is most often legal and while in some cases could break user agreements it would be very difficult for publishers to enforce.

A substantial number of faculty also used scholarly social media networks.

ResearchGate is the most popular of the three sites surveyed, followed closely by

Academia.edu, and Mendeley being much less popular than the others. 36.8% of faculty are using at least one of the social media sites. Comments from faculty again point to them being considered quick ways to gain access to resources. Faculty also value these sites for other reasons. For instance, see this comment about Academia.edu being a way to serendipitously find resources, “You never know what you might find.” Another faculty member used Academia.edu because they were a member of the site, which, like private communication, is another networking option that libraries cannot provide, while another used Mendeley because of its citation management system.

Very small numbers of faculty reported using Black or potentially Black OA options like Sci-Hub or Twitter. Admittedly, it is possible that these options are underreported because of the illicit nature. Comments about why faculty were using these options pointed to many of the same problems as above. One user valued Sci-Hub because it provided instant results which ILL services cannot provide and another faculty member valued Twitter because of its social networking benefits. Taking other studies into account, it is surprising that no faculty reported using Black OA because they considered it a protest against the current academic publishing system. That said, the 31 study did elicit one comment expressing a desire to resist the current publishing system,

“Since journal subscriptions are becoming exorbitantly expensive for university libraries, faculty with whom I have spoken are comfortable with relying more on interlibrary loan as a form of resistance.” However, that faculty member did not report using Black OA. If this study were repeated with a more respondents I would expect some comments in that vein, however it is possible that the demographics of this study which contained a large portion of older and more successful (based on faculty rank) individuals led to there being less respondents with a gripe about the current system.

Conclusion This research study gives some insight into the opinions of UNC-CH faculty about Interlibrary Loan services as well as where else faculty members search rather than using ILL services. After the recent cancellation of the UNC’s Big Deal with Elsevier, these insights are especially important now that ILL services will fill a bigger goal in the library’s mission to deliver resources to its patrons. This study is, of course, too small to be able to draw any conclusions about a population other than those participants that answered the survey and I would make changes to the survey instrument in order to remove ambiguities that became evident after results were received. However, I believe that the questions that this study asks should be expanded upon in a study with less time and resource constraints than a master’s paper.

I believe that it is possible, even likely, that there could be connections between faculty rank and age and their use of ILL services and alternative sources that would become evident with a larger sample. I also believe that it could be fruitful to explore how scholars in different fields interact with ILL services. The answer to these questions 32 could inform how librarians reach out to and educate faculty about ILL services as well as allow librarians to identify barriers to using ILL services for different sections of faculty so that solutions can be developed. Looking forward, it could be valuable to determine if opinions of ILL services change in the future, as faculty may be more likely to use it as they lose access to resources because of subscription cancellations.

In addition to changes that the serials crisis brought on, the Covid-19 pandemic will also affect how faculty interact with ILL services and access scholarly work.

Interlibrary Loan services have been affected in academic libraries across the United

States. The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill is only fulfilling ILL requests that can be fulfilled remotely as university buildings are currently closed and this is surely affecting how librarians can serve their patrons. It is also possible that demand has changed as the pandemic has impacted whether faculty can continue their work off site. It will be important to monitor how these changes affect satisfaction with ILL services and confidence that ILL services can fulfill their needs. This will not be easy as there are many confounding factors including it occurring at the same time as big deal cancellations.

The Covid-19 pandemic also seems to be changing how scholars in bio-medical fields (which make up a significant portion of the population of this study) are accessing research. There has been an increase in the use of preprint articles published in Open

Access repositories like bioRxiv and medRxiv. (Flier, 2020) While these articles have not been peer reviewed, the urgency of the epidemic and quick development of medical research means that the traditional model of scientific research cannot keep up. There is the potential that this could significantly impact the way that scholars access scientific 33 research if, after the urgency of the pandemic subsides, there is an increased confidence in preprint articles that are not behind paywalls and over which large publishers do not have control. (Kubota, 2020) While, for now, this is purely theoretical, it will be a fertile space for library research to explore if the pandemic creates any permanent changes in accessibility of biomedical research and if there are any effects felt in other fields. 34

Bibliography ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. (2019). Environmental Scan 2019. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers/Environm entalScan2019.pdf

Assessment & Statistics – UNC Chapel Hill Libraries. (2016). Retrieved from https://library.unc.edu/about/assessment/

Association of Research Libraries. (1998) To Publish and Perish. Policy Perspectives, 7(4). Retrieved from http://www.thelearningalliance.info/Docs/Jun2003/DOC- 2003Jun13.1055537929.pdf

Bastian, H. (2018, July 30). Europe Expanded the “No Elsevier Deal” Zone & This Could Change Everything. Retrieved from https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely- maybe/2018/07/30/europe-expanded-the-no-elsevier-deal-zone-this-could-change- everything/

Best, R. D. (2009). Is the “Big Deal” Dead? Serials Librarian, 57(4), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260903203702

Big Deal Cancellation Tracking. (2020). Retrieved from https://sparcopen.org/our- work/big-deal-cancellation-tracking/ Big Deal Knowledge Base. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big- deal-knowledge-base/ Björk, B. C. (2017). Gold, green, and black open access: Gold, green, and black open access. Learned Publishing, 30(2), 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1096 Bohannon, J. (2016). Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone Bulock, C. (2015). Open Access and the Big Deal Sharing Space in the Netherlands. Serials Review, 41(4), 266–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2015.1097104

Buranyi, S. (2017, June 27). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific- publishing-bad-for-science Calvert, K., Fleming, R., & Hill, K. (2013). Impact of Journal Cancellations on Interlibrary Loan Demand. Serials Review, 39(3), 184–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.006

Calvert, K., Gee, W., Malliet, J., & Fleming, R. (2014). Is ILL Enough? Examining ILL Demand After Journal Cancellations at Three North Carolina Universities. Too Much Is Not Enough!, 416–419. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284315297 Crump, M. J., & Freund, L. (1995). Serials cancellations and interlibrary loan: The link and what it reveals. Serials Review, 21(2), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098- 7913(95)90028-4

Clement, G. (1994). Evolution of a species: Science journals published on the internet. Database, 17(5), 44. Retrieved from http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/docview/213818172?accountid=14244

Douglas, K. (1990). The Serials Crisis: Adjusting to Change. The Serials Librarian, 18(1–2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v18n01_08

Dunn, K. (2019). Open Access Latest in the Landscape. Online Searcher; Medford, 43(4), 40–45. Retrieved from http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=https://search- proquest-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/docview/2264120352?accountid=14244

Eisen, M. (2003, October 9). Publish and be praised. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/09/research.highereducation

Ellis, L. (2019, February 17). Open Access Is Going Mainstream. Here’s Why That Could Transform Academic Life. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/Trend19-OpenAccess-Main

Ellis, L. (2019, March 1). A Lesson From UC’s Split With Elsevier: Keep the Faculty in the Loop. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Lesson-From-UC-s- Split/245811

Ellis, L. (2019, July 10). U. of California Canceled Its Elsevier Subscription. Now It’s Losing Access. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/U-of-California- Canceled-Its/246643

Essay Critical of UCLA’s Elsevier Memorandum Was Misguided. (2019, January 2). Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/essay-critical-of-uclas-elsevier- memorandum-was-misguided/

Flaherty, C. (2020). The Aging Faculty. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/01/27/aging-faculty

Flier, J. S. (2020, March 23). Covid-19 is reshaping the world of bioscience publishing. STAT. https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/23/bioscience-publishing-reshaped-covid-19/ 36

Fox, A. & Brainard, J. (2019, February 28). University of California boycotts publishing giant Elsevier over journal costs and open access. Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/university-california-boycotts-publishing- giant-elsevier-over-journal-costs-and-open

Gardner, G., & Gardner, C. (2015). Bypassing interlibrary loan via twitter: An exploration of #icanhazpdf requests. ACRL 2015 Proceedings. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/201 5/Gardner.pdf

Grants and Funding. (n.d.). US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.nih.gov/grants-funding

Greenhill, K. & Wiebrands, C. (2012). No library required: the free and easy backwaters of online content sharing. In VALA 2012 Proceedings. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Association for Library Automation. https://www.vala.org.au/vala2012- proceedings/vala2012-session-11-greenhill/

Gibbs, N. J. (2005). Walking away from the “big deal”: Consequences and achievements. Serials, 18(2), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1629/1889

Greco, A. N. (2015). Academic Libraries and the Economics of Scholarly Publishing in the Twenty-First Century: Portfolio Theory, Product Differentiation, Economic Rent, Perfect Price Discrimination, and the Cost of Prestige. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.1.01

Green, T. (2017). We’ve failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach: How can publishers see off the pirates? Learned Publishing, 30(4), 325–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1116

Hinchliffe, Lisa Janicke. (2019, April 23). Read-and-publish? Publish-and-read? A primer on transformative agreements by @lisalibrarian. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/04/23/transformative-agreements/

Igwe, K. N., Oyewo, R. O., & Yusuf, S. M. (2013). The Importance of Open Access Initiatives to the Serials Crisis in Nigerian Academic and Research Libraries. PNLA Quarterly, 77(3), 55–62. Retrieved from https://auth.lib.unc.edu/ezproxy_auth.php?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir ect=true&db=lih&AN=86978745&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Ito, J. (2019, January 4). The Quest to Topple Science-Stymying Academic Paywalls. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/ideas-joi-ito-academic-paywalls/

Jaskowiak, M., & Spires, T. (2016). The usage of ILLiad and Get It Now at a US medium-sized academic library over a three-year period. Interlending & Document Supply; Bradford, 44(2), 81–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ILDS-02-2016-0007 37

Jaskowiak, M., & Spires, T. (2018). Subscription Alternations: Usage of Canceled Journal Subscriptions via Article Delivery Methods. Serials Review, 44(2), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2017.1396099

Jones, M., Marshall, D., & Purtee, S. A. (2013). “Big Deal” Deconstruction. Serials Librarian, 64(1–4), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2013.760389

Knowlton, S. A., Kristanciuk, I., & Jabaily, M. J. (2015). Spilling Out of the Funnel: How Reliance Upon Interlibrary Loan Affects Access to Information. Library Resources & Technical Services, 59(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.59n1.4

Kubota, T. (2020, April 6). Open science in the era of COVID-19. Stanford News. https://news.stanford.edu/2020/04/06/open-science-era-covid-19/

Lauridsen, H. (2005). How to beat the serials crisis. Serials, 18(3), 196–198. https://doi.org/10.1629/18196

Lewis, D. W. (2016). Reimagining the academic library. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu Leykam, A. (2008). Exploring interlibrary loan usage patterns and liaison activities: The experience at a US university. Interlending & Document Supply; Bradford, 36(4), 218– 224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02641610810919570 Library to Debut Open Access Pilot with SAGE Publishing – UNC Chapel Hill Libraries. (2019, October 22). https://library.unc.edu/2019/10/sage-pilot/ Little, M., & Leon, L. (2015). Assessing the value of ILL to our users: A comparative study of three US libraries. Interlending & Document Supply; Bradford, 43(1), 34–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ILDS-10-2014-0051 Machovec, G. (2014). Consortia and the Future of the Big Deal Journal Packages. Journal of Library Administration, 54(7), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2014.964034

Matthews, David. (2019, August 29). Germany strikes deal with Springer Nature. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/29/germany-strikes-deal- springer-nature

McGrath, M. (2012). Fighting back against the Big Deals: A success story from the UK. Interlending & Document Supply, 40(4), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/02641611211283831

McGuigan, G. S. (2004). Publishing Perils in Academe: The Serials Crisis and the Economics of the Academic Journal Publishing Industry. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 10(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J109v10n01_03 38

McKenzie, L. (2019, March 1). University of California cancels deal with Elsevier after months of negotiations. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/01/university-california-cancels-deal- elsevier-after-months-negotiations McKenzie, L. (2018, April 26). Florida State Cancels Bundled Journal Deal With Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/04/26/florida- state-cancels-bundled-journal-deal-elsevier McKenzie, L. (2018, May 8). More institutions consider ending their “big deals” with publishers. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/08/more- institutions-consider-ending-their-big-deals-publishers

McKenzie, L. (2019, August 8). California Scientists Pull Support for Elsevier Journals. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/08/08/california- scientists-pull-support-elsevier-journals

McKenzie, L. (2019, August 9). “Big Deal” Database Launched. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/08/09/%E2%80%9Cbig- deal%E2%80%9D-database-launched

McKenzie, L. (2019, August 30). Pursuing a new kind of “big deal” with publishers. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/30/pursuing-new-kind- %E2%80%9Cbig-deal%E2%80%9D-publishers

Mercer, H., Rosenblum, B., & Emmett, A. (2007). A multifaceted approach to promote a university repository: The University of Kansas’ experience. OCLC Systems & Services; Bradford, 23(2), 190–203. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1108/10650750710748496

Mohdin, A. (2015, October 23). How to Get Free Access to Academic Papers on Twitter. The Atlantic. http://qz.com/528526/academics-have-found-a-way-to-access-insanely- expensive-research-papers-for-free/

Mullen, C. A., Pryor, C. R., Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Harris, S. L. (2013). An International Call for Democratizing the Academic Journal Culture From a Community of Editors. Interchange, 44(3), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-014-9206-6

Nabe, J., & Fowler, David C. (2012). Leaving the “Big Deal”: Consequences and Next Steps. Serials Librarian, 62(1–4), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2012.652524

Nash, J. L., & McElfresh, K. R. (2016). A journal cancellation survey and resulting impact on interlibrary loan. Journal of the Medical Library Association; Chicago, 104(4), 296–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.008 39

Nazarovets, S. (2018). Black open access in Ukraine: Analysis of downloading sci-hub publications by Ukrainian internet users. Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1804/1804.08479.pdf Nguyen, Thinh. (2008, April). Open Doors and Open Minds: What faculty authors can do to ensure open access to their work through their institution. Retrieved from http://sparc.arl.org/resources/papers-guides/open-doors NIH: Public Access Policy. (2014). US Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved from https://publicaccess.nih.gov/ Nisonger, T. E. (1999). A review of the 1997 collection development and management literature. Collection Building, 18(2), 67-80. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1108/01604959910265823 Parker, M. (2013). The ethics of open access publishing. BMC Medical Ethics, 14, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-16 Pedersen, W. A., Arcand, J., & Forbis, M. (2014). The Big Deal, Interlibrary Loan, and Building the User-Centered Journal Collection: A Case Study. Serials Review, 40(4), 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2014.975650 Peekhaus, W. (2016). A Call to Reclaim Control Over Scholarly Publishing. Journal of Information Ethics, 25(2), 20–4. Retrieved from https://search-proquest- com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/docview/2064942527?pq-origsite=summon Peekhaus, W., & Proferes, N. (2015). How library and information science faculty perceive and engage with open access. Journal of Information Science, 41(5), 640–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515587855 Peters, J. (2016, April 5). The lawsuit against Sci-Hub begs the question: Why are academic journals so expensive, anyway? Retrieved from https://slate.com/technology/2016/04/the-lawsuit-against-sci-hub-begs-the-question-why- are-academic-journals-so-expensive-anyway.html

“Plan S” and “cOAlition S” – Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications. (2020). Plan S. https://www.coalition-s.org/

Robert, S. (2019, August 7). UC faculty to Elsevier: Restart negotiations, or else. Retrieved from https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/08/07/uc-faculty-to-elsevier-restart- negotiations-or-else/

Robertshaw, M. B., Willi Hooper, M., & Goergen-Doli, K. (2017). Finding the Silver Lining... In the Serials Budget Crisis. Against the Grain, 29(2), 16–18. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.6.785

Rosenwald, M. S. (2016). Who's reading millions of stolen research papers on the outlaw website sci-hub? now we know.: A new report shows sci-hub is being used not just in developing countries but in Silicon Valley, the Washington D.C. region, and around 40 major research universities. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/docview/1785132378?accountid=14244

Roth, D. L. (1990). The Serials Crisis Revisited. The Serials Librarian, 18(1–2), 123– 129. https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v18n01_09

Sample, I. (2012, April 24). Harvard University says it can’t afford journal publishers’ prices. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard- university-journal-publishers-prices

Suber, Peter. (2020). Writings on open access—Peter Suber. Berkman-Klein Center: For Internet & Society at Harvard University. https://cyber.harvard.edu/~psuber/wiki/Writings_on_open_access

Suber, P., Brown, P., Cabell, D., Chakravarti, A., Cohen, B., Delamothe, T., … Watson, L. (2003). The Bethesda Statement on Open-Access Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/48547523_The_Bethesda_Statement_on_Open- Access_Publishing

Schmitt, J. (2019, March 28). Paywalls block scientific progress. Research should be open to everyone. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/28/paywalls-block-scientific-progress- research-should-be-open-to-everyone

Shapiro, S. (2013). JSTOR, University Presses, and the Serials Crisis. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 25(3), 240–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2013.813319

Shu, F., Mongeon, P., Haustein, S., Siler, K., Alperin, J. P., & Larivière, V. (2018). Is It Such a Big Deal? On the Cost of Journal Use in the Digital Era. College & Research Libraries. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.6.785

Stebbins, Michael. (2013, February 22). Expanding Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/02/22/expanding-public-access-results- federally-funded-research

Travis, J. (2016, May 6). In survey, most give thumbs-up to pirated papers. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/survey-most-give-thumbs-pirated-papers

The serials crisis: A white paper for the UNC-Chapel Hill Scholarly Communications Convocation. (2005). Retrieved September 2, 2019, from https://ils.unc.edu/courses/2018_fall/inls700_001/Readings/Panitch2005- SerialsCrisis.htm 41

The “Serials Crisis” Explained… – Scholarly Communication at Tufts. (n.d.). Retrieved September 2, 2019, from https://sites.tufts.edu/scholarlycommunication/open-access/the- serials-crisis-explained/

UC and Elsevier. (2020). Retrieved February, 6, 2020, from https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/uc-publisher-relationships/uc-and-elsevier/

Weicher, M., & Zhang, T. (2012). Unbundling the “Big Deal” with Pay-Per-View of E- journal Articles. Serials Librarian, 63(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2012.688167

Westbrooks, Elaine L. (2019, March 20) Statement from University Librarian Elaine L. Westbrooks on the UC System’s Termination of Elsevier Subscriptions – UNC Chapel Hill Libraries. Retrieved from https://library.unc.edu/2019/03/statement-uc-elsevier/ Westbrooks, Elaine L. (2019, December 11). Update on Elsevier negotiations from University Librarian Elaine Westbrooks – UNC Chapel Hill Libraries. Retrieved from https://library.unc.edu/2019/12/update-on-elsevier-negotiations/ 42

Appendix Survey Instrument-

1. Are you a UNC faculty member? a. Yes b. no 2. UNC libraries offer Interlibrary loan services (also called document delivery, ILL, ILLiad, Carolina BLU) to provide faculty with articles or books that he library does not own or license. Are you aware that UNC libraries provide Interlibrary loan services? a. Yes b. No 3. Do/did you know that Interlibrary loan services at UNC are free to use for all faculty, staff, and students. a. Yes b. No 4. Have you ever used Interlibrary loan services at UNC? a. Yes b. No 5. [Only see if they clicked yes on question 4] In the past 12 months, how many times have you requested an item from UNC Interlibrary loan services? a. 0 times b. 1-2 times c. 3-4 times d. 4-5 times e. 6-7 times f. 7-8 times g. 9-10 times h. More than 10 times 6. [Only see if they clicked yes on question 4] Overall, how satisfied are you with Ill services? a. Very dissatisfied. b. Dissatisfied. c. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. d. Satisfied e. Very Satisfied 43

7. Have you ever considered using Interlibrary loan services at UNC, but chose not to? a. Yes b. No 8. [Only see if yes to question 7] Why did you choose not to use Interlibrary loans. a. [Open entry box] 9. Have you ever needed an item that UNC library did not provide and searched in other online locations? a. Yes b. No 10. [Only see if yes to question 9] In those circumstances, what other locations have you sought the resource? a. Internet search engine (examples include Google, Yahoo, Bing) b. Google Scholar c. Academia.edu d. ResearchGate e. Mendeley f. SciHub g. Twitter h. Institutional repositories (examples include arXiv, Carolina Digital Repository, eScholarship) i. The resource’s author j. Private communication with another scholar in the field k. I did not look elsewhere l. Other [Open entry box] 11. Please tell us why you have used X [Respondent only sees the questions if they chose the corresponding option in question 10] a. A search engine sent me there. b. I consider it a reputable source. c. I heard about it from a colleague. d. Other [Open entry box] 12. If UNC must deliver a resource through ILL, how likely do you believe it is that it will be delivered in a timely manner? a. Very unlikely b. Unlikely c. Neither likely nor unlikely. d. Likely e. Very likely. 13. Do you have any additional comments about Interlibrary loan services, how you obtain resources, or this survey instrument? 44

14. Please indicate your faculty rank: a. Assistant professor b. Associate professor c. Professor d. Other [Open entry box] 15. Please indicate your age a. [Open Entry Box]