DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 428 761 IR 057 302
AUTHOR Barrett, G. Jaia, Ed. TITLE ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions, 1998. INSTITUTION Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC. ISSN ISSN-1050-6098 PUB DATE 1998-00-00 NOTE 106p.; For the 1997 issues, see ED 416 902. AVAILABLE FROM Association of Research Libraries, 21 Dupont Circle, Washington, DC 20036 (members $25/year for additional subscription; nonmembers $40/year). PUB TYPE Collected Works - Serials (022) JOURNAL CIT ARL; n196-201 Feb 1998-Dec 1998 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Academic Libraries; Competition; Copyrights; Document Delivery; Electronic Journals; Electronic Text; Higher Education; Information Industry; Information Policy; *Information Services; Interlibrary Loans; Measurement Techniques; Newsletters; *Research Libraries; Scholarly Journals IDENTIFIERS *Association of Research Libraries; Digitizing; Library of Congress; License Agreements; Performance Levels
ABSTRACT This document consists of six issues of the ARL (Association of Research Libraries) Newsletter, covering the year 1998. Each issue of the newsletter includes some or all of the following sections: "Current Issues," reports from the Coalition for Networked Information and the Office of Scholarly Communication, Office of Leadership and Management Services (formerly the Office of Management Services), and Coalition for Networked Information, "Preservation," "Federal Relations," "Statistics and Measurement," "Diversity," "ARL Activities," and calendar of events. One special issue on measures (April 1998) focuses on the issues and activities in the area of performance measurement in research libraries. The second special issue on journals (October 1998) discusses views of thecurrent marketplace for scholarly journals, including what publisher profits reveal about competition in scholarly publishing, value and estimatedrevenue of scientific/technical journals, and non-commercial alternatives to scholarly communication. Topics of other issues include the Scholarly Publishing& Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC); the Dublin Core Metadata Program; E-information policies; an update on Uniform Commercial Code Article 2B; high-performing interlibrary loan/document delivery operations; library director evaluation; salaries in research libraries; university funding for research libraries; collaboration on reduced-cost journals; the Library of Congress mass deacidification program; the Digital Millennium Copyright Act; access management for networked information; and electronic theses and dissertations. (AEF)
******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions Nos. 196-201 February-December 1998
G. Jaia Barrett Editor
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY CENTER (ERIC) 0 This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization C.A. Mandel originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.
2 Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES official OERI position or policy. INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." FL mEn
A BIMONTHLY NEWSLETTER OF RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUESAND ACTIONS Current Issues ARL PROMOTES COMPETITIONTHROUGH SPARC: THE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING & ACADEMIC RESOURCESCOALITION by Mary M. Case, Director, ARL Office of Scholarly Communication
The system of scholarly publishing is a SPARC is conceived as a partnership project complex process that is centered on the of ARL and other educational and research orga- intellectual property of the faculty author. nizations. Its mission is to be a catalyst: Until recently, it was routine for faculty in the To create a more competitive marketplace for process of publishing to transfer the copyright of research information by providing this property to a publisher. The intellectual opportunities for new publishing ventures, r-4 property and the attendant rights form the eco- endorsing new publications and information nomic basis of a publisher's investment. For products, and recruiting authors, editors, and many generations, this system, dominated pri- advisory board members. marily by scholarly societies and university press- To promote academic values of access to es, appeared to serve authors, publishers, and the information for research and teaching, the education and research community well. During continuation of fair use and other library and the 1960s, however, these traditional outlets could educational uses in an electronic information not expand fast enough to provide the increased environment, and the ethical use of scholarly capacity for publishing generated by a system of information. higher education that was rapidly expanding. To encourage innovative uses of technology to Commercial publishers stepped in to fill the need. improve scholarly communication by Some of these publishers discovered that journal collaborating in the design and testing of new publishing, especially in science, technology, and products; advancing new publishing models medicine, could be very lucrative. A few have as appropriate applications of electronic exploited the market and are doing everything networks, such as Internet2; and developing they can to ensure future profits through aggres- systems and standards for the archiving and sive pricing strategies, publisher consolidation, management of research findings. and influencing legislation to ensure greater Marketplace Trends intellectual property protection. Most faculty and librarians are now very familiar One key strategy in counteracting these with the annual cycle of serials cancellations in trends toward higher prices is to provide addi- academic and research libraries. What has also tional prestigious and cost-based outlets for the become clear is that the cancellation projects are best faculty work. To this end, ARL recently not one-time adjustments to local circumstances, approved the development of a project called but manifestations of a marketplace that is pricing SPARCScholarly Publishing & Academic some resources beyond the reach of the educa- Resources Coalitiona project that seeks to tional community. Over the past decade, ARL encourage the development of competition in statistics show that research library expenditures the scholarly publishing marketplace. for serials have increased almost 10% a year and
9EST CuPY AVAILABLL- 3 CURRENT ISSUES Continued ------that the unit cost of a serial title has increased by 147%. £3,400 million ($5.7 billion). The net operating expenses Since 1986, while ARL libraries have canceled hundreds are £1,248 million (or $2.1 billion). This appears to be a of thousands of dollars worth of journals, they have fairly substantial margin (£834 million or $1.4 billion). spent 124% more on serials to purchase 7% fewer titles. After taxes, £604 million (or approximately $1 billion) is During the same period, expenditures on monographs left to pay out dividends to shareholders (£348 million) have increased 29% and ARL libraries have purchased and to transfer funds to reserve (£256 million). The 21% fewer titles. statement at the bottom of the report notes: "The While some price increases can be justified by the historical cost profits and losses are not materially increase in numbers of pages and articles included with- different from the results disclosed above." in a volume to accommodate the increased output of Elsevier Science, an international publisher of scien- faculty, there is evidence to suggest that some commer- tific information headquartered in the Netherlands, is cial publishers charge prices that significantly exceed one of the several publishing companies owned by Reed the costs of production. In 1989, Economic Consulting Elsevier. Preliminary analysis of figures recently gath- Services, Inc. (ECS) concluded an analysis for ARL of ered by ARL shows that, on average, an ARL library the trends in average subscription prices and publica- spends almost $628,000 dollars a year with Elsevier tion costs over time. The analysis focused on over 100 Science to obtain 378 titles. That is 3.5% of the serials titles published by four major publishers in the U.S. and titles subscribed to by a library but almost 21% of the Europe. The result of the ECS report found that from annual serials expenditures. Extrapolating from these 1973-1987, publisher profits increased between 40% and averages, the 121 ARL libraries spend over $75 million a 137%. The results also indicate that the cost increases year on Elsevier Science titles. This is a significant por- faced by these publishers did not fully justify the price tion of U.S. and Canadian research library materials increases paid by research libraries. budgets going to one company. One of the most profitable scholarly publishers is To illustrate, Elsevier Science publishes some of the Reed Elsevier, one of the world's largest publishing most expensive serials subscribed to by research and information companies, located in the United libraries. The accompanying table provides a sample of Kingdom. Its 1996 Combined Profit and Loss Statement these journal titles and the increases in their subscrip- (which is included on its website
SAMPLES OF SUBSCRIPTION PRICE INCREASES
1995 1996 Change 1997 Change 1998 Change Change 95 to 96 96 to 97 97 to 98 95 to 98
Brain Research $10,181 $12,234 20.2% $14,919 21.9% $15,428 3.4% 51.5%
Biochim. Biophys. Acta $7,555 $8,837 17.0% $10,528 19.1% $10,839 3.0% 43.5%
Chem. Phys. Letters $5,279 $6,569 24.4% $7,818 19.0% $8,060 3.1% 52.7%
Eur. Jrnl. of Pharmacology $4,576 $5,680 24.1% $6,431 13.2% $6,702 4.2% 46.5%
Gene $3,924 $5,069 29.2% $6,144 21.2% $6,433 4.7% 63.9%
Inorganica Chim. Acta $3,611 $4,476 24.0% $5,283 18.0% $5,540 4.9% 53.4%
Intl. Jrnl. of Pharmaceutics $3,006 $3,915 30.2% $4,691 19.8% $4,983 6.2% 65.8%
Neuroscience $3,487 $4,001 14.7% $4,543 13.5% $5,073 11.7% 45.5%
Theoretical Computer Science $2,774 $3,425 23.5% $3,835 12.0% $4,059 5.8% 46.3%
Jrnl. of Exp. Marine Bio. & Eco. $1,947 $2,445 25.6% $2,811 15.0% $2,931 4.3% 50.5%
SolidState Communications $1,945 $2,327 19.6% $2,602 11.8% $2,871 10.3% 47.6%
Note: The actual subscription price paid by an individual library may vary. The prices above for 1995-1997 reflect actual experience in two ARL member libraries; 1998 prices are taken from the Elsevier Science website.
2 A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 4 Maximizing the Market As might be anticipated with the recent takeover of Through Consolidation Lexis-Nexis by Reed Elsevier, pricing and access options There is also anecdotal evidence that another trend in are changing. As of September, one ARL member the publishing industry may be affecting the price of library estimated that it would have to pay 3.5 times the library materials: the consolidation of publishers of core current cost for the new Lexis-Nexis educational service, products. Reed and Elsevier merged in 1993 and have which includes less access than its previous subscrip- since pursued an aggressive corporate strategy of acqui- tion. The library would now pay a total of $87,000 a sitions and mergers. Reed Elsevier now owns publish- year versus the current price of $25,200. An example of ing companies throughout Europe and North America, the impact on the pricing of an individual title taken including Bowker/Saur, Butterworth's, Shepard's, over by Elsevier in 1997 is the subscription price for the Lexis-Nexis, and the Congressional Information Service, Journal of Supercritical Fluids. The journal was published to name a few. Its corporate global strategy, as stated on by Polymer Research Associates and cost $275 for a its website, is to concentrate on "must have" informa- yearly subscription. A subscription for 1998 costs $657. tion and to continue development through "organic Faced with rising prices that show no sign of mod- growth and acquisition." This includes not only buying erating, libraries have undertaken a number of strate- other companies, but also buying or contracting to gies to try to manage their budgets and increase their publish society and association journals. buying power. These include journal cancellations, In October 1997, Reed Elsevier announced a plan to with reliance on document delivery and cooperative merge with Wolters Kluwer, which itself owns Lippin- collection development for low use materials, and cott/Raven and a number of other European companies. consortial licensing of electronic resources. These gen- A new company, Elsevier Wolters Kluwer, would, erally local strategies, however, have had limited effec- according to The New York Times (29 December, 1997), tiveness in moderating prices and have had no impact "create the world's largest publisher of professional and on the growing concentration of the publishing indus- trade journals, with estimated combined 1997 revenues try. Cancellations only result in increased prices for the of $8 billion...." Regulatory agencies in both Europe and rest of the subscribing community, exacerbating the the United States are concerned about and are investigat- already high prices. ing this proposed merger. But that has not stopped addi- Expanding Product Control tional acquisitions. In December 1997, Elsevier Science Through Legislation released a statement that it was in negotiation with the But higher prices are not the only concern arising from Beilstein Institute, a non-profit German organization, to the increased concentration of publishing in the hands obtain an exclusive commercial license to the Beilstein of a few large commercial companies. There is also the Database and Handbook, the standard reference work for issue of how much exclusive control the copyright hold- organic chemistry. In late January 1998, Engineering er may assert over access to and use of copyrighted Information, Inc. notified its customers that it was selling information. The last year has seen accelerated effort on virtually all of its assets, including its name, to the newly the part of many stakeholders in the scholarly commu- created Elsevier Engineering Information, Inc., a wholly- nication process, including libraries, to ensure continua- owned subsidiary of Elsevier Science. tion of balanced copyright law in a digital and net- Publisher consolidation is also underway in the worked environment. However, the same commercial fields of law and business, where the Thomson Corpora- publishers that have successfully pursued a profit-maxi- tion of Canada has moved aggressively to acquire other mization strategy in the print environment are aggres- publishers. Thomson owns the Institute for Scientific sively advocating legislation that would strengthen the Information, Gale Research, West, and Warren Gorham copyright owner's monopoly and control over intellec- Lamont. When Thomson purchased West Publishing in tual property. Some of the legislative proposals being 1996, it was required by regulatory agencies to sell offa promoted would transform current copyright law into a number of its law journals. These titles were purchased dramatically more restrictive instrument, narrowing or by Lexis-Nexis, owned by Reed Elsevier. In another eliminating fair use and other provisions that provide switch among the giants, Thomson announced in for educational use of copyrighted materials. December that it had agreed to sell its Thomson As an example, access to information for research Science subsidiary to Wolters Kluwer. (Data from the and education could be significantly restricted under Thomson website shows that the specialized informa- H.R. 2652, The Collections of Information Antipiracy tion/publishing companies within Thomson made Act, a bill introduced into the U.S. House of $747 million, or 19% operating profit, before amortiza- Representatives in October 1997. Reed Elsevier and tion in 1996; see
A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 Continued
misappropriation." While it is not unreasonable for willingness to devote resources to address the prob- publishers to want to protect their products, there is no lems in scholarly communication. Academic admin- convincing evidence, especially in light of the publish- istrators have come to realize that the strategies that ers' profitable track records, that data is being "misap- libraries can pursue on their own cannot adequately propriated" on a scale that justifies this legislative address the fundamental problems in the current action. The legislation as written is extremely broad, system of scholarly communication. Collective effort covering everything from facts to journal articles, and by the community is required. the exemptions for educational, scientific, or research Faculty and academic administrators will support uses are too narrow to be useful. C. Judson King, initiatives that offer realistic alternatives for dissemi- Provost and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs, nating research findings and scholarship. University of California system, believes that "H.R. 2652 On June 30, 1997, representatives from 45 ARL insti- would impede the free exchange of information and tutions met to discuss a proposal to create an electronic ideas that is the engine of the publishing fund and to seek academic enterprise, thereby publishing partners interested slowing the dissemination and in entering the serials market creation of new knowledge" (let- The key criterion that is in areas in which prices are ter to The Honorable Howard critical to the success of highest and there is the greatest Berman, 29 October, 1997). Not these partnerships is need for alternative models of only are Reed Elsevier and research communication. The Thomson intent on maximizing shared values. meeting resulted in the forma- their profits through pricing and tion of a small working group consolidation, they are actively of library directors who pursing legislative agendas to ensure long-term protec- volunteered to work with ARL staff in developing tion of their revenue streams, but at the expense of edu- an action plan. cation and the public good. The Working Group identified potential partners The conditions of the scientific and scholarly pub- organizations that may be interested in forming part- lishing marketplace make it impossible for higher edu- nership relationships with libraries and educational cation to sustain library budgets on a scale sufficient to institutions. These include: keep up with increasing prices and the level of output. Professional societies and university presses At the same time, access to and use of digital informa- interested in launching new publishing initiatives. tion resources could be restricted by legislative attempts Start-up electronic publishers that have already to expand the copyright holders' control over access to created publications in subject fields dominated by intellectual property. The need for alternative publish- commercial publishers. ing outlets"new entrants," "greater competition," and For-profit enterprises that offer new strategies for "alternative models"particularly in the serials market- controlling costs and improving access to research place, has become increasingly obvious and increasingly information. urgent. "Visionary" enterprises, including both discipline Why SPARC and Why Now? and institution-based server models, seeking to Increased competition was identified as a key strategy create entirely new economic models for scholarly for addressing rising prices for serials ten years ago, but communication. change has been slow in coming. A number of critical The partnerships forged by SPARC will depend on factors, however, have now converged to make the the readiness of potential partners to achieve the goals transformation of the scholarly communication system of the coalition in terms of content and infrastructure. possible: In addition, potential partners will be evaluated on Alternative models of scholarly communication are whether: they share the values of the scholarly and aca- now economically and technologically feasible. The demic community, they have credibility in the scholarly rise of the Internet and World Wide Web have made marketplace, their leadership is committed to the goals it possible for anyone to publish. of SPARC, they have publishing experience, and they Capable partners are ready to join with research are willing to commit resources. institutions to create new publishing alternatives. The key criterion that is critical to the success of Libraries and universities are prepared to redirect these partnerships is shared values. The values pro- budget resources to support new forms of scholarly posed for SPARC partners include support for: publishing. This was confirmed at a recent meeting Fostering a competitive market for scholarly publish- of academic administrators who indicated their ing by encouraging new participants in the publishing
A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 field that are committed to principles of cost-based pricing. THE DUBLIN CORE DESCRIPTIVE Implementing policies for intellectual property man- METADATA PROGRAM: STRATEGIC agement emphasizing broad and easy distribution IMPLICATIONS FOR LIBRARIES AND and reuse of material and the ethical use of scholarly resources. NETWORKED INFORMATION ACCESS Encouraging innovative applications of available by Clifford Lynch, Executive Director, Coalition for information technology to enrich and expand Networked Information research and scholarship and the available means for This article explores the potential applications of distribution. the Dublin Core descriptive metadata program for Assuring that new channels of scholarly communica- libraries, museums, and other networked informa- tion sustain quality requirements and contribute to tion providers. It includes a brief summary of the current promotion and tenure processes. thinking that has emerged from the Dublin Core initia- Enabling the permanent archiving of research publi- tive, including the broader metadata framework captured cations and scholarly communication, including by the Warwick Framework, and also some consideration those published in digital formats. of the relationship with the Resource Description Last October, the ARL Board gave the go-ahead to Framework under development by the World Wide Web the Office of Scholarly Communication to develop a Consortium, but the central focus is on applications sce- plan to make the SPARC concept a reality. An ad hoc narios for Dublin Core metadata. The approach here is Working Group guiding the next phase of SPARC's strategic rather than technical; readers interested in the development will propose a membership strategy that precise definitions of the individual Dublin Core data ele- invites the participation of other library, educational, ments will need to consult the actual Dublin Core docu- and research organizations in SPARC. The Working ments or other articles. My hope is that it will be helpful Group is also charged with the responsibility to develop to library administrators and technology managers who a business plan and action agenda to support at least are trying to understand and evaluate the implications of five alternative publishing ventures by the end of 1998. the Dublin Core both for access to existing resources and The first major action of the Working Group this year for practices of description that will be used to create, was to invite ARL libraries to become Founding maintain and provide access to new resources. Members of SPARC. At press time, almost 50 ARL Metadata libraries had responded. Next on the Working Group's Metadata is literally "data about data," information that agenda will be hiring a SPARC project manager. qualifies other information. Bibliographic description is ARL recognizes that SPARC is only one of a number of strategies that must be undertaken simultaneously to a form of metadata, so also is information about intellec- ensure long-term access to scholarly research. Other tual property rights and terms of use, formats of elec- strategies include working aggressively in the legisla- tronic information, reviews, errata, abstracts and sum- tive arena to ensure fair use and other educational and maries, provenance information, and a host of other library uses of copyrighted works in the digital environ- data. Some metadata can be derived mechanically from ment; investigating options for faculty and the universi- objects; other metadata has independent standing as ty to retain and better manage intellectual property intellectual creation in its own right. It should be clear rights; and the decoupling of the academic credentialing that the set of metadata associated with an information process from formal publication. None of these strate- object is unbounded. The division between data and gies will work without the support and involvement of metadata is somewhat arbitrary and highly situational; faculty, academic administrators, and the research and information will be used as data in one setting and scholarly community. With these constituencies, ARL metadata in another.- will pursue SPARC as one effort to build the partner- At least in my view, discussions of metadata inde- ships necessary to create a future for scholarly commu- pendent of context and purpose are of little interest; it is nication that is robust, innovative, and affordable. most productive to speak of various kinds of metadata in conjunction with the processes that they are intended to Thanks to Carson Holloway for gathering information on support or facilitate. There are certainly types of meta- corporate ownership included in this article. More data that have been developed for various specific pur- information about SPARC can be found at poses and which it is now proving possible to repurpose,
, A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 Continued
the point is that metadata is created and takes on impor- about how relationships among packages are expressed. tance through its ability to support activities; for exam- The importance of the Warwick Framework is ple, the point is not to describe but to support discovery twofold. First, it provides a broad architectural frame- and other processes. work for defining and using,metadata of various types. For a more extended discussion of the nature of Second, it allows developers of metadata sets that have metadata and its interactions with the processes of the specific purposes to limit and focus their work by discovery and retrieval of networked information, read- appealing to the Warwick Framework as an overarching ers might consult the draft CNI white paper on the topic context within which other groups interested in metada-
A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 DC is serviceable for a rather broad range of common this need various qualifiers have been proposed to serve information objectsfor example, a workshop was held such functions as indicating the language or syntax in with the specific focus and outcome of extending and which the data element values are expressed,or to con- validating the DC as a means of describing a large class strain the semantics of the data elements (for example, of visual resourcesrather than drawing precise bound- indicating that a date is a date of creation, or thata cre- aries for what is out of scope. ator is a corporate author, or that a topic value is taken The DC clearly can be usefully applied to collections from a specific thesaurus). Obviously, use of qualifiers or to very complex dynamic objects or information ser- will tend to reduce interoperability, because participat- vices, but it probably does not do a completely adequate ing systems will need to understand much more than job of describing such objects and services to support just the fifteen basic data elements in order to interpret discovery. the semantics properly. To address this problem, a basic The development of the DC has had a very strong rule has been established for all types of qualifiers: if theme of codifying practice rather than research: meth- one ignores the qualifier, the data element value must be ods for satisfactorily describing these complexnew class- consistent with the basic definition of the data element's es of dynamic digital objects and network services is still, semantics in the DC. Thus, qualifiers can only constrain at least in my view, a research problem. Further, while or refine the semantics of the DC data elements; they there is a great deal of consistency across the class of cannot be used to alter their meanings so that they are document-like objects that were the objective of the DC, inconsistent with the original definitions. Definition of there seems to be tremendous variation in the kinds of the data elements which should under normal practice description needed for the still evolving menagerie of be qualified, and what the appropriate values of these new digital resources. And, at least today, there are a lot qualifiers should be, is a subject of ongoing work within more document-like objects than anything else on the the DC community; in a sense, this can be viewedas a network; they are the rule rather than the exception. discussion about how to extend the DC beyond the origi- Data Elements nal fifteen elements in practice without destabilizing the original definitions, although some qualification (for The fifteen Dublin Core data elements are: title; creator example, to indicate the language or format of the data (author); subject and keywords; description; publisher; element value rather than the meaning of the data ele- other contributer; date; resource type; format; resource ment itself) really has a different and less semantically identifier; source; language; relation; coverage; and significant character. It remains to be seen how the rights management. use of qualifiers will evolve within the various communities It should be clear from an inspection of this list that of DC users. the DC is designed to serve as a sort of lowestcommon denominator form of description. It does not, at least Relationship to Surrogates directly, accommodate discipline-specialized descrip- Another controversial issue in the definition of the tion; indeed, some of the data elements, such as "date" Dublin Core has been how use of the DC elements are so vague that they are of limited utility without some should interact with the surrogates that are socommon- further scoping. The DC was designed so that data ele- place in the digital environment. For a document that ment values for an object could reasonably be defined by was created as a digital object, matters are simple: the its author, or by a site manager, rather than by a trained DC data elements describe the document. The creator of specialist cataloger or indexer. DC relies very heavilyon the document is the person who authored it. But consid- natural language, and retrieval systems for the DC will er this common case: there is a painting hanging in a have to rely heavily on heuristics and language parsing; museum that was created by artist X; fifteen years ago, not only does the basic DC framework ignore specialized photographer Y took a picture of this painting; last week, thesauri and subject classifica Lion, for example, but it curator Z digitized Y's picture of X's painting. What are does not even make assumptions about the format that the semantics of the DC metadata associated with the would be used to list dates or personal names. digitized image? The answer is that there should be three groups of DC metadata: one for the painting,one Qualifiers for the photograph, and one for the digitized image. The One of the ongoing tensions and controversies in the first would list X as creator; the second Y, and the third development of the DC has been its lack of precision. Z. The three groups of DC metadata would be connect- The most basic version of the DCcalled the Unqualified ed through the "relation" data element. This has the Dublin Coredoesn't carry any information about the advantage of being conceptually simple, albeit a bit ver- format of the data element values, theirsource or con- bose, for those creating metadata (though this can clearly text, or the specifics of their semantics beyond thevery be mitigated by a well-designed data entry system for broad definitions of the basic data elements. To address DC metadata). It also places a considerable burdenon
9 ARL 196 FEBRUARY 1998 Continued
the design of retrieval systems to behave intelligently: to metadata of all kinds to web pages composed using the many users, the conceptual distinction between painting, new Extended Markup Language (XML) defined by the photo, and digitized image is at best murky, and an end- Consortium, including DC metadata, the development of user query will often ask for the painting when what the schema definitions for metadata sets, and query facilities user really wants is a digitized image of the painting. for metadata. This work will likely be central to facilitat- Retrieval systems will need to be able to retrieve clusters ing the large scale use of DC within the Web. of groups of DC data elements and present them to the More information on PICS, RDF and XML can be user in a comprehensible fashion. found at the Consortium's website
A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 1 0 incorporate DC data elements as part of the pagesusing Applications Scenarios for Libraries either direct coding in META tags for current HTML The Dublin Core has two different basic applications for pages or the new RDF structures for pages in the newly libraries. The first is in permitting library databases to defined XML formatand that the familiar web indexing become part of broader network search services, or to programs (or their successors) will be upgraded to cap- allow libraries to provide their patrons with consistent ture this metadata and incorporate it into their web index- views of both library and non-library databases. The es, so that one could query a system like Lycos or Alta Vista for pages that have a specific creator, for example. second is in describing new resources that cannot be This metadata might be created by the authors of the cost-effectively supported through traditional cataloging pages, by website managers, or by third party approaches. indexers/catalogers. Complementing this, we are likely Use of DC in Federating Existing Resources to see third party databases of DC metadata develop One of the key notions in networked information discov- which simply refer to and describe web content and other ery and retrieval is that of federating disparate, indepen- information objects. dently maintained databases It's essential to recognize scattered about the network. that while the Weband in par- I think it is likely that Users should be able to search, ticular the static, visible web of libraries will use this such constellations of databases HTML pagesis a key applica- as if they were a single, consis- tions environment for DC, it is capability to make their tent, unified information not the only one. It is perfectly databases visible in resource. In order to do that, it reasonable to think in terms of is necessary to provide a com- databases containing objects database federations that mon semantic view of the vari- described by DC data elements; operate outside of the ous databases involved, even here the DC data elements though they may have radically would be encoded and linked traditional library different access points and data through some local data struc- systems and services... structures, and may be accessed tures. The retrieval of an object through different search proto- from such a databaseaccom- cols or other query mechanisms. plished through an interactive forms-orientedquery Because the Dublin Core is designed as a lowest interface or an inter-system query protocol like Z39.50 common denominator descriptive approach, it offers a might cause the retrieved object to be encodedas a well- very flexible and general context to support federation. known, common format, such as a page that included Traditional library catalogs or abstracting and indexing XML tags for the relevant DC elements. Similarly,one databases can clearly support queries constructed using might want to associate DC elements with an entire Dublin Core data elements (albeit with some reduction website or database; here one would need a mechanism in the precision that queries can express as compared to (perhaps akin to some of those used in the Harvest queries formulated using the database's native search system) that could be used by network resource index- language, unless qualifiers are used extensively); thus it ing systems that build site or database directories. (For is possible to build a software layer that permits such more on these issues, see Clifford A. Lynch's "Searching databases to participate in federations that use the the Internet," Scientific American 276.3 [March1.997]: pp. Dublin Core data elements. These interfaces willuse 52-56, available at
A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 -CURRENT ISSUES Continued
catalogue or an art history abstracting and indexing based original cataloging, there is relatively little experi- database available on the Net, it would be possible to ence with it, particularly when the DC is supplemented easily extend their system to also consistently search with additional metadata packages. One effort that needs across the database and catalogue as supplemental to take place over the next few years as part of the experi- resources. Or a system designed to search digital ence in using Dublin Core is some measurement of the instructional media might be extended to also search cost savings over traditional cataloging for various library holdings through the same interface. types of material. We also will need to understand how Conversely, because the Dublin Core is applicable to retrieval quality varies with the different descriptive so many information resources, a library might develop approaches. a search interface and distributed search service that The use of the DC and the Warwick Framework gives offered patrons a federated view of a very diverse set of libraries the ability to design supplementary metadata sets databases, including not only traditional library databases,descriptive and otherwiseto characterize materials but also databases from other sources, such asgovern- that either require more depth or precision of description ment databases, databases produced by the next genera- than the Dublin Core alone can offer, or need not only tion of web indexing services, or special purpose scholar- descriptive but also other types of metadata associated ly databases. While such a search service would not with them in order to support processes that go beyond eliminate the need for much more precise and capable discovery (e.g., management, use and reuse, or rights domain-specific and database-specific search facilities, it clearance). Instructional media objects are a good exam- would be very useful to some users both in identifying ple of such a category of materials; statistical datasets are databases of interest which they might then search direct- another. Museums will likely make substantial use of the ly for more comprehensive and precise results,or in DC plus additional metadata packages. To a great extent, doing very broad (not but necessarily preciseor exhaus- I suspect that library use of the DC for description will be tive) searches across a wide range of resources. In this determined by the policy choices that libraries make about connection, it is interesting to note that the Instructional their role in creating descriptions for materials that have Management System (IMS) being developed by not historically been part of the mainstream of library Educom's National Learning Infrastructure Initiative collections, as opposed to simply making use of descrip- (NLII) is using a descriptive scheme based in parton the tions for these materials created by other (non-library) Dublin Core for instructional media; this is a goodexam- organizations. ple of a possible new resource that librariesmay want to bring under the umbrella of a search system that alsocov- Conclusions ers their catalogue and abstracting and indexing databases. The Dublin Core is clearly, in my view, going to be impor- (For more details on the NLII and its IMS project,see tant for libraries both as an engineering tool for federating
A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 t-'PRESERVATION-----
RECON PROJECT FOR PRESERVATION MICROFILM MASTERS COMPLETED NRMM LANGUAGE DISTRIBUTION by Jutta Reed-Scott, Consultant for Preservation and Access Services Over the past decade, ARL has managed a series of cooperative projects for creatingmore than English 57.5% 579,000 online records for monographic andser- ial preservation microform masters thatwere listed in the National Register of Microform Masters (NRMM). These projects have been funded by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, Division of Preservation and Access, as well as byan initial grant Italian 1.9% from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation andmajor Latin contributions by project participants. In December 199Z 3.1% ARL completed the final steps in the retrospective con- Russian version of the NRMM. The NRM/VI reportsare now 3.9% available online in the OCLC and RLIN databases and French 13.1% are accessible to the broadest possible community of Other 5.7% national and international scholars. German 7.2% Project Highlights Spanish 7.6% The NRMM machine-readable recordswere created according to national standards for national andinter- national distribution. With some minor exceptions,all reports included in the NRMM have been processed, representing: Not surprisingly, the NRMM reports reflect the 549,147 monographs (over 12,000 in non-Roman clustering of publication dates in the late 19th and early languages); 20th centuries. More unexpected is thatmore than 16% 22,729 serials (Harvard, New York Public Library, of the reports show publication dates before 1850, with and Library of Congress holdings); and some published as early as the 13th century. 7,083 musical scores. Though these statistics cannot capture the vast A striking aspect of this recon project is that thenew scope of the materials described by records converted online records describe titles held bymore than 230 dif- through the NRMIvI Recon Project, they do document ferent libraries and other institutions that contributed the extraordinary range of early preservation reports to the NRIVIM. The Library of Congress (LC), microfilming efforts. the largest noncommercial producer of microfilm,the New York Public Library, as wellas Harvard University Background and Project History Libraries and several other ARL libraries played domi- The National Register of Microform Masters is itselfa nant roles in contributing records to the NRIVIM. landmark in library cooperation. Keyes Metcalf first Among vendors, University Microfilms International, proposed establishing a national register of microform General Microfilm Company, and Research Publications masters in 1936. The NRMM was finally begun in 1965 were major contributors. While large research libraries as the direct result of a study conducted for ARL by and vendors reported the majority of NRMMreports, Wesley Simonton. I lis report summarized the well- an array of university and college libraries, historical known problems associated with rapid growth in societies, archives, and state and public libraries also preservation microfilming without concomitant biblio- contributed a significant number of titles to the NRMM. graphic control. The Library of Congress respondedto Equally diverse are the languages of the titles the call for action and took the lead in establishing the described by NRMM reports, withmore than 200 differ- NRMM, the most significant effort by the librarycom- ent languages represented. As the accompanying chart munity to collect, organize, and disseminate informa- illustrates, over 40% of the reportsare in languages tion about preservation microfilm masters. The NRMM other than English, concentrated primarily inWestern Master File, the largest single file of records for micro- European languages. All other foreign languagesmake form masters in the United States, consisted ofreports up about 10%. CJK (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) for microform masters sent to the Library of Congress reports were not converted by the project. by hundreds of different libraries, historicalsocieties, 13 IA R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 and publishers between 1965 and 1983. NRMM was the distribution of project tapes. Most importantly, published annually by LC until 1984, with one cumu- LC staff throughout the project provided advice on the lation covering the years 1965 to 1975. technical specifications and conducted the extensive During its 18 years of existence, NRMM was the quality control. best tool that could be produced for that time. In partnership with the Library of Congress, both NRMM's value to the library and scholarly community Harvard University and New York Public Library pro- is enormous, and the automation of NRMM makes vided significant staff support during the serials phase possible a quantum improvement in the ease of use of this project. NYPL also assisted in the review of its and ease of access to the records. non-Roman records during the final project phase. In 1986, with funding from NEH and matching Many other libraries have also contributed to the funds from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, ARL successful automation of the NRMM. At the end, and LC joined in the complex undertaking of creating every large-scale retrospective conversion project machine-readable records of the NRMM reports. confronts a significant number of records that cannot The early road of the project was bumpy. The be processed within the standard workflow. For the major problem was the default of the first project con- NRMM project, these include reports with incomplete tractor in 1990. A second problem was the discovery information, selected serials, and some non-Roman that the NRMNI file contained a significantly greater reports. Cards for records not converted were number of reports than had been estimated in the 1985 returned to the institutions that created them for in- sampling study. ARL overcame both problems. house review and processing, if required. Specifically, ARL first transferred the project to a new contractor, all East Asian reports have been turned over to institu- OCLC's Retrospective Conversion Department. Since tions that created them for in-house processing. 1990, OCLC's staff have processed more than 518,000 ARL plans to set up a special web page for the NRIVEM reports under an ARL contract. ARL also NRMM Recon Project to provide detailed information successfully obtained funding from NEH for process- about the scope and content of the automated ing the unexpected additional reports. While convert- NRMM records and about the small percentage ing the NRMM records took far more time and was of NRMM reports that could not be processed as more costly than initially projected, the goal of creating part of the project. machine-readable records for all the NRMM reports that could be converted has been accomplished. Bibliographic Guidelines and An accompanying chart (p.13) highlights progress Quality Review during the NRMM Recon Project. Special attention to quality control was a hallmark of this project. The project's initial bibliographical speci- Financing the Conversion fications were an important impetus for developing Major funding for the multi-year projects was provid- ARL's Guidelines for Bibliographic Records for ed by the National Endowment for the Humanities. Preservation Microform Masters in 1990. Since then, the Over the life of the NRMM Recon Project, NEH Guidelines have served as the project's bibliographic awarded ARL a series of grants totalling $2,182,653. standards. NEH's investment in the Project once more under- Following agreed-upon criteria, LC staff members scores the vital importance of federal support for reviewed a random sample of records in all batches national preservation efforts. The Library of Congress prepared by OCLC. The number of records in a batch made substantial contributions of technical assistance and the interval between batches was determined by and staff for the quality review throughout the pro- LC, ARL, and OCLC. Overall accuracy was set at a ject. A critical component of the project's financial minimum of 94 percent. Each project phase included support has been OCLC's in-kind contributions, an initial development period during which LC staff which have substantially reduced the unit cost for reviewed all records in each batch. For the production creating machine-readable records for the NRMM. periods, the contract with OCLC specified that the OCLC's subsidy on behalf of research libraries has entire batch of records would have to be redone if the exceeded $480,000. batch did not meet quality review accuracy require- Working Together ments. ARL never had to invoke this clause. The Library of Congress was a vital partner in this pro- Benefits ject and played a unique role. While LC's primary The automation of the NRMM files improves access to responsibility was the establishment of the quality preservation microfilm masters. The linchpin of the assurance program, LC was also responsible for hold- national and now international preservation effort is ing the microform security copy of the reports and for the ability to showcase records of preserved titles.
A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 14 Ongoing preservation programs that aim to reformat records for local cataloging will translate into reduced embrittled materials benefit significantly from the cataloging costs in libraries. NRMM recon project because it makes it practical and economical to identify titles already filmed. Forusers, Future Directions the online NRMM records expandaccess to specialized One challenge looms large: Providing rapidaccess to research materials that have been preserved. copies of the microfilms. The user expects to get ready The greatest benefit of the online NRMM lies in access, but several studies have documented the lengthy enhanced productivity. For all libraries, the machine- delays in obtaining filmed materials. While several readable NRMM improves the efficiency of biblio- organizations have explored centralized delivery ser- graphic searching and ensures against duplication of vices, the economic uncertainties of such services have microfilming. Not only was searching in the printed, so far posed insurmountable bathers. However, the multi-volume NRMM a time-consuming task (at least need remains to improve interlibrary loan, document one search in the 1965-75 volumes, and potentially delivery, or other access services for materials preserved eight additional searches in the annual volumes), but on microfilm. it was also easy to miss a title, since it is listed only In addition, digitization offers intriguing opportuni- under a single access point. In contrast, the online ties to improve access to such resources. The technolo- NRMM makes possible a one-step search, which dra- gy of digitizing from microfilm has matured, but the matically reduces the amount of staff time neededfor financial resources needed to digitizemore than half a pre-filming searches. The danger of missinga record is million preservation microfilm masters would be formi- also minimized since the machine-readable recordsare dable. One intermediate strategy may lie in digitizing accessible by several access points. the table of contents pages from selected volumes and Of equal benefit is the addition of thousands of making them available on the World Wide Web for original bibliographic records for specialized research browsing by researchers. materials to the national databases. The automationof The NRMM Recon Project has contributed substan- the NRMM provided a large body ofnew catalogue tially to building the infrastructure for bibliographic records since many titles were not previously included control of preservation microform masters. The next in OCLC or RLIN. That was especially true for the step is to deliver on a broader vision: To allow users to 7,083 musical scores, of which 58% required original access electronically the information now preserved on records. Over time, the use of these converted NRMM microfilm.
NRMIVI RECON PROJECT MILESTONES
RECORDS PROCESSED CUMULATIVE # PROJECT PHASES OF RECORDS 16,239 monographs (12,851 Non-Roman) 579 42 Phase VI July 1996-December 1997 22,729 serials and 7,083 musicalscores 63 1 Phase V January 1994-October 1996 54,000 monographs -533,374 Phase IV June 1993-February 1994 160,000 monographs 47 374 Phase HI February 1992-May 1993 258,000 monographs 319374 Phase II June 1990-March 1992 61,374 monographs 61 374 Phase I July 1987-June 1990
15 A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 3 Prudence S. Adler, Assistant Executive Director-Federal Relations and Information Policy
CHECKLIST FOR DRAFTING ELECTRONIC allow unauthorized access to private accounts involve unauthorized use of resources for commercial INFORMATION POLICIES enterprises In today's emerging electronic information environ- violate intellectual property rights ment, characterized by a panoply of networks, soft- violate license agreements ware, and information content, it is important that violate university or institutional rules or policies every research university and other institutions prepare violate local, state, or federal laws and disseminate policies concerning the use, creation, and exchange of electronic information. Electronic infor- 2. Access issues mation policies, though requiring unique elements, ought Delineation of who is assured access to what resources to be an extension of existing information policies. These and within what time frames electronic policies should describe roles and responsibili- Different levels of access that are provided to different ties of users and providers, and should address appropri- categories of users ate behaviors, not only on campus systems, but also on Use of public facilities (e.g., computing labs) the World Wide Web and the Internet generally. Circumstances under which private equipment can be The following is a checklist of issues to consider when attached to publicly-owned or grant-funded equipment drafting electronic information policies. The checklist, When access can be denied or revoked prepared by the Information Policies Committee of the Association of Research Libraries, is designed as a guide 3. Electronic mail issues for universities and other institutions that are developing, Delineation of when and to whom the institution can reviewing, or revising electronic information policies. deny access to its electronic mail services The circumstances under which the institution can 1. An introduction inspect, monitor, or disclose electronic mail, and the An introduction should state the need for and purpose of conditions under which this can be done without the the policy, and contains an explanatory statement about holder's consent the underlying values and principles guiding the policy. Restrictions on personal use Values Restrictions on commercial, political, or religious use Respect for freedom of inquiry and expression, and a Use for union activities vigorous opposition to censorship Use of anonymous mail, chain letters, mail reflectors, Respect for the rights of others, especially rights of and listservs privacy and confidentiality Forwarded mail after someone has left the institution Respect for intellectual property Archiving Respect for all members of the community of users, Public records including minors Libel and obscenity Respect for appropriate conduct in a public forum, Additional issues raised because of the presence including civility, respect for others, and respect for of the institutional identifier within the domain portion diversity of an electronic mail address Respect for law, for due process, and for the presumption of innocence 4. Websites and Web publishing issues Other values of local importance Policies governing content on a website Personal homepages, if permitted (questions of content Principles need to be managed carefully) Everyone using university information resources is Restrictions on pointers and links to other websites expected to honor the values of her or his academic com- Restrictions on the use of copyrighted material on munity, whose existence makes the use of those resources websites possible. Every user is also expected to be considerate of Use of university or institutional logos and trademarks the needs of other users by making every reasonable on websites effort not to impede the ability of others to use those Definition of an "official" website of the institution, and resources. Examples of infringements of these principles a description of how such a designation is granted may include, but are not limited to, activities that: Levels of use and traffic obstruct usage or deny access to others Restrictions on anonymous websites compromise privacy or confidentiality Use of commercial services involve unauthorized use of computer accounts Internet gambling attempt to modify system facilities without Libel and obscenity authorization Adlirrce to all local, state, and federal laws ARL 196 FEBRUARY 1998 5. Network use issues Inappropriate use of the network (e.g., IP address spoofing, sniffing, and other inappropriate actions) SAMPLE ELECTRONIC Limits on amount of use INFORMATION POLICIES Expectations of the user concerning network security 6. Coordination on campus AUBURN UNIVERSITY Campus units that may be involved in the process of http://www.auburn.edu/its/guide/policies.html writing the policies include: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Campus Libraries http:/ /www.ucdavis.edu/AUP.html Information Technology Academic Computing UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Academic Affairs http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/main/instsupp.html Legal Counsel Public Relations UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA Faculty http://www.ucsb.edu/policy.shtml Student Affairs UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 7. Archiving http://www.uga.edu/-ucns/sites/use.html The policy should include strategies for archivingor pre- serving electronic resources. All relevantcampus or insti- GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY tutional units, such as Computing, Libraries, and Archives, http: / / www.gatech.edu /ifis /policy/ usage / should be consulted in order to determine the attendant contents.html responsibilities and procedures for electronic archiving. UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON 8. Due process issues http: / /www.uh.edu/info_serv/users_guide/ An information policy should identify the forms of guidelines.html redress available if policy violations occur and the processes that will be followed. It should delineate INDIANA UNIVERSITY between those actions that transgress university rules and http://infotech.indiana.edu/policy/policy.html regulations concerning appropriate behavior and those actions that may involve violations of the law. Insome JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY instances, such as child pornography, an institution's http://www.jhu.edu/www/jhuniv/guidelin.html discretionary latitude may be severely restricted by federal statutes. UNIVERSITE LAVAL http:/ /www.ulaval.ca/sg/reg/Politiques/ 9. Definitions index.html It will be important for each campus or institution to determine relevant definitions (e.g., user, authorized LOUSIANA STATE UNIVERSITY user) and to include those definitions in the policies. http://www.lsu.edu/OCS/homedocs/ usage_policy.html 10. Implementation and review Institutions ought to set forth a process for implementa- UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO tion and review, and determine how often the policy gets http://www.unm.edu/cirt/info/general/ethics.html reviewed or revised. It is important that the policy be clear and unambiguous, and able to be understood by all NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY users of electronic resources. Moreover, the policy should http://www.nwu.eduM/policies be made readily available to all usersfor example,post- ed at public terminals and on institutional websites. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE http://www.cas.utk.edu/CAS/casccp.html Prepared by Paula T. Kaufman (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) and Gerald R. Lowell (University of California, San Diego) with the ARL Information Policies Committee.
IT ARL 196 FEBRUARY 199815 OMS RENAMED OFFICE being librarians and library support staff, non-librarian faculty, and other academic administrators. OF LEADERSHIP AND A majority of directors indicated there were no formal MANAGEMENT SERVICES guidelines or criteria for the review processoften these Effective January1998,the ARL Office of are developed ad hoc during the review. Management Services (OMS) adopted the new Only 21% of review processes had a salary decision as name of Office of Leadership and Management an outcome; more than half (52%) reported that contract Services (OLMS). The new name corresponds to the renewal or reappointment was an outcome related to change in name for the ARL Committee on Leadership the process. and Management. The new title is intended to convey As part of the study, Mr. Soete has also prepared a the focus of the Office on advancing both the discourse short document to guide those who are responsible for or and practice of shaping research library and information who will participate in the performance evaluations of aca- service organizations of the future. Use of the new title demic library directors. It is written as a checklist and is has begun and will be phased in during the year on pre- intended to foster both effectiveness and fairness in direc- printed materials. tor evaluations and to strengthen library leadership as part Also in January, the search for a Director of ARL's of the overall process of strengthening our libraries. Office of Library and Management Services wassus- The full study findings will be reported in two publica- pended for at least six months. Changing circumstances tions forthcoming from the ARL: SPEC Kit #230 will pre- at ARL have prompted a broad review of the staffing sent the results of the survey describing current processes requirements at the Association over the short- and and documentation from member libraries, and OLMS long-term. OLMS will continue to operate under the Occasional Paper #21 will address analyses and evaluations very able leadership of Kathryn Deiss, Senior Program of current practices and provide guidance for improving Officer for Training and Leadership Development. these processes.
EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF OLMS CALENDAR OF THE ACADEMIC LIBRARY DIRECTOR TRAINING EVENTS tt he request of the ARL Committee on Research 1998 Library Leadership and Management, ARL March 10-13 Aundertook, in the fall of1997,a study of the performance evaluation processes for ARL library LIBRARY MANAGEMENT SKILLS INSTITUTE I: THE MANAGER directors. The study was conducted by George Soete, Seattle, WA ARL/OLMS Organizational Development Consultant, with the advice of Paul Kobulnicky, Director of April 28-30 Libraries, University of Connecticut, and Sarah HUMAN RESOURCES INSTITUTE Michalak, Director of Libraries, University of Utah. Baltimore, MD The study entailed a survey of ARL Directors who were May 4-7 asked to describe and assess current practices, to pro- LIBRARY MANAGEMENT SKILLS INSTITUTE II: vide suggestions for how the processes may be made THE MANAGEMENT PROCESS more effective, and to share relevant documentation Los Angeles, CA from their institutions. Snapshots of the survey findings follow. October 7-9 Formal reviews of Directors are now a permanent FACWITATION SKILLS LNSTITUTE and fast-growing feature of the human resources Washington, DC systems of the parent institutions of ARL libraries October 27-28 of the74directors participating in the study,84% LEADING CHANGE have a formal performance review. Chicago, IL Most reviews(74%)were initiated and conducted by the person to whom the director reported, typically November 16-19 the provost or a vice-president, though this adminis- LIBRARY MANAGEMENT SKILLS INSTITUTE I: trator often involved other participants in the THE MANAGER process. Washington, DC Director reviews are tending to have broader partici- For registration information contact Christine Seebold via email pation, with the most frequently named participants
1 A R L 1 9 6 F EB R U A R Y 1 9 9 8 1 8 De Etta Jones, Diversihj Program Officer
LEADERSI-BP AND CAREER Mentor: Miriam Drake, Georgia Participant: Carlos Rodriguez Institute of Technology Library Science Reference Librarian DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM MATCHES University of California - PARTICIPANTS, RESEARCH TOPICS, Participant Nerea Llamas Riverside 'Assistant Librarian Research Project: How WITH MENTORS University of California-Santa Technology Shapes the Work is underway on the research projectspro- Barbara Quality of Undergraduate Research Project: Evaluating the Research posed by each of the 21 participants in ARL's Instruction need of Faculty Mentor: Camila Alire, Colorado Leadership and Career Development Program. and Students in the State University Library Listed below are the topics and designated mentor of each Humanities Mentor: Joseph Branin, SUNY - Participant Janice Simmons- LCD Program participant. A program is planned for June Stony Brook Libraries Welburn 1998, scheduled in conjunction with the ALA Annual Coordinator Personnel and Conference, where participants will present their projects Participant Johnnieque Diversity Programs (Johnnie) Blackmon Love University of Iowa to their peers, mentors, and the larger library community. Reference/Cultural DiversityResearch Project A Study on the Librarian Relationship Between University of Kansas Academic Libraries and the Participant Maria de Jesus at an Urban ARL Library - Research Project Designing a Ayala-Schueneman Goals on Diversity and the Temple University Program Evaluation Model for Goals of Their Parent Associate Professor Mentor: Shirley Leung, Assessing Effectiveness of Institutions Head of Reference Services University of California-Irvine Diversity Programs in an Texas A&M University- Mentor: Carla Stoffle, The Libraries Academic Library University of Arizona Library Kingsville Mentor: Joan Giesecke, Research Project The Examina- Participant Glendora Johnson- University of Nebraska- Participant Denise Stephens tion of Reference Services as Cooper Lincoln Libraries They Relate to Faculty Geographic Information Associate Librarian coordinator Mentor: Emily Mobley, Purdue University of Buffalo Participant: Thura Mack University Library University of Virginia Library Research Project Reference Associate Professor Research Project Introducing Services and Digital Demands University of Tennessee Participant: Jon Cawthorne Emerging Technology as Mentor: Nancy Eaton, Research Project Providing Service: Implications for Reference/Coordinator for Pennsylvania State University Research and Development Library Outreach Services Libraries Services for Selected ScientificMentor: Susan Nutter, North University of Oregon Fields Using Intelligent Agents Research Project Spoke for the Carolina State University Participant: Kuang-Hwei (Janet) Mentor: Pamela Andre, National Libraries Library: Academic Library Lee-Smeltzer Agricultural Library Outreach Copy Cataloging Manager Mentor: Paula Kaufman, Participant Elayne Walstedter University of Houston Participants: Teresa Neely Reference/Outreach University of Tennessee Libraries Assistant Professor libraries SpecialistFort Lewis College Research Project: A Survey of CSU/Teaching Fellow Research Project: Recruitment of Some Enhancements to the Colorado State University Native Americans and Latinos Participant Vicki Coleman Dublin Core and Their Effect Research Project: Promotion and Instructor/Head, Electronic into the Library Profession, on Access to Internet Tenure and Electronic Primarily in the American Reference Services Resources. Publications Texas A&M University Southwest Mentor: Jennifer Younger, Mentor: Scott Bennett, Yale Mentor: Nancy Baker, Research Project Public Services University Libraries of Notre University Library for the Virtual Library Patron Washington State University Dame Library Mentor: Dana Rooks, University Participant: Neville Durrant of Houston Participant Barbara (Barbi) Lehn Prendergast Participant Valerie Wheat Director of Library Services Associate Branch Librarian Participant: Patrick Jose Dawson Sinte Gleska University Librarian/Coordinator Librarian Ill Reference Smithsonian Institution Research Project To develop a Information Management Research Project Coordinator, document for publication that is Education Head, Collección Tloque Museum/Library both a collection development University of Buffalo Collaborations: A Natural Nahuaque polity to guide acquisitions and Research Project: The University of California - Cultural Partnership an evaluative tool to measure Development of A"Teaching Mentor: Barbara von Wahlde, Santa Barbara progress toward the fulfillment Library" Within the Health Research Project Cataloging and State University of New York of the library's mission. Sciences Library at Buffalo Description of Digital Mentor: Sherrie Schmidt, Arizona Mentor: Stella Bentley, Auburn Resources State University Library University Libraries Mentor: William Gosling, Participant Mark Winston Assistant University librarian University of Michigan Participant Poping Lin Participant: Gloria Rhodes Library Valdosta State University Assistant Engineering & Multicultural Outreach Research Project: A Research Science Librarian for Core Librarian Study of Science and Participant: Tracey Joel Hunter Information Competencies California State University - Engineering Librarians: Reference/ Collection Massachusetts Institute of San Marcos Development Librarian Technology Recruitment, Demographics, Research Project Information and Professional Activities Temple University Research Project The Integration Competencies: A Mentor: James Williams Ill, Research Project A Study of the of Information Competencies Benchmarking Project Information Seeking Behavior University of Colorado with the Training of Innovative Mentor: Ann Prentice, University Libraries of African-American Students Engineers of Maryland-College Park, SIS
ARL 196 FEBRUARY 1998 I, ACTIVITIES G. Jaia Barrett, Deputy Executive Director
ARL DIRECTORY TRACKS NEWSLE11ERS GROWTH IN E-PUBLISHING by Dru Mogge, ARL Electronic Services Coordinator Arts and Humanities 6% Now in its seventh edition, the ARL Directory of Technology Life Sciences Electronic Journals, Newsletters and Academic 21% 16% Discussion Lists continues to document the growth in electronic publishing. This year's Directory Physical includes over 3,400 titles, a 100% increase over last Sciences year's count of 1,689. The number of e-journals (which 6% includes titles classified as "e-zines," or magazines) make up 72% of the total, with 2,459 listings, while Recreation & General Interest e-newsletters account for 955 entries. The lists section Social Sciences 11% (electronic conferences, including discussion lists, news 40% groups, interactive web chat groups, etc.) also grew, from 3,118 entries last year to 3,808 this year, a 22% JOURNALS increase. Technology 1011mints and Humanities 13% One of the striking increases is in peer-reviewed titles. In the first edition of the Directory, published in 1991, 6.4% of the titles listed were identified as peer- reviewed; in 1993, 13.2%; in 1995, 20.6%; and in 1997, Social Sciences 30.7% of the titles in the Directory are so identified. 24% Electronic scholarly publishing is growing as more and more traditional publishers find ways to make their )Life Sciences Recreation & publications available online. While counts are not General Interest 36% available from the Directory for "electronic only" publi- 4% cations, the trend is to continue to make both print and Physical Sciences 13% online versions available. A sign that commercial publishers are joining the ZINES/OTHER trend is the increase in fee-based titles. In 1991, only Arts and Humanities two serial titles in the Directory charged for access. In Technology 179 21% 1995 and 1996, just 10% of the Directory serial titles charged a fee for online access; this year, almost 27% (912 titles) charge a fee. Both the e-journals and the lists that make up Life Sciences 7% the Directory were analyzed for subject content and Social keywords were assigned to entries based on a thesaurus Sciences 23% Physical created especially for the Directory project. The pie Sciences 2% charts show the distribution of subjects across e-journals, e-zines, e-newsletters, and lists. Recreation & General Interest 30% A feature added this year is a complete web version of the Directory. The online version offers users the abili- ty to browse through individual entries or to search for LISTS Arts and Humanities specific items. Search options include searching by title, Technology 19% 21% description, publisher, peer review basis, or subject. Also included online is the thesaurus, thereby allowing TRENDS IN E-SERIALS E-Journals and Life Sciences E-Newsletters 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Social 10% Total 110 133 240 443 675 1689 3414 Sciences 42% Peer-Review 7 15 29 73 139 417 1049 Physical Fee 2 2 6 29 72 168 912 Sciences 5% Based on entries for e-journals and e-newsletters included in annual Recreation & editions of the ARLDirectony General Interest 3% 20 18A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 users to search by specific keywords. All web-accessible e-serials in the Directory have a link from the entry to the NAILDD SALUTES DIG title's actual site. The electronic version of the Directory MEMBERS' ACHIEVEMENTS is available as a stand-alone product, while purchasers of The 1998 ALA Midwinter Meeting in New Orleans print copies automatically receive access to the e-version. marked the beginning of the five-year anniversary The e-version is updated on an ongoing basis. of the ARL North American Interlibrary Loan and Each year, ARL chooses a particularly relevant or Document Delivery (NAILDD) Project. The goal of the noteworthy article on electronic scholarly publishing for Project is to promote ILL/DD system developments that inclusion in the Directory. The 7th Edition article is will improve the delivery of library materials to users at Judy Luther's "Full Text Journal Subscriptions: An costs that are sustainable to libraries. To seek the Evolutionary Process." Previously published in the involvement of the private sector, NAILDD formed June 1997 issue of Against the Grain, Luther's article a Developers/Implementors Group (DIG); over 70 reviews options offered to libraries by commercial for-profit and not-for-profit organizations and projects publishers, subscription agents, and not-for-profit now participate. publishers. Luther addresses issues such as licensing A five-year status report for NAILDD highlights packages and pricing structures, as well as various and salutes the responsiveness of some of themore types of format. active DIG members to advance the Project's technical As in previous editions, the Directory is divided into priorities. The organizations highlighted in the report two major sections. Section One, Electronic Journals are: OCLC; RLG; The Library Corporation; Ameritech; and Newsletters, was compiled by Dru Mogge, ARL A-G Canada; Innovative Interfaces, Inc.; Network Electronic Services Coordinator, and the ARL Directory Support, Inc./Relais International; the National Library Staff. Section Two, Academic and Professional of Canada; and the British Library Document Supply Discussion Lists, was compiled by Diane K. Kovacs, Centre. The sustained commitment of these organiza- Kovacs Consulting, and the Directory Team. The tions, and the resources they invest to achieve the Directory is available for purchase as either a print and Project's goals, are acknowledged as key contributions electronic package (ARL member libraries, $65;non- to the future success of library programs and services. members, $95) or electronic access only (ARL member The report was distributed during the ALA Midwinter libraries, $50; nonmembers, $70). Consult either the Conference and is published on ARL's website
21 A R L1 9 6 F E B R U A R Y1 9 9 8 - , ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions (US ISSN 1050-6098) is published six times Executive Director Duane E. Webster a year by the Association of Research Libraries, Editor: G. Jaia Barrett, Deputy Executive Director 21 Dupont Circle, Washington, DC 20036. Copy Manager: Karen A. Wetzel 202-296-2296 FAX 202-872-0884 Designer: Kevin Osborn, Research & Design, Ltd., Arlington, VA
ARL CALENDAR
1998 1999 March 19-20 ARL Licensing Workshop February 11-12 ARL Board Meeting Chapel Hill, NC Washington, DC April 14-15 Coalition for Networked May 11-14 ARL Board and Information Spring Task Force Membership Meeting Meeting Kansas City, MO Arlington, VA July 26-27 ARL Board Meeting April 15-17 Net '98 Washington, DC Washington, DC October 12-15 ARL Board and May 12-15 ARL Board and Membership Meeting Membership Meeting Washington, DC Eugene, OR June 25- July 2 American Library Association Washington, DC July 27-28 ARL Board Meeting OLMS 1998 Washington, DC CALENDAR OF TRAINING EVENTS October 13-16 ARL Board and SEE PAGE 16. Membership Meeting Washington, DC October 13-16 Educom '98 Orlando, FL December 8-11 CAUSE '98 Seattle, WA 22 1
A BIMONTHLY NEWSLETTER OF RESEARCH LIBRARYISSUES AND ACTIONS Special Issue: ISSUES IN RESEARCH LIBRARY MEASUREMENT
by Julia C. Blixrud, Senior Program Officer
performance measures, quality assessment, it is a vivid example of how ARL's descriptive public accountability, benchmarkingthese data, absent any other measures, becomes a have become common words and phrases in double-edged sword. higher education and government literature in the For the last five years, the ARL Statistics and 1990s. The environment in which ARL members Measurement Program has therefore been and many other libraries operate has changed engaged in efforts to investigate new measures. from one of natural acceptance of value by virtue In a 1992 article, "New Directions for ARL of function to one in which all units must substan- Statistics," Sarah Pritchard, then ARL Associate tiate their worth. This is no easy task. For much Executive Director, reminded us that, though of research library history, the functions of build- there is a need to find new ways to assess library ing, housing, and making collections available performance,"some things are not measurable, are were what libraries were expected to do. irrelevant or too difficult to measure, or are only Quantitative and extensiveness measures were meaningful in a local context" (ARL 161). the means by which libraries were measured. As Nonetheless, we have not been deterred from con- long-time readers of this newsletter know, ARL tinuing our investigation, with the hope of sifting has a history of providing descriptive (i.e., quanti- through the possible measures in search of those tative) data about Association members. These that are both relevant and meaningful in either a data are, in fact, the oldest and most comprehen- local context or in comparison with other libraries. sive continuing library statistical series in North This issue provides a snapshot of issues and America and are widely used for tracking trends activities in the area of performance measure- in scholarly communication. Today, those same ment. However, as space and resources limit us measures are also often seen as negative pressures from being able to provide a census of all known on libraries to acquire printed materials in an age measurement activities here, the ARL Statistics when resource sharing and access to electronic and Measurement Program has built a website on information are so prevalent. performance measures, available at
of new performance measures. Plans are also being Washington and ARL Visiting Program Officer, and made to hold an ARL conference on performance Julia Blixrud, ARL, describe an ARL project to track measures in the future. institutional and library investments in electronic This issue begins with an article by Martha resources. This project, supported by the Council on Kyrillidou, Senior Program Officer for Statistics and Library and Information Resources, has been using Measurement, providing a context for the increased ARL's supplementary statistics questionnaire as a interest in performance measures within the higher edu- testbed to gather data in this emerging statistical area. cation community. This article, adapated from ARL's Kendon Stubbs, University of Virginia, describes annual publication, Developing Indicators for Academic changes made to the interactive website for ARL statis- Library Performance: Ratios from the ARL Statistics, also tics, hosted by the University of Virginia. He further makes recommendations regarding new performance suggests ways in which these data can be used for local indicators that research libraries might consider. comparative purposes. The article, "In Search of New Measures," empha- Libraries are not the only part of the research insti- sizes the need to balance continuing and emerging reali- tution looking at how best to assess performance; other ties in the assessment of libraries. Written by William campus officials are interested, as well. Joan Lippincott, Crowe, University of Kansas, and Martha Kyrillidou, Associate Executive Director, Coalition for Networked this article documents how ARL's Statistics and Information, describes individual institution efforts to Measurement Program is responding to the need for assess networked information services for the CNI new measures while retaining the important descriptive measurement project, an outgrowth of the publication Assessing the Academic Networked Environment: data collection activities that have long served to high- light research library trends. Strategies and Options. Much of the activity for performance measures One area of particular interest is in the measure- development is taking place outside the North American ment of electronic resources. Tim Jewell, University of borders. Amos Lakos, University of Waterloo, attended the second Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and CONTENTS Information Services on behalf of ARL this past fall. SPECIAL ISSUE ON MEASURES His report summarizes some of the conference's papers and discussions that included areas to which authors An Overview of Performance Measures in suggested libraries should focus their attention. Higher Education and Libraries 3 ARL continues its exploration of performance measurement for research libraries. The articles presented here are intended to stimulate interest and In Search of New Measures 8 provide information about these difficult issues. The assessment movement in higher education has been The ARL Membership Criteria Index 9 steadily gaining momentum, and several states have already begun linking funding to performance (see "Assessment Policies in Higher Education," Change Interactive Peer Group Comparisons EMar./Apr. 19981). We in libraries have been successful Through the Web 11 in using quantitative and extensiveness measures to differentiate collections and services, justify funding Understanding Electronic Resources increases, and describe libraries for many years, but and Library Materials Expenditures: comparative effectiveness measures have remained An Incomplete Picture 12 elusive. We must take up the challenge to develop our own measures or they will be determined for us by others. Assessing the Academic Networked Environment 14
The State of Performance Measurement in Libraries: A Report from the 2nd Northumbria International Conference 16 24
A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 AN OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE greater federal role in institutional accreditation or if such MEASURES IN HIGHER EDUCATION a system might be based on "results" and "performance." Whether it is the federal government or some other entity AND LIBRARIES that will undertake the responsibility to define "quality" by Martha Kyrillidou, Senior Program Officer for higher education in the U.S., critics of higher education for Statistics and Measurement have warned that, if "the academy does not respond, the n April 4, 1997 article in The Chronicle of Higher public appetite for results will expand and crystallize Education reported that the South Carolina around the use of external performance indicators tomea- A.General Assembly approved a law institutinga sure results. And the jury is still out on the results system in which state appropriations to a public college desired."' To some extent, this is already happening would be based on how well the institution performs.' through the crude but widespread ranking systems that That action is one of many pieces of evidence that higher popular magazines like U.S. News and World Reportare pro- education in North America is being pressed for greater moting. In the 1997 issue dedicated to ranking colleges, the accountability and improved attention to quality. editors point out that "the nation cannot afford to let high- Legislators in many states are moving toward perfor- er education become less and less affordable for more and mance incentives based, at least in part, on whether uni- more students. The high cost of college is no longer just an versities and colleges are accomplishing stated goals. academic affair; it is a national concern as well."' A public concerned with the balance between costs and A recent report that presents the results of a two-year benefits of higher education demandsmore information study by the Commission on National Investment in on institutional operations and outcomes. In particular, Higher Education highlights the fact that the "present there is a great need to demonstrate the extent to which course of higher educationin which costs and demand institutions are meeting their goals and objectives, and are rising much faster than fundingis unsustainable." whether these goals and objectives are aligned with soci- The authors call upon the "nation to address the fiscal ety's needs. A plethora of "useful" measures and other crisis now, before millions of Americans are denied efforts has flooded the literature of higher education. access to a college education" and they recommend Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each institution to "increased public-funding of higher education and define and describe its own goals, to place them in the wide-ranging institutional reforms." In particular, context of peer group comparisons, and to demonstrate they articulate the following five recommendations: to the public the position it holds in higher education. America's political leadersthe President, The concepts of accountability and qualityassess- Congress, governors, mayors, and other state and ment in higher education constitute an international local officialsshould reallocate public resources phenomenon. National education systems callupon to reflect the growing importance of education to universities to establish performance indicators to the economic prosperity and social stability of the measure progress towards the establishment of national United States. goals. Universities increasingly are asked to describe in Institutions of higher education should make specific terms their contribution towards the national major structural changes in their governance welfare and the relation between the welfare ofa coun- system so that decision makers can assess the try and university teaching and research. In Europe and relative value of departments, programs, and Australia, central governments are involved directly in systems in order to reallocate scarce resources. establishing "indicators." In the United Kingdom, for As part of the overall restructuring, colleges and example, quality control, quality audit, and quality universities should pursue greater mission assessment are being carried out by the Higher differentiation to streamline their services and Education Quality Council and the three Higher better respond to the changing needs of their Education Funding Councils. A new centralagency to constituencies. gather and analyze data, the Higher Education Statistics Colleges and universities should develop sharing Agency (HESA), has also been established. More specifi- arrangements to improve productivity. cally, library performance indicators have flourished in It is time to redefine the appropriate level of the United Kingdom as the restructuring of the British education for all American workers in the 21st higher education system proceeds.' The European century. All citizens planning to enter the Commission has been supporting an effort to createa workforce should be encouraged to pursueasa reliable statistical base for libraries in Europe. In minimumsome form of postsecondary education December 1997, the Commission hosteda workshop to or training.' focus attention on statistics that address service quality.3 To some extent, these recommendationsare the In the U.S., there have been discussions abouta result of a fundamental societal transformation from the 25 A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 Continued
Industrial Age to the Information Age and the correspond- Statistics in 1995. In 1994, ARL also began distributing an ing challenges and opportunities it presents for higher annual report on selected ratios!' Efforts here are devel- education. Performance measures are becoming the oping, in both senses of the word, i.e., they are still method of choice to track for the transformation of higher primitive and under development. education. Critics are calling for the development of a Institutional data collected through the ARL Statistics compelling vision for learning in the 21st century, a vision have also been packaged into an electronic publication that would transform higher education by realigning that offers interactive statistical analysis through which it with three conditions: "1) the changing nature of infor- one can compute any conceivable ratio or performance mation, knowledge, and scholarship; 2) the needs of indicator based on the data of the collected variables!' individual learners; and 3) the changing nature of work The interactive electronic edition of the ARL Statistics, and learning."' prepared by the Geospatial and Statistical Data Center at In the discussion regarding performance indicators in the University of Virginia, can best be described as a basic the U.S., the primary focus has been on cost efficiency and decision support system (DSS) that can answer questions access to undergraduate education as well as on the long- managers may have at the cross-institutional level, for term transformation of higher education and its effect on instance, by comparing the performance of one institution graduate education and research. There is a real push for to another or to a peer group through a variety of simple higher education institutions in the U.S. to be judged by a (ratio analysis) or complex (multivariate analysis) statisti- direct, observable connection to the countly's econbmic cal techniques (see Kendon Stubbs' related article). welfare. Contemporary indicators that point toward this In addition to ARL's efforts, there have been a number trend are: a stronger emphasis on scientific and technical of projects by other organizations that have tried to devel- education; efforts towards better management of the intel- op indicators or "benchmarks" for academic library opera- lectual property produced at universities; investments in tions, oftentimes within a larger institutional framework. the Next Generation Internet (NGI);8 private initiatives, It is important that, as such library indicators are devel- like Internet2;9 and the privatization of the National oped, they address the strengths and weaknesses of the Information Infrastructure (NH). different measures. Two important activities are taking place at the Performance Indicators international level. One that does not limit itself to in Academic Libraries academic libraries is the work done through ISO 11620, Academic research libraries also feel the pressures that a recently approved international standard on Library have resulted from the shift from a management system Performance Indicators!' It specifies a set of 29 indicators accustomed to increased revenue and growth to systems grouped in the following areas: (a) user satisfaction; (b) that demand more evidence of efficiency and effective- public services, which includes general indicators as well ness, accompanied by fundamental transformations. as specific indicators on providing documents, retrieving A 1992 study conducted by The Andrew W. Mellon documents, lending documents, document delivery from Foundation analyzed the economic trends of research external sources, inquiry and reference services, informa- libraries in the context of the larger academic and pub- tion searching, and facilities; and (c) technical services, lishing trends and identified historical and technological including indicators in the area of acquiring, processing, challenges that affect and transform academic libraries!' and cataloging documents. Notable points in this pro- The Mellon study found that the explosion in the quanti- posed standard are its initial emphasis on user satisfac- ty of desirable published material and a rapid escalation tion; its inclusion of cost-effectiveness indicators; its clear of unit prices for those items jeopardizes the traditional and distinct way of describing each indicator, accompa- research library mission of creating and maintaining nied by suggestions regarding the methodology to be large, self-sufficient collections for their users. The study used in collecting the data; and a description indicating also recognized the potential of information technologies how to most accurately interpret each indicator. to transform the ways libraries organized collections and Related to the ISO 11620 effort, but with a special services. Updates of these trends are charted and pre- emphasis on academic libraries, is the International sented through the annual publication of ARL Statistics." Federation of Library Associations and Institutions's As in higher education, libraries have also recognized (IFLA) development of international guidelines for the need for "output and performance measures." ARL performance measurement in academic libraries!' responded to these calls by including data on circulation, Seventeen select indicators are identified, with an instructional sessions, and reference transactions, togeth- emphasis on indicators that could be applicable interna- er with interlibraiy loan and document delivery statistics tionally to all types of academic libraries, concentrating in the supplementary portions of ARL Statistics. Despite on measuring effectiveness (but not cost-effectiveness).'6 some concerns about the validity and reliability of such Both ISO 11620 and the IFLA guidelines are important measures, these measures were added to the main ARL works that bring attention to the issue of library performance
A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 26 measurement at the international level with an aim to To protect the confidentiality of individual institu- promote acceptance of performance measurement. tions, both Minter and NACUBO report ratios forgroups However, both efforts tend to emphasize indicators that of institutions. Non-disclosure of institutional data require special effort to be collected, and, although they works against the understanding of data anomalies and are useful in making historical comparisons within a library the subsequent correction of reported errors. Although as long as the individual library's policies do not change, ratios may be misinterpreted by those who are not famil- their usefulness is limited at the cross-institutional level iar with an individual institution's goals and circum- since local policies (such as loan periods, number of books stances, there is a value in disclosure. The challenge of authorized for borrowing simultaneously, differing policies a disclosure strategy involving individual institutional for different constituenciesstudents, graduate students, data entails investment of effort in educating the public, faculty, etc.) invalidate such comparisons. legislators, and university administrators about how to An ambitious effort undertaken by the National interpret numbers related to libraries and other higher Association of College and University Business Officers education functions. (NACUBO) aims to develop benchmarks for 39 function- Factors Affecting the Reliability al areas in universities." The "library" is justone of the and Validity of Data 39 "functional areas" for which datawere collected and is There are at least three major issues that need to be taken sandwiched between "legal affairs" and "mail room." ARL advised NACUBO on the development of the into account in assessing the reliability and validity of library portion of the survey and, as a result, the data generally and of academic library data in particular: NACUBO library survey is almost a duplicate of the consistency across institutions and through time; easevs. utility in gathering data; and values, meaning, and ARL survey. Unfortunately, some have taken the data measurements. collected by NACUBO as "indicators of efficiency" and "best practices," even as indicators of "quality," despite Consistency ARL's long-standing caution against such interpretations. Lack of consistency in the way data are collected from Ratio analysis, which is the way most of the resultswere institution to institution and in the way data are collected reported by NACUBO, is not benchmarking and does not over time within the same institution creates problems answer questions; ratios of this sort provide a basis upon for describing cross-sectional comparisons and time- which to ask questions. series trends. With no processes in place to guarantee Another organization conducting performance compliance with standard definitions, comparability of measurement initiatives is John Minter Associates. Their data across institutions may legitimately be questioned. efforts to develop indicators in colleges and universities The existence of the extensive "Footnotes" section of the are built upon the Integrated Postsecondary Education ARL Statistics publication testifies to the importance of Data System (WEDS) and thus are published with the recognizing the limitations of reported data. same delay that afflicts WEDS surveys. Academic Library One possible way to overcome inconsistencies from Statistical Norms 1994 is the latest of a series of publica- institution to institution is to develop standards for report- tions issued by Minter since 1988 using the biennial IPEDSing data across common automated systems, suchas those Academic Libraries datafile to report 101 "measures"on that have been developed in higher education for transfer- academic libraries. The publication reports ratios for ring student records. In order to develop parallel applica- different types of libraries in groups that are basedon the tions for libraries, at least to the level of sophistication that Carnegie Classification System. The authors, however, exists for student records, concerns such as the confiden- understand the limitations of ratio analyses and clearly tiality and privacy issues related to patron records and point out in the 1992 introduction that "each comparison Internet transaction logs will have to be addressed. takes on meaning only in light of management goals. Ease vs. Utility Does the measure exceed, meet, or fall short of the desired Performance indicators are being developed from data goal? Why? In the absence of a stated goal the question that can be easily gathered. Of course, what iseasy to then becomes, 'Is the position of thismeasure where we measure is not necessarily what is desirable to measure. wish it to be? Why?' Operatingmeasures are not of equal It is always tempting to set goals based on the data that importance nor of the same importance to different insti- are gathered, rather than developing a data-gathering tutions. It is unlikely that an institution will give equal system linked to assessing progress towards meeting consideration to all 101 measures. Institutional context established goals. For example, ARL's ratios report lists and administrative vision are two reliable guidesto the thirty ratios that are derived from the existing data that importance of particular measures. Over time, the focus ARL collects on an annual basis. Because the ARL data on particular measures will shift as goals are achieved and reflect the historical and traditional roles of academic institutional context changes."' libraries, the ratios calculated and printed in this report
27 A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 1. I 116 A Continued
are primarily input indicatorsrelated to levels of thirty ratios published by ARL and calculate interactively staffing, collections, and expenditures. The difference any conceivable ratio among the ARL data elements. between these ratios and the raw data published in the ARL Statistics is that certain ratios can reflect advance- Recommendations for Research Libraries ment towards specific, local objectives. The ratios can be In addition to the data currently collected in the ARL viewed as supporting tools to assess progress towards Statistics, it would probably be useful for ARL libraries to achieving a certain objective, but the final judgment start adopting some cross-institutional performance indi- about the importance of a specific indicator must also cators from the recently approved ISO 11620 standard take into account environmental factors that are part of and the IRA guidelines. The major advantage of the the local institutional culture. indicators proposed through these sources is that there is a standard interpretation for them regarding the value of Values and Meaning services. In particular, at the cross-institutional level ARL There is a danger of blurring the distinction between the libraries can identify those indicators from the above value system that is reflected in certain indicators and sources that are impervious to variations in local library the indicators themselves. For example, in developing policies and explore their usefulness. a system of measures to track library performance From the list of twenty-nine indicators in the ISO regarding the cost of serial subscriptions or ofmono- 11620 standard and the seventeen indicators listed in the graphs, there are certain values behind the numbers IFLA guidelines, the following performance indicators that can be fundamentally different from library to could be easily adopted by ARL institutions: library. These values and the interpretation of themea- (a) The IFLA guidelines define market penetrationor sures therefore may have meaning only in the context percentage of target population reached as the of local circumstances. For example,a low unit cost for proportion of the library's potential users who serial subscriptions may be extremely important forone actually use the library!' Although it would be institution, while another may assert that high-quality more difficult to get an overall use measure of the service can be guaranteed only by acquiring the most various services (e.g., reference, circulation, in- costly scientific and technical journals, thus yieldinga house use), it should be relatively easy for a library higher unit cost per serial subscription. to calculate with their online circulation system the Another ratio that is often calculated is library extent of their circulation services' market penetra- expenditures per student or faculty: Does the library tion for each primary user groupfaculty, gradu- that spends more per student or per faculty offer better ate students, and undergraduates. Most ARL service? Or is this a sign of inefficiency? What is the libraries, then, should be able to easily adopt such relationship between library spending levels,usage, and a "market penetration of circulation" measure. educational achievement or user satisfaction? The data (b) Although less important than market penetration ARL collects cannot answer the latter questions; themean- and recognizing that ARL libraries have a strong ing and value assigned to these ratios must be developed archival function, collection turnover or collection locally. Thus, one of the limitations of this approach is use would be a useful indicator. The IFLA guide- the absence of an interpretation for each indicator. lines suggest combining the number of loans within The movement calling for performance indicators a year and the number of in-house uses (which can which appears to be a near-universal phenomenon be problematic for those libraries that do not keep derives in part from the need to definea value system for in-house use statistics). However, the ISO 11620 higher education in an era of unprecedented change and standard restricts the definition of this indicator to technological innovation. As ARL further explores insti- the number of registered loans in a specified collec- tutional value systems and establishes measures that tion divided by the total number of documents in reflect these values, the Statistics and Measurement the specified collection, ignoring in-house use. Program hopes to be better able to define andmeasure Also, to control variations in the loan period that quality in higher education and in academic and research would affect renewal numbers, it might be advis- libraries. As a first step, the ratios that ARL publishescan able to restrict the total number of loaned items to serve a dual purpose, although a limited one: the number of initial loans, excluding renewals. (a) to identify whether a relative position in the (c) Extremely important, although not as easily applic- rankings for a ratio is that expected and desired able, is the measurement of user satisfaction asa for an institution, and performance indicator. Its applicability across (b) to compare an institution against itspeers, institutions needs to be further explored given the especially over time. variations in the services provided by each library, ARL's previously mentioned electronic edition of the but it is nonetheless a critical indicator of whether annual statistics allows a reader to move beyond those users' expectations are satisfied or not. Both the
A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 IFLA guidelines and the ISO 11620 standard 2See, for example, Ian Winkworth's, "Performance Indicators," in recommend a five-point scale and suggest Librarianship and Information Work Worldwide (Graham McKenzie and measuring both general user satisfaction as well Ray Prychirch, eds., London: Bower Saur, 1993: 171-191). 3 as satisfaction with specific service areas. The An executive summary of the workshop can be found at:
A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 Continued
IN SEARCH OF NEW MEASURES and document delivery? Are these expenditures made This article was originally prepared by Martha Kyrillidou, with funds diverted from traditional budget linesor are Senior Program Officer for Statistics and Measurement, and they newly appropriated funds? How many libraries are William Crowe, Vice Chancellor for Information Services and offering "innovative" services? Does the availability of Dean of Libraries, University of Kansas, for discussion by the any new services have implications on library use or ARL Board at their February 1997 meeting. performance? For example, in libraries that provide In 1994, a new strategic objective was adopted by the electronic reserves or user-initiated interlibrary loan, has ARL membership to describe and measure "the per- use of the services increased faster than in other libraries formance of research libraries and their contributions and/or are the materials available to users faster and/or to teaching, research, scholarship and community ser- at less cost? The Program has taken steps to address these vice." This action ratified new directions for the ARL issues. A planning document was presented and ratified Statistics and Measurement Program to expand beyond at the October 1995 membership meeting.' The Program measures of "input" (such as collection size, number of has also been successful in attracting external funding and staff, expenditures, etc.) and to search for new kinds of talented Visiting Program Officers to help refine these measures of library performance and impact. This article questions.' documents the progress in meeting this objective. Although there is a better understanding of the ques- tions that need to be asked in this changing environment, Old Wine and New Bottles the answers continue to be elusive and/or unstable. For The seeds for this initiative were rooted in an article by example, Timothy Jewell's analysis confirms that data Sarah Pritchard in the March 1992 issue of the ARL being collected about electronic resources expenditures newsletter, in which she concluded that, "ARL's active show that most ARL libraries are spending a relatively program of statistical analysis, research and management small portion of their budget on electronic resources.' development" must center on "maintaining the useful Although this portion is increasing rapidly, the change is approaches of the past and exploring responses to the not consistent from year to year nor-from member library challenges of the present and the future." to member library. In October of 1994, there was an ARL membership The challenge, then, is not in describing any single program on the topic of performance measures as change, but rather to develop quantifiable trend analysis incentives for redesigning library services. William in multiple institutions that can be executed from year to Crowe, Committee Chair from 1992-96, set the stage for year in a consistent way. There is an often unarticulated the program by quoting from the then recently released assumption that change in libraries is moving in one Association of American Universities Research Libraries direction. However, data from ARL libraries indicate thus Project task force reports, which state that "there is no far that change seems to be happening in rather haphaz- likely substitution of new measures for the old measures, ard and chaotic ways, both within individual libraries and but rather an additive function, a balancing function,as we move in this transition period." across institutions. Some leaders suggest that it is the rate of change creating confusion rather than change itself. Striking the right balance between measuring the To illustrate the complexity of tracking the emerging continuing and the emerging realities of the modern realities of research libraries and this rate of change, one research library is at the cornerstone of the ARL Statistics and Measurement Program operations. Research need only look back to the early 1990s, when many libraries' traditional realities drive the ARL measures of libraries provided access to bibliographic databases by printed collections, budgets, and staffing. The emerging tapeload to campus mainframes or by stand-alone or realities drive ARL's agenda to seek credible indicators of networked CD-ROMs. More recently, libraries have the steady growth and high demand for the complex mix begun to provide either gateway or direct access toven- of new services, consortial arrangements, electronic infor- dor and publisher full-text databases of journal articles and monographs. Libraries are also integrating access to ' mation, the influence of the Internet, and the ways in which students and faculty interact with each other and various electronic information resources through a WWW these newer channels of information. interface, making it possible for the traditional library OPACs to link to various full-text resources. It has been Emerging Realities and New Trends impossible to provide consistent, quantitative indicators When exploring emerging realities, the first challenge is of such trends because of the rapidity of the changes and to pose the questions that most need to be answered in because they are, by their nature, not comparable to previ- order to describe the transformations underway. How ous measures. We are faced with a series of qualitative much do libraries spend on electronic resources? Oncon- revolutions, basic "paradigm shifts" that are changing sortia? Electronic serials? Computer hardware and soft- what research libraries do and in many respects are ware? On digitization for preservation? Interlibrary loan changing how research libraries fulfill their mission. 3 0
8, A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 Certainly, this environment is not conducive to identi- fying consistent measures among 121 research libraries. However, in response to those who seek quick answers to THE ARL MEMBERSHIP new measures, there have been some ideas, although not a CRITERIA INDEX widespread acceptance of them (for example, a screen cap- ture could be considered a potential unit of measurement, The criteria for academic library membership similar to a library gate count). Various software "coun- in the Association of Research Libraries are ters" tell us, for instance, how many computers accessed a based partly on quantitative data that provide web page, how many bytes were transferred, and how a view of the range of resources deployed among the many sessions were established. Are these useful mea- existing members of the Association. Statistical sures?' Some authors argue that they are and havepro- analysis shows a high degree of homogeneity in posed that "a centralized voluntary reporting structure for respect to five data categories: Web server usage statistics, coordinated by the Association volumes held of Research Libraries' (ARL's) Office of Statistics, would volumes added, gross provide a significant service to academic librarians."' current serials The User's Point of View total library expenditures total professional plus support staff Most libraries are aware of the need to measure not only Each year ARL uses the statistical method of the use of their resources, but also the effectiveness of principal component analysis to identify the corn- their library services. In particular, how are libraryusers monalities in the membership. The analysis is con- benefiting from their interaction with the library? To help ducted on the 35 charter members of ARL and pro- address this question, the ARL Statistics and duces coefficients, or weights, for each of the five Measurement Program initiated a series of training events data categories. When the data for a given library to help library staff collect information from their users to are multiplied by the weights and summed, the better inform their management decisions. In the long result is a "score" for that library. This process of run, if higher education wants to measure library multiplying by weights and summing is carried out "impact" we will need to initiate longitudinal studies, for for each ARL academic library. The resulting scores example, by questioning and tracking individuals from comprise what is known as the ARL Membership grades K-12 through their undergraduate/graduate study Criteria Index. The term "score" in this context is and as alumni in order to assess how their lives and work not a judgment about the library's quality or perfor- may have been affected by their library experience. mance. "Score" is a term from principal component In the meantime, many libraries have found value in and factor analysis that refers to the summation of conducting user surveys and using the results to assess data. The ARL index score in effect aggregates the current and to devise new library programs and services. five measures of size and resources. Each year the Some ARL members have used the same survey instru- current year's data in the five categories are pub- ment, offering a possible opportunity for cross-institution- lished in The Chronicle of Higher Education, arranged al comparisons. ARL showcased how libraries are mak- in descending rank order by the ARL Index scores. ing use of user surveys as new measures in a 1997 publi- The weights and data categories can also be cation and continues to promote this strategy by offeringa applied to the data of non-ARL libraries. This tech- workshop on the methodology of user surveys.' nique is one of the tests used to determine potential The Heritage members of the Association. Candidates for mem- A core question that has been posed by some ARLmem- bership are required to have a score on the ARL bers also helps frame the issue: Should we stop collecting index scale of at least -1.65 for the most recent four the established annual data series and instead invest all years in order to be considered. This criterion was staff efforts in exploring new areas? Is collecting and established to ensure that new members share the publishing data on collections, expenditures, staffing, and essential characteristics of the existing members in services holding us back? What is the current value of regard to the five measures of size. The membership our investments in the ARL Statistics, ARL Annual Salary criteria also include other requirements to ensure the Survey, "Library Expenditures as a Percent of E&G," and homogeneity of the membership. See
1 A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 ASURES--- Continued aging in the library profession and calculated retirement Striking a Balance projections.' Martha Kyrillidou received permission to Activities undertaken by the Statistics and Measurement study earnings differentials and hierarchical segregation Program include collecting, refining, and making use of in ARL libraries using the same dataset. Using the ARL the traditional data while simultaneously searching for Statistics, a secondary annual report is published contain- new measures. ing thirty selected ratios that ARL directors have identi- The analyses to date indicate that access measures fied as useful indicators for examining progress towards are best developed locally. Ratios, user survey data, local goals and objectives.' Maximizing the investments and service transaction data complement the traditional in ARL's annual statistical data has proven a verysuccess- quantitative data in providing an overall picture of ful strategy that helps managers develop a better under- library input and output. As the library and its con- standing of current trends in their institutions. stituent community reach consensus on how to best ARL Membership Index measure the expenditures, collections, and use of elec- When reviewing the ARL Statistics and Measurement tronic resources, these additional measures can be Program activities, one cannot escape a discussion of the added to a library's collective dataset, as well. ARL Membership Criteria Index, one of ARL's most pub- Our challenge each year is to learn from our experi- licized and controversial products (see accompanying ences how to improve ARL measures. As our members' sidebar). The Index serves as a measure of thecommon- environment changes, ARL is adjusting program goals ality of new members with the founding ARL member and adapting measures to suit the emerging realities of libraries. It is a composite measure of volumes held, vol- research libraries. Douglas Bennett, President, Earlham umes added gross, current serials, total expenditures, and College, and former Vice-President of the American professional plus support staff. The Index is nota mea- Council of Learned Societies, was invited to comment sure of a library's services, the quality of its collections, or on ARL's search for new research library measures. He its success in meeting the needs of users. noted that "we need goals in order to measure progress Three out of the five variables that comprise the toward them, but at present we do not have adequate Membership Index encompass investments in theemerg- goals, or ultimate goals, with regard to what universities ing library realities. For example, "current serials" isa [and libraries] should do." He further cautioned the measure that includes not only print journals, but elec- library community to "avoid premature closure. Keep tronic ones as well; "total expenditures" incorporates experimenting because we are unlikely to settle into expenditures for electronic investments; and "staffing" comfortable grooves anytime is an essential composition of both the old and thenew. ' Proceedings of the 125th Membership Meeting, Association of The ARL Membership Index is published by The Research Libraries, 1996. p. 35. Chronicle of Higher Education every year. A number of 2 see
The median, average, high, low, and other statisticscan _ be displayed for any variable of any academic libraryor I-71 96044 *ad group of libraries for the past35years. Users can also Association of Research Libraries Statistics Ranked Lists for Academic Institutions select data from Canada or by census regions of the U.S. I Riot. ....1,4 9.0, .1999 The URL for the site is:
BEST COPY AVNLABLE A R L 19 7 3 3 A P R I L 19 9 8 11 Continued . . UNDERSTANDING ELECTRONIC definitions to more systematically collect information about the transformation of research library collections. RESOURCES AND LIBRARY Timothy D. Jewell has been serving as a Visiting MATERIALS EXPENDITURES: Program Officer for the project by analyzing data from AN INCOMPLETE PICTURE ARL's main and supplementary surveys and by talking by Julia C. Blixrud, Senior Program Officer, and with member libraries about how to measure the invest- Timothy D. Jewell, Electronic Resources Coordinator, ment being made in electronic resources. University of Washington Libraries ARL has had a supplementary statistics question- Questions asked both of ARL generally and of naire since 1984. This survey serves as a testbed for ARL member libraries individually are: How developing questions and for gathering new forms of much are research libraries spending for elec- data. Questions asked on this survey can be subsequent- tronic resources collectively and how much on average? ly added to the main statistics survey, dropped from con- How does an individual institution's expenditures for sideration due to an inability to collect reliable data, or electronic resources compare with other research modified over several years while determining the best libraries? Such questions are to be expected as libraries means by which to ask them. The reports from the sup- move into a digital environment, but simple and credi- plementary statistics survey are not generally published ble answers remain elusive. Since fall of 1996, and with because, due to their experimental nature, the results are the support of the Council on Library and Information not considered sufficiently reliable. They are, however, Resources and the University of Washington Libraries, made available to member libraries for their information. the ARL Statistics and Measurement Program has been Data on expenditures for electronic resources were first exploring the character and nature of library investment requested as part of this testbed survey in 1992-93, with in electronic resources in order to develop standard questions on expenditures for (a) computer files and
ELECTRONIC RESOURCES AND ARL LIBRARY MATERIALS EXPENDITURES/ 1992/93-1995/96 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 Computer File Expenditures Total $14,147,625 $20,132,553 $22,030,727 $24,609,821 Average $172,532 $236,854 $249,286 $253,709 Median $148,158 $212,936 $226,318 $210,890 Electronic Serial Expenditures Total $11,847,577 $15,170,972 Average $188,057 $174,379 Median $156,754 $148,166 Electronic Resources Expenditures (total of above) Total $14,147,625 $20,132,553 $33,878,304 $39,780,793 Average $172,532 $236,854 $349,261 $364,961 Median $148,158 $212,936 $278,404 $301,992 Library Materials Expenditures (for respondents) Total $393,271,073 $425,287,651 $489,664,539 $571,145,986 Average $4,795,989 $5,003,384 $5,380,929 $5,654,911 Median $4,242,887 $4,527,122 $4,714,384 $4,975,353
E-Resource $ as Percent of 3.60% 4.73% 6.92% 6.97% Library Materials Expenditures
N. (of 108 Academic ARLs 82 85 97 101 through 94-95, 109 in 95-96)
34 BEST CUPY AVAILABLE t2 A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 search services; (b) document delivery/interlibrary loan; library expenditures for the prior two years were higher (c) computer hardware and software; and (d) bibliograph- than reported. In addition, after having thoroughly ic utilities, networks, and consortia. A fifth questionon reviewed the survey questions'intent, and by reviewing expenditures for electronic serials was asked beginning one institution's responses and consulting with other in 1994-95. librarians, Mr. Jewell concludes that local record-keeping The 1992-93 question on expenditures for "Computer practices made it difficult to respond to the question Files and Search Services" was defined to collect dataon accurately and that, as a result, many investments in "expenditures for software and machine-readable materi- electronic resources may have been understated. It also als considered part of the collections, whether purchased seems likely that some expenditures in this area are or leased," and expenditures for online database search- actually being paid out of a library's operations funds, es. It excluded expenses for library system and staff soft- which would theoretically not be reported in eitherques- ware, and for "bibliographic utilities, networks and con- tion (this suggestion was endorsed by several people sortia," and, according to the instructions, only those who attended an ARL survey coordinator meeting), and expenses that would have been counted in the main possibly being paid out of "Consortial and Network ARL Statistics survey as part of expenditures for "Other Expenditures." Beyond this, several ARL library survey Library Materials or Miscellaneous" were to be included. coordinators confirmed that their libraries provideaccess In 1994-95, the question on "Expenditures for Electronic to resources that are purchased on behalf of their institu- Serials" was added, covering subscriptions whose prima- tions by a state-funded consortium, and that these expen- ry format is electronic. The instructions stated that only ditures also go unreported in the ARL Supplementary those expenses that would have been reported in the Statistics survey. Based on these findings, Mr. Jewell main ARL Statistics survey as part of "Current Serials" revised the 1996-97 ARL supplementary questionnaire were to be included. to try to capture those figures that had been elusive in Overall, there was a reasonably good (and improv- previous surveys. Preliminary reports indicate that this ing) response rate for these questions, with 82 of the 108 year's results will show a significant increase in total academic ARL libraries (Academic ARLs) providinga electronic resource expenditures. non-zero figure for the "Computer Files and Search In Mr. Jewell's analysis of the 1992-93 to 1995-96 Services" in 1992-1993, and 101 of 109 providinga non- survey data, he identified several other trends regarding zero response for either or both of the questions in 1995- the data that member libraries were reporting. A full 1996. The responses themselves ranged widely, with report was sent to each ARL member library as part of some very large figures reported. Although no respons- the Report on the 1995-96 ARL Supplementary Statistics es were excluded on this basis, both average and median and is also available at
3 5 A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 SPEemtissuE-ON-MEAsuREfs--- , Continued
ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC DATA ON USE QUALITY AND COSTS NETWORKED ENVIRONMENT by Ioan Lippincott, Associate Executive Director, OF NETWORK SERVICES Coalition for Networked Information Christopher Peebles, CM Visiting Fellow and How are libraries thinking about assessment in Associate Vice-President and Dean of Information the networked environment? Is progress being Technology at Indiana University, has developed made in measuring the impact of the availability an impressive set of survey data that describes use and user satisfaction with an array of services, of networked information resources and services? Isany attempt being made to demonstrate the impact that the including IT user support, hardware and software, investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars and e-mail. The materials he uses in his presenta- tions are available at:
3-7 A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 Continued
and in what ways users are satisfied or dissatisfied with THE STATE OF PERFORMANCE the networked information resources and services. MEASUREMENT IN LIBRARIES: Challenges of Implementing Assessment Programs A REPORT FROM THE 2ND In their manual, McClure and Lopata state some criteria NORTHUMBRIA INTERNATIONAL by which they will judge the impact and success of their CONFERENCE publication. They include whether: by Amos Lakos, Coordinator of Management Information campuses will experiment with assessment tech- Services, University of Waterloo niques; In September 1997, Northumbria was the venue for campuses will share information and insights on an international conference to discuss various library how assessments can be done more effectively; measurements and assessment issues and activities, evaluation research concepts and procedures will to exchange experiences, to increase awareness of move forward in this area; current research, and to identify issues for further campus decision makers will be able to design study and work. The conference, sponsored by the and plan more effective networked environments; Department of Information and Library Management at and the University of Northumbria at Newcastle and by the data generated will promote incorporation of British Library, focused on outcomes and impacts, mov- users' viewpoints into the way the network ing from research, definition, and standardization mat- evolves. ters to actions and implementation. Total attendance Through the CM project, a small number of institu- was 141 persons from 24 countriesnine of which were tions have taken up this challenge. For most of the institu- from North Americaa truly international gathering. tional teams, the road has not been easy. The time and The creation and draw of this conference is just one resource investments have been significant and the ever- indication of the greater role that performance measures changing networked environment makes some techniques are playing in libraries today than they have in the past. problematic. However, in some cases there is a strong Measures are being applied in a wide variety of settings institutional mandate for the development of assessment and in a number of locations. Further, the 46 papers of measures throughout the university, and in others, there is this conference, including five poster sessions and five strong commitment by unit heads to work towards keynote speakers, note the trend of increased coopera- improving services using assessment as a diagnostic tool. tion between libraries across national boundaries in In addition, the project provided a mechanism for individ- developing appropriate measures, especially among uals from many units on campus to coordinate assessment those supported by the European Union. Major themes efforts in relation to networks and networked services. covered during the conference were: Project team members report that strong support for assessment from top campus and unit administrators has Performance MeasurementsGeneral Analysis and Criticism had a positive impact on the amount of resources avail- able for assessment efforts. The surveys and data collec- Defining Relevant Performance Indicators and tion efforts by the institutions involved have enabled Developing International Performance Standards Benchmarking them to get a first look at the impact of electronic informa- tion services on users and to begin answering the ques- Qualitative Measurement Activities tion, "What difference do these electronic resources and Comparability Across Sectors and National Boundaries services make to users?" The institutional teams have found that a variety of data collection techniques can be Service Level Agreements useful, from log analysis to user surveys (both print and Management Information Services on the Web) to focus groups and individual interviews. Electronic/Digital Library and Assessment of Library Networks The project has given the institutions experience witha set of tools and a start in establishing a baseline of data on A brief summary of some key papers presented follows. electronic resources and services use for their campuses. For more detailed information, as well as for informa- CNI has received support for this project from tion on papers not described here for lack of space, Indiana University; and Christopher Peebles and his please see
A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 A Post-Modern Analysis," presented by Rowena conducting, evaluating, and, finally, acting on mea- Cullen of Victoria University in New Zealand, set sures (including making plans for the future) were all both the tone and the standard for the conference by discussed. Speakers emphasized the need for more asking: After all the research is done, the data gather- qualitative measures, and ones that serve more practi- ing activities and analysis undertaken, and reports cal purposes than performance measures have in the presented, are libraries more effective? Cullen's past. The stakeholder focus in electronic environment model of organizational effectiveness used a studies has gained special attention, as this medium focus/value/purpose matrix to reach the following offers greater possibilities of further tailoring services conclusions: to stakeholders' needs. performance measurements are political activities, taking place both on a macro and a Qualitative Measurement Activities micro level; The growing emphasis on the use of qualitative how institutions act is dependent on their measures to test performance were the focus in a relative internal to external focus, the culture of number of papers examining aspects of service quality. the organization, and the resolve they bring to Elisabeth Hart, Patricia Gannon-Leary, and Lorraine their activities; Noel's (University of Huddersfield) "The Use of Focus the profession seems to be reactivedependent Groups in the Evaluation of Services" examined the on rewards and incentives; use of focus groups as an assessment tool and detailed the value of this method in the assessment of lending performance measurements are services. Robert Bluck's (University of Northumbria multidimensional in nature and each library at Newcastle) paper, "Team Performance will use the measurements that suit its social Measurement of Mystery?", pointed out that, construct, environment, and goals; and although teams are increasingly used in many aspects action, leadership, and initiative are needed for of library work, performance measurement activities organizational effectiveness. tend to concentrate on the individual or the organiza- The question is, then, what kinds of measures will tion as a whole, rather than as part of an overall best support a successful institution? Stephen Town's system. Of particular interest is a study done by (Cranfield University) paper, "Performance or the CAVAL-Reference Interest Group Working Party Measurement?", took a critical look at the current state in Victoria, Australia. "Performance Indicators for of performance measurements and their impact, criti- Reference and Information Services: A Study of cized the over-reliance on traditional library quantita- Academic Libraries in Victoria, Australia," written by tive data series, and advocated that more attention be Barbara Paton, Eva Fisch, David Cunnington and directed to service quality indicators and to the devel- Rosemary Cotter from LaTrobe University in Victoria, opment of assessment measures both in the digital describes CAVAL's activities in identifying measures environment and for networked services. Town also used to evaluate reference and information services in suggested increasing attention to the diverse needs of academic libraries. Further, Marjorie Murfin (Ohio stakeholders, a concern Ian Winkworth (University of State University) and Michael Havener's (University Northumbria on Newcastle) raised as well, in his of Oklahoma) "Cronbach Revisited: Positive Bias: paper, "Making Performance Measurement A Powerful Enemy to Validity in Library Surveys" Influential." Winkworth provides an excellent tells of work done on the use of the Reference overview of past and current performance measure- Transition Assessment Instrument (RTAI) in academic ment activities, primarily focusing on U.K. public and libraries. This instrument has been used since 1983 in academic libraries and the development of internation- the Wisconsin-Ohio Reference Evaluation Program to al standards. Winkworth saw the need for outcome evaluate reference services in 109 academic and 121 and impact measurements that have real management public libraries in the U.S. and Canada. Although the utility and feels that libraries may be collectingtoo instrument's statistical validity has been proven, only many quantitative indicator data without relating 4% of U.S. academic libraries have chosen to partici- them closely enough to stakeholder's needs andcon- pate in the program. In their paper, Murfin and cerns. However, Winkworth pointed out that, in spite Havener make a strong case for use of the RTAI in of deficiencies, libraries are well ahead ofmany other more research and academic libraries. - public services in developing effective performance The applicability of the SERVQUAL instrument in measures. the library environment was examined in twopapers. The role of stakeholders in performancemeasures The first, Danuta Nitecki's (Yale University) was, in fact, a theme that speakers came to time and "Assessment of Service Quality in Academic Libraries: time again. The use of stakeholders in constructing, Focus on the Applicability of the SERVQUAL" isan
39 A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 17 Continued
overview of the instrument and its applicability to Developing International the study of service quality in academic libraries. Performance Standards According to Nitecki, in an environment where It is no wonder that, with the concepts of international academic libraries want to be more responsive to their cooperation and digital libraries gaining in popularity, clients, the SERVQUAL instrument offers a strategy International Standard Organization (ISO) standards for defining and measuring quality of library services. and their implementation are given attention. Two Nitecki reviewed the results of eight academic library papers covered work undertaken by a number of studies that used SERVQUAL to measure the quality groups in order to facilitate the creation and adoption of their ILL and reference services, but pointed out that of the ISO Standard for Library Performance the usefulness of the instrument in improving service Indicators. Jacob Harnesk's (The Royal Library, management in academic libraries is only beginning to Stockholm) paper, "The ISO Standard on Library be discovered. Performance Indicators" detailed the slow and difficult SERVQUAL was also the topic of, "Feedback from work involved in developing international standards a Captive Audience: Reflections on the Results of a and gives a description of the current situation. Ona SERVQUAL Survey of Interlibrary Loan Services at smaller scale was Reider Jan Zwart's (Delft University Carnegie Mellon University Library." Presented by of Technology) paper, "Implementing the ISO Joan Stein, this paper emphasizes the choice of the Standard on Library Performance Indicators at Delft SERVQUAL instrument as a valid instrument to University of Technology Library." He described measure user perceptions. Stein reported that the activities undertaken to develop a document delivery Carnegie Mellon survey helped reshape staff system (DocUTrans) in partnership with KN/Minolta, perceptions of users' expectations, increased a sense with the goal of acquiring the ISO 9002 certificate for of shared purpose, and helped staff set realistic quality service--which they did achieve, in January priorities for ILL services. 1997. Service Level Agreements Comparability Across Sectors Another way to ensure that clients' needs are met and National Boundaries are through Service Level Agreements (SLAs). SLAs A number of papers addressed the difficulty of com- may be defined as a set of agreements, or a working paring libraries across sectors and national boundaries. "contract," that establishes the relationship between Antje Cockrill and Judith Broady's (University of the service provider and its clients, quantifying the Wales) "Practical Issues of Performance Measurement minimum acceptable service to the customer. in British and German University Libraries"; and "Use Malcolm Smith's discussion, "The Use of Service Level and Interest in Performance Measures: Differences Agreements at the British Library," focused on the Between Library Sectors," by Sian Lambert, Jonathan Library's effort to establish SLAs between its various Wilson and Tony Ou 1ton (Manchester Metropolitan departments as well as with external customers. He University) are two examples. described the SLA format; the benefits, disadvantages, Management Information Services and obstacles to implementing SLA's; and how these Management Information Systems (MIS) and Decision are to be used and implemented in the British Library Support Services (DSS) were topics in one session. in the future. Smith concluded that SLAs are valuable John Blagden and Jane Barton's (Cranfield University) tools in achieving a number of objectives, suchas thought-provoking paper, "Can You Compare One increasing the accountability of service providers, University's Performance- with Another?" describes a creating a customer-oriented institutional culture, and project whose aim was to develop a set of indicators to developing an internal quality chain in addition to facilitate comparisons of university library perfor- better relations with customers. mances. It builds on existing work done in the Follett Jo Aitkins' poster session, "Setting Standards Report, The Effective Academic Library Report, and and Monitoring Performance: The Experience of the group of Concerted Action on Management Information Services at the University of Sunderland," Information for Libraries in Europe (CAMILE) pro- was an example of a variation of the SLA, where, jectsDECIDE, EQLIPSE, DECIMAL, and MIN- instead of a contract, the library decides to self-impose STREL. The project is unique in its goal to develop unilateral standards focused on customer service. indicators acceptable to university funding bodies, Among the cited benefits are: better customer service, Vice Chancellors, and other senior staff within the heightened staff and client awareness of available and U.K. educational sector. Issues studied are electronic expected services, improved monitoring of trends, and library or networked resources measures, accessvs. heightened staff morale. ownership, document delivery, "stock" utilization and
A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 10 availability, user population definitions, and how to keynote presentation, "Evaluating the Digital Library." assess and compare user satisfaction levels across Lancaster identified a number of concerns we have in institutional boundaries. the move toward the electronic library, among them The CAMILE projects were discussed in more changing clientele and a changing resource base. He detail in the poster session "European Union Support also raised the issue of a change in professional front- Systems in Libraries Projects CAMILE." It is anticipat- line activities, with the major concern that technology ed that the project's concerted action will lead to a not only forces but also enables users to use less library greater and more effective use of management infor- services. Finally, Lancaster emphasized the important mation tools and techniques in libraries in Europe, and role librarians will play in the educational process. that it will encourage the use of European-focused per- Peter Brophy, in his conference summary, pointed formance measures and contribute to greater commu- out the many future-oriented sessions that had been nication of information between European libraries. heard, the community's growing understanding of the More information about CAMILE is available on the library as a social construct, and the growing focus on Web:
A R L1 9 7 A P R I L1 9 9 8 4
'4k,a1
y---
ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues Executive Director Duane E. Webster and Actions (US ISSN 1050-6098) is published six times Editor G. Jaia Barrett, Deputy Executive Director a year by the Association of Research Libraries, Copy Manager Karen A. Wetzel 21 Dupont Circle, Washington, DC 20036. Designer Kevin Osborn, Research & Design, Ltd., Arlington, VA 202-296-2296 FAX 202-872-0884 Subscriptions: Members$25 per year for additional
ARL CALENDAR 1998-99
1998 1999 June 25-July 2 American Library Association February 11-12 ARL Board Meeting Washington, DC Washington, DC July 27-28 ARL Board Meeting May 11-14 ARL Board and Washington, DC Membership Meeting October7-9 ARL/OLMS Facilitation Kansas City, MO Skills Institute July 26-27 ARL Board Meeting Washington, DC Washington, DC October13-16 ARL Board and October 12-15 ARL Board and Membership Meeting Membership Meeting Washington, DC Washington, DC October13-16 Educom'98 Orlando, FL October27-28 ARL/OLMS Leading Change Institute Chicago, IL cf) November16-19ARL/OLMS Library Management Skills Institute I: BEST COPY AVAILABL The Manager Washington, DC December7-8 CNI Task Force Meeting Seattle, WA 42 December8-11 CAUSE'98 Seattle, WA A BIMONTHLY NEWSLETTER OF RESEARCH LIBRARYISSUES AND ACTIONS LICENSESAND INFORMATION POLICY: AN UPDATEON UCC ARTICLE 2B by Laurel Jamtgaard
tt he October 1997 ARL Membership Although many agree that the idea of codifying Meeting, Robert Oakley, Director of the law of licenses is a good one, there has beenan Athe Georgetown Law Library, gave a amazing amount of controversy involved in the effort. thoughtful and informative presentation about a The drafting process for Article 2B has been underway proposed model law known as Article 2B of the for more than five years. In the past year, the draft of Uniform Commercial Code.' This law is poised to Article 2B, a 200-page document, has been updated shape the legal landscape for transactions in infor- approximately every eight weeks. The April 1998 mation products, including copyrighted works, draft of Article 2B addresses, among other things: databases, and computer software. It is therefore likely to directly impact the operations of all contract formation (includes offer and acceptance libraries and academic institutions. requirements for electronic agents and mass-market licensesa.k.a. "shrink-wrap" licenses); Some Background construction and interpretation of license terms; In the United States, Uniform State Lawsare drafted by committees of attorneys, reviewed warranties (includes implied warranty of by two organizationsthe American Law merchantability of a computer program); Institute (ALI) and the National Conference contract performance; and of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws remedies (including the right for licensors to (NCCUSL)and then, if approved, sent around employ "self-help" measures to retrieve or disable to the fifty states for adoption in whole or in part. information products if licensees breach the Adopting a model law helps to facilitate interstate license). commerce because market participants can then Article 2B is in many ways a moving target and enter- be confident that they are operating undera similar body of law from one state to the next. ing the debate over specific provisions involves a steep Currently, areas of law encompassed in the learning curve, but more entrants are important to the process. Uniform Commercial Code include contracts for
goods, leases, banking agreements, and secured Concerns . lending transactions. In March of this year, Geoffrey Hazard, Chair of the The intention of the drafters of Article 2B is to American Law Institute (ALI), distributed a letter provide standard rules for regulating licenses of outlining some reasons why ALI would not submit 2B information products and intellectual property to a member vote at its May Annual Meeting in rights. The hope, as with all Uniform State Laws, Washington, D.C.3 The first concern expressed was C3\ is to codify existing case law.2 Current case law that the scope of 2B was so broad that there were varies, however, across states and federal circuits, likely many voices still to be heard from andmany so this process is not trivial. who may be unaware that they will be affected. 43 CURRENT ISSUES Continued
The example he gave hits close to homehe queried To what extent does federal copyright law preempt whether a library card constituted an "access contract" license terms that interfere with copyright limitations under 2B and whether the library community had such as fair use and first-sale rights? This is a tough voiced an opinion one way or another.4 question and one courts have struggled with on a case- Scope by-case basis.' Article 2B has been drafted with the stated Article 2B began as an effort to standardize software intent of "staying neutral" with regard to the issue of licenses, but its scope has expanded (and contracted) federal preemption. This stance was criticized at the at various times to include motion picture, broadcast, Berkeley Conference by David Nimmer, co-author of publishing, banking, the Nimmer on Copyright and other industries. Treatise (and no relation Representatives from several The April 1998 draft of Article 2B to Raymond Nimmer, of these sectors have only Reporter for Article 2B). recently chimed in. Many covers "licenses and software He sees Article 2B's parties who will be dramati- "neutrality" as disingenu- cally affected have yet to contracts," defining a license as "an ous because it fails "to even put Article 2B on their agreement that authorizes access to or radar screens. protect even.., obvious The April 1998 draft of use of information or of informational user rights" but blesses Article 2B covers "licenses property rights...." "Information" is "as presumptively valid and software contracts," provisions that would rob defining a license as "an defined as "data, text, images, sounds, users of those rights."5 agreement that authorizes mask works, or works of authorship." Although Article 2B access to or use of informa- admittedly creates federal tion or of informational preemption problems, the property rights...." drafters are looking to "Information" is defined as "data, text, images, sounds, Congress and the courts to solve them. At this time, mask works, or works of authorship." attempts to pass clarifying language in Congress have A motion by Stephen Chow, an attorney with Smith not been successful.9 & Sohen in Massachusetts, to reduce the scope of Article 2B was discussed at the ALI Annual Meeting in May. Impact on Libraries The motion had sought to limit the scope to: At the Berkeley Conference, Peter Lyman of the University of California at Berkeley spoke of the poten- 1) Software contracts; tial impact of Article 2B on research libraries and the 2) access contracts; and broader research community. He described the already 3) such other transactions that are included expressly spiraling costs of periodicals and online database fees and defined with sufficient clarity to avoid surprise and expressed frustration at what he perceived to to affected parties.5 be Article 2B's contribution to increasing the However, Mr. Chow withdrew the motion without bargaining power of information publishers in putting it to a member vote on the understanding that contract negotiations. the Drafting Committee had plans to revisit the question For example, as Bob Oakley mentioned in his talk a of scope during the summer. year ago, 2B-502 declares that license terms that restrict the transfer of informational property rights are enforce- Intersection with Federal Law able. Does this affirm a position that licenses can cast Another concern of Mr. Hazard, the relationship of aside first-sale rights granted under copyright law?1° Article 2B to federal law, was the focus of a three-day I believe the answer is an oblique "yes." conference at the University of California at Berkeley in The explanatory notes to the April 1998 Draft state April.6 Some argue that if non-negotiated licenses that 2B does not apply to the sale of books, but only to (a.k.a. "shrinkwrap licenses") are honored as provided licenses of information products. As Professor Charles in Article 2B, licensors will use licenses to strip away McManis pointed out in Berkeley, most printed books fair use rights from consumers and thus jeopardize the already contain onerous language prohibiting the copy- delicate balance struck by copyright law. Conference ing of any portion for any purpose, but such statements participants also raised questions about the interaction have not been found to trump "fair use."11 Well, it is of Article 2B with trade secrecy law, patent law, time to take another look because 141 that is missing competition policy, and the First Amendment. from books is the snap [to seal them closed[and a law
A R L1 9 8 J U N E1 9 9 8 saying that a snap creates an enforceable contract."12 information about Article 2B.I3 It includes html versions With a snap and Article 2B, what in the past has been a of most comments submitted to ALI, NCCUSL, and the sale of a book could, with the blink of an eye, become a Drafting Committee, as well as links to online news arti- license (could there be a more dramatic reason for cles on the topic. In addition, Ed Foster of InfoWorld has libraries to pay attention to Article 2B?). recently started hosting a discussion page on Article 2B.14 Access contracts as defined in 2B-615 will be More voices from the library and educational com- extremely important to libraries because these contracts munities need to be heard. One way to do so is to submit are dealt with daily. 2B-615 provides that a license can comments to the NCCUSL Commissioner from your place use restrictions on the home state. Letters can also information accessed. And be submitted directly to the where does fair use fit in leadership of NCCUSL, the here? Well, it doesn't unless Article 2B Drafting you put the rights in the Although Article 2B is a state-based Committee, and ALI.15 contract explicitly or law, it is a critical front in the battle Congress acts to resolve the The Big$er Information preemption question in because it strengthens content Policy Picture The significance of Article 2B favor of fair use. providers' ability to use "shrinkwrap" It is crucial that the should be considered in con- library community enter into and "clickwrap" licenses to control junction with the various the Article 2B conversation. their information products' copyright and database bills The statute, when/if adopt- currently working their way ed, will provide default rules post-distribution. through Congress. The battle that can be overcome by lan- waging over the appropriate guage in the contract itself so direction of domestic and familiarity with Article 2B international information may therefore enable librarians to overcome the most policy has reached a frenzy this summer. problematic defaults during license negotiations. But Some content providers are reacting to the prolifera- be forewarnedwith the affirmation of mass-market tion of digital technology with a push for stronger legal licenses, Article 2B will transfer considerable bargaining protection of information products. Not satisfied with power to the publisher's side of the table. advances in existing legal and emerging technological Where Does Article 2B Stand? means to protect information, these media, Hollywood, ALI has announced plans to review the progress on and publishing interests are driving bills through Article 2B at its November Council meeting and may at Congress to extend the term of copyright,16 provide for a new right in databases wholly outside of copyright law,I7 that time recommend the Article for a final vote at its and create a "traveling right of trespass" (my phrase, not 1999 Annual meeting. theirs) for technologically protected works! Each of As late as April, NCCUSL had planned to submit 2B these efforts is a truckload of cement primed to pave the to its membership for a final vote at its Annual Meeting, road to a "pay-per-view" digital age. July 24, 1998. It has stepped back somewhat from that Others, including the library community, seek to position and has announced plans to read "non-contro- protect the balance between information as property and versial" aspects of 2B into the record at the July meeting information as a public resource. There has been support and to entertain motions and debate on specific sections. from this group for a digital age copyright bill sponsored NCCUSL will not submit Article 2B to a final state-by- by Representatives Boucher (D-VA) and Campbell (R- state member vote until its 1999 Annual Meeting at CA)19 that seeks to preserve the fairuse and first-sale doc- the earliest. trines and to provide a clear signal to courts about federal The Drafting Committee had planned that no copyright preemption of non-negotiated license terms. further drafting committee meetings would be needed The challenge in this effort, besides facing the incredible after May, but with the concerns raised by ALI and financial resources of the media, motion picture, and others more meetings have been scheduled. publishing industries, is how best to translate these There is an increasing awareness of Article 2B and balancing principles into the digital world. discussion forums are popping up where librarians and Although Article 2B is a state-based law, it is a other members of the research community may enter critical front in the battle because it strengthens the debate. For example, attorney Carol Kunze's "2B content providers' ability to use "shrinkwrap" and Guide" site offers the most comprehensive online "clickwrap" licenses to control their information 4 5 A R L1 9 8 TUNE1 9 9 8 Continued
products' post-distribution. As currently drafted,it is enable access to electronic resources in the library,it may yet another avenue enabling increased private "fencing" qualify.
of information. 5 Revised Motion of Stephen Y. Chow, American LawInstitute Try to Imagine... 1998 Annual Meeting, May 14, 1998. At the Berkeley Conference, Peter Lymanpainted a 6 grim picture of a university environment inwhich all See Intellectual Property and Contract Law in the InformationAge: information products are licensed. He shuddered The Impact of Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial Codeon the as he Future of Transactions in Information and Electronic described the revelation that nothing in Article2B pro- Commerce, hibits the application of the proposed license April 23-25, 1998, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, regime to
2 TX 77004; and/or to the American Law Instituteat 4025 Today when judges decide disputes involvinglicensing Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3099. transactions (such as publishing contracts, databaseaccess contracts, and contracts for motion picture rights) theybase 16H.R. 2589, 105th Congress, Copyright Term ExtensionAct (1998). their decisions upon applicablecase law precedents. If Article 2B is adopted by the states, then judges will lookto the 17H.R. 2652, 105th Congress, The Collections of Information statute for initial direction on how to decide similar Anti-Piracy Act (1998). This bill, which creates broad disputes. new protection for compilations, states that its provisions willnot 3 Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Letter to Gene N. Lebrun,President preempt the state law of contract and thus increases the of NCCUSL, and Charles Alan Wright, President,The potential power of a licensing regime. American Law Institute, March 26, 1998. Available online at 18H.R. 2281, §1201(a), 105th Congress, WIPO CopyrightTreaties
47 A R L1 9 8 J U N E1 9 9 8 Continued
A SPOTLIGHT ON HIGH-PERFORMING System, is the unit that initiates loan requests on the ILLINET Online system, the union catalog of Illinois ILL/DD OPERATIONS IN RESEARCH libraries.) LIBRARIES Nineteen other research libraries ranked in the by Mary Jackson, ARL Access & Delivery Services top ten for a single borrowing performance measure. Consultant Thus, a total of 25 research libraries ranked in the top Over the past two years ARL collected a wealth ten for one or more borrowing performance measures. of data on the 1996 performance of interlibrary These high-performing borrowing operations share a loan/document delivery (ILL/DD) services of number of characteristics. North American research and college libraries. With funding from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and User-Initiated Ordering advice from the Council on Library and Information A majority of the top-performing borrowing opera- Resources, ARL set out to identify the attributes of tions offer electronic user-initiated ordering, either low-cost, high-performing ILL/DD operations against via statewide systems such as OhioLINK or through which other libraries could compare themselves and locally-developed electronic order forms. Systems that find ways to improve their local performance. High- pass electronic patron request forms directly to the performing borrowing or lending operations were potential lender or into national messaging systems defined as the top ten research libraries performing eliminate the need for ILL staff involvement in these best in one or more categories of the three borrowing initial steps of the borrowing process. Staff costs performance measures (cost, fill rate, or turnaround represent two-thirds of the borrowing unit cost, so time), or in one or both of the lending measures (cost by increasing user-initiated ordering staff costs are and fill rate). Averages were calculated for the ten lessened and the borrowing unit cost is thus lowered. libraries with the lowest borrowing unit costs, the ten Maximizing Technology libraries with the highest borrowing fill rates, the ten Maximizing use of technology is a second characteris- with the fastest borrowing turnaround times, and for tic shared by high-performing ILL borrowing opera- the ten with the lowest lending unit costs and the ten tions. Nine of the ten research libraries with the very libraries with the highest lending fill rates. The accom- fastest turnaround times encourage or even require panying chart presents these averages and compares patrons to submit requests electronically. Four them with the mean and median performance of all 97 libraries use OCLC's ILL Prism Transfer or research library participants. The level of user satisfac- First Search-ILL link to enable patrons to identify items tion with ILL/DD services, as measured in a sample in online databases and place electronic ILL requests. survey in this study, did not vary significantly across These system features are designed to reduce delays in all research library participants and thus is not includ- internal processing because patron requests are trans- ed in this analysis. ferred directly into the OCLC ILL system without staff What are the characteristics of ILL/DD operations re-keying requests. Eliminating the need to re-key in the ten libraries with the lowest unit costs, the ten requests speeds up the process and saves staff time, with the highest fill rates, or the ten with the fastest thereby freeing staff to work on other requests. turnaround times? How do these high-performing Many of the high-performing borrowing opera- operations differ from the other research library participants? tions use a single ILL messaging system. Workflow and procedures are streamlined when only one system High-Performing Borrowing Operations is used, resulting in faster turnaround time and lower Three measures were used to track the performance of unit costs. ILL borrowing: unit cost, fill rate, and turnaround The ILL operation at Colorado State may be the time. Of the 97 research library participants, Colorado ultimate example of maximizing technology, as their State University was the only research library that borrowing operation is truly paperless. Patrons are appeared in the top ten for all three borrowing mea- required to submit requests electronically; in seven sures. In addition, the University of Chicago was keystrokes staff transfer those requests into the OCLC among the ten libraries with very low unit costs and ILL system. OCLC ILL requests are subsequently very high fill rates. Four additional research libraries copied into the CLIO management software for follow- had very low unit costs and very fast turnaround up tracking and report generation. Colorado State has times: the University of Cincinnati, Ohio University, developed a series of "custom holding paths" and the University of Illinois at Chicago (UI-C) Main OCLC macros (keystroke shortcuts) that permit stu- Library's LCS unit, and the LCS unit of UI-C's Library dent assistants to process the majority of their borrow- of the Health Sciences. (LCS,or Library Computer ing requests. Using available software and a modest
A R L1 9 8 J U N E1 9 9 8 amount of local programming permits ILL requests to dents and slightly less on support staff than do either be received from the patron and to be sent to the first all research libraries or the subset of the 25 libraries potential lender within hours, rather than the average with high-performing borrowing operations. of four days it takes most research libraries to com- Staff in these operations also monitor actual plete the same segment of the process. performance of specific lenders and choose only those Many high-performing borrowing operations with fast turnaround time and liberal lending policies, also use OCLC's ILL Fee Management system to pay both of which translate into higher fill rates. invoices, another example of software that can signifi- Libraries with high borrowing fill rates have staff cantly minimize the time spent by staff in handling who know unique collections in other libraries nation- invoices, thus reducing the staff unit costs. ally and internationally, are aware of a variety of Delivery Technologies commercial suppliers, have command of complex Research libraries with the fastest borrowing turn- cataloging rules, and search print bibliographies rather around times use delivery services such as Ariel, fax, than assuming that "if the item isn't found on OCLC, state/regional couriers, FedEx, or UPS to a greater it doesn't exist." Thus, staff are able to obtain difficult extent than do libraries with the very slowest turn- materials without expending significant additional around times. Libraries with fast turnaround time ask time on each request. other libraries to supply all articles via Ariel and/or Local Policies fax, and some even choose lenders based on Ariel Local policies also contribute to a library's high bor- availability. These borrowers are also willing to pay rowing performance. Nearly three-quarters of the for next-day delivery for most requests, rather than high-performing borrowing operations do not limit' the just for "super, super rush" requests. number of requests patrons are permitted to submit at Staffing Levels and Staff Expertise one time. Half do not charge patrons for loans or High-performing borrowing operations employ differ- copies, eliminating staff involvement in collecting fees ent levels of staff than the aggregate of all research and/or maintaining accounts. Both of these policies libraries. In particular, these operations have fewer reduce staff mediation, and therefore reduce their professional non-supervisors and are more often man- costs. Two-thirds of the high-performing borrowers aged by support staff supervisors than the borrowing mail photocopies to patrons, again eliminating an operations of other research libraries that participated additional patron contact with ILL staff at the end of in the study. The ten libraries with the very lowest the process. Finally, these libraries do not limit the borrowing unit costs also rely slightly more on stu- amount they are willing to pay to obtain an itemthey
RESEARCH LIBRARY ILL/IDD PERFORMANCE MEASURES
High-Performance Mean Performance Median Performance
Borrowing
Unit Cost $9.76 $18.35 $16.63 Fill rate 93% 85% 86% Turnaround time 10.2 calendar days 15.6 calendar days 14.9 calendar days
Lending
Unit Cost $4.87 $9.48 $8.14 Fill rate 78% 58% 57%
4 9 A R L1 9 8 J U N E1 9 9 8 Continued
choose libraries that provide reliable service (even if lending volume increases, the lending unit cost there is a charge) rather than trying to find libraries decreases. Libraries wishing to lower their lending that do not have a lending fee, thereby saving staff unit costs could do so by increasing the number of time, reducing staff costs, and minimizing overall lending transactions they fill. turnaround time. Staff Composition High-Performing Lending Operations Like high-performing borrowing operations, high- Two measures were used to track the performance of performing lending operations rely on a different mix ILL lending operations: unit cost and fill rate. Of the of staff categories than most research libraries. The 97 research library participants, only the University of ten libraries with the lowest lending unit costs use no Alberta and the University of Wisconsin-Madison professional staff in non-supervisor positions in their recorded very low unit costs and very high fill rates. lending operations. Libraries with the lowest lending An additional 17 libraries recorded eithervery low unit costs use student assistants slightly more and unit costs or very high fill rates, but not both. The support staff slightly less than other research libraries. study confirmed that high-performing lending However, the 19 high-performing lending operations operations in research libraries are comparable to use support staff slightly more and student assistants or slightly better than the average performance of slightly less than all research libraries. Given this vari- lending operations in the college libraries that ability in use of student assistants and support staff, it participated in the study. is reasonable to speculate that the low unit costs for Expenditures on Technology both groups of high-performers are driven more by On average, high-performing lending operations in the absence of professional staff in non-supervisory research libraries spend (on a unit cost basis) justover roles than in the mix of support staff and student twice as much on equipment (hardware and software) assistants used. than do most research libraries. Although the study Conclusion did not confirm this, it is reasonable to speculate that The ILL/DD Performance Measures Study identified increased use of technology may reduce unit cost if a handful of operations that chart new and innovative technology is deployed in ways that minimizes staff ways to manage interlibrary loan operations. The involvement in some of the steps of the lending procedures. challenge is to spread awareness of the potential for improvements and develop strategies for replicating Innovative Use of Staff the best practices in more libraries. Like most research libraries, Alberta and Wisconsin- To encourage this process, ARL is planninga Madison have centralized lending operations, requir- series of workshops to assist attendees in evaluating ing retrieval from multiple branch libraries. Both and adapting these performance enhancing procedures libraries train staff (student assistants and/or full-time and tools for improving local services. The workshops, staff) to retrieve from one or two branchor departmen- aimed at ILL/DD managers and their supervisors, tal libraries rather than assigning staff to pull materials will provide additional details on characteristics of from all branch or departmental librarieson campus. high-performing borrowing and lending operations. Staff become familiar with a specific collection (such The initial workshops are tentatively planned for the as where materials may be located if not properly second half of 1998. Specifics will be posted on the ARL shelved), thus increasing the lending fill rates. website
f_ A R L1 9 8 J U N E1 9 9 8 Clifford Lynch, Executive Director
QUANTTTIES OF INFORMATION do they know if it is well spent? Lesk believes, however, by loan K. Lippincott, Associate Executive Director, CNI that having a lot of information is, in fact, valuable. The information sector of our economy is growing, and in more The Coalition for Networked Information's Spring Task Force and more industries a larger portion of costs will be infor- Meeting was held in Crystal City, Virginia on April 14-15, mation-related instead of materials- and/or labor-related. 1998. A wide variety of topics related to networked informa- Lesk had some specific suggestions for the university tion were covered in a plenary talk by Michael Lesk, a panel on community. He encouraged universities to develop high- digital preservation, and project briefing sessions. A summary prestige sections of their websites, stimulated by cash of Lesk's talk is provided here; the complete meeting report and payments to authors, that would become desirable venues materials from the project briefing sessions are available on for scholarly publications. Universities could control the CNI's website at
51 A R L1 9 8 J U N E1 9 9 8 EVALUATING LIBRARY DIRECTORS: of these responsibilities to others, he or she has A CHECKLIST ultimate leadership responsibility for their effective implementation. prepared by George Soete, ARLIOLMS Organizational Development Consultant 1. Chief Representative and Spokesperson. Directors To assist those who are responsible for or who will act as the chief external representatives of their participate in the performance evaluations of aca- demic library directors, the ARL Committeeon libraries; they present and explain the library to Leadership and Management worked with ARL/OLMS others; they distribute information to people Organizational Development Consultant George Soete (especially influential stakeholders) outside the to collect and analyze information about library director library; they inform outsiders of progress within the library; and they promote the library to roles and responsibilities. The project resulted ina checklist of recommendations whose aim is to promote external constituents. greater knowledge among those who participate in the director evaluation process, to foster both effectiveness 2.Campus Administrator. Directors actively partici- and fairness in director evaluations, and to strengthen pate in the governance of the university or college library leadership as part of the overallprocess of through membership on committees, standing improving libraries. The checklist is also available at administrative groups, and task forces; they help
The checklist is divided into three general areas: II. Review Process Criteria review process guidelines, review process criteria, and review process participants. A. Are there documented criteria for the review that There are at least two possible uses of the checklist: specifically refer to the director's position and 1) as a framework for discussion between directors responsibilities? Alternatively, are there generic and those who are responsible for evaluating them; criteria that are customized as part of the review and 2) as a tool for educating those who participate in process? the director's review. Although this list is not meant B. A principal measure of the director's performance to be conclusive or restrictive, it presents important is her or his success in achieving negotiated expec- questions that should be addressed during the tations as documented in library and institutional performance evaluation process. planning documents. Are the expectations dearly outlined and understood by participants? Does I. Review Process Guidelines the review initiator provide an overall context for the review participants, especially regarding A. Is there a formal process for performance review factors outside the director's control (e.g., a of the library director, or are there other effective campus-mandated budget cut)? means for monitoring her or his performance and providing feedback? C. Are the changing and evolving roles of the director (e.g., fund raising) sufficiently recognized in the B. Are there documented procedural guidelines for review process? the review process? If not, are the ad hoc guide- lines mutually satisfactory to both the director D. Is there a distinction between the performance and her or his supervisor? of the library and the performance of its director? Is it clear to those involved in the process which C. Does the review have a clear purpose? Is it: aspects of the library's performance might be a decision tool (used to decide whether the attributable to the director's leadership and director will be reappointed or given a salary which might not? adjustment); a developmental tool (used to assist the III. Review Process Participants director in performance improvement); a communication tool (used to share A. Is there an opportunity for a variety of participants information about campus and library goals, to have input into the performance review process, problems, etc.); which may include library staff, library users, or any combination of the above? institutional stakeholders with whom the director works, and external persons with knowledge of D. Is the frequency of the review satisfactory to key the director's work? participants in the process? B. Is the input of those who know the director's E. Does the process result in specific, candid feed- performance first-hand given more weight than back that is behavioral and recognizable and that others? If anonymous input is offered, is it will help the director build on performance evaluated as such? strengths and work on performance weaknesses? C. Does the review committee include another F. Are discussions of institutional and library priori- administrator comparable to the director who ties, goals, and objectives between director and can provide assistance to the group during the participants part of the review process? process? G. Is there an opportunity for the director to provide D. Is the director's supervisor actively involved in the documentation or context, which may include process even though she or he might not be the planning goals, accomplishments, constraints, review initiator? Does the supervisor give direct and other contexhial information that will help feedback to the director and provide participants participants in the review to make informed with contextual information that will help them judgments? evaluate the director's performance?
A RL 198 JUNE 199811 53 -OFFICEOFLEADERSHIP-&-M--ANAGEMENTSERVICES1-; Continued
6.Fund Raiser. Directors lead the effort to identify funds, time, staff, materials, and equipment to needs that cannot be adequately supported by the assure that the library is a successful one; and they parent institution, set priorities, and garner exter- authorize major resource-related decisions made nal funding through grants, gifts, endowments, within the library. and other development activities. This list of leadership roles is based on the work of 7.Leader of Planning and Operations. Directors lead Henry Mintzberg1 and Michael Ann Moskowitz2, with members of the library organization in developing input from several ARL directors. value systems, visions, and goals for the library; they promote high-quality services by involving Henry Mintzberg, The Structuring of Organizations, library staff appropriately in planning and deci- Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979. sion making; they assure that there are perfor- 2Michael Ann Moskowitz, "The Managerial Roles of mance measures and accountability systems and Academic Library Directors: The Mintzberg Model," hold staff to them; they seek to understand inter- College and Research Libraries 47 (Sept. 1986): 452-59. nal library issues, problems, and operations in sufficient depth to make informed decisions; and they plan, coordinate, and oversee major multi- RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY ARL year capital projects, as well as smaller facilities projects. OLMS SPEC Kit #229, Evaluating Academic Library Directors, May 1998. 8.Leader of Staff. Directors create and support a continuous learning environment within the OLMS Occasional Paper #21, Evaluating Library library and encourage staff to participate actively Directors: A Study of Current Practice and a Checklist of in virtually all the leadership roles noted in this Recommendations, May 1998. list; they monitor the human relations side of the operation, insuring high-quality hiring, placement, retention, training, motivation, performance evalu- ation, and reward systems; they practice "facilita- tional leadership," especially in leading a diverse work force; they handle conflicts and crises within the library; they take corrective actions when unexpected disturbances occur; and some direc- tors may serve as deans with responsibility for librarians who have faculty appointments.
9.Communicator. Directors share and distribute information within the library through staff meet- ings, personal contacts, and other means; they invite input from individuals and groups within the library, listen attentively to that input, and act on it for the good of the library and its users.
10. Change Agent and Entrepreneur. Directors introduce change within the library by identifying problems, recognizing and seizing opportunities,and imple- menting new systems and programs; they promote experimentation and risk taking within the library (e.g., through the application of new technologies and innovative uses of networks); and they encourage staff to develop entrepreneurial skills.
11. Resource Allocator. Directors develop priorities for resource allocation and design the organizational structure to achieve those priorities; they allocate 5 4
A R L1 9 8 J U N E1 9 9 8 Julia Blixrud, Senior Program Officer
THE STATE OF SALARIES IN and Mountain regions, while more are to be found in RESEARCH LIBRARIES the Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Pacific regions. The salary differential between minority average The median salary figure for professional staff in salaries from overall average salaries is $2,054, which is ARL university libraries increased in FY1997-98 4.5% lower for minority staff, a slight improvement to $44,534 from $43,170 in FY1996-97, representing from last year. a slight increase in the purchasing power of ARL librarians when inflation is taken into account. For For the second consecutive year, the average salary nonuniversity libraries, the median salary figure for female directors in university libraries is higher than increased even more: from $51,150 to $55,055. The that of male directors, 3.6% higher. However, at median beginning professional salary in university medical libraries female directors earn 6.1% less than libraries is $28,500; in nonuniversity libraries it is male directors, while at law libraries they earn 4.5% less. $28,724. Both numbers are slightly higher than those Overall, women still earn less in ARL university reported last year. The figures come from the recently libraries although they represent 65% of all professional published ARL Annual Salary Survey 1997-98, a report staff: the average salary for women is $46,888, which is on ARL professional staff salaries. 93% that of men's, $50,171. Librarians at private U.S. university libraries still The newly released ARL Annual Salary Survey earn more than their counterparts at publicly funded 1997-98 is a compilation of detailed tables of salaries for U.S. university libraries. The differential in FY1997-98 is almost 12,200 ARL professional librarians. These tables $2,220, which is 4.6% more for the average position in a are arranged by job category, years of experience, sex, private library. The overall average salary at private minority status, size of library, and geographic region. U.S. institutions is $49,778; at public U.S. institutions it The Survey, an important research and management is $47,558; and at Canadian institutions it is $45,236 (U.S. resource, is based on data collected from the 110 dollars). The overall average salary in all ARL university and 11 nonuniversity ARL libraries, and university libraries, excluding medical and law libraries, continues to be the most comprehensive and thorough is $48,090. ARL university libraries in the Pacific region guide to current salaries in major U.S. and Canadian ($55,325) and New England ($52,014) again have the academic and research libraries. highest average salaries, while those in the East South The ARL Annual Salary Survey 1997-98 is available Central ($42,382) and West South Central regions for $35 to member libraries and $70 for nonmembers ($42,782) continue to have the lowest. (plus $6 shipping and handling per publication), and is The 848 minority librarians in the 97 U.S. member available on standing order. Please contact ARL university libraries account for 11.03% of ARL's U.S. Publications, Department #0692, Washington, DC library professionals. Fewer minority professionals are 20073-0692; tel.: (202) 296-2296; e-mail:
ARL ACADEMIC LIBRARIANS, FY 1997-98 *
Women Men Combined Average Salary $46,888 $50,171 $48,090 Average Years of Experience 16.6 17.0 16.8 Total # of Filled Positions 4,438 2,561 6,999 Minority Librarian's Avg. Salary (U.S. only) $44,896 $49,002 $46,036 Total # of Minority Librarians 510 196 706 Total # of Directors (filled positions) 49 59 108
*Excludes medical and law libraries. Source: ARL Annual Salary Survey 1997-98
55 A R L1 9 8 J U N E1 9 9 8 A-ertvirtEs- Lee Anne George, ARL Program Planning Officer
WINNERS ANNOUNCED IN 1997-98 Native American tribes, captured in 2,222 plates. Contact person: Richard Frieder, (847) 491-4672,
4 A R L1 9 8 J U N E1 9 9 8 56 TRANSITIONS Inc. (CIS), a subsidiary of LEXIS-NEXIS, a Reed UC-Berkeley: Penny Abell was appointed the Interim Elsevier company, where he had been Vice-President University Librarian, effective July 1. of Planning and Development. UC-Irvine: Gerald J. Munoff was appointed University Librarian at the University of California-Irvine, effective Other Transitions July 1. He was previously Deputy Director of the EDUCAUSE: Brian L. Hawkins was selected to be the University Library, University of Chicago. first CEO for EDUCAUSE, the new higher education information technology association formed by the UC-Santa Barbara: Joe Boissé, University Librarian, consolidation of Educom and CAUSE, as of June 1. will be unable to return from disability leave and has Hawkins was previously Senior Vice-President for finalized his plans for retirement. Academic Planning and Administrative Affairs at CISTI: Bernard Dumouchel was appointed Director Brown University. General of the Canada Institute for Scientific and Dr. Carole A. Barone was named a Vice-President Technical Information, effective May 11. at EDUCAUSE, where she will focus on the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative. She has served as Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: University Librarian Associate Vice-Chancellor for Information Technology Robert Wedgeworth has announced his plan to retire as at the University of California-Davis. of August 1999. NEA: On May 21, the full Senate confirmed the Iowa State: Olivia M. A. Madison has accepted the appointment of William J. Ivey as Chairman of the appointment as Dean of Library Services. Her appoint- National Endowment for the Arts. He was Director of ment begins July 1. the Country Music Foundation in Nashville, and NYU: Carlton Roche 11, Dean of Libraries, has replaces NEA former chair Jane Alexander. announced his intention to retire as soon as a successor OCLC: Robert L. "Jay" Jordon was named President can be appointed. Following the appointment of a new and Chief Operating Officer of OCLC, Inc. becoming dean, he will serve as Executive Publisher of the NYU OCLC's fourth president in its 31-year history. He Press for a short time before his formal retirement from began in May on the retirement of K. Wayne Smith, the University. who stepped down after nearly 10 years. He was pre- Syracuse: Peter S. Graham will become University viously President, New Business Development, Information Handling Services Group. Librarian, effective September 1. He is currently the Associate University Librarian for Technical and US National Commission on Libraries and Networked Information Services at Rutgers University. Information Science: Robert S. Willard was named Executive Director by Jeanne Hurley Simon, Chair of Western Ontario: Joyce Garnett was appointed Director NCLIS. Willard's career includes experience as a mar- of Libraries, effective July 1. She was previously keting executive for legal publishing companies and as Executive Director of University Advancement at staff for the Information Industry Association. Jane Laurentian. Williams, Acting Executive Director of NCLIS from May 1997 to February 1998 resigned to take a position ARL Staff at the University of Maryland Library in College Park. Lee Anne George, formerly Librarian for Information The Senate confirmed the reappointment of Jeanne and Document Delivery Services at Harvard College Hurley Simon as NCLIS Chair. Library, joined the ARL staff in May as ARL Program Planning Officer for a two-year appointment. Lee Anne will be assuming some of Jaia Barrett's responsibilities during her time in Kiev, including assisting in planning ARTHUR CURLEY,1938 -1998 ARL membership meetings, developing the periodic Arthur Curley, Director Emertius of the Boston ARL program activity reports, and preparing the annual Public Library, died March 31, 1998. He had ARL program plan. served as Director of the Boston Public Library from 1985 to 1996 and as a member of the ARL Richard K. Johnson was named SPARC Enterprise Board of Directors from 1989 until 1992. He was Director, effective June 15. Rick will lead the business ARL President in 1991. and strategic development of SPARC, the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition. Rick comes to ARL from Congressional Information Service,
5 7 A R L1 9 8 J U N E1 9 9 8 -- . ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues Executive Director Duane E. Webster and Actions (US ISSN 1050-6098) is published six times Editor: G. Jaia Barrett, Deputy Executive Director a year by the Association of Research Libraries, Co-editor. Lee Anne George, Program Planning Officer 21 Dupont Circle, Washington, DC 20036. Copy Manager Karen A. Wetzel 202-296-2296 FAX 202-872-0884 Designer Kevin Osborn, Research & Design, Ltd., Arlington, VA
1998 December 7-8 CNI Task Force Meeting Seattle, WA July 27-28 ARL Board Meeting Washington, DC December 8-11 CAUSE98 Seattle, WA October 7-9 ARL/OLMS Facilitation Skills Institute Washington, DC 1999 0 October 13-46 ARL Board and February 11-12 ARL Board Meeting Membership Meeting Washington, DC Washington, DC May 11-14 ARL Board and October 13-16 Educom'98 Membership Meeting Orlando, FL Kansas City, MO October 27-28 ARL/OLMS Leading Change July 26-27 ARL Board Meeting Institute Washington, DC Chicago, IL October 12-15 ARL Board and November 2-4 OLMS/DORAL Management Membership Meeting Institute for Development Washington, DC Officers Baltimore, MD November 5-6 Workshop on Licensing Electronic Information Resources Kansas City, MO November 16-19 ARL/OLMS Library Management Skills Institute I: The Manager Washington, DC 58 `Mk
A BIMONTHLY NEWSLETTER OF RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES AND ACTIONS SPARCAND CHEMISTS TO COLLABORATE ON NEW REDUCED-COST JOURNALS
The American Chemical Society (ACS), the partnership with SPARC, a creative, forceful, and wel- world's largest scientific society, is the first come initiative by ARL. We're also confident that this Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources collaboration will result in publishers being able to offer Coalition (SPARC) publishing partner in an innov- higher quality products than are currently available." ative collaboration aimed at distributing research The first new journal will publish letters in organic results faster and at significantly less cost to library chemistry both online and in print. Under the agree- subscribers. ACSa non-profit scientific society ment, SPARC members advise ACS by identifying the that currently publishes 26 peer-reviewed research subject area of interest, and, in return, the participating journalswill collaborate with SPARC to publish libraries will help provide instant market acceptance by at least one new scientific journal each year for the endorsing the project and ensuring purchase of the next three years. SPARC is a newly formed alliancenew publication. launched with support from ARL member libraries. Richard K. Johnson serves as Enterprise Director On June 30, ARL signed a memorandum of for SPARC, which is seeking additional publishing understanding with ACS to set out the terms by partners. "One of the key advantages SPARC offers to which SPARC and ACS will proceed. The agree- a publishing partner," said Johnson, "is the commit- ment frames an ongoing working relationship. ment of Coalition members to subscribe to SPARC At a press conference announcing the partnership, products. This reduces the time to market acceptance Duane E. Webster, ARL Executive Director, and cost-recovery of a new title." declared it "a major step forward in resolving Currently comprised of 98 member libraries with a the debate between libraries and publishers over purchasing power of nearly $500 million, SPARC was academic journal costs and access, especially as created as a result of the growing concerns among the benefits and challenges of electronic publishing librarians and researchers over the rising cost of acade- become more evident." He noted that the mic publications, particularly scientific journals. Library Coalition's aim is to substantially reduce the cost materials budgets, which have increased over the past of scholarly publication while shortening the time decade at almost seven percent a year, have not been required to deliver information, especially in the able to keep pace with the 12-percent annual increase form of journals. in the average price of science journals. Both the high "Today we replace debate with dialogue and prices and steep annual increases charged by some action, moving forward together to make cutting- major scientific publishers have forced libraries to cancel edge scientific research available to the academic thousands of journal subscriptions, prompting publish- community in the most efficient and cost-effective ers to raise prices even higher to make up for the loss. way possible," said Robert D. Bovenschulte, ACS The advent of electronic publishing has also been a Director of Publications. "We're especially pleased concern for both publishers and librarians, despite its to be the first scientific publisher to enter into a distinct advantages over print in terms of delivery time, 5 9 4 Continued
SPARC FOUNDING MEMBERS as of August 3,1998
University of Alberta Michigan State University University of Arizona University of Minnesota Arizona State University University of Missouri Auburn University University of Nebraska Brigham Young University University of New Mexico University of British Columbia New York University Brown University University of North Carolina University of California- North Carolina State University Berkeley Northwestern University University of California- University of Notre Dame Davis Ohio University University of California- Irvine Ohio State University University of Oklahoma University of California- Los Angeles Oklahoma State University University of California- University of Oregon Pictured at the June 30, 1998 signing of the publishing agreement Riverside University of Pennsylvania are (clockwise from left): Duane Webster, ARL Executive Director; University of California- Pennsylvania State University San Diego University of Pittsburgh Richard Johnson, SPARC Enterprise Director; Kenneth Frazier, California Digital Library Princeton University Director of the University of Wisconsin Libraries and Chair of the Canada Institute for Scientific Purdue University SPARC Working Group; and Robert Bovenschulte, and Technical Information Rice University Director of the ACS Publications Division. University of Chicago Rutgers University University of Cincinnati University of Saskatchewan additional features, and flexibility. Higher subscription University of Colorado University of Southern Colorado State University California costs, licensing agreements for access, and the uncertainty Columbia University Southern Illinois University of archiving all have been sources of increasing tension University of Connecticut State University of New York- between academic publishers and their customers. Cornell University Albany Dartmouth College State University of New York- The new organic letters title will include the enhanced Buffalo features that ACS developed for all of its 26 journals that University of Delaware Duke University State University of New York- Stony Brook it began offering on the World Wide Web last year. The Emory University Syracuse University most important of these is "Articles ASAP" (As Soon As University of Florida Temple University Publishable), which releases journal articles on the Web Georgetown University University of Tennessee University of Georgia as soon as they are finished, accelerating publications by University of Texas two to 11 weeks over print. Georgia Institute of Technology Texas A&M University ACS announced additional services this year that University of Guelph Texas Tech University will help improve the cost efficiency to the subscriber or Harvard College Library University of Toronto non-subscriber, such as free access to tables of contents University of Houston Tulane University University of Illinois-Chicago University of Utah since January 1996; supporting information on experi- Vanderbilt University mental details, also at no charge; and the option to University of Illinois-Urbana Indiana University Virginia Tech purchase single articles without subscribing. ACS Iowa State University University of Washington also altered its licensing arrangements with academic Johns Hopkins University Washington State University libraries, eliminating restrictions on use of the web University of Kansas Washington University Kent State University University of Waterloo editions of ACS journals in interlibrary loan programs. Wayne State University "We are very pleased to have the prestige and power Laval University Linda Hall Library University of Western Ontario of ACS in this first partnership," said Kenneth Frazier, Louisiana State University University of Wisconsin Director of the University of Wisconsin Libraries and Chair McGill University York University of the SPARC Working Group. He continued, "ACS publi- McMaster University cations are generally higher quality and more heavily cited University of Manitoba Affiliates University of Maryland Association of College and by researchers, and they are considered among the more Research Libraries University of Massachusetts reasonably priced scientific journals. We hope that other Canadian Association of Massachusetts Institute of scientific publishersboth non-profit and for-profitwill Research Libraries Technology (Association des recognize the significance of this collaboration and join us in University of Miami bibliotheques de this effort to fundamentally change academic publishing." University of Michigan recherche du Canada)
6 0 2 A R L1 9 9 A U G U S T1 9 9 8 SPARC THE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING & ACADEMIC RESOURCES COALITION
WHAT IS SPARC? build a capital fund to provide start-up money for SPARC, the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources SPARC projects. SPARC will also seek grant money Coalition, is a newly formed affiance of libraries that to augment the capital fund. aims to foster expanded competition in scholarly The key to SPARC's success, however, will be communication. the commitment of coalition members to support Launched with support from membership of the SPARC-endorsed products. Association of Research Libraries (ARL), SPARC has Although the impetus for SPARC grew out of begun creating "partnerships" with publishers who ARL member initiatives, SPARC membership are developing high-quality but economical recently was opened to other libraries. alternatives to existing high-price publications. By partnering with publishers, SPARC seeks to: WANTED: PUBLISHER PARTNERS create a more competitive marketplace; SPARC is taking action to create a competitive reduce the prices of journals; market for scholarly publishing. It will concentrate its resources on supporting ventures in which the ensure fair use and educational and library uses gain from introducing price and service competition of electronic resources; and is great. apply new technologies to improve the process SPARC seeks partners that are committed to fair of scholarly communication and to reduce the pricing, intellectual property management policies costs of production and distribution. that emphasize broad and easy distribution and reuse of material, and the ethical use of scholarly HOW WILL SPARC ACCOMPLISH THIS? resources. SPARC will influence the marketplace positively by Priority will be given to innovative applications encouraging publishers to enter markets where the of information technology that enrich and expand prices are highest and competition is needed most research and scholarship; assure that new channels primarily in the science, technical, and medical areas. of scholarly communication sustain quality require- Through its activities, SPARC will reduce the risk ments and contribute to promotion and tenure to publisher-partners of entering the marketplace, processes; and enable the permanent archiving of while providing faculty with prestigious and research publications and scholarly communication. responsive alternatives to current publishing vehicles. Potential partners in SPARC include: To accomplish this, SPARC will: Professional societies and university solicit and encourage the introduction of new presses interested in launching new publications of high quality and fair price; publishing initiatives. guarantee a subscription base and market new Start-up electronic publishers that have products to potential subscribers; already created publications in subject fields dominated by commercial publishers. provide start-up capital (in selected cases); and generate support for SPARC projects from For-profit enterprises that offer new distinguished faculty, educational strategies for controlling prices and organizations, professional societies, improving access to research information. and scholarly publishers. "Visionary" enterprises, including both discipline and institution-based server models, seeking to create entirely new LIBRARY SUPPORT IS NEEDED economic models for scholarly SPARC will finance its efforts through coalition communication. member fees that support operating expenses and help (Continued on next page)
REST COPY AVAILABLi- ARL 199 AUGUST 1998 CtiRRENT---ISSUES--- Continued SPARC THE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING & ACADEMIC RESOURCESCOALITION
(Continued from previous page) by Ken Frazier, University of Wisconsin at Madison. Formation of an advisory committee of leaders in WHO BENEFITS? higher education, scientific disciplines, scholarly SPARC aims to stimulate creation of better, faster, publishing, and business is targeted for fall 1998. and more economically sustainable systems for distributing new knowledge. These advances Membership will benefit: SPARC now has 98 Founding Members from among Researchers. SPARC will encourage the 121 ARL member libraries. Founding Members development of high-quality, lower-cost have each made a financial commitment to the start-up delivery channels, which will drive expanded of the SPARC enterprise. On July 28, the ARL Board access. endorsed a plan to open SPARC membership beyond Society. Research conducted by faculty at ARL to other libraries and organizations. (For mem- universitiesoften with the aid of government bership information, see the SPARC website.) fundspropels key advancements benefiting the economy. SPARC aims to facilitate Affiliates improved and expanded communication of this These organizations have supported SPARC by research. becoming affiliates: Publisher-partners. Working with a variety of Association of College & Research Libraries publishers whose business goals are compatible Canadian Association of Research Libraries with SPARC, SPARC will support development (Association des bibliotheques de recherche du of a vibrant and economically viable new model Canada) of scholarly communication. Business Development Libraries. By fostering development of new SPARC development efforts already are off to a alternatives to established high-price journals, promising start: SPARC encourages the kind of competition that A full-time SPARC director was hired. will bring skyrocketing journal prices back to A first partnership agreement has been earth. Libraries will get more for their money. negotiated with the American Chemical Society that calls for the creation of several new journals CURRENT STATUS that challenge established high-price titles. Endorsements Negotiation of additional partnerships is The concept of SPARC has been endorsed by these underway. leading academic organizations: Association of American Universities (AAU) MORE INFORMATION National Association of State Universities and For more information about SPARC, contact: Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) Richard K. Johnson Association of American University Presses SPARC Enterprise Director (AAUP) 21 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 800 Big 12 Provosts Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-296-2296 Oversight Fax: 202-872-0884 The development of SPARC is being guided bya E-mail: [email protected] formal working group and steering committee, chaired URL: www.arl.org/sparc/
1111111
A R L1 9 9 A U G U S T1 9 9 8 62 STATISTICS-Sr ME-AMAZEMENT- Julia Blixrud, Senior Program Officer
STILL PAYING MORE; MONOGRAPH AND SERIAL COSTS STILL GETTING LESS IN ARL LIBRARIES, 1986-1997 The most recent edition of ARL Statistics docu- ments the continuing struggle by research libraries to keep up with serial and monograph 200%
costs. Specifically, ARL data for 1996/97 show that, Serial Unit Cost while ARL libraries more than doubled expenditures (+169%) for serials from 1986 to 1997, they purchased 6% fewer serial subscriptions. During the last decade, libraries 150% shifted expenditures from monographs to serials to Serial meet some of the demands of increasing serial prices, s.c) (Ex+061)tures co reducing the number of monographs purchased by cr, e-, 14%, while the unit cost for monographs increased by a) 100% 62%. Since 1986, the annual average increase for the I serial unit cost has been 9.4% and for the monograph bt,a) tir?lr Crs rh (+62%) unit cost 4.5%, both higher than the general inflation 1 U / trends in North America during the same period. e50% ... ronoirph Annual statistics for university libraries have been ( +TO; collected since 1908 and represent the oldest and most Serials comprehensive continuing library statistical series in Purchased North America. Machine readable datafiles dating 0% (-6%) from 1908 are available on the ARL ftp server at
MEDIAN VALUES FOR TIME-SERIES TRENDS
Year Serial Serial Monograph Monograph Serials Monographs Unit Cost Expenditures Unit Cost Expenditures PurchasedPurchased
(# of Libraries) (43) (103) (63) (99) (43) (63)
1986 $88.81 $1,517,724 $28.65 $1,120,645 16,198 33,210 1987 $104.30 $1,770,567 $31.76 $1,064,484 16,518 27,214 1988 $117.25 $1,979,604 $35.63 $1,141,226 16,443 26,541 1989 $128.47 $2,130,162 $37.74 $1,241,133 16,015 27,268 1990 $130.81 $2,304,744 $40.26 $1,330,747 16,182 27,999 1991 $152.43 $2,578,309 $42.04 $1,400,738 16,149 28,027 1992 $162.72 $2,630,827 $43.31 $1,353,865 15,846 27,158 1993 $184.71 $2,919,756 $41.78 $1,295,807 15,463 25,583 1994 $191.13 $2,932,091 $44.51 $1,309,807 15,583 25,803 1995 $211.29 $3,133,885 $45.27 $1,365,575 14,942 25,719 1996 $219.46 $3,393,307 $46.73 $1,444,015 15,069 26,262 1997 $238.69 $3,674,368 $46.42 $1,460,234 15,297 28,658
Annual average percent change 9.4% 8.4% 4.5% 2.4% -0.5% -1.3%
, 6 3 A R L1 9 9 A U G U S T1 9 9 8 4 1STICS & MEASUREMENT . 444.uwaw4.444 Continued
UNIVERSITY FUNDING FOR accounts (for example, the computing center). Canadian institutions attempt to provide university RESEARCH LIBRARIES data comparable to the U.S. IPEDS categories. by Julia Blixrud, Senior Program Officer However, the financial accounting systems in the two n January 1994 (ARL 172), using a decade of data countries may be fundamentally incompatible. For about total university educational and general example, Canadian universities may not count as direct Iexpenditures (E&G) and ARL academic library expenditures certain allocated federal monies, because expenditures, Kendon Stubbs, University of Virginia, those grants accrue to individual researchers rather than provided a detailed analysis of the trends of the library being transferred or reimbursed to the university via the expenditures as a percent of university E&G expendi- institutional budget. Thus, Canadian university expen- tures. This analysis revealed a "widespread decrease ditures, as reported, may not include all funds spent in in the proportion of university funding directed to support of the institution. This lower "total" may in research libraries, averaging over half a percent of E&G turn create a misleading figure for the library's percent- expenditures from age of the institu- 1982 through 1992." ARL LIBRARY PERCENTAGE OF E&G tion's funds. Data from the EXPENDITURES FOR 88 LIBRARIES, 1982-1996 (Canadian most recent E&G expenditures are report to the ARL expressed in U.S. academic member- 4.0% dollars at the rate ship shows that the of 1.3613 Canadian downward trend 3.9% 3.8% dollars to one U.S. continues, although 3.7% dollar, the average the rate of descent "o' 3.6% monthly noon has been much less 3.5% exchange rate over the last four given in the Bank years than previously. of Canada Review For the 102 ARL 3.2% for the period July university libraries 3.1% 1995June 1996.) providing data on 3.0% The 1996 report library expenditures 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 will complete this as a percent of uni- Fisca1 Year trend series due to versity E&G expendi- changes in the tures in 1995/96, the mean figure is 3.23% and the median accounting and financial reporting standards issued by is 2.90%. For U.S. private university libraries (26 institu- the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). With tions reporting), the mean is 2.96% and the median FY 1996-97, FASB has changed the IPEDS Finance Survey is 2.77%, while for the U.S. state university libraries forms, the source for E&G data. There are currently two (65 institutions reporting) the mean is 2.95% and the forms, one for private institutions (Form IPEDS-F1-A) median is 2.82%. For the 11 Canadian institutions that incorporates the accounting changes, and another reporting, the mean is 5.47% and the median is 4.86%. form for public institutions (Form WEDS-F-1), which is, Caution should be used in interpreting the E&G for now, the same as in previous years. ARL has already figures because the method for calculating university noted from reports received from private institutions that expenditures is not entirely consistent among institu- the changes have generally resulted in an increased uni- tions, nor is the university figure necessarily calculated versity expenditure figure and thus have a negative on the same basis as that for the library. University impact on the library percentage. Some public institu- figures are as reported to the U.S. National Center for tions will be testing their new form this year and next Educational Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary year both public and private institutions are expected to Education Data Systems (IPEDS) Finance form, Section be completing the same form. Since the 88 libraries I, Part B, line 12, column 3. There is a variation in how whose data is used to create the chart are a mix of public the IPEDS definitions are applied on individualcam- and private institutions, the ARL trend series cannot be puses. University figures typically include fringe bene- calculated in this interim period. fits, buildings, and maintenance. Library expenditures Electronic data for this time series and a copy of the are as defined and reported in the ARL Statistics and summary chart that illustrates the trend line are avail- usually do not include maintenance, fringe benefits, able also on the ARL website at
A R L1 9 9 A U G U S T1 9 9 8 6 4 ?RESERVATION Mary Case, Director, Office of Scholarly Communication
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS MASS prolong the useful life of invaluable library collections and archival holdings through mass deacidification, either by DEACIDIFICATION PROGRAM negotiating separate agreements or by forming with other by Kenneth E. Harris, Preservation Projects Director, institutions partnerships that could achieve economies of Preservation Directorate, Library of Congress scale through the treatment of large quantities of materials. In 1996, for the first time since the Library of Congress began its search for a mass deacidification process Selection Criteria and Procedures 20 years ago, LC moved beyond evaluation and testing Deacidification treatment is reserved for books that are and began to deacidify books from the Library's collec- acidic and at risk of loss if no action it taken. Due to its tions. In a contract with Preservation Technologies, the role as the national library and the official library of the Library committed itself to deacidify 72,000 books over an U.S. Congress, the Library is focusing primarily on selec- 18-month period. By late May 1997, the U.S. Congress tion of "Americana" for early treatment under the mass approved a new Mass deacidification program, Deacidification Action Plan LIBRARY OFCONGRESS emphasizing the selection of that enabled the Library to ft endangered volumes from (1) incorporate deacidification "DEMONSTRATION SITE Given the effective operation of its mass deacidificationcollections that are central to into the Library's existing the Library's mission. arsenal of preservation program for books over the past two years, the Library options, (2) extend the exist- of Congress is serving as a demonstration site for Quality Controls managers and technical staffs from other libraries, The deacidification process, ing contract while negotiatingarchives, and cultural institutions. Anyone interested a multi-year contract to in learning firsthand about administrative and work utilizing magnesium oxide deacidify significant quanti- flow procedures required for mass deacidification (Mg0) to neutralize acid in ties of important endangered programs should contact Kenneth E. Harris, the paper, takes two hours books from the Library's Preservation Projects Director, Preservation from the time books are collections, and (3) continue Directorate, Library of Congress, LM-G21, placed in the Bookkeeper III to offer companies the oppor- Washington, DC 20540-4500. treatment cylinders until the tunity to have the Library Phone: (202) 707-1054; volumes are ready to be evaluate and test other viable, Fax: (202) 707- 3434; packed for return to their operational mass deacidifica- E-mail:
6 5 A R L1 9 9 A U G U S T1 9 9 8 Prudence S. Adler, Assistant Executive Director-Federal Relations and Information Policy
W.I.P.O. LEGISLATION UPDATE regulation no later than two years following enact- JULY 21, 1998 ment of the DMCA that would prohibit drcumven- tion once a formal rulemaking process is completed. On Friday, July 17, the House Committee on Commerce approved the Digital Millennium This rulemaking would consider "whether users of copyrighted works have been, or are likely to be... Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), H.R. 2281. This is the legislation to implement the World Intellectual adversely affected by the implementation of techno- Property Organization (W.I.P.O.) treaties by updating logical protection measures that effectively control U.S. copyright law for the digital environment. The bill access to copyrighted works." as crafted by the Committee on Commerce is signifi- In conducting the rulemaking, the Secretary shall cantly different than H.R. 2281, as approved by the examine several factors, including the availability House Committee on the Judiciary as well as the Senate- for use of copyrighted works; their availability for passed S. 2037. In addition to provisions included in archival, preservation, and educational purposes; S. 2037 and the House Committee on the Judiciary bill, the impact of technological protection measures this legislative package reflects a broader set of interests, on traditional fair uses, such as scholarship, teach- such as those relating to fair use, privacy, andencryp- ing, and research; the effects of circumvention of tion research. technological measures on the market for or value Changes to the bill followed well over a week of copyrighted works; and such factors as the of intensive negotiations by members of the library, Secretary and others consider appropriate. education, copyright proprietor interests, and commit- If the Secretary finds that an adverse impact is tee staff. The library community was represented by demonstrated or is "likely" on any particular class the Shared Legal Capability attorney, Arnold Lutzker of of copyrighted works, such as journal articles, this Fish & Richardson. The library and educationcommu- class would be exempt from the prohibition on nities have agreed not to oppose the compromise billas circumvention for the following two years to per- drafted by the Committee on Commerce with the mit "lawful uses." understanding that copyright proprietor interests will The Secretary, in consultation with the Register actively support DMCA, other bills such as H.R. 2652 and others, shall conduct a rulemaking every two (database protection) will not be included in this pack- years and evaluate the waivers of certain classes age, and this agreement is binding through the Senate of works, if applicable. conference. It is not clear that these conditions will hold. In addition to the Klug amendment, there are sever- In announcing the fair use amendment, Commerce al other key provisions included in the Committeeon Committee Chairman Bliley (R-VA) stated, "Theagree- Commerce bill. Many of the provisions originated in ment we have today gives consumers a reliable and reg- the Senate-passed bill and include: ular process that ensures they will have 'fair use'access a framework for online service provider liability; to information and copyrighted workswithout stifling the ability to use digital technologies for preservation growth- of electronic commerce. Digital technology has purposes; the potentialand let me emphasize the word 'poten- the ability to circumvent in order to engage in tial'to lock up information and works thatare other- encryption research; wise widely available to consumers today. The fact that permission to circumvent to protect personal privacy; this is only 'speculative' or 'hypothetical' does notcon- a study to consider distance education opportunities vince me that we should do nothing. Quite theoppo- and the impact of such programs on copyrighted site, it raises the possibility that it will inhibit growth in works in the networked environment; and electronic commerce." a study to examine the implications of online service An amendment offered by Rep. Klug (R-WI)was provider liability for educational institutions. incorporated in the DMCA; it has several key elements, Since the House Committee on the Judiciary and the including: Committee on Commerce bills differ, there will need to The new access provision which would have prohib- be consultation between the Committees to resolve ited circumvention of a technological protectionmea- these differences prior to the bill reaching the House sure for any purpose, including lawful purposes such floor. In addition, there will need to be a similar confer- as fair use, was dropped from the Commerce-drafted ence to sort through the differences between the House bill. and Senate W.I.P.O. legislation. The House bill could In lieu of this statutory "access" provision,a regula- reach the floor prior to the Congressional recess in early tory regime will be in place. The Secretary of August. Given the highly charged political atmosphere Commerce, in consultation with the Register of surrounding this legislation, it will be important to Copyrights and others, is directed to adopta retain a legislative package that is balanced.
A R L1 9 9 A U G U S T1 9 9 8 6 6 011, ,M1 MI
De Etta Jones, Senior Program Officer for Diversity
ARL APPLAUDS THE 1997-98 CLASS information science schools, and associations that OF THE LEADERSHIP AND CAREER contributed significantly to the Program's development and success. In addition, we thank the Department of DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Education and Institute of Museum and Library The pilot experience of ARL's Leadership and Services for their invaluable financial support. Career Development (LCD) Program has been a tremendous success. The Program exposes Next Steps participants, mentors, and ARL faculty to a breadth ARL is now working with the LCD Program of knowledge with significant opportunities for participants to complete their research projects and in-depth exploration. publish or The LCD Program otherwise give consists of several visibility to their components: two project results. one-week Institutes, Leading Ideas, a new a research project, ARL publication a mentoring series that focuses relationship, and on diversity, finally, a closing ceremony. The closing leadership, and ceremony for the career development, 1997-98 LCD Program was created through class was held July 25 the Diversity in Washington, D.C., Program as a just before the ALA vehicle for Conference. Directors, highlighting the mentors, supporters, participants' and ARL staff joined research; it is together as LCD LCD PROGRAM CLASS OF 1997-98 available at Program participants From left to right, Back row: Poping Lin, Jon Cawthorne, Gloria Rhodes,
b 7 A R L1 9 9 A U G U S T1 9 9 8 Kathryn Deiss, OLMS Program Manager
NEW FROM THE OLMS outcomes as well as level of satisfaction with the processes. Included in the Kit are the survey results and documentation INFORMATION SERVICES PROGRAM from member libraries such as sample review forms and by Patricia Brennan, ARL Publications Officer procedures from responding institutions. In addition,a feature of this Kit is "A Checklist of Recommendations." To order copies of any of these titles, contact the See also Occasional Paper #21, described below. ARL Publications department at
A R L1 9 9 A U G U S T1 9 9 8 6 s ARL---Acrw-rnEs Lee Anne George, ARL Program Planning Officer
HONORS Miriam A. Drake, Georgia Institute of Technology, was awarded an honorary Doctor of Library Science degree by Simmons College. The award was presented at a ceremony in Boston on May 17, and recognized her professional vision, scholarship, and leadership as well as the impact she has made on higher education and the field of library and information science. David Kohl, University of Cincinnati, and William Potter, University of Georgia, received the 1998 Blackwell's Scholarship Award from the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services for their pair of articles on library consortia which appeared in the Winter 1997 issue of Library Trends. Maureen Sullivan, OLMS Organizational Development Consultant, became the 61st President of the Association of College and Research Libraries on June 30. As President of ACRL, Maureen will promote her theme of ARL HONORS K. WAYNE SMITH Leadership of Learning. On June 29, ARL presented K. Wayne Smith, Winston Tabb, Library of Congress, received the retiring President and CEO of OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., with an award Melvil Dewey medal from the ALA at its annual honoring his many distinguished contributions to conference. The Dewey medal is given annually to research libraries and the scholarly community. recognize creative professional achievement of high The award was presented by ARL President James order and was awarded to Winston in recognition of his work with the LC Program for Cooperative Cataloging. Neal, Johns Hopkins University, and ARL Executive Director Duane Webster during the OCLC President's Wayne State University: The Shiffman Medical Library Luncheon in Washington, D.C. The award acknowl- was awarded the 1998 Innovation in Instruction Award edged that during his years at OCLC Dr. Smith was an by ACRL for the program Health Sciences Information innovator, a coalition-builder, and a catalyst for change. Tools 2000. His visionary leadership resulted in improved access to information and in reduced costs for managing that TRANSITIONS information. Association of American Universities: Nils Hasselmo Dr. Smith forged successful partnerships with began as President July 1. Previously the President of research libraries to build a cooperative base for deliv- the University of Minnesota, he replaces Cornelius ering technological innovations for integrating local Pings, who announced his retirement last year. Pings systems and OCLC services. Of great importance to had been AAU president since February 1993. North American research libraries are the powerful Association of Research Libraries: Deborah Jakubs enhancements in the OCLC Interlibrary Loan System was appointed Director, Collections Services at Duke and groundbreaking initiatives in the publishing and University, effective September. Since 1996 she has archiving of electronic information resources. been a Visiting Program Officer at the Association of In the words of the award, "K. Wayne Smith Research Libraries, leading the Global Resources astutely confronted the challenges of managing the Program funded by the Mellon Foundation. In her new largest library computer network and guided the capacity at Duke, Deborah will continue as head of the transformation of OCLC into a global organization ARL Global Resources Program but with a somewhat and the world's foremost bibliographic database." reduced time commitment. Dr. Smith was the third president of OCLC. Trish Rosseel, Librarian/Analyst for the Electronic He served the corporation for nearly ten years. Library Network in British Columbia, joins the OLMS as Visiting Program Officer August 17. She will investigate uses of technology for delivering training electronically.
69 A R L1 9 9 A U G U S T1 9 9 8 A
L -
ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues Executive Director: Duane E. Webster and Actions (US ISSN 1050-6098) is published six times Editor: G. Jaia Barrett, Deputy Executive Director a year by the Association of Research Libraries, Co-editor: Lee Anne George, Program Planning Officer 21 Dupont Circle, Washington, DC 20036. Copy Manager: Karen A. VVetzel 202-296-2296 FAX 202-872-0884 Designer: Kevin Osborn, Research & Design, Ltd., Arlington, VA
October 7-9 ARL/OLMS Facilitation November 2-3 From Data to Action: An ARL Skills Institute Workshop on Strategies to Washington, DC Redesign ILL/DD Services October 12-14 Workshop on Electronic Ottawa, Ontario Publishing of Data Sets on November 2-4 OLMS/DORAL Management the WWW Institute for Development Charlottesville, VA Officers October 13-16 ARL Board and Baltimore, MD Membership Meeting November 5-6 Workshop on Licensing Washington, DC Electronic Information October 13-16 Educom'98 Resources Orlando, FL Kansas City, MO October 19-20 From Data to Action: An ARL November 12-13From Data to Action: An ARL Workshop on Strategies to Workshop on Strategies to Redesign ILL/DD Services Redesign ILL/DD Services Edmonton, Alberta Chapel Hill, NC October 22-23 From Data to Action: An ARL November 16-19ARL/OLMS Library Workshop on Strategies to Management Skills Institute I: Redesign ILL/DD Services The Manager Denver, CO Washington, DC October 27-28 ARL/OLMS Leading December 7-8 CM Task Force Meeting Change Institute Seattle, WA Chicago, IL December 8-11 CAUSE98 Seattle, WA
70 -r A BIMONTHLY NEWSLETTER OF RESEARCH LIBRARYISSUES AND ACTIONS VIEWS OFTHE CURRENT MARKETPLACE FOR SCHOLARLY JOURNALS by Mary M. Case, Director of the ARL Office of Scholarly Communication
Scholarly research is the life-blood of the growing size of the journal titles could not fully account advancement of knowledge. Faculty, univer- for a large portion of the prices charged by fourcommer- sities, societies, federal agencies, research insti- cial publishers. In 1997, a 20 -year study of scientific tutions, publishers, and libraries all play a role in journals by Tenopir and King (Journal of Scholarly supporting the creation and dissemination of that Publishing 28.3: 171-79) came to a similar conclusion research. Broad, easy, and early access to research and attributed an unknown but significant proportion findings facilitates the work of the practicing scien- of price increases to the pricing practices of commercial tist, while access to quality-controlled, permanently publishers. Studies within individual disciplines have available articles provides the basis for reward time and again demonstrated higher costs per character systems, cross-disciplinary investigation, graduate and per page of some commercially published journals study, and the historical record. However, the when compared to journal titles published by societies formal and informal systems of scholarlycommu- or other non-profit groups. nication that have grown up to support the Library responses to this growing body of research advancement of knowledge are in jeopardy as a about the extent and nature of price increases for schol- result of market forcesmost visible in scientific arly journals have been multifaceted. National and journals publishingthat are reducingaccess international library conferences have drawn attention to the published literature in all disciplines. to the research findings and explored possible solutions. Librarians are acutely aware of the dynamics On the local level, librarians have combinedcampus in the market for academic journals. Price increasesexperience with the literature published about the for a serial subscription for a research library have research to help inform faculty and students about the averaged 9.5% a year over the past decade. Despite financial challenges and choices inherent in managing infusions of funds into serials budgets, libraries serial collections. Over time, this process of informing have been unable to keep pace with the steep price and educating research library users, boards, and fund- increases. As a result, libraries have had no choice ing agencies has contributed to a broadening circle of but to cancel significant numbers of journal sub- awareness about dysfunctions in this marketplace. scriptions and to reduce monographic purchasing, This awareness has finally reached into the offices of decimating their collections. Many believe the faculty, provosts, university presidents, and antitrust exploitative practices of a few large commercial authorities in the U.S. and Europe. companies operating in a near monopolistic With this awareness has emerged a sense that the market are the fundamental cause of high prices. entire system of scholarly communication is in danger In 1988, ARL contracted with the Economic of collapsing unless there is concerted effort by the Consulting Services (ECS) to conduct a serials prices academic community to promote less expensive chan- study. Using best estimates available, ECS conclud- nels for publication, dissemination, and archiving of ed that the increasing costs of production and the scholarly research. 71 Continued
This special issue of the ARL newsletter explores In the second article, Brendan Wyly, a librarian in the nature of the journals market in depth and presents the Johnson Graduate School of Management Library at strategies for challenging the status quo. Earlier issues Cornell University, uses publicly available data to analyze of this newsletter have reported on ARL's commitment to the financial health of four major publicly traded compa- SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources nies that have significant scholarly publishing operations. Coalition) as a strategy to create partnerships with pub- Wyly describes the measures of profitability found in these lishers who are developing high-quality and yet economi- companies' annual reports and concludes that the profits cal alternatives to existing high-priced publications and of some of the major commercial publishers of scholarly to foster expanded competition in scholarly communica- journals are, in a word, exceptional. He also concludes tion. ARL views SPARC as one strategy among many that these profits confirm a lack of competition in the for addressing the complex issues involved in the current marketplace. His response is to call for a new system of scholarly publishing system. The four articles that follow scholarly communication, created primarily by universi- in this issue of the newsletter propose additional, comple- mentary strategies that libraries, faculty, universities, and ties, that provides the kinds of innovations that will lure the academic community as a whole may pursue to keep authors away from commercial publishers and end challenging the current marketplace. reliance on journal purchasing in a non-competitive market. We begin the issue with a report by Mark McCabe, Regardless of what we may think about their price, an economist formerly with the U.S. Department of Justice commercial publications, according to Louisiana State (DOD. McCabe presents the preliminary findings of the University Library's Stanley Wilder, are of less value to DOJ's work to develop a new model for understanding faculty than society publications when measured against the competitive impact of publisher mergers on the acade- the revenue they generate. Wilder presents the specific mic journals market. Librarians' outcry at the proposed case of chemistry, where he finds that commercially pro- Reed Elsevier/Wolters Kluwer merger encouraged the duced journals account for 74% of the revenue generated DOJ to look beyond its established criteria for evaluating by a core set of chemistry titles but contribute only publishing mergers and to explore whether other dynam- between 22-35% of the value. The response? He calls for ics were operating that would permit mergers of relativelya change in philosophy of those academic librarians who modest size to cause competitive harm and higher prices. currently pursue comprehensiveness in collecting scientific Librarians across the country spent hours on the phone and technical journal literature. He recommends instead with McCabe and his legal colleagues at the DOJ as they placing value at the heart of scientific and technical attempted to understand how libraries behave as a mar- collecting and relegating lower value literature to more ket. Subsequently, staff in over 50 ARL libraries provided cost-effective document-on-demand acquisition. DOJ with data on the holdings of over 3,000 journal titles Concluding this issue is a report from Mike Sosteric, for a ten-year period. Some of these staffs worked over- a faculty member of Athabasca University's Centre for time for two weeks to gather the information from manual Global and Social Analysis and founding director of the records. These data, combined with that collected else- new International Consortium for Alternative Academic where by the DOJ, allowed McCabe and his colleagues to Publication (ICAAP). Sosteric writes in practical terms develop and test models by comparing projected effects about the very real barriers to independent scholarly publi- with the actual effects of previous mergers and acquisi- cation and describes how the recently formed ICAAP plans tions. Based on this testing, McCabe outlines here his new to tackle these barriers in order to develop an international portfolio theory of journal pricing that suggests that "pub- lisher mergers of relatively modest size can cause compet- alternative scholarly communication system outside of the itive harm." While the Reed Elsevier/Wolters Kluwer commercial mainstream. Most noteworthy about ICAAP deal was ultimately abandoned by the companies, is that it is a faculty-initiated project intended to facilitate several other publisher mergers have come before the cultural change in faculty editors and authors while pro- DOJ. McCabe will therefore continue his research for the moting the acceptance of independent publishing outlets. DOJ even as he takes on a new position as an assistant Sosteric calls on research libraries and their institutions to professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology. join this Canadian-based, international initiative. McCabe's work helps us to understand the dynamics ARL's Office of Scholarly Communication welcomes of the marketplace in scholarly journals publishing. community response to these proposals for influencing the It may lead the DOJ to some future action that will pro- current marketplace for academic journals. We realize that tect the academic community from the anti-competitive there are many other worthy initiatives, which we will practices of some publishers. Most importantly, it will feature in upcoming OSC newsletter columns. Moreover, replace some of our speculations with fact, allowing we will continue to promote and facilitate actions such as us to develop even more effective strategies. these that complement and reinforce the agenda of SPARC.
A R L2 0 0 O C T O B E R1 9 9 8 THE IMPACT OF PUBLISHER MERGERS have to break new ground to determine how and why. But first, what about alternative explanations for ON JOURNAL PRICES: the persistent price increases of journals? For example, A PRELIMINARY REPORT perhaps the price inflation reflects increased costs. by Mark J. McCabe, Assistant Professor of Economics, However, an extensive review of the relevant literature Georgia Institute of Technology (published largely in the library science field) revealed When I was asked by the Department of Justice that the actual costs of journal editing and printing (DOD to consider the potential competitive seemed not to have suffered any unusual run-up during impact of a number of publishing mergers the past decade. Another potential and more compelling on the market for academic journals, my initial reaction explanation relies on a simple application of supply and was, franldy, one of skepticism. I thought to myself, demand analysis. Our interviews with libraries indicate Hundreds of unique titles exist and the number of publishers that university budgets for periodicals are relatively fixed is immense. The first step in antitrust analysis is defining in a given year so that "large" increases in the population the market in order to determine whether a monopolist of available titles might induce librarians to cancel some could in fact wield power in this market. In scholarly titles as they add new, more desirable journals to their publishing, doesn't each unique journal title constitutea collections (this "population" invariably increases over distinct market for the purposes of antitrust analysis? time). And since each issue of a journal involves certain Certainly no one would argue that articles in Brain fixed editorial costs in addition to variable printing costs, Research could be easily substituted for ones in the a persistent decline in a title's circulation will eventually New England Journal of Medicine, much less those in the force firms to raise prices as they attempt to cover the American Economic Review. If each title corresponds to fixed costs of publication. In other words, everything an antitrust market, then owners of individual titles else equal, a smaller subscriber base necessitates higher already have the capacity to achieve monopoly returns; prices. Of course, the interesting feature of this explana- a corollary is that mergers don't matter. Furthermore, tion is that entry by new journals is a source of price even if markets are defined somewhat more broadly, inflation.2 "Demand" fornew titles eventually results say, to include titles whose content overlaps, the likeli- in higher prices across the board. hood that two publishers (among dozens) would Roger Noll, Morris M. Doyle Centennial Professor of together control sufficient content in enough subject Economics at Stanford University, is an advocate of this areas to warrant antitrust scrutiny seemed small. hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, he collected price, I conveyed these first impressions to my legal col- quality, and circulation data for a sample of journals that leagues at the DOJ, and, well, they were not particularly were included in the Institute for Scientific Information enamored with this point of view. Their initial discus- indexes in a number of fields (for the period 1978-88). sions with university librarians across the country as After estimating supply and demand equations, he found they began their investigations into the proposed Reed that supply was downward-sloping, i.e., price and circu- Elsevier/Wolters Kluwer merger had revealed a certain lation were inversely related. Since entry by new journals (high) level of agitation over persistent journal price reduces demand for existing journals, this estimated "sys- inflation during the past decade or more. Furthermore, tem" predicts increased prices with entry. It should be the librarians' ire was focused on a small number of noted that Noll's analysis does not determine what por- large publishing houses (large in the sense that they tion of journal price inflation is due to entry (presumably had large portfolios of titles) whose price "leadership" this could be assessed by measuring the change in journal had helped decimate their budgets and imperil scholar- population during his sample period). Furthermore, ship at their institutions. his system estimation indicates that significant price So, what was to be done? The Antitrust Division inflation has occurred independent of changes in circula- had recently evaluated a number of publishingmergers tion. That is, even after accounting for the effect of (Thomson/West, for example). As a result of these circulation on prices, there remains a large unexplained investigations, several of my economist colleagues at increase in prices. DOJ had concluded that measuring bookor journal The existence of this "unexplained" residual inflation content differentiation was an appropriate method for opens the door for additional and complementary theo- evaluating the impact of increased concentration in ries. Over the past six or seven months, I began initial these types of markets; that is, only if twoor more jour- development and testing (with some assistance from a nals were close substitutes might there beany potential DOJ colleague, David Reitman) of a portfolio theory of concern.' In other words, their approachparalleled my journal pricing that suggests that publisher mergers of own initial impressions! Obviously, if companies were a relatively modest size can cause competitive harm. behaving anti-competitively in this market,we would The remainder of this brief report summarizes this work.
A R L2 0 0 O C T O B E R1 9 9 8 -SPECIAL ISSUE ON-jOURN-AL-S Continued
Some Views of the Marketplace each journal company (owning a single journal title) for Academic Journals will set prices so that higher quality journals will exhibit The Demand Side lower cost per use ratios. Given n journals, these can be First, some useful facts regarding what the DOJ ranked from lowest to highest in terms of cost per use inquiry found about the demand for academic journals. by libraries, with the lower quality journals (that have Purchase of academic journals by libraries is generally higher cost per use) purchased by relatively high-budget based on two factorsprice and expected usage. To libraries. Conversely, higher quality journals (that have assemble and maintain their collections, most libraries lower cost per use) are purchased by most libraries.4 appear to construct a cost per use ratio for each title.3 The intuition for this particular ordering is that Given a budget for a relevant academic field, e.g., higher quality imparts a "cost advantage" that makes it medicine, they then proceed to rank journals from low- more profitable to price low and sell widely. Given this est to highest in that field according to this ratio, and strategy, lower quality, or "high-cost," journals find it identify a cutoff above which titles need to be canceled. most profitable to price high and sell to fewer, relatively Conversely, if their holdings in the relevant field do not high-budget libraries. Note that although the latter exhaust the budget, additional titles can be purchased firms could match the "low-cost" firms' prices, this until the budget constraint is met. From year to year,as strategy is less profitable than targeting the smaller budgets and titles' usage change, collections are adjust- base of well-endowed customers.5 ed accordingly. Over the past decade or so the general Mark's model trend is for increases in library budgets to lag journal My approach differs from David's primarily in the price inflation; a consequence is that many library assumed distribution of budgets. I consider a finite set collections have suffered a fair amount of attrition. of discrete library budget classes; each class is populat- The most interesting aspect of library journal acqui- ed by one or more libraries. The number of journals sition, of course, is that individual titles within a given exceeds that of budget classes (one motivation for this field are considered simultaneously. So, for example, approach is that, in the case of medicine, for example, medical libraries group titles from various sub-fields, the number of journals is much larger than the popula- e.g., neurology, biochemistry, clinical medicine, etc., tion of academic libraries in the U.S.). Given these into a single "portfolio" and broadly apply the cost per assumptions, my model shows that single-title journal use criterion. Thus, titles compete with each other for firms targeting the same budget class set prices so that budget dollars across an entire field rather than acrossa their cost per use ratios are identical to each other; for narrow sub-field, as intuition might otherwise suggest higher budget classes this ratio increases. Furthermore, (ar} intuition based on the perspective of the typical user given some set of journals of varying quality, higher of journal materials, and a basis for my initial skepti- quality journals will generally target the lower budget cism). Furthermore, since journals are highly differenti- classes, resulting in lower cost per use ratios (as in ated even within sub-fields, libraries try to purchaseas David's approach). The intuition for. these results is the many titles as possible (except for the most widely used same as before: higher (lower) quality implies a cost journals, libraries purchase no duplicate subscriptions). (dis) advantage, which dictates a lower (higher) price Publishers' Pricing Strategies and therefore broader (narrower) circulation.6 Given this demand structure, how do publishing firms While both approaches to the question of how pub- price their journals? First, there exist at least two types lishing firms set their prices are based on single-title of journal companiescommercial and non-profitthat commercial journal firms, they set the stage for future have different strategies. In general, the latter are most- analysis of larger portfolio firms. ly intent on disseminating knowledge, whereas the for- Implications for Mergers mer are primarily interested in profits. Here I assume that the non-profit firms set prices to cover costs (and Under David's scenario, mergers between firms control- are thus ignored in the analysis that follows). David ling two adjacent journalsi.e., journals with adjacent Reitman and I have both considered how this question cost per use ratiosresult in higher prices post-merger, and therefore a change in the holdings of libraries. might be answered for commercial firms. Althoughour Mergers between firms with non-adjacent journals (at analyses differ in certain details, they should beseen as complementary. least in the few simulations that David performed) appear to have no impact on prices. This is probably David's model due to the fact that a given journal's price is constrained David assumes that a continuous distribution of library by the next higher journal, in terms of cost per use. budgets exists, i.e., libraries have unique budgets that Relaxing this constraint benefits the lower cost per can be ordered from smallest to largest. He shows that use journal but hurts the higher cost per use journal.
ARL 200 OCTOBER 1998 7 4 Mergers of firms with non-adjacent journals are less of internal growth versus that due to acquisition. We profitable since the lower cost per use journal's pricing speculate that internal growth due to entry may produce is still constrained by an adjacent journal(s) that is not benefits (such as coverage of an otherwise uncovered involved in the merger. field) that help offset any intentional competitive harm; Under Mark's scenario, mergers between firms that any harm associated with acquisitions, on the other control two journals that target the same budget class hand, is less likely tO be balanced by substantial bene- or adjacent budget classes may be profitable. In other fitstitles are simply reshuffled, and any fixed cost words, mergers do not have to involve journals of adja- savings seem to be small.8 cent quality. Note that with this approach some prices We adopted a reduced form or hedonic method of increase while others decrease, depending on whether estimation, where prices are regressed on several fac- or not a journal switches tors: firm portfolio size, budget class post-merger. journal quality (measured For example, consider a Briefly, our results for journals sold by by ISI citation level), a merger between firms with Brandon-Hill dummy (the two journals in the same commercial publishers indicate that Brandon-Hill journal list9 budget class. The price of indicates essentially the lower quality journal of prices are indeed positively related to whether a journal is a gen- the two involved in the firm portfolio size, and thatmergers eral or specialized title and merger is raised enough so is thus an exogenous mea- that the libraries in this result in significant price increases. sure of circulation "poten- budget class would cancel tial"), and a number of the journal and replace it variables that capture the with one of lower quality that is now more attractive in effects of residual price inflation and idiosyncratic firm- terms of price. Using the low-cost analogy, the intro- specific effects. For further technical details see the duction of this relatively "high-cost" journal allows the short empirical appendix that follows. rest of the journals in this class (including the high qual- Briefly, our results for journals sold by commercial ity journal owned by the merged firm) to raise prices. publishers indicate that prices are indeed positively Depending on the parameters, the corresponding related to firm portfolio size, and that mergers result in increase in profits for the merged firm may or may significant price increases. For one specific transaction not outweigh the losses incurred by its lower quality we investigatedWolters Kluwer and Waverlythe journal. results predicted an average price increase of between Much work remains to be done here, including the 20-30% for the affected medical titles. What is particu- analysis of larger portfolio firms and the interplay larly noteworthy are the modest portfolio sizes between price inflation and budgets that was alluded involved. Based on the total number of ISI journals to earlier. sold by commercial publishers (with portfolios of ten Testing the Portfolio Theory titles or greater), Wolters Kluwer and Waverly have During the course of our investigation at DOJ we col- shares equal to about 11% and 5%, respectively. lected a range of data in order to test the portfolio theory Contrary to the current rule of thumb in anfitrustthe of journal pricing. We collected price data for some combined shares of the merging firms typically need to 3,000 journals, holdings information from various approach 35-40% before measurable effects arisethese libraries, and quality information from the Institute shares are relatively modest.1° An explanation for this for Scientific Information (ISI) (for the period 1988-98) anomalous result is that unlike most markets, where across a number of academic fields for ISI-ranked buyers purchase a product from one of several sellers, in journals. Since our progress was greatest for medical the market for journals, buyers purchase titles from as journals,' my discussion is focused in that subjectarea. many sellers as possible. This strategy delivers more In 1998, the number of ISI-ranked medical journals market power to "small" firms, hence the large impact published by commercial firms exceeds 1,000. from modest-sized mergers. The sample period, 1988-1998, is useful in at least Finally, even after controlling for the effects of firm two respects. First, it is sufficiently long to assess size and other variables, there remains significant resid- whether inflation continues to plague the journal ual price inflation. One explanation is that our portfolio market (and it dovetails nicely with Noll's sample). approach and Noll's entry story are complementary Second, the period contains a number of natural experi- both factors contribute to the observed price inflation ments, i.e., publishing mergers, that help us distinguish separately.11 And the residual price inflation in each between different "types" of portfolio effects: the effect estimation reflects the impact of the omitted factor, 7 5 A R L2 0 0 O C T O B E R1 9 9 8 *
Continued
whether it be firm portfolio size or declining circula- Using the price, portfolio and holdings data collected tion. Clearly, one important avenue to pursue in the during the course of our investigation, I hope to future is how these two factors should be incorporated further develop our portfolio theory and to test the into a single estimation (the medical libraries holdings robustness of our initial empirical results. Although data should be useful in this regard since it provides antitrust policies in the U.S. and Europe have snapshots over time of how journal circulation changed considerably over the past two decades changed for a representative sample of libraries). in response to a better understanding of market Implications and Future Directions dynamics, this type of reform requires the develop- When the proposed merger between Reed Elsevier and ment of new and persuasive evidence that existing Wolters Kluwer foundered earlier this year, opposition policies are inadequate. from antitrust authorities in Europe and the U.S. was cited as a primary cause. Although no formal com- Empirical Appendix plaints were filed by agencies on either side of the Hedonic estimation does not provide estimates of Atlantic, regulators had sent a variety of signals indi- the "structural parameters" from a supply/demand cating their serious concerns. Negotiations with the system. This can limit the quality of inference. For European Union had progressed the farthest and it example, suppose one regressed auto prices on a set appeared that the proposed deal would proceed only of car characteristics, e.g., horsepower, passenger if the parties agreed to significant divestitures. It was capacity, transmission type, etc. If we found that car widely reported at the time that the EU's preferred set prices were positively associated with horsepower, of divestitures upset the financial logic of the merger should we conclude that the cost of additional horse- and resulted in its demise. power is positive or that demand for larger horse- What is interesting here is that the EU's main power engines is greater? In the present case, this focus was not on academic journals, but rather on inference problem is not likely to affect the firm legal publishing (in Europe), and that its theory of portfolio size parameter. Since a merger should not anti-competitive harm was based on traditional antitrust principles, i.e., excessive overlap in content increase costs, a merger-related price increase in the (and therefore similar to the DOJ's approach to the hedonic framework is demand-related, i.e., a result Thomson/West merger). of enhanced market power. The U.S. focus, of course, was far different, in part Another concern whenever "firm size" is speci- because European legal publishing was not germane fied as an explanatory factor in a price or profits and because the model of harm relied upon was novel. equation is the issue of endogeneity. What deter- Though one can only speculate on how a U.S. antitrust mines firm size? If firm size is merely a proxy for case might have proceeded, it is clear that the com- some other X-factor (say, lower costs, or skill at intro- bined Reed Elsevier/Wolters Kluwer entity would ducing new journals) it is possible that any conclu- have controlled large journal portfolios in a number sions regarding the negative effects of firm size per se of broad fields, including biomedicine. Assuming that might change if this additional factor(s) were includ- these broad fields constituted antitrust markets, some ed in the analysis. This problem is most acute with of these portfolios would have crossed the U.S. cross-sectional data, since firm-fixed effects are omit- Government's threshold with shares in excess of 35%. ted and no changes in the relevant variables can be Based on the preliminary results discussed here, such observed over time (see the Handbook of Industrial a merger would have resulted in substantial price Organization chapter by Richard Schmalensee on this increases over time. If the U.S. had filed a complaint topic13). However, panel data (cross-sectional data and had been successful with this market definition, over time) of the sort collected here is ideally suited an important legal precedent would have been set, one to address these endogeneity concerns. A panel that would have made it easier to employ a portfolio allows us to observe the impact of changes in portfo- theory in mergers involving combined market shares lio size over time, holding firm attributes constant. less than the threshold andlor a large firm buying a rel- And to address any lingering concerns that these atively small portfolio of journals (see endnote 10). changes in firm size are masking some X-factor (as Unfortunately, since any future deals are likely to be noted above), the data allows us to distinguish relatively small in scope, opposition to journal mergers between increases in firm size due to internal growth will need to be successful in both dimensions: market versus growth from merger. Since we are able to definition and market shares.12 control for quality changes, a significant (in the This increased burden is why further refinement of statistical sense) post-merger price increase is a the work started over the last eight months is necessary. good indication of an anti-competitive effect. ARL 200 OCTOBER 1998 76 Endnotes 1For example, as a condition of DOJ approval of the COMPETITION IN SCHOLARLY Thompson/West merger, the companies were required to PUBLISHING? WHAT PUBLISHER divest a number of law journals in order to reduce the con- centration of titles with similar content that would now be PROFITS REVEAL owned by the single company. by Brendan J. Wyly, Johnson Graduate School of Management 2How much of this "brand proliferation" and its impacton Library, Cornell University prices is due to anti-competitive intent, rather than more bsoth customers and critics of commercial scholarly legitimate reasons, is a question that remains to be addressed. publishers, librarians might find useful a sum- 3This claim is literally true for medical libraries; thoughother Amary of the recent finances of the publicly traded types of academic libraries may not be as precise in their pro- companies that have significant scholarly publishing cesses, they appear to behave in similar fashion. In any case, this is an empirical question that can be tested using holdings operations. A financial analysis can help us determine data (if one examines how a given library's holdings change if our trust in maintaining long-term relationships with over time, it should be possible to test whether the changes in these companies is warranted and at the same time sug- holdings correspond to the predictions of a cost per use port- gest whether our concerns that an anti-competitive folio model that takes into account journal quality and price). market is operating are supported by the data. 4We used price divided by number of citationsas a proxy for cost per use. Recent Profits of Publicly Traded 5For the more technically inclined, David's approachemploys Scholarly Publishers a "constrained" Nash equilibrium concept where each firm The publicly traded companies with significant scholarly chooses a price so that journals with higher cost per use ratios publishing operations focused on here are Wolters have no incentive to undercut. Kluwer, Reed Elsevier, John Wiley & Sons, and Plenum 6Again, for the more technically inclined, it should benoted Publishing. In March 1998, Wolters Kluwer and Reed that to demonstrate existence of equilibria in this case it is necessary to think of pricing as part of a two-stage game, i.e., Elsevier canceled plans to merge. In early June 1998, in the first stage firms select the budget class in which they Wolters Kluwer announced plans to acquire Plenum. will competethis might reflect marketing costs and so Finding meaning in the measurements of publishing forthand in the second stage they choose prices. houses requires an understanding of what existing data 'When the Reed Elsevier/Wolters Kluwermerger was called represent (and/or exclude) and a context for interpreting off in March 1998, the DOJ refocused their analysis on the the data. This summary presents three tables to examine pending merger of Kluwer with Waverly Press, a publisher the four companies. The first table looks at the overall of biomedical journals. size of the companies. The second presents financial 5Furthermore, if publishingmergers do result in cost savings, economic theory implies that post-merger prices should ratios to indicate profitability of overall operations. decline, everything else equal. And the third table presents a hypothetical summary of 9Alfred N. Brandon and Dorothy R. Hill, "Selected List of savings for the customers of these companies' scholarly Books and Journals for the Small Medical Library," Bulletin of publishing segments had the companies operated their the Medical Library Association 85.2 (Apr. 1997): 111-35. scholarly publishing segments at the median measure w This rule of thumb is suggested by the government'santitrust of profitability for the periodical publishing industry. guidelines, and helps to explain the recent reluctance of the Taken together, these figures give a reasonable picture Antitrust Division to oppose mergers in the publishing of the profits achieved by these companies from their industry. Note that even if two merging companies have sale of scholarly materials. combined shares in excess of this threshold, one company's market share cannot be trivial, e.g., one or two percent. To illustrate the relative size of the companies, Table 1 11These are likely to be "separate" effects since the effects of reports sales, operating income, net income, net income entry are not firm specific, whereas those of portfolio sizeare. available for common shareholders, and common equity 12Meanwhile, to help avoid future antitrust scrutiny the for the four publishers under review as well as for two Elseviers of the publishing world will likely grow by other companiesThomson and Microsoft. Thomson is adding relatively small numbers of journals at frequent not a major publisher of scholarly journals, but it is a intervals. If pursued diligently, this stealth strategycan be major vendor of other resources to the research library just as successful as any megadeal. 13Richard community (for example, Thomson owns Gale Research, Schmalensee and Robert D. Willig, eds., Handbook Information Access, the Institute for Scientific Information, of Industrial Organization, Handbooks in Economics 10, Amsterdam; New York: North Holland, 1989. and West), so it is included for informational and compari- son purposes. Microsoft is included as well to provide © 1998 Mark J. McCabe. The author grants blanket some basis for comparison as a well-known, highly prof- 1 permission to reprint this article for educationaluse as long itable company operating in a somewhat monopolistic I as the author and source are acknowledged. For commercial market. (In the March 30, 1998 issue, Business Week ranked use, a reprint request should be sent to the author Microsoft as the most profitable company in the S&P 500
A R L2 0 0 O C T O B E R1 9 9 8 Continued
In addition to the raw financial figures in Table 1, the dividend stockholders are considered as beneficiaries. financial ratios in Table 2 are presented as they are more A high net margin may be necessary if the enterprise is informative about the market in which commercial schol- high-risk and requires a considerable capital invest- arly publishers operate. For comparison, periodical pub- ment. However, a net margin of profits on sales that is lishing industry ratios are also included in Table 2 for higher than the market norm is a substantial indicator periodical publishing in general (not limited to scholarly of "high" profits and raises questions about whether publishing). Ratios for the banking and consumer prod- a competitive market is operating and, if so, why that ucts segments of the S&P 500 are included because they particular market supports a higher margin than were the most profitable segments in 1997, as measured other markets. by net margin and return on equity, respectively. Both operating and net margins are reported There is no single ideal measure of profitability, excluding extraordinary financial events that are not and all of the financial ratios presented in thissummary expected to recur, such as the one-time costs and bene- must be considered relative to other companies and fits of acquisitions, dispositions, legal actions, etc. industries. Three ratios are particularly useful to Return on equity is the ratio of net income (after customers of these companies: payment of preferred dividends) to the net worth or Operating margin measures how much of each sales common equity in the enterprise. Return on equity dollar customers pay to all the beneficiaries ofan measures income generated for each dollar of capital enterprise over and above the costs incurred in provid- invested by the ordinary owners who have no special ing the goods or service. Those beneficiaries include first claim on profits in the form of preferred dividends. stockholders, lenders, and members of society benefit- As measured by net profit margin, Plenum ing from taxes on the enterprise. A high operating Publishing was more profitable in 1997 than 491 compa- margin may be needed to cover taxes and provide a nies in the S&P 500, according to Business Week. Reed return that will attract the necessary capital through Elsevier's net margin was higher than 473 of the compa- lending or stockholding, given the particular risks of nies in the S&P 500 for 1997. Both Plenum and Reed the enterprise and alternative investments. Operating Elsevier had extraordinary net profit margins compared margin excludes interest costs/profits that are the to the periodical publishing industry as a whole, and result of decisions about how to finance an operation Wolters Kluwer was near the upper quartile. However, and how to use the income it generates rather than as noted, high margins on sales may be necessary to earn the result of the direct costs and benefits of carrying a sufficient return on the equity that must be attracted. on an enterprise. Wolters Kluwer provided a higher return on equity in Net margin takes interest and taxes out of the profit 1997 than 482 of the S&P 500 companies, Reed Elsevier consideration so that only common and preferred higher than 448, Plenum higher than 361, and Wiley higher
TABLE 1: SALES, INCOME,AND COIVIMON STOCK EQUITY FOR THE LATEST FISCAL YEAR REPORTED Net Sales Operating Income Net Income Net Income Common (before interest & (excluding Available for Shareholder taxes & excluding extraordinary Common Equity extraordinary items) items) Shareholders (prior year) Wolters Kluwer $2,569,808,000 $548,101,000 $285,644,000 $285,644,000 $685,235,000 Dec. 31, 1997
Reed Elsevier $5,603,880,000 $1,451,400,000 $998,760,000 $997,120,000 $3,534,570,000 Dec. 31, 1997
J. Wiley & Sons $431,974,000 $34,797,000 $20,340,000 $20,340,000 $117,982,000 April 30, 1997
Plenum Publishing $52,634,000 $17,626,000 $12,824,000 $12,824,000 $63,399,000 Dec. 31, 1997
Thomson Corp. $8,766,000,000 $959,000,000 $579,000,000 $550,000,000 $4,946,000,000 Dec. 31, 1997
Microsoft $11,358,000,000 $5,130,000,000 $3,454,000,000 $3,439,000,000 $6,908,000,000 June 30, 1997 Source: Respective annual reports and SEC filings.
A R L2 0 0 O C T O B E R1 9 9 8 than 302. Even though Wiley's net marginwas relatively Wolters Kluwer approached the extremely high return modest (4.7%), it excelled in providing a strong return on equity of the upper quartile of the industry. Compared on equity (17.2%). This ability to turn a net margin into to most other industries, Reed Elsevier fairly efficiently a high return on equity is characteristic of the publish- used capital to earn a high return on equity froma very ing industry in which either a small amount of equity high margin, but it was not nearly as effective with its can be put to work to generate considerable sales or the margin as other top-performing publishers. Plenum industry leverages equity by borrowing to produce high did a poor job of converting a very high margin into returns on small equity stakes. In simple terms, this return on equity; this gives some indication of likely means that publishers either do not need to raise a large inefficiencies on the part of Plenum relative to the other amount of capital to produce publications or that pub- two companies and relative to periodical publishing in lishers borrow what money they need rather than sell- general. However, we cannot definitively state the ing equity stakes. A detailed analysis of the origins of origins of these return on equity figures withouta very these returns on equity is beyond thescope of this arti- detailed analysis of the debt and equity structures of cle, but a high return on equity is at leasta potential these companies. indicator that equity holders are benefiting from invest- If the net margins of Wolters Kluwer, Reed Elsevier, ing in activities not subject to competitive forces. In Wiley, and Plenum had been 5.0% (the median in the combination with other evidence, the returnon equity overall periodical publishing industry as measured by figures help bear out this assessment. Dun & Bradstreet's Industry Norms & Key Business Ratios The periodical publishing industry asa whole, at 1997-98) the customers of the three companies would the lower quartile, median, and upper quartile levels, have saved approximately $884,653,000 in 1997. converts margins into return on equity at multiples of Alternatively, if the three companies had earneda return three or four times. Wolters Kluwer and Wiley attained on equity of 18.8%, the customers would have saved these industry levels of performanceas measured by approximately $490,145,000. Of course, those customers return on equity as multiples of their margins. However, were not all purchasing only scholarly publications from because Wiley started from a lower margin, only these companies. That raises the issues of how much
TABLE 2: PROFIT RATIOSFOR THE LATEST FISCAL YEAR
Operating Margin Net Margin Return on Equity Wolters Kluwer* 21.3% 11.1% 41.7% Dec. 31, 1997
Reed Elsevier* 25.9% 17.8% 28.2% Dec. 31, 1997
J. Wiley & Sons* 8.1% 4.7% 17.2% April 30, 1997
Plenum Publishing* 33.5% 24.4% 20.2% Dec. 31, 1997
Thomson Corp* 10.9% 6.6% 11.1% Dec. 31, 1997
Microsoft* 45.2% 30.4% 49.8% June 30, 1997
Periodical Publ. (SIC 2721)* unavailable 11.5% (upper quartile) 54.3% (upper quartile) 5.0% (median) 18.8% (median) 1.7% (lower quartile) 5.6% (lower quartile) Consumer/S&P 500** 9.3% 28.2% Dec. 31, 1997 Banks/S&P 500** Dec. 31, 1997 14.5% 15.8% Sources: *Respective annual reports and SEC filings. lIndustry Norms & Key Business Ratios1997-98, Dun & Bradstreet, data for 280 establishments. 'Business Week's Industry Rankings of the S&P 500," Business Week (30Mar. 1998): 123.
A R L2 0 0 O C T O B E R1 9 9 8 Continued
revenue these companies derive from scholarly publish- Scientific and Medical publishing segment. The largest ing (as opposed to their other product lines) and how and most profitable Wolters Kluwer operations are in these companies regard their own scholarly publishing Tax and Legal publishing, including not only the CCH segments. divisions but also a very substantial amount of scholarly Company Views on the legal publishing. The profitability of the large, some- what monopolistic Tax/Legal segment partly accounts Scholarly Publishing Market for the difference between Scientific/Medical sales at The annual reports contain some information about the 14% and operating income at 13% of overall operations. companies' views of the scholarly publishing market The Scientific/Medical segment is very profitable for and their intentions to focus on this profitable business. Wolters Kluwer, and they have been concentrating on Wiley reports that 47% of revenue for 1997 was growing it through acquisitions, including the planned derived from science, technology, and medical publish- acquisition of Plenum. The other quite profitable sector ing, consisting of journals, encyclopedias, newsletters, is Business publishing, which includes some scholarly and books: "A fundamental strategy is to develop publishing. The Educational and Trade publishing journals, newsletters, subscription books, multivolume reference works, and other continuity products. Such sectors are much less profitable in terms of operating products serve customers well by keeping them up to margins. In the following calculations of scholarly date in fast-moving fields of science and technology, publishing profit ratios (Table 3), only the Scientific/ and they benefit Wiley by generating predictable Medical sector finances are included for Wolters income and substantial cash flow." Educational Kluwer, although they clearly derive income from publishing, mainly of undergraduate texts, accounted scholarly publishing in other sectors that is not specifi- for 25% of 1997 revenue for Wiley, and professional cally quantified in their reporting. Wolters Kluwer's publications mainly focused on business professionals 1997 annual report includes a section on "Developments generated 28% of revenue in 1997. in the Markets" that states, "We are furthermore facing Plenum reported that in 1997 subscription journals sustained competition from 'non-publishers' in the field accounted for 63% of sales, books for 26%, and database of information provision." There is no elaboration on this products for 9%. No particular emphasis is reported on interesting point that seems to have significance especial- growing one segment relative to another. ly for the Tax/Legal and Scientific/Medical segments. Reed Elsevier reports, "The Scientific segment of Since indications are that scholarly publishing is Reed Elsevier comprises worldwide scientific and med- among the most profitable segments for these compa- ical publishing businesses.... The Scientific segment nies, a very conservative assumption is that their overall represented approximately 17% of Reed Elsevier's total net incomes derive from scholarly publishing in propor- net sales and 26% of Reed Elsevier's total operating tion to their sales or operating margins in that segment. income before exceptional items for the year ended Because the capital investment for scholarly publishing December 31, 1997. Within the Scientific segment, is relatively low, it is also conservative to estimate that Elsevier Science contributed approximately 83% of the equity is invested in the scholarly publishing segments total net sales in the year ended 31 December, 1997." in proportion to the sales that derive from those seg- The fact that Reed Elsevier made only 17% of its total ments. By recalculating scholarly publishing sales, sales in the Scientific segment yet made 26% of its oper- assuming the periodical publishing industry median of ating income from that segment may in large part 5.0% net margin or an industry median of 18.8% return explain Reed Elsevier's enthusiastic disposal of most of on equity, it is possible to calculate the savings or costs its operations in the more competitive and less prof- to scholarly publishing customers of these companies' itable consumer publishing market in favor of focusing profits beyond or below industry medians. These hypo- on lucrative scholarly publishing.' The three profitable thetical savings and costs to scholarly publishing cus- sectors, Scientific, Professional, and Business, grew net tomers are shown in Table 3. (Complete tables from sales and operating income (at constant exchange rates which these calculations were derived are available in and before extraordinary items and acquisitions and the online version of this article
A R L2 0 0 O C T O B E R1 9 9 8 S Elsevier at 26%. Reed Elsevier dominates these figures these reasons. Therefore, the financial performance of in sheer costs to customers because of its size; therefore, a vendor can help to guide purchasing decisions by to make clear the proportional savings within each com- providing information about the collective judgments pany's customer base, the hypothetical percentage sav- of the marketplace of customers. ings on scholarly sales is also shown for each company. However, if a competitive market is not operating, By these proportional measures, Reed Elsevier still the finances of vendors can show the absence of compe- clearly dominates these measures of profits beyond the tition. More importantly, the finances of the vendors periodical publishing industry medians, and the Reed will provide some measure of the economic conse- Elsevier profits are on such large sales that they raise quences for the customers of the lack of a competitive the overall effect when the totals of all four companies market, as in Table 3. When these consequences are are combined. clear, customers may come to understand that they It is noteworthy that Wiley's profits in scholarly must seek to change the situation, unless the costs of publishing are essentially similar to the periodical being a buyer in a non-competitive market are relatively publishing industry overall. Reed Elsevier in particular small in terms of the overall enterprises of the customer. is probably profiting from the structural differences The costs of acquiring scholarly information are rel- between the market for scholarly publishing versus atively substantial in research libraries, and even in the market for periodical publications more generally. terms of entire universities' budgets. If we find our- Plenum's relatively inefficient use of capital is illustrat- selves being customers in a non-competitive scholarly ed again here by the dramatic contrast between the communication market that is too expensive for our par- savings as calculated on industry-standard net margin ticipation in the breadth and depth needed for a healthy versus industry-standard return on equity. Wolters scholarly system, what is to be done? When regulation Kluwer is considerably more profitable in its scholarly is as unlikely as it is in today's current political environ- publishing businesses than the periodical publishing ment, and when the product or service is as vital as industry median ratios. However, Plenum's high scholarly information is to research communities, then margins and inefficient use of high margins and Reed the customers can only pursue innovations that will end Elsevier's high margins and high return on equity stand out as worthy of our attention as customers. the reliance on buying in a non-competitive market. SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Discussion Resources Coalition
TABLE 3: HYPOTHETICAL SAVINGS OR (COSTS) TO CUSTOMERS BASED ON INDUSTRY-STANDARD PROFITS (Considering only Selected Scholarly Publishing Operations of Each Company)
Savings (Costs) % Savings Savings (Costs) % Sayings Relative to (Costs) from Relative to (Costs) from 5.0% Net Margin Actual Net 18.8% ROE Actual ROE Margin
Wolters Kluwer $19,145,000 5.3% $19,098,000 5.3% Reed Elsevier $212,045,000 22.3% $146,286,000 15.4% J. Wiley & Sons ($592,000) (0.3%) ($865,000) (0.4%) Plenum Publishing $6,421,000 19.4% $570,000 1.7%
Total $237,019,000 15.3% $165,089,000 10.7%
811 A R L2 0 0 O C T O B E R1 9 9 8 Continued
system of scholarly communication that is either strong- authors external to the publisher, and authorsare reluc- ly competitive and commercially based or a system that tant to move to another publishing channel forany rea- is not predicated upon the generation of profits from the son other than broader awareness or prestige, which are communication process itself. This summary of pub- inherently difficult to produce early in the development lisher finances illustrates in an inexactway the premium of a channel. This is a very positive market situation for paid for relying on the current inherently non-competitive a publisher because it avoids competition so long as the economic model of commercial scholarly publishing. economic model is not disrupted by innovation. New pub- The lack of competition is fairly obvious in the finances lishing channels that include technologicalor structural- of the companies, but the lack of competitioncan be ly innovative features, reach broad audiences, and offer confirmed by an analysis of how all the participants prestige early in the life-cycle might lure authorsaway authors, readers, and pub- from established channels. lishersoperate within the But perhaps even more commercial scholarly pub- The worst disservice to the research importantly, we must keep lishing process. community by the current system of in mind that the innovation Free markets encourage must ultimately disrupt the innovation in the deploy- commercial scholarly publishing is that it dooms scholarly research to reacha shrinking non-competitive economic ment of resources precisely model at work in commer- by tolerating extraordinary audience as commercial publishers profit from cial publishing. Improving profits for new enterprises the artificial scarcity enforced by high prices. scholarly publishing func- when risks are high and The greatest rewards for universities in creating tionality with technological before a competitive market a new system of scholarly communication are in the innovation will not in and is established. Thus, com- of itself introduce competi- panies regularly make potential for increased support basedon tion. The innovation to claims to investors about increased awareness of the intellectual change the economic playing in markets where products of the universities. model must focus on competition is sparse or developing a structure to non-existent for the align authors' and readers' moment due to the innovations of the company. shared interest in broad dissemination. This is precisely However, sustained non-competitive markets ina the challenge to the customer community for scholarly mature industry are generally an indication ofa struc- communication. We must innovate to produce competi- tural problem in the market that prevents theentry of tive communication systems over time or continue suf- competitors over time. fering under a system of shrinking access due to the lack In the case of scholarly publishing, the major of competition in the present system. impediment to competition is that all of the direct incen- Universities have excellent reasons for pursuing tives for authors lead them to publish in well known such innovations. The most important reason is not that channels to reach the largest number of readers without the current system is too expensive and cannot handlea regard to the cost of those channels to the readers. steadily increasing volume of scholarly communication. However, the reader is not free to choosenew channels Both of these are serious problems, and even minimiz- because those channels are typically not filled with the ing all non-beneficial "publishing for tenure" is onlya same content early in the development of a publication. short-term mitigating approach in the face of increasing This system of incentives makes itvery difficult to collective knowledge. However, overcoming these develop competitive communications channels. The problems of cost and volume has a much more impor- customer, i.e., the reader in this economic model, is tant benefit for universities than any potential direct disempowered within the system because the product cost savings on library acquisitions. The most impor- is "must-have" and "single source." tant benefit of a changed economic model for scholarly Reed Elsevier comes close to stating this in communication falls to universities as producers rather Elsevier's 1997 filing with the U.S. Securities and than as consumers: scholarly publishing makes publicly Exchange Commission (20-F), when it notes for known the value of research of all kinds. Only by mak- investors that the company is increasingly "concentrat- ing that research known can it be valued and financially ing on high value-added areas of 'must-have' informa- supported by the various supporters of scholarly enter- tion and significantly reducing itsexposure to the con- prise, ranging from corporations to foundations to legis- sumer markets." In the consumer publishing market, lators to other scholars. The worst disservice to the the publisher produces the content and other publishers research community by the current system ofcommer- can compete by producing similar content themselves. cial scholarly publishing is that it dooms scholarly In the scholarly market, the content is produced by research to reach a shrinking audienceas commercial 12'A R L2 0 0 OCTOBER 1 9 9 8 82 publishers profit from the artificial scarcity enforced by high prices. The greatest rewards for universities in creating COMPARING VALUE AND ESTIMATED a new system of scholarly communication are in the potential REVENUE OF SCITECH JOURNALS for increased support based on increased awareness of the by Stanley J. Wilder, Assistant Dean for Technical intellectual products of the universities. If any point bears and Financial Services, LSLI Libraries special emphasis in our thinking about the value of Aca.demic libraries currently devote about 74% of innovations in electronic scholarly communication, their chemistry journal budgets to titles pro- the value of increasing readership should. duced by commercial publishers. Relative to Ease of access to quality information is the funda- U.S. association titles, however, commercial titles are mental goal of both authors and readers"producers generally much lower in value to the academic scientists and consumers," to put it simplistically. When a they serve. The imbalance between the low value of researcher takes on the maze of literature databases, commercial publications and the significant revenue the frustration of shrinking local library collections, they generate from academic library subscriptions is at the long-delayed document delivery services, and the the heart of the current crisis in scientific/technical (ST) shocking copyright fees, it rapidly becomes clear that journal costs. there has to be a better way, given that the author and The Study the reader share the desire to communicate. Readers and authors are already finding ways around the frus- These claims are the result of a study of three measures tration imposed by the current scholarly publishing sys- of value (faculty ratings, Science Citation Index [SCI] cita- tem. SPARC and other initiatives give us the opportuni- tion counts, and library use) and estimated revenue for ty to facilitate and institutionalize that process. a core group of chemistry titles. The list of chemistry Finally, it should be noted that this article is not titles, the measures of faculty ratings, and the SCI cita- intended as an indictment of any particular commercial tion counts were derived from a dataset originally publisher or all commercial publishers as a group. developed for Stephen J. Bensman's (1996) "The Indeed, we are finding many for-profit publishersare Structure of the Library Market for Scientific Journals: adopting business philosophies and practices thatmay The Case of Chemistry." The primary component of ultimately contribute to a more competitive and viable this set was faculty survey data collected by the marketplace for scholarly communication. Louisiana State University (LSU) Libraries for its 1993 Serials Redesign Pilot Project. The LSU surVey asked /V faculty in the Chemistry Department to name those Endnote titles necessary to support curriculum and research, 1According to Reed Elsevier's annual report, the operating and to indicate whether each title was needed on sub- margin of the Scientific segment ran at 40.28% (1997), scription or if access through a subsidized, unmediated 41.77% (1996), and 39.66% (1995) as a percentage of sales. As a point of comparison, Microsoft's operating income document delivery service would suffice (Hamaker as a percentage of sales was 45.17% for 1997, 35.50% in 1996, 1994). The second dataset was provided by Tina E. and 34.33% in 1995. Chrzastowski of the University of Illinois' Chemistry Library. Chrzastowski had collected libraryuse data for © 1998 Brendan J. Wyly. The author grants blanket a study of chemistry journals she conducted at Illinois. permission to reprint this article for educational use as She defined use as the number of times an item was long as the author and source are acknowledged. For reshelved or circulated. The two datasets werecom- commercial use, a reprint request should be sent to the bined using only those titles from the Illinois use study author
account for a substantial portion of the cost of sub- journals can be said to be illustrative of general patterns scribing to these literatures. Most of these titles are in other ST journal literatures. commercial publications. Bensman and Wilder use three measures of value Measuring Revenue in their analysis of ST literature: faculty ratings, SCI There is no way of knowing with certainty the amount citation counts, and use. One of the surprising results of subscription revenue a journal generates, but a rea- of their analysis is that, once appropriate subject sonable estimate can be obtained by multiplying its groupings have been established, each of these mea- price by the number of libraries holding it as reflected sures of journal value produce virtually equivalent in the OCLC database. This approach misses subscrip- results in terms of journal rankings. In particular, tions held by individuals or by institutions that do not equivalency among these value measures is evidence place their holdings in OCLC, and it may overestimate that researchers in each ST discipline operate within the number of subscriptions to titles that have been a similar system. This system is marked by broad canceled by libraries but are still listed in the OCLC consensus on what is important research, which holdings statement. academic programs tend to produce it, and which jour- Nonetheless, even publishers with substantial nals publish it. This consensus is so pervasive that the individual membership income rely primarily on same journals rise to the top regardless of which of the library subscriptions for their revenue. For instance, three value measures one uses. Given that the basic Lorrin Garson (1997) of the American Chemical relationships between value, cost, and publisher type Society (ACS) recently stated that 90% of ACS' sub- were found to be identical throughout the ST disci- scription revenue comes from institutions. Given that plines, the results of the present study of chemistry an overwhelming majority of journal revenue stems
TABLE 1: REVENUE ESTIMATES WITH FACULTY SCOREAND TOTAL CITATION* Number Estimated LSU Faculty Total of Titles Revenue Score Citation %
U.S. Association 29 19% $13,165,270 18% 5,502 40% 872,141 45% U.S. Commercial 38 25% $11,250,297 16% 2,038 15% 248,589 13% Foreign Association 5 3% $5,355,872 7% 501 4% 87,257 5% Foreign Commercial 81 53% $42,522,015 59% 5,862 42% 727,026 38%
Combined Commercial 119 78% $53,772,312 74% 7,900 57% 975,615 50%
Total 153 100% $72,293,454 100% 13,903 100% 1,935,013 100%
*Figures in table are rounded.
TABLE 2: REVENUE ESTIMATES WITH ILLINOIS USE*
Number of Titles Estimated Revenue % Illinois Library Use
U.S. Association 25 21% $12,798,017 20% 36,004 51% U.S. Commercial 27 23% $9,776,615 15% 4,724 7% Foreign Association 5 4% $5,355,872 8% 4,700 7% Foreign Commercial 63 53% $36,728,964 57% 24,644 35%
Combined Commercial 90 75% $46,505,579 72% 29,368 42%
Total 120 100% $64,659,468 100% 70,072 100%
*Figures in table are rounded.
8 4 A R L2 0 0 OCTOBER 1998 from sales to libraries, and that a large number of U.S. Results academic libraries participate in OCLC, counting Revenue Skew OCLC holdings is sure to capture a substantial portion Within each publisher type, a small number of titles of both subscriptions and revenue from U.S. academic accounts for a significant proportion of the revenue. libraries. A look at the top five revenue-generating titles in each Publisher Types category, however, reveals wide variation. Of the 29 Bensman and Wilder separated the journal titles into chemistry titles from U.S. associations, the top five four publisher types: U.S. commercial, U.S. association, journals are 17% of that set's titles, and 51% of the total foreign commercial, and foreign association. Both the revenue. For U.S. commercials, the top five are 13% of LSU and Illinois datasets under-represent commercial the 38 titles, and 38% of revenue. For foreign commer- titles and over-represent U.S. association titles in cials, the top five of the 81 journals are only 6% of the respect to the universe of published research in chem- titles, but 33% of revenue.1 This concentration of istry. Many commercial titles were excluded from the revenue in the foreign commercial set is particularly sets either because they were not selected by LSU facul- noteworthy, indicating that a very small core of ty or because they are not indexed in the print version foreign commercial titles subsidizes a long list of lower revenue titles in this set. of the Science Citation Index (SCI). Both cases arean indication of low value to academic users. Relationship of Value to Revenue and Titles This under-representation of commercial titles may Table 1 presents the revenue and value measure data result in an understatement of the actual value of the (faculty ratings and SCI citation counts) for chemistry association titles. from the LSU data set. U.S. association publishers produce value in excess of the revenue they receive: they account for 19% of titles and 18% of revenue, but TABLE 3: REVENUE LEVERAGE* 40% of faculty ratings and 45% of total citations. Commercial publications, on the other hand, receive LSU Total Illinois Faculty CitationLibrary more revenue than the value they produce: they Score Use account for 78% of titles and 74% of total revenue, but only 57% of faculty ratings and 50% of total citations. U.S. Association 2.17 2.47 2.60 The Illinois dataset on library use produces similar U.S. Commercial 0.94 0.83 0.45 results, with disproportionately high value among the U.S. association publishers, and disproportionately Foreign Association 0.49 0.61 0.81 low value among commercial publishers (Table 2). One might conclude from these data that commer- Foreign Commercial 0.72 0.64 0.62 cial publications supply over half of faculty valueas reflected in faculty ratings (57%). However, this con- Combined Commercial 0.76 0.68 0.58 clusion does not account for the much larger number *Figures in table are rounded. of commercial titles present in both data sets. To cor- rect for this imbalance, Bensman/Wilder created a concept called leverage, a ratio that normalizes the values. In the present analysis, two types of leverage TABLE 4: TITLE LEVERAGE* are considered: revenue and title leverage. LSU Total Illinois Revenue leverage expresses the value of journals in Faculty CitationLibrary relation to the revenue they generate, and is calculated Score Use by dividing the percentage of each value measure by U.S. Association 2.09 2.38 2.47 the corresponding percent of total revenue (Table 3). For example, the percentage of faculty ratings for U.S. U.S. Commercial 0.59 0.52 0.30 association titles (40%) is divided by the percentage of total revenue for those same titles (18%), resulting ina Foreign Association 1.10 1.38 1.61 revenue leverage of 2.17 (variations due to rounding). Foreign Commercial 0.80 0.71 0.67 Using the revenue leverage scores in Table 3, one con- cludes that U.S. association journals have 2.9 times the Combined Commercial 0.73 0.65 0.56 value of commercial publications (U.S. and foreign *Figures in table are rounded. combined) as measured by faculty ratings (2.17 divided by .76), 3.6 times the value as measured by total citations 85 A R L2 0 0 O C T O B E R1 9 9 8 Continued
(2.47 divided by .68), and 4.5 times the value as libraries that currently pursue comprehensiveness in measured by library use (2.60 divided by .58). regard to ST journal literatures. It is the nature of Title leverage expresses value obtained per title, and progress in ST disciplines to require a high degree of is calculated by dividing the percentage of each value consensus among researchers, and one reflection of this measure by the correspondin§ percent of total titles for consensus is the relatively small number of ST journals each publisher type (Table 4). Comparing title leverage deemed important by researchers themselves. Use of as for revenue leverage above, one concludes that U.S. journal literatures within the conscribed sphere of high- association journals have 2.9 times the value as measured value titles is so heavy that subscription is easily the by faculty ratings, 3.7 times the value as measured by most cost-effective form of access. For titles outside this total citations, and 4.4 times the value as measured by sphere, use is so infrequent that document delivery library use. The revenue and title leverage measures from commercial document suppliers is currently much reveal a more accurate picture of the relationship less expensive. This is true for large and small institu- between publisher types: commercial publications tions alike, meaning that cooperative collection develop- manage to contribute over half of total value as ment in ST journal literatures is not cost-effective. measured by faculty ratings only because there By placing value at the heart of their ST collection are so many more of them. development philosophies, academic libraries can free themselves from the high-cost, low-value commercial Revenue per Title titles that currently consume such a large proportion of For the set of chemistry titles examined, there is no ST journal budgets. The resulting re-allocation of statistically significant difference between the average resources will reverse the present imbalance between revenue per title generated by commercial publishers value created and revenue received by funding only and that generated by U.S. association publishers from high-value titles, and relegating lower value titles to U.S. academic subscribers. How can this be, given the more cost-effective on-demand acquisition strategies. unusually high cost of commercial publications? One explanation lies in the concept of "first copy costs," expenses attributable to the preparation of a journal for Endnotes 1Foreign association journals are not listed here because only printing, including peer review, technical editing, and five of them were in the LSU data. marketing, for example. 2Inconsidering the results presented in Table 4, it should be While estimates of first copy costs vary from noted that the high title leverage of foreign association jour- 60-80%,3 first copy costs are an important considera- nals is partially due to the necessity of combining the five tion for all publishers. When first copy costs must be bibliographically separate sections of the British Journal of the covered over a smaller subscription base, a higher price Chemical Society into a single entity. is required. On average, the commercial publications in 3Lorrin Garson, in his presentation at the National Meeting the chemistry dataset have only half of the subscription of the American Chemical Society (8 September 1997), "Economics of Scientific Publishing," stated that first copy base of association journals as measured by OCLC hold- costs for the ACS are 84% of the journal publishing expens- ings, but charge about 80% more (Bensman 1996). In es. John Cox of Carfax Publishing estimated in his paper at other words, the commercial publishers' high prices the 17th annual Charleston Conference (November 1997) make up for smaller subscription bases, and their rising that first copy costs of scholarly journals range from 60-70%. prices may be in part a function of cancellations. If so, commercial publishers are caught in the unenviable References position of charging higher prices for products of lower Bensman, S. J. (1996). "The Structure of the Library Market value to a declining subscriber base. for Scientific Journals: The Case of Chemistry." Librany Resources and Technical Services 40: 145-70. Conclusion Bensman, S. J., and S. J. Wilder (1998). "Scientific/Technical Whatever the components of commercial ST journal Serials Holdings Optimization in an Inefficient Market: pricing, the value to academic scientists is small relative A LSU Serials Redesign Project Exercise." Library to the revenue they receive. Whereas commercial jour- Resources and Technical Services 42. nals in chemistry account for 74% of the revenue gener- Hamaker, C. A. (1994). "Re-Designing Serials Collections." ated by ST publications, on a per-title basis they con- Journal of Library Administration 20(1): 37-47. tribute only between 22-35% of the value of their U.S. association counterparts. This pattern detailed in chem- ©1998 Stanley J. Wilder. The author grants blanket istry has been demonstrated by Bensman/Wilder to permission to reprint this article for educational use as long exist in the ST literatures in general. as the author and source are acknowledged. For commercial Addressing the imbalance between value and rev- use, a reprint request should be sent to the author enue will require a change of philosophy for academic
A R L2 0 0 O C T O B E R1 9 9 8 86 0 t.
AT THE SPEED OF THOUGHT:1 array of titles by paying the 'print price plus electronic PURSUING NON-COMMERCIAL subscription cost plus inflation,' the total base price for electronic access over the print subscription could increase ALTERNATIVES TO SCHOLARLY by 40% or more within as little as three or fouryears. COMMUNICATION A similar attempt to consolidate the strength of by Mike Sosteric, Assistant Professor, Centre for Global libraries and perhaps win support from the scholarly and Social Analysis, Athabasca University, and Director, community took place in Europe in late 1997. A coali- International Consortium for Alternative Academic tion of 15 Dutch scientific research librariescame togeth- Publication (ICAAP) er to express their concerns over an announcement by Scholars, information specialists, and academic Reed Elsevier of its intent to merge with Wolters libraries have warned of a crisis in scholarlycom- Kluwer (both major scientific publishers) and topursue munication for years (Sosteric 1996). For a time, it "a strategy of increasing its focus on 'must-have' infor- was hoped that electronic publication would bring some mation." Seeing the anti-competitive nature of the much needed relief by reducing the cost of distribution proposed merger, the Dutch librarians adopteda set of the primary journal literature. However, despite of principles aimed at bolstering their position in hopeful statements in the early years, it nowappears negotiations with publishers and reducing the possible increasingly unlikely that electronic publication will impact of skyrocketing electronic journal prices.' bring relief. Some commercial publishers, rather than Unfortunately, in the long-run, libraries are virtually seeing electronic publishing as an opportunity to reduce powerless by themselves to offset the practices ofcommer- costs and bring needed relief to the academic libraries cial publishing houses. When it comes right down to it, that they serve, have chosen to exploit the opportunities an academic library simply must have the key journal for increasing profit presented by thenew technologies. titles. They serve an academic market, after all, and it is From our 1998 perspective, the 1996 vision ofa future this market that largely determines which journals communication system where scholarly skywriting is should be made available. If the academic marketcon- conducted in a low-cost, collectivist manner by the schol- tinues to demand the high-prestige titles, and ifwe, the ars themselves now seems largely a hopeless fantasy. faculty authors, continue to submit our work to these A recent statement issued by The International journals, there is little libraries will be able to do butcope Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC, Statement)con- with our needs and purchase the high price journals. firms our worst fears. Using their growing monopoly Barriers to Independent Scholarly Publishing position and control over the scholarly communication So what is to be done? At one point, scholars like Steve system, commercial publishing houses are forcing Hamad, Andrew Odylzko, and Bernard Hibbits made libraries to purchase both paper and electronic versions calls for a new future of independent scholarly publica- of their journals at rates that are already higher than the tion outside of the commercial mainstream. In thecon- standard print cost and at rates that the ICOLC fears text of the crises in the scholarly communication system, will eventually add as much as 40% or more to the cost proselytizing a future for independent publicationwas of scholarly material in journals. This is certainly not a laudable project. However, the vision of independent the dream of independent scholarly publishing; it is communication has not been realized primarily because the nightmare of unregulated monopoly control. scholars have been reluctant to take up the call to inde- In a press release introducing the statement, the pendent publication. Despite the powerful potential of ICOLC notes: information technologies to wrest control of the scholar- The explosion in electronic licensing, the wide variance in ly communication system from the big commercial pub- publisher practices, rapidly escalating prices, anda con- lishing houses, relatively few individual scholars have cern about the reduction in the number of independent initiated journal projects. It is perhaps this failureon scholarly information providers all servedas the impetus the part of the academic community tomove quickly to for the statement. The Statement calls for developing mul- independent publication that has encouragedcommer- tiple pricing models, separating charges for electronic cial houses to grow bolder in their demands. licenses from those of paper subscriptions, and lowering But why the reluctance? What are the barriers that the cost for the electronic information below that of print have slowed the revolution in scholarly publication subscriptions. ICOLC expresses its concern over the within the academic environment? Probablyone of the growing practice of publishers that levy initial surcharges most significant barriers to independent scholarly publi- on electronic information, which is compounded by signifi- cation is simply the amount of work involved. There cant multi-year inflation surcharges and prohibitions can be no doubt that editing journals takes a lot of work. against libraries canceling print versions of journal titles. And it takes even more work whenyou add typesetting As a result, while libraries may receive access toa larger and production duties to the job requirements. Addto 87 A R L2 0 0 O C T O B E R1 9 9 817 Continued
this the necessity of developing a high degree of com- Fifth, there hasn't been a deep sense of urgency to puter literacy and you have a daunting barrier to par- spur scholars into actionup until now. At this point, ticipation in the electronic revolution. however, it is hard to deny that serious and damaging A second barrier, closely related to the first, is that changes are occurring in the academy. Higher educa- editorial duties are not as highly regarded as publish- tion, once at least marginally dedicated to liberal ing scholarly articles or books when it comes to tenure ideals, is slowly and inexorably being turned intoa and advancement decisions. As a result, even those venue for profit generation. The long-term implica- individuals who may be willing to take on some of the tions have been explored elsewhere,' but it is clear that work of publishing a journal in their field may be not only access, but also our own livelihoods are being reluctant to do so because of the time it takes away threatened. from other, more important, activities. In a decision Sixth, while individual projects have abounded, between putting time into an activity that moves you there have been few attempts to develop the level of towards tenure and editing an electronic journal, the organization required to create a broad, multi-discipli- current reward structure virtually guarantees that nary coalition of educators, researchers, and adminis- scholars will pass up opportunities to start publication trators dedicated to revolutionizing the scholarly projects. communication system. Such an organization is sorely Third, access to the system of scholarly communi- required. Not only because a coalition of journal cation is largely closed to all but the most established editors and institutions will raise the standards and scholars. Legitimate restrictions on access, which fol- acceptability of "craft based" journal publication, but low an almost guild-like structure, ensure that quality also because such a coalition will be able to exert con- is maintained. However, there is a significant contra- siderable market power in the highly monopolistic diction and irony in the way control is maintained. world of academic journals. Mechanisms for apprenticing scholars in even the old International Consortium for technologies seem undefined and there are no efforts Alternative Academic Publication to develop a craft structure for electronic publication. This is a call for participation in a broad-based initia- Because of this guild-like structure, and because of the tive dedicated to the development of an international relatively inadequate uptake mechanisms, most up alternative scholarly communication system outside of and coming scholars would not have sufficient confi- the commercial mainstream. Founded in Canada and dence to cross the line into the scholarly communica- housed at Athabasca University, it is named the tion system without proper guidance and encourage- International Consortium for Alternative Academic ment (and we would probably be safe in assuming that Publication
contributions that editors make to the progress of organization will join us in our mission to revolutionize science. ICAAP will tirelessly proselytize this cause the scholarly communication system. to the scholarly world. Enhancing the Prestige of Endnotes Independent Electronic Publication iThe author would like to acknowledge the work of Steve There should be no reason that commercial publishers Hamad as inspiration for the title of this article and the are seen as any more prestigious than independent ICAAP catch phrase, At the Speed of Thought, from his work, publication efforts. After all, it is we who provide the "Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the critical editorial and review work. Commercial houses Means of Production of Knowledge," 1991,
The Impact of Publisher Mergers on Comparing Value and Estimated Journal Prices: A Preliminary Report.. .. 3 Revenue of SciTech Journals 13 by Mark J. McCabe, Assistant Professor by Stanley J. Wilder, Assistant Dean of Economics, Georgia Institute of for Technical and Financial Services, Technology LSU Libraries " ...our results for journals sold by commercial "Whatever the components of commercial ST publishers indicate that prices are indeed journal pricing, the value to the academic positively related to firm portfolio size, and that scientist that is created by such journals is mergers result in significant price increases." small relative to the revenue they receive."
Competition in Scholarly Publishing? At the Speed of Thought: Pursuing What Publisher Profits Reveal 7 Non-Commercial Alternatives to by Brendan J. Wyly, Johnson Graduate Scholarly Communication 17 School of Management Library, Cornell by Mike Sosteric, Assistant Professor, University Centre for Global and Social Analysis, "The worst disservice to the research community Athabasca University, and Director, by the current system of commercial scholarly International Consortium for Alternative publishing is that it dooms scholarly research Academic Publication (ICAAP) to reach a shrinking audience as commercial "This is a call for participation in a broad publishers profit from the artificial scarcity based initiative dedicated to the development enforced by high prices." of an international alternative scholarly communication system outside of the commercial mainstream."
90 4.1
A BIMONTHLY NEWSLETTER OF RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUESAND ACTIONS THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT
Following years of oftentimes contentious debate, on HIGHLIGHTS OF NEW COPYRIGHT October 28 the President signed into law extremely complex legislation that updates selected aspects of PROVISION ESTABLISHING U.S. copyright law to address the digital environment. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR The changes to U.S. copyright law included in the DigitalONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), PL 105-304, are significant and place new requirements on libraries and Executive Summary educational institutions. As a consequence, there is a of the principal provisions of the Digital
A need for broad awareness, indeed, deep understanding, Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") is a about the major points of this law. In addition, imitation on the potential money damages that C.) implementation of the DMCA will require active Online Service Providers ("OSPs"), including libraries engagement within all educational institutions and and educational institutions, could face when they func- tion like a common carrier, allowing online users access libraries so that they may comply with the new to copyrighted material placed there by someone else. requirements as well as take advantage of the Rather than confront huge financial claims if the third opportunities presented in the law. party material infringes someone's copyright, OSPs can To contribute to our communities' understanding ofescape liability provided they comply with these new the new law, ARL and its partners in the Shared Legal rules. Since the statute takes effect immediately, it is urgent Capability are developing several papers that review that all institutions act promptly to ensure that their systems and evaluate pertinent titles and/or provisions in the are in compliance with the terms. Note that the limitation DMCA. Many of these pieces include next steps and does not apply to copyrighted material the OSP may recommended actions for libraries and educational place online itself, such as on its home page. Standard institutions to take in order to benefit from selected copyright rules, including proper clearance and fair use, aspects of the law. This issue of the ARL newsletter apply to that material. includes excerpts from two of these papers. The first is The statute defines a "service provider" as an entity bk) from an analysis of DMCA that highlights time-sensitivethat transmits, routes and connects users to online com- actions that libraries and educational institutions must munications or provides online or network services, such as storing digital material, caching, or providing E-1 address to take advantage of a new exemption for online service providers. The second report is excerpted from location tools (directories, hyperlinks, etc.). When deal- ing with copyrighted material available through its net- a paper on distance education. Both papers were work, an OSP must be passive. It cannot place material r prepared by Arnold Lutzker, Lutzker & Lutzker, online, modify content, store it longer than necessary legal representative for the Shared Legal Capability. or know that it infringes someone else's copyright. CD Additional resources on other aspects of the DMCA, Its systems must operate automatically and it cannot including preservation and fair use and access issues, choose recipients of transmissions. Finally, it must are forthcoming. not directly profit from an infringement. 9 1 41 -41 Continued
The statute requires that in order for an OSP to qualify, would be inappropriate to expand legal protection for it must implement several novel requirements immedi- commercial owners of digital works without remedying ately. Institutions would be well advised to turn these some of the legitimate legal concerns of librarians and matters over to an established committee that manages educators who use copyrighted works and technologies copyright policies, or to create a new group for that pur- in education. With a commitment from the Chairman pose. In light of the fact that the statute calls for taking and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Judiciary prompt action and making informed decisions, such a Committee, Senators Orin Hatch (R-Ut.) and Patrick body could find itself involved in important policy Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate included a Copyright Office questions. Among the things an institution needs to do study of distance education in the bill. The study right away to qualify for the limitation are the following: remained part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Designate an agent to receive statutory notices from Act (DMCA) as finally enacted. copyright owners about infringements and to send The provision requires the Register of Copyrights statutory notices to affected subscribers. not later than six (6) months of passage of DMCA Advise the Copyright Office of the agent's name and (April 28, 1999) to provide Congress with its recom- address and post that information on the OSP's website. mendations on how to promote distance education Develop and post a policy for termination of repeat offenders and provide network users with through digital technologies, including interactive information about copyright laws. digital networks, while maintaining an appropriate Comply with "take down" and "put back" notice balance between the rights of copyright owners and requirements. the needs of users of copyrighted works. Ensure that the system accommodates industry-standard The study requires the Register to consult with technical measures used by owners to protect their representatives of copyright owners, nonprofit educa- works from unlawful access and copyright tional institutions, libraries and archives and to focus infringement. on the following factors: A special exception has been created for public and The need for an exemption from exclusive rights of nonprofit institutions of higher education, which allows copyright owners for distance education through them to qualify for the limitation even when the offend- digital networks. ing user is a member of the faculty or a research graduate The categories of works to be included in any student. The law also gives immunity from third party exemption. The extent of appropriate quantitative user claims, provided there is a good faith compliance limitations on the portions of works that may be used with the statutory rules. It should also be borne in mind under any distance education exemption. that it is not necessary to actively monitor material on the The parties who should be entitled to the benefits of Internet. The limitation requires an OSP to take action when any exemption. it has "actual knowledge" of an infringement (by facts brought The parties who should be eligible to receive distance to its attention or by notice from the copyright owner), but it education materials under the exemption. does not impose the burden on the OSP to monitor or discover Whether and what types of technological measures infringing behavior. can or should be employed to safeguard against In all, the limitation on liability gives library and unauthorized access to and use or retention of educational service providers a critical legal exemption at a copyrighted materials as a condition of eligibility. time when their exposure to online copyright infringement The extent to which the availability of licenses should is growing, not only because of the increased volume of be considered. material on the Internet, but also because of several adverse Other factors that the Register deems appropriate. court rulings. To make full and effective use of the limita- On November 16, 1998 the Copyright Office released tion, each institution should take the time now to carefully a preliminary notice soliciting identification of interested review the details of the Act set forth in this memo. parties and a statement of their concerns by December 7, $.0.000., 1998 (see
A R L2 0 1 D E C E M B E R1 9 9 8 Clifford Lynch, Executive Director
ACCESS MANAGEMENT FOR access management; while there are many promising NETWORKED INFORMATION components available, management complexity, user training and acceptance, system integration, and cost RESOURCES are still major issues. Organizational readiness within Introduction the content provider community is also a barrier to the Over the past year the Coalition for Networked use of advanced technology-based approaches; content Information (CNI) has been leading a broad- site operators are no more able than libraries to obtain based exploration of access management and commercial turn-key solutions. But as libraries offer a authentication issues that are emerging as institutions growing portfolio of network-based information share resources and license access to published materi- resources, they face immediate and pragmatic needs als through the Web. Scores of institutions and content for access management. In developing strategies, it is providers participated in the discussion and con- important to recognize that technical choices about tributed to the development of a lengthy white paper access management have policy implications. that is now being cast into final form; both the draft The Access Management Problem Defined from the spring of 1998 and, when completed, the final A library negotiates a license agreement on behalf of version, can be found at CNI's website
blur the boundaries, libraries have a great deal of networked resource access, an unacceptable liability. experience in devising these policies. The problem Here the networked information scale-up means that here is a technical one between two computers: how too many independent parties must rely on each other does the resource host machine actually determine that to maintain security, and that the cost of accurately the user at the requesting workstation is really a mem- maintaining a synchronized common-access manage- ber of the relevant community? In other words, given ment database will be very high (to say nothing of the a policy for determining community membership, how standards that would need to be put in place to make is this policy implemented technically? In the physical such a shared database a reality). world of circulating materials, the "technical" problem As a stopgap measure, many institutions are cur- is dealt with through the presentation of a library card rently using electronic "place"the user's source TP indicating that the holder is indeed an authorized bor- network addressas a substitute for other methods rower; this library card is issued upon the presentation of demonstrating proof of community membership. of policy-specified documents that identify the user If the user's connection request came from a network and prove that he or she meets the policy criteria for that belonged to the university, it is assumed to be authorized community membership (a faculty ID, for from a community member. Network ownership does example, plus a picture ID). not change too frequently, so maintaining a list of Some Approaches That Don't Work Well valid network numbers and making this available to Historically, many computer systems employed user publishers is a tractable administrative burden. IDs and passwords. When a user ID was first defined, Further, since the list of network numbers, unlike IDs it would have certain rights and privileges associated and passwords, doesn't need to be kept secret, there is with it. The user would then supply a password upon little interdependence. This approach works well and, demand to demonstrate his or her rights to use a given indeed, has the virtues of simplicity and transparency ID. Leaving aside technical problems associated with to the user, as long as all users come to the resource the use of passwords on an insecure network and the providers through the campus or library network. possible technical remedies, there is a more basic archi- However, in an era when many institutions are discon- tectural issue. We are in a world where users may rou- tinuing dial-up modem pools in favor of commercial tinely want access to many different network resources Internet service providers, and when new access tech- controlled by many different organizations, such as nologies to the home, such as cable television modems publishers; but with the ability to follow links on the for Internet access, are beginning to deploy, a great Web it may not even be clear to the user which pub- deal of legitimate user access now takes place from lisher owns what resource. Users will not be able to sources other than the campus or library network. remember and manage a large number of different With growing needs to support distance learners, part- user IDs and passwords issued by different publishers; time students who may do academic work from their further, each publisher will need some cumbersome place of business, and people who want to exploit the procedure to validate the user as a community mem- "anytime, anywhere" promise of networked informa- ber prior to issuing a user ID and initial password (for tion resources from their homes, limiting access by example, involving mediation by local library staff). source IP network address disenfranchises more users This does not scale up in a practical way to a world every day. For most universities, for example, it is filled with electronic information resources. clearly no longer acceptable to tell community mem- The library might issue the user a single ID and bers they can only access networked information password for all licensed external network resources, resources from on-campus workstations. and then transmit lists of these IDs and passwords to The Two Emerging Architectures each content supplier so that the supplier can use the for Access Management list to validate users. However, there are architectural Two general approaches are emerging to address the problems here, as well: a very large number of pub- access management problem. The first is the use of lishers would need to be notified every time the list of proxies. Here, an institution develops an internal user IDs and passwords changes, with inevitable time- authentication system and uses it to validate user liness and synchronization problems. Also, each pub- access to a special machine on the institutional net- lisher takes on an enormous responsibility for protect- work, called a proxy. Once a user is validated, he or ing the security of the ID/password list; a security she can ask the proxy to contact an external resource; breach at any publisher will mean a security breach at in some variations, the proxy mediates the user's entire every publisher doing business with the library for interaction with the external resource, while in other
ARL 201 DECEMBER 1998 9 4 (perhaps slightly less secure and user-transparent) The simplest credentials-based approach would be variations the proxy drops out of the interaction after to have the institution just issue the user a user ID and making the introduction. From the resource operator's password for external resources, and to have external point of view, it is only necessary to know that the resource providers validate the ID/password pair with institution's proxy server can be trusted to pre-validate the institution (as opposed to having the institution all users before contacting the external resource host. distribute lists, as discussed earlier). This reduces, but Proxies have a number of advantages: authentication is doesn't eliminate, the interdependence among external an internal matter to the institution and external service resource providers in the maintenance of security; providers need not be concerned with the details of further, standards don't exist for such a validation how this is accomplished; at least in theory, the institu- process and no off-the-shelf software supports it. tion has complete flexibility in deciding what resources The industry is moving towards a technology based a user can have access to through the proxy and when; on public key cryptographic certificates (X.509) in off- and the proxy can act as a the-shelf software, and, at central control point for the least in theory, this should institution in access manage- Patron privacy has been such an work well for personal ment. On the negative side, machines (but not for the proxy is a high-impact important value to libraries that they shared or public worksta- central point of vulnerability tions, which would have to for outages or capacity prob- have, by and large, used a dual be handled some other way, lems (though, of course, it's technical/legal strategy to provide such as IP source address possible to have multiple checking, at least until a proxy machines), and config- their patrons with the strongest much more complex hard- uration management in the ware-based infrastructure proxy can become extremely possible protection. becomes widely deployed). complex and labor-intensive, X.509 removes the interde- particularly if not every valid pendent security issue proxy user has access to all resources. Further, proxies because credentials are computed for each use from do not eliminate the need for an authentication system; information that is held only by the user and never they only isolate its scope to the proxy and the mem- directly transferred to the content provider. bers of the institutional community. The problems with this approach include integra- The other approach is based on credentials. The tion with browsers, the mechanics of issuing and dis- basic idea here is that the institution issues each user tributing these electronic cryptographic certificates to the electronic analog of a community ID card. The users, the cost and complexity of acquiring and operat- user, or the user's browser, presents these credentials ing the infrastructure for managing and validating upon demand to any resource provider that requests public key certificates, and government regulation of them; the resource provider can then, through a fast the export and use of cryptography in various coun- electronic transaction, validate the credentials with the tries, which causes problems in an increasingly inter- issuing institution. The validation process shares with national world of scholarly resources. All of these proxies the vulnerability to outages or capacity prob- problems with cryptographic certificates are slowly lems on the part of institutional systems that verify but steadily getting better (except, perhaps, for the credentials, though these vulnerabilities are more government regulation issues), but, at least today, circumscribed. A compromise of the credential- implementation of such an approach is an enormous verification system may be more serious than challenge. Finally, it is important tO note that X.509 compromise of a proxy: proxy compromise usually was really designed to support applications such as means that unauthorized users get access to resources electronic commerce, and there are some significant for the period during which the proxy is compro- problems in relation to the policy problems discussed mised, while a compromise in the credentialing in the next section. system may well mean that new credentials need to be Policy Issues in Authentication issued to the entire authorized user community. The and Access Management major practical difficulties with the credentials-based The development of any access management strategy approaches, however, involve technical problems, raises policy issues in areas such as privacy, account- standards, cost, and software integration. ability, and the collection of management data. It is
95 A R L2 0 1 D E C E M B E R1 9 9 8 Continued
important to recognize that libraries must decide A license agreement represents a commitment on whether to address these issues through legal means the part of the licensee institution to honor the terms (that is, by negotiating contractual obligations on the of the license, and to educate members of itscommu- resource supplier as part of the license agreement), nity about their obligations under the license. The through technical means (for example, by making it publisher and library share a need for some level of impossible to collect personal data), or by a combina- accountability by community members: if a single tion of the two. user accesses publisher content hundreds of times a Library experience in other contexts offers some day from three continents, it's likely that something insights. For example, libraries have aggressively is wrong; perhaps that user doesn't understand his or championed and defended the privacy of their her obligations, or perhaps credentials have been patrons. They have done this through both legal compromised. There is a need for the publisher and meansby developing privacy policies and by requir- the library, acting together, to be able to investigate ing a legal subpoena as a condition for divulging such situations effectively, and, if need be, to block recordsand also by technical means by not keeping access by specific individuals who seem to be violat- historical circulation data on an individual basis, ing the terms of a license agreement. But, in order to which then limits the amount of information that they do this effectively, a publisher needs to be able to at can be compelled to disclose under any circumstances. least provide an institution with enough information Patron privacy has been such an important value to (such as a pseudonym) to permit the individual in libraries that they have, by and large, used a dual question to be identified; note that this does not nec- technical/legal strategy to provide their patrons essarily mean that the publisher can directly identify with the strongest possible protection. the individual in question, but only that the publisher In the electronic environment, it is easy for a pub- can provide the institution with enough information lisher to track the use of content in great detailwhat to identify the user. The need for accountability con- material is being viewed, for how long, and how often. tradicts, to some extent, the mandate to design Depending on how the access management system is anonymity into an access management system, and structured, particularly when credential-based argues for a pseudonymous approach. This can be approaches (and specifically, routine implementations achieved with credential-based approaches (though it of X.509 certificates) are employed, the publishermay is not the standard model for X.509 certificates, for be able to correlate this usage information to a specific example), but is more difficult with proxy-based individual by name, to a long-term "pseudonymous" architectures. identity that the publisher can link to an institution but Finally, there is the issue of management data. not to an actual individual within that institution's Electronic information resources promise libraries community, or simply to a transient and anonymous much more accurate and detailed data about what member of the institution's user community. Clearly, content is actually being used and how often the license contract between institution and publisher though even at this level libraries may want to make can speak to the collection, retention, use, and disclo- contractual stipulations to protect patron privacy; for sure of such usage data on a policy basis, but libraries instance, it is not clear how many universities would and patrons may find it desirable to limit the ability of be comfortable having a list of all the articles read by the publisher to collect information by the design of the members of their community (with frequency counts) access management system on a technical basis, as well. posted on the Web every week. But greater problems One important point needs to be made aboutuser arise when libraries want to have these usage statis- privacy that underscores the need for contractualcon- tics, at whatever level of aggregation, demographical- straints even in conjunction with an access manage- ly facetedfor example, to drive internal cost alloca- , ment system that provides some level of anonymity: tion processes within the library's institution. The often users will make their actual identities known to simplest solutions are often to pass demographic content providers for other reasons, independent of attributes to the publisher along with identities or the access management system, such as to take advan- pseudonyms and to get the publisher to do the work tage of email-based current awareness services or per- of generating management data for the librarybut sonalization options in a user interface. Theaccess this path can rapidly compromise the privacy of management system is not the only way in which pri- pseudonymous users by making them more identifi- vacy can be compromised, or bargained away for able and, if actual identities are used, it makes the increased function or convenience. privacy problem even more acute by raising the
A R L2 0 1 D E C E M B E R1 9 9 8 9 6 stakes on the amount of information disclosed. be exposed to those content providers that understand In discussing this issue as part of the CNI authentica- and support them where it is useful, but user needs for tion work, it appears that many libraries, because of consistency of mechanism may well mandate that all the privacy considerations, are backing away from access be managed by proxy except for specialized the continuous collection of demographically faceted inter-institutional resource sharing arrangements (such usage data, recognizing that they can always do as electronic reserves). specific studies in order to obtain "snapshot" Finally, it is worth noting that institutional authen- information, much as has been done with journal tication systems are not driven solely by demands to usage historically. access network-based information resources; they are Demographically faceted usage data offers a good needed as a means of managing access to institutional illustration of the scaling issues that we face in the resources and services, and, in a time when many net- move to network-based electronic information. If a works within higher education institutions are under library were dealing with just a single publisher, it constant attack, they are also being viewed by some would be reasonable to have the publisher return institutions as a means of improving security. Some detailed (transactional) usage data with pseudonyms institutions are now seeking to establish both policy to the library. The library could then look up the and technical infrastructure that forbids unauthenticat- pseudonyms to obtain demographic data and summa- ed access to the institutional network and the services rize the transaction data into management informa- available on it. To the extent that these local authenti- tion. Here privacy is protected by library policies and cation mechanisms are exposed externally and reduce does not depend on the publisher, who knows only the privacy of library patrons in interacting with exter- pseudonyms. But this is intractable with hundreds of nal resources, I believe that they require very careful publishers, each supplying transaction data at differ- examination and discussion. At many institutions, the ent time intervals and in different formats (and even focus of the information technology managers is pri- based on different models of the transactional events marily on the management of local resources, while being tracked and logged). Without very detailed the focus of the library is on access to resources standards, which don't exist today, and very rigorous beyond the boundaries of the institution, and it is adherence to such standards by the publisher commu- essential that these two perspectives be balanced nity, libraries needing demographically faceted usage in the development of institutional infrastructure data will be forced to export demographic informa- and policy. tion to each publisher. Conclusion: Towards Practical @ 1998 by Clifford Lynch. This article will also be pub- Short Term Solutions lished in CAUSE/EFFECT, an EDUCAUSE publication. Credential-based solutions require substantial work The author grants blanket permission to reprint this article by publishers; at least a few of the larger publishers for educational use as long as the author and source are have a sophisticated understanding of the access man- acknowledged. For commercial use, a reprint request should agement issues and are, I believe, prepared to work be sent to the author
A R L2 0 1 D E C E M B E R1 9 9 8 Richard K. Johnson, Enterprise Director, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition
ARIZONA BIOLOGIST/EDITOR He is publishing EER as a resource for essential scientific knowledge, not as a cash cow. Rosenzweig shares the BREAKS WITH PUBLISHER TO opinion of many researchers and librarians around the ESTABLISH LOW-COST ALTERNATIVE world that commercial publishers of scholarly literature Biologist Michael Rosenzweig is abandoning the in recent years have become too profit-oriented, thus thriving scholarly journal he founded a dozen years crippling the authors' and editors' hunger to advance ago because he believes the publisher has made it knowledge. so expensive that many libraries and colleagues no longer The mechanics of publishing EER are simple to can afford it. He says price increases on his journal, aver- Rosenzweig: he will outsource the journal's production, aging almost 19% annually, have harmed the scientific just as many large publishers do. But the initial chal- community, the very group that supplies articles to the lenge lies in the publication's rapid market acceptance, journal for free. especially when another journal covering the same sub- With endorsement from SPARC (the Scholarly ject is already established. After exploring various Publishing & Academic Resource Coalition), the University options for publishing EER, Rosenzweig turned to of Arizona professor is staking a considerable amount of his SPARC because its members share his sentiment that own money on independently launching a the spiraling price of information threatens neW journal focusing on the conjunction of scientific discovery. evolution and ecology. Evolutionary Ecology While Rosenzweig cares little about the Research (EER), the comparatively low-priced new journal's profitability, he recognizes it alternative to his original project, will begin must be financially viable. "I've run the publication in January. numbers every which way, and I'm confi- "I conceived the original journal as a dent this will be a going concern," said scholarly resource. In addition to its basic Rosenzweig. "I'm prepared to lose money science value, its articles help to identify the for a whileit's the cost of starting a busi- long-range consequences of environmental ness. But over the longer haul, we've got change for ecosystems. I wanted that infor- excellent prospects." Whatever may come, mation to be affordable so it would be he says he will stick to his promise of keep- broadly available," said Rosenzweig, who ing the journal's price down by basing it founded and serves in the University of It has become obvious on the actual production costs. EER web Arizona's Department of Ecology and over the years that the subscriptions will be offered to libraries in Evolutionary Biology in Tucson. "But soon journal's editors and 1999 for just $272one-third the current after the project was launched in 1987, our publishers have incom- subscription price of Wolters-Kluwer's original publisher, Chapman and Hall, was patible goals. We want print publication. Moreover, individuals bought by International Thomson to disseminate knowl- associated with each subscribing institution Corporation. Then, this year, they sold the edge; they want to can purchase personal print subscriptions journal to Wolters-Kluwer. At every change maximize profits. for $33 in the U.S. and $41 elsewhere of hands, the price increased significantly. It Michael Rosenzweig about one-quarter of Wolters-Kluwer's has become obvious over the years that the price for individual subscriptions. journal's editors and publishers have incom- As is the case with so many scholarly patible goals. We want to disseminate knowledge; they journals, Rosenzweig nurtured his original project per- want to maximize profits." sonally in return for minimal compensation by his pub- Because the skills, prestige, and connections of the lishers. He expects to do the same with EER, but says editor and editorial board are key to thesuccess of a sci- his real compensation will be the gratification that entific journal, EER is well positioned to compete for important research is being made readily available to his readers and manuscripts. Rosenzweig isan acknowl- colleagues. edged force in his field and his entire editorial board is "Scholars rarely publish for profit," said taking the plunge with him, having told Wolters-Kluwer Rosenzweig. "If I'm not motivated by profit, then they will no longer edit the existing journal. Because of there's no sense in pricing this journal far above the cost their reputation, EER already has attractedan ample of production. But getting EER quickly recognized pipeline of manuscripts for the first year of publication, within the marketplace indeed is essential. Our associa- with solid potential for more. Moreover, Rosenzweig tion with SPARC will go a long way toward making that says his experience starting a successful academic journal a reality." and managing it for 12 years will alsoserve EER well. More information on Evolutionary Ecology Research is While scholars commonly pursue commercial ventures,available on the World Wide Web at
A R L2 0 1 D E C E M B E R1 9 9 8 SPARC NOTES "Organic Letters will offer rapid communication of SPARC Notes is a new occasional feature of the ARL original, concise, and timely reports of significant newsletter that provides a rundown on activities of the research," said Smith. "The speed of access offered by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition Society's innovative web publishing features will make (SPARC) and its publishing partners. this journal an essential tool in organic chemistry." Smith named six associate editors to serve on the Europeans Join Effort to Expand journal. They are: Peter Beak and Scott Denmark, both of Competition in Journal Publishing the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; C. Dale European chemists and libraries have joined North Poulter and Cynthia J. Burrows, both of the University of American efforts to expand competition, drive down Utah; Daniel H. Rich, University of Wisconsin, Madison; prices, and enhance timeliness in scientific journal publish- and Jeffrey D. Winlder, University of Pennsylvania. ing. SPARC and the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), based in the United Kingdom, have agreed to collaborate SPARC Invites Expanded Membership on a series of new high-quality, peer-reviewed electronic Membership in SPARC is now open beyond the ranks of journals that will be offered at far below the prices ofcom- ARL. A newly released SPARC membership plan invites peting commercially published journals. international support from academic and research institu- PhysChemComni, the first product of the SPARC-RSC tions that share an interest in creating a more diverse mar- partnership, provides rapid communication of articles ketplace for scholarly communication by encouraging the in physical chemistry. With a 1999 price tag of $353 development of high-quality, economical journals. (200 Pounds Sterling) for site-wide institution- "Founding Member" status is available to al online access, it competes head-to-head qualifying members that join by December with a commercial title priced at over $8,000. 31, 1998. Several membership categories The RSC title is an all-electronic journal pro- allow individual institutions to provide sup- viding double refereeing, an esteemed inter- port ranging from $1,500 to $5,000 annually. national team of editors, searchable full-text, Consortium memberships also are available, multi-media presentation features, and web utilizing a dues structure based on the aggre- availability. gate library materials spending of participat- SPARC also announced it will be repre- ing libraries. sented in the UK and Ireland by the Standing SPARC is a new but already formidable Conference of National & University SCHOLARLY coalition of libraries that aims to create a Libraries (SCONUL), which includes 129 PUBLISHING AND more competitive scholarly communication leading libraries in its membership, and has ACADEMIC RESOURCES marketplace. Its initial focus is on science established an affiliation with Denmark's COALITION journals, where the problems of high and Conference of Directors of Research escalating prices are most serious. Created Libraries, an organization of 12 major libraries. These as an initiative of ARL, SPARC membership has grown alliances are the first expansion of the program beyond more than 50% since June 1998 to include 122 member North America. libraries and library consortia. In addition to SCONUL ACS Appoints Editor To Head and the Conference of Directors of Research Libraries New Organic Letters Journal (above), SPARC affiliate organizations include the The world's largest scientific society, the American Association of College & Research Libraries and the Chemical Society (ACS), has announced the appointment Canadian Association of Research Libraries. of Amos B. Smith, III as Editor-in-Chief of Organic Letters, The SPARC membership plan and related documents a new peer-reviewed chemistry journal slated to begin pub-can be viewed at the SPARC web page
9 9 A R L2 0 1 D E C E M B E R1 9 9 8 Mary M. Case, Director
ELECTRONIC THESES Searchability, indexing. Inclusion of multimedia. AND DISSERTATIONS: Potential savings in storage space, circulation, THE INEVITABLE FUTURE interlibrary loan, and processing costs. Issue #7 of Transforming Libraries' summarizes the Simplification of cataloging processes. current state of electronic theses and dissertations and reports Education of students in use of electronic technologies on current developments in 13 institutions. The following in scholarly inquiry and publication. is a excerpt of the introduction to this issue that was written by Key Issues George I. Soete with technical assistance from Gail McMillan While the benefits of ETDs are vividly apparent, move- of Virginia Tech. ment toward widespread adoption of fully developed ETD perhaps no technological development in recent programs has been relatively slow. Libraries are grappling years has so energized the academic community as with several issues. As usual, the purely technical issues electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs). Though appear to be solvable, while the human issues look some- only one university is currently in full production mode, what more daunting. with a second close behind, many others are running Readiness. The issue of readiness encompasses a great pilot projects or discussing the issues on their campuses. deal. For most, it means, "How ready is the institution to Some in academia are very strong advocates, pointing to embrace ETDs such that electronic submission should be clear benefits for all concerned, but others are not so sure, a requirement of the process?" Most institutions are suggesting that ETDs may compromise the publication potential of student work. answering, "Not yet ready!" In general, though it is not invariably true, faculty and students in the sciences are ETDs: The Current Situation more enthusiastic about Ems than their colleagues in the ETDs are digitally produced, archived, and accessed theses social sciences and humanities. Humanists and social sci- and dissertations. Typically, students produce their work entists tend to be more concerned about loss of potential using standard word processing systems, then convert publication of their work and plagiarism. In some cases, them into PDF or SGML formats. They may insert multi- student skills are not sufficient or the technical infrastruc- media files: still pictures, maps, or video and audio clips. ture is considered inadequate. Students have a menu of choices for distribution; typically these choices include 1) unrestricted distribution via the Publication Potential. One of the thorniest issues for many Web; 2) distribution restricted to the university communi- students is the possibility that their chances of getting their ty; and 3) no distribution allowed for a certain period. work accepted by a publisher is compromised by the elec- One institution, Virginia Tech, is in full production tronic availability of their work. Several publishers have mode with more than 1,100 ETDs approved so far. West declared flatly that Ems are considered previous publica- Virginia University is the second institution to make elec- tions and will not be accepted. But others (Elsevier, for tronic submission of theses and dissertations mandatory, example) have declared no blanket prohibition against effective August 1998. Several other institutions are in ETDs, suggesting that individual editors would factor ETD pilot mode, and many others are in the process of orient- availability in their publication decisions. It is likely that ing their campus communities and/or investigating and publishers will be less skeptical once there is wider use of discussing ETDs. ETDs and more data on trends available. Virginia Tech is the clear leader in the field; they are Intellectual Property. As with any electronic publication, viewed by many as setting standards for ETD programs. Ems present property rights issues, even though owner- With grant support, they are providing training, soft- ship by the student and sponsorship by the university may ware, and other kinds of assistance to anyone who asks seem to simplify the problems. Some are concerned that for it. The Networked Digital Library of Theses and wider availability on the Web will lead to plagiarism and Dissertations (NDLTD), based at Virginia Tech, is an irresponsible redistribution of their work. Some faculty umbrella organization of 35 institutions (as of July 1998) have expressed concern that their own work, which is that are at various stages in the development of ETD sometimes the framework for the student's work, will be programs. NDLTD acts as a clearinghouse for informa- prematurely released and not appropriately credited. tion about ETDs, holds discussions about ETDs with publishers, and promotes inquiry into ETD issues. Orientation and Training. Institutions running ETD pro- grams, whether in pilot or routine mode, have discovered Benefits of ETDs that orientation and training need a great deal of attention The benefits of ETDs are many. In general, they correlate and may represent significant additional cost. Students with the benefits of most electronic services and need to be trained in systems such as PDF. Sometimes they resources: even need basic training in word processing. The decision Accessibility from anywhere at any time. concerning who will provide training for students is a key Quick availability after submission (paper one for planners. Peer trainers have been found by some dissertations may take up to a year to be processed). institutions to be very effective. In general, interviewees
A R L2 0 1 D E C E M B E R1 9 9 8 100 L.
spoke of greater success with informal training methods, and spoke of the importance of having staff available to SPRING 1999 CONFERENCES assist students when they needed special help. ARL/SLA Licensing Videoconference Standards. Choice of formats can be troublesome, espe- March 4, 1999 cially when students are creating their work in every- "De-Mystifying the Licensing of Electronic thing from state-of-the-art systems to antique word Resources," a videoconference co-sponsored by ARL processing systems. Planners need to decide what stan- and the Special Libraries Association and funded in dards they will set for electronic submission and how part by Lexis-Nexis, will be held on March 4, 1999, much responsibility they will place on the student for from 1:00-4:00 p.m. EST. The videoconference will meeting standards. Standards determine how computer cover the basic elements of a license agreement; the labs will be equipped, what systems trainers have to legal foundations of a license, including copyright master, and how difficult it will be to manage files. and other relevant areas of the law; and user, access, Costs. Opinions about costs are very much divided. Some and legal terms. Panelists include Molly H. Sherden, feel that ETDs, though a tremendous improvement inser- Attorney with Peabody & Arnold, Boston; Pamela vice, will not result in appreciable overall cost-savings; Clark, Vice President of American International others feel that considerable savings will result. Still others Group, London and New York; and Trisha Davis, point to significant start-up costs. It seems undeniable Head of Continuation Acquisition Division, Ohio that there will be savings in some areas for those institu- State University Libraries. tions that migrate to required electronic submission; for Site licenses for the live satellite broadcast libraries, such savings should be found in storage, process- are available to ARL libraries for $350 (before ing, and interlibrary lending, as well as other areas. And February 9). There is no limit to the number of yet, until the top of the learning curve is reached, student training might represent significant additional costs. participants at a site. This is an excellent opportunity to provide the basics of licensing for those library staff Archiving, Preservation. Archiving and preservation are and university personnel who may not need or have major issues for most interviewees. Some institutionsare the time for the full two-day workshop offered by moving forward, trusting that technological solutions ARL. Details are available on the ARL website will be found, while others remain cautious and are not
1Issues and Innovations in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, Transforming Libraries #7 (also issued as SPEC Kit 236), Washington, DC: ARL, October 1998. See
STEAL A BASE OR STAY SAFE? beingin fact, one might even go so far as to say we are asking people to be "consciously incompetent" when TAKING RISKS TO GROW we ask them to take risks. Everything in their experi- ence tells them that risk-taking behaviors generally Progress always involves risk; you can't steal second base mean being in a state of less than total controlof being and keep your foot on first. in a state of exploration, puzzlement, and discovery, an Frederick Wilcox' uncomfortable or even unacceptablestate for many peo- ple in the workplace. Continued success in any organization, including These worries point to the observation that fear and libraries, depends on its individuals to learn at reticence to risk are consequences of the fact that we least as fast as the rate of organizational change. have, apparently, only one arena in which to take risks: This learning often involves taking risks: risks in trying our "performance arena," where we actually do the new behaviors, risks in abandoning what we do well to work we are there to do. We feel that what we are explore what we know less well, and risks in developing new models to deliver on our missions, just to name a engaged in is entirely too important to us to chance fail- few areas. In order for this to take place, however, ure or the appearance of failure. Obviously, we don't we must first overcome the barriers to establishing a want to risk not being able to perform our workfor risk-taking environment. libraries, the organization and delivery of information serviceswork we are rewarded for performing in a Easier Said Than Done consistent and predictable manner. Therefore, we need As consultants, we frequently hear the hope that people to create an arena that will safely allow for risk-taking will take more risks to help the organization break without sacrificing job performance when learning to through to new concepts, solutions, and paradigms. take those risks. However, we also hear the individual and collective voice of fear saying that risk is too dangerousperson- Where To Learn? ally and organizationally. Trying something new is like Creating Practice Arenas stepping out to steal a base: if we succeed, the success is Obviously, one can learn even in performing tasks as absorbed into our daily practice, routinized, and forgot- one has always performed them. However, in an area ten, but if we are unsuccessful, the failure is remem- of less competence, risk is required to beget learning bered and carried over into assumptions about our abili- and new practices. What is needed to encourage more ties, our leaders, and our safety. A common fear is of risk-taking? Where can this activity best take place? If retribution for failure. The concept of "permission to our performance arena calls on us to deliver our work fail" is a phrase incapable of being meaningful in the with a fairly consistent and high degree of quality, practices we exhibit. After all, do we have examples in where will we find the "practice arena" in which to our everyday work worlds where we applaud or even learn the new behaviors associated with risk-taking? permit failure resultant from risk-taking? Or is this a One answer is to turn to areas of our work that aren't rarity in our organizational cultures? expressly connected to our delivery of service. In the The main question to ask, then, is: Why is risk- library environment, such areas may include data gath- taking so difficult and what can organizations do to ering, performance evaluation, or designing responses address that issue? to our user communities. I would suggest that these are The "Real" Problem with Risk-Taking areas in which we could create "practice arenas" to truly While fear of retribution if a risk turns to failure is one encourage greater creativity and risk-taking without invoking those concerns that cause reticence to risk. inhibitor of risk-taking, it is not the only concern that is voiced. One of most often-heard and cogent concerns is Where We Feel Comfortable of the possible failure to provide the expected perfor- There are a finite number of areas where risk can take mance. People want to deliver work in the way that has place: the physical, the intellectual, the financial, and been comfortable, reasonably effective, and rewarded. the relationship areas. In at least three of these areas Although those who support the concepts behind (the latter three) we are being called upon to risk in increased risk-taking indicate that a higher degree of order to meet and respond to the changing environ- effectiveness is likely to be the direct result of a higher ment. Libraries, faced with a rapidly changing and degree of risk-taking, it is not before first passing growing intellectual environment, are clearly eager for through a forbidding level of diminished effectiveness, new ideas, concepts, models, and theories with which to commonly known as the "learning curve." There is a fashion responses to this environment. In the financial , definite sense that taking risks can lead to feeling, seem- area, we might benefit from risk and innovation in the ing, or even being "less" competent than one is used to ways we allocate funds, seek new funding, and assess ARL 201 DECEMBER 1998 102 fiscal performance. And the relationship area could The Office of Leadership and Management Services is offering benefit from true risk-taking that may result in new two programs that will help libraries to develop "can do" communication behaviors, facilitative and shared cultures: the Edgework Institute: Stimulating Innovation in leadership, the ability to confront organizational Library and Information Services, in November 1999; and the defensive mechanisms, and the building of a new four-part Institute on Organizational Learning for Library sense of community. Performance, which will open in October 1999.
The Leaders' Role 1Quoted in Sharon Gilchrest O'Neill's Lfir'nxing: 147 Finally, leadership support is necessary in order to Inspiring Thoughts for Learning on the Job (Berkeley, CA: create an environment that encourages risk-taking. Ten Speed Press, 1993). To do so, leaders at all levels of the organization need 2 David P. Campbell, Take the Road to Creativity and Get Off to reflect on their own risk-taking and facilitative Your Dead End (Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative behaviors; only through self-understanding can one Leadership, 1985). clearly explain the desired behaviors and design 3 Daniel Goleman, The Creative Spirit (New York: Dutton, structures and systems that support those behaviors. 1992). However, modeling risk-taking is not enoughin fact, this can create an "organizational nervousness" where- by others see no safe and stable place. Therefore, lead- NEW SPEC KITS FROM THE OLMS ers' risk-taking needs to be accompanied by genuine INFORMATION SERVICES PROGRAM support of others' risks, both psychologically and in by Patricia Brennan, ARL Publications Officer terms of rewards. Conclusion To order copies of any of these titles, contact the ARL Disorder, challenge to espoused tradition and practice, Publications department at
103 A R L2 0 1 DECEMBER > ---STATISTICS-ANEt-M-EA-StTREMEM' Julia Blixrud, Senior Program Officer
PRESERVATION EXPENDITURES LEVEL; cooperative preservation microfilming program. ARL libraries participated extensively in that program, and data MICROFILMING, STAFFING DECLINE show that cuts in the NEH budget negatively affected the The ARL Preservation Statistics provides annual statis- availability of external funding for preservation activities by tical information on the current level of preservation research libraries. External funding has been reduced con- efforts in research libraries and on the key organiza- stantly from a high of $11,090,547 in 1992-93 to a low of tional, functional, and fiscal components that characterize $7,364,841 in 1996-97. University libraries in the aggregate preservation programs. The 1996-97 survey was revised reported that special grants from external sources account- to streamline current data collection activities and to add ed for about 9% of the total preservation expenditures, two two optional questions regarding digitizing: "number of percentage points lower than last year. Grant funds were bound volumes/pamphlets digitized," and "number of expended predominantly on preservation microfilming single, unbound sheets (manuscripts, maps, photographs) projects. The accompanying chart shows that ARL mem- digitized." Although digitizing for preservation purposes ber libraries preserved 109,526 volumes on microfilm in was defined broadly in the instructions, only 19 libraries 1996-97, a 29% decline in volumes since last year. responded to the optional questions on bound volumes The financial support for preservation activities in digitized. The reports varied widely from one bound vol- ARL university libraries shows a substantial range from ume digitized (two institutions) to 335,191 items reported approximately $116,354 to $3.5 million during fiscal year digitized by one institution. 1996-97. As a corollary, ARL university libraries spent Preservation expenditures have been level since 1993. from as little as 1% to as much as 7% of total library bud- The total $80,772,236 reported for 115 reporting member gets for preservation. libraries reflects a modest increase of about $3,000,000 for The chart below displays the allocation of preservation 1996-97. Total preservation staff sharply declined to 1,742 expenditures based on data from all reporting ARL I- i Es in 1996-97 from 1,879 in 1995-96, falling back to the libraries. Local needs and capabilities will determine the staffing levels reported in 1989-90. Level 1 conservation exact allocation of budgetary resources to various activi- treatment has increased and Level 2 treatment has ties, but, as in past years, the largest category is salaries declined, but Level 3 treatment has remained at approxi- and wages, followed by binding expenditures. mately the same level as last year. ARL Preservation Statistics 1996-97 presents data from Microfilming activity, measured in volumes, has 115 U.S. and Canadian research libraries. Copies are avail- declined for the second year in a row. Availability of able for $35 to member libraries and $65 to nonmembers external funds continues to play a critical role in that (plus $6 shipping and handling per publication). Please preservation activity. In 1988, the National Endowment contact ARL Publications, Department #0692, Washington, for the Humanities (NEH) began a multi-year, expanded DC 20073-0692; (202) 296-2296; or email
VOLUMES FOR PRESERVATION PRESERVATION EXPENDITURES MICROFILM MASTERS 1996-97 180,000 Contract Supplies Microfilming 4.42% Equipment 6.91% 1 7% 160,000
140,000
120,000 Contract Salaries Binding & Wages 30.82% 52.7% 100,000
80,000 Contract Conservation 1.04% Other Contract 60,000 Expenditures Contract 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1.58% Volumes Preservation Photocopying Preserved Year .82%
A R L2 0 1 D E C E M B E R1 9 9 8 1 4 Lee Anne George, Program Planning Officer
GEORGE WASHINGTON HONORS UNIVERSITY JOINS ARL Kendon L. Stubbs: On October 30, Kendon L. Stubbs ts Membership Meeting held in October, the became the 45th recipient of the Thomas Jefferson Award, membership of ARL voted to invite The George the University of Virginia's highest award. The award hon- AWashington University Libraries to join as the ors an individual who exemplifies in character, work, and 122nd member. Located in Washington, DC, the influence the principles and ideals of the University's University is classified as a Carnegie Research University founder. Stubbs was recognized for his innovations in mak- II institution. Jack A. Siggins, University Librarian, ing the University Library's vast resources more accessible accepted the invitation. to the University and scholarly communities via the Internet. The University Libraries serve as a resource in sup- TRANSITIONS port of the research and instruction conducted by the UCBerkeley: Gerald R. Lowell was appointed approximately 1,175 faculty and 16,000 students. The University Librarian, effective December 1, 1998. Libraries include a distinctive Washingtoniana collection, He was previously University Librarian and Associate a collection of post-Cold War materials from the former Vice Chancellor-Academic Information Technology Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and East Asia, as well as an at UCSan Diego. important Judaica collection donated by the Kiev family. UCSan Diego: Phyllis S. Mirsky, previously Deputy More information about The George Washington University Librarian, was appointed Interim University University Libraries may be found at:
105 A R L2 0 1 D E C E M B E R1 9 9 8 _ ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues Executive Director: Duane E. Webster and Actions (US ISSN 1050-6098) is published six times Editor: G. Jaia Barrett, Deputy Executive Director a year by the Association of Research Libraries, Co-editor: Lee Anne George, Program Planning Officer 21 Dupont Circle, Washington, DC 20036. Copy Manager: Karen A. Wetzel 202-26-2296 FAX 202-872-0884 Designer: Kevin Osborn, Research & Design, Ltd., Arlington, VA
January 7-8 From Data to Action: An ARL May 19-21 Training Skills Institute: Workshop on Strategies to Managing the Learning Process Redesign ILL/DD Services San Diego, CA Chicago, IL June 3-4 Project Management Institute: January 29 OCLC/ARL Resource Getting Things Done or Getting Sharing Symposium the Outcomes You Want Philadelphia, PA Evanston, IL February 11-12 ARL Board Meeting July 26-27 ARL Board Meeting Washington, DC Washington, DC March 4 De-Mystifying the Licensing October 7-8 Leading Change Institute of Electronic Resources San Antonio, TX ARL/SLA Videoconference 1:00-4:00 p.m. EST October 12-15 ARL Board and Membership Meeting March 10-12 Library Management Skills Washington, DC Institute I: The Manager Denver, CO October 26-29 Library Management Skills Institute The March 26-27 New Challenges for Scholarly Management Process Communication in the Digital Evanston, IL Era: Changing Roles and Expectations in the November 3-5 Assistant/Associate Academic Community Librarian Institute Washington, DC Charleston, SC May 4-6 Facilitation Skills Institute November 10-12 Edgework Institute: Stimulating Seattle, WA Innovation in Libraries and Information Services May 11-14 ARL Board and Washington, DC Membership Meeting Kansas Cifty, MO November 17-19Library Management Skills Institute I: The Manager 106 Atlanta, GA U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) IC National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
REPRODUCTION BASIS
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries itsown permission to 1:1 reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore,may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
EFF-089 (9/97)