Facing Our E-Demons: Challenges of E-Serial Management in a Large Academic Library

Marlene van Ballegooie & Juliya BorieUniversity of Toronto Libraries

NASIG 2014

Important Steps in Facing Your E-Demons

• Take stock. We can’t begin to improve our ERM practices without first taking stock of what’s plaguing us.

• Give credit where credit is due. It’s so easy to get bogged down in the problems. What are we doing right? Celebrate our victories.

• Look ahead. Look to the future and think of all the things we can do to make e-resource management better.

UTL Context• University of Toronto - Canada’s largest university

o 67,128 undergraduate studentso 15,884 graduate students

• Decentralized library system with 44 librarieso ARL ranked #3

• Let’s look at the numbers:o 7.6 million bibliographic records (over 11 million items)o Over 1.5 million e-resources (approx. 227,000 serials)o 1,379 content packages, 385 providers

• Managed e-resources in a home-grown system until 2011. Became unsustainable.

• Migrated to Serials Solutions product suite

Taking Stock

Setting the Stage

• Substantial investment in e-journals:– At UofT in 2012/13:– e-serials - 73% of the serials budget– 28 million dollar acquisition budget– 12 million spent on e-serials – In many ARL libraries, e-serials account for

two-thirds of overall materials budgets

Does this investment in e-journals have an impact on institutional research performance?

Do e-journals make a difference?• E-journal expenditure correlates with use.• Use of e-journals does not simply support

research success but also drives it.

Research Information Network, E-journals: their use, value and impact: final report (London: RIN, January 2011, p. 29)

After the purchase… “Massive investments in subscriptions to an increasingly complex array of electronic content products requires at least some additional overhead expense to provide simpler means of access and to ensure adequate levels of use.”

(Marshall Breeding, Automation Marketplace 2013).

• ERMs are an essential component in e-resource management– Improves discoverability for users– Streamlines maintenance for libraries– Mechanism for inventory control

ERMs and the Data Supply Chain

• Main players in the e-resource data supply chain– Publishers– Knowledge base vendors– Subscription agents– Libraries

• More interdependencies than ever… all based on METADATA

• Joint project between UKSG and NISO• Aim: Develop a recommended practice to

ensure the timely transfer of accurate data to knowledge bases, ERMs etc.

• Phase 1- Completed in 2010– Main focus was on metadata for serials

• Phase 2 - Completed 2014– Build on Phase 1 recommendations– Focus on e-book, Open Access and consortia metadata

Knowledge Bases and Related Tools

• UKSG initiative• Aim: to improve journal transfers from one

publisher to another • 48 publishers, including Elsevier, Springer and

Wiley-Blackwell• Enhanced Transfer Alerting Service database • Currently in Version 3.0

TRANSFER Code of Practice

• NISO recommended practice• Addresses issues in e-journal presentation

practices on provider web-sites-Titles for different formats-Former titles-Citations-ISSN irregularities

Presentation and Identification of E-Journals

The Study

• Comparison of title lists from content providers to data in Serials Solutions KB• Serials analyzed: 12,121 • Content providers considered: 20• Limitations – could not check all

holding dates due to variable date formatting

Package Deals

Title Changes and Ceased Titles

• Previous titles are not mentioned in many title lists, despite us having access.

• Much research was required to put the puzzle together of all the title changes.

• Ceased titles not listed in many instances.

Title Transfers

• Title transfers are generally dropped from KB, even though they often still supply access

• 80% of electronic resource librarians have spent significant time adjusting their serial management systems due to journal transfers

• Perpetual access status can be unclear, especially in titles that are part of “Big Deals”

ISSN Irregularities

• Some ISSN & URL discrepancies hampered the matching process

• Some confusion over print and online ISSNs.

• In some cases, where there was no print ISSN listed in the publisher title list, Serials Solutions substituted the Online ISSN.

Titles missing previously…

• Titles “found” in the process: 1,048• Backfiles are most vulnerable as title list

rarely capture all relevant title changes.• Titles transferred to another publisher• Short runs of previous titles are most

often the ones that are missing

Single Title Purchases

Results - Single Titles

• Titles analyzed: 550 • Titles that were “found” in the process: 52

(10%)• Serials Solutions has comprehensive

coverage, few titles are not in the knowledgebase

How does it affect users?Erroneous data from publishers

Knowledgebase

User Interface

Dead End!

This journal did not exist in 1973!

Bad Metadata Meets DiscoverySame article, two different citations!

How Did Our ERM Fare?

• Title changes are often properly represented in ERM

• ISSN corrections• Rule statements in KB• Correct metadata in the

knowledgebase affects all points of discovery down the line

Lessons Learned

• Publisher/library data disconnect – Latest title vs. successive title entry

• Title lists are static, yet content is fluid• Title lists supplied by publishers are

marketing tools, not management tools– Title lists often appear to be an afterthought, even

though it is the only tangible output of the purchase

Lessons Learned• Incomplete metadata

affects perpetual access–Perpetual access is not

just about access to the resource. – It is also about the

perpetual supply of the metadata related to that resource.

Lessons Learned

• Communication is key• Electronic resource

management is an ever-changing environment

• Don’t underestimate the importance of communication in the ERM process

Celebrating Our Victories

• Consortially-based repository of locally-loaded e-journals, e-books, social science data sets and geospatial data sets

• Primary advantage is stability and preservation

• A “safety-net” for e-journal content that has fallen through the cracks; though not immune to the problems with content provider metadata

Improved CatalogueAccess

• Prior to the commercial ERM, brief MARC records were created for each e-serial holding.

• Minimal data, much duplication, high level of confusion amongst users.

• With MARC service: CONSER records, multiple holdings on a single record, holding dates clearly identified, updated regularly.

• Happier users…and reference librarians!

Other ERM Successes

• Open Access– Increased visibility/awareness of OA titles– Revealed the instability of OA data feeds

• Exposing previously hidden collections– Title level access where none was had before

• Knowledgebase can be used as a tool to help inform purchases– Prevents duplicative purchasing– Usage statistics and overlap analysis tools

Greater Awareness of ERM Issues

• In previous ERM, management of e-resources was disconnected from purchasing

• Commercial system opened up access, allowing different people with different skill sets to work with the data

• Recognition of the fluidity of the knowledgebase environment

• Knowing the issues makes us better prepared for the future

Looking Forward

Collaboration

• Electronic Resources Management Group • Aims to provide a comprehensive strategy

regarding e-resources:– Focused on all aspects of e-resource lifecycle

(acquisition, licensing, cataloguing, ERM maintenance, access)

• Working towards greater centralization in e-resource management and improved collaboration

Communication• For ERM success, we need to work across

departmental boundaries• Purchasers need to understand metadata

needs• Bring metadata into the conversation with

content providers– Discuss workflow, ERM pain points, end user

frustrations, etc.– Act as an intermediary between content providers and

knowledgebase vendors when necessary

Standardization• Promote the use of standards and best

practices (KBART, TRANSFER, PIE-J)– Educate e-resource team members internally– Emphasize the importance of compliance to

content providers• Include metadata requirements in your license

agreements– Insist on KBART compliant title lists– Require knowledgebase participation

• Collective buy-in is necessary for success

Documentation

• Document your entitlements carefully– Shared drives– Naming conventions and versioning

• Policies and procedures• Backup data regularly– Take snapshots of your holdings data and

compare them– You may be (unpleasantly) surprised!

New Directions

Cooperative Managementof Knowledgebase Data

• WorldCat® Knowledge Base Cooperative Management– Phase One – Members approve/deny data

changes– Phase Two – Members submit changes– Phase Three – Members add/delete title and add

new collections• Global Open Knowledgbase (GoKB)

Automated Setting ofE-Resource Holdings

• Let’s take some people out of the process• OCLC + Pubget• EBL/Ebrary automated data feeds• Metadata quality? • Licensing requirement for publishers to

provide holdings data to KB for ERM and discovery purposes

Increased DataIntegration

• Linked data – unlocking library data from its record constraints– BIBFRAME– RDA– Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory ???

• New data sources lead to new possibilities• Allow for data verification and correction

It’s Time to Changethe Game

• As libraries, we need to come together as a community

• Let’s agree on the rules of play– Consistent expectations, consistent message

• Acknowledge that change is imperative • Currently, it’s a game of frustration, let’s

change it to game of collaboration!

Thank You!

m.vanballegooie@utoronto.cajuliya.borie@utoronto.ca

Resources• Breeding, Marshall. “Automation Marketplace 2013: The Rush to Innovate”. Library

Journal 137(6), p.32.• Breeding, Marshall. “Knowledge Base and Link Resolver Study: General Findings”.

http://www.kb.se/dokument/knowledgebase_linkresolver_study.pdf• Research Information Network. “E-journals: their Use, Value and Impact: Final

Report”. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/e-journals-their-use-value-and-impact

• NISO. KBART Phase II Recommended Practice Report. http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart

• NISO. Recommended Practices for the Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J). http://www.niso.org/workrooms/piej

• UKSG. Transfer Code of Practice, Version 3.0. http://www.uksg.org/transfer

Image Credits• http://www.theartofastralprojection.com/blog/confronting-fear-in-the-astral• https://flic.kr/p/8aK6CS• http://www.jmhdigital.co.uk/img/packages-point.png• http://reclaiminghearts.com/monday-musing-46/• http://www.bctransferguide.ca/news-highlights/twitter1/• http://siliconangle.com/files/2012/03/lost-and-found-pic1.png• http://blog.hostgator.com/2013/08/21/how-to-measure-website-success/• http://miista.com/this-will-make-you-smile-promise/• http://coffeewithdick.com/?p=4• http://www.eurac.edu/en/newsevents/events/newsdetails.html?entryid=113601• http://oclc.org/content/dam/support/knowledge-base/SC/SC_Guide_KBWC.pdf• http://info.bluebirdstrat.com/blog/bid/338081/What-is-a-Marketing-Automation-

Consultant• http://www.illustrationsource.com/stock/image/519991/two-men-and-a-woman-

holding-hands-on-top-of-globes/?&results_per_page=1&detail=TRUE&page=8