NASIG Newsletter

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION 

Alternatives to Licensing of E-Resources
Zachary Rolnik, Now Publishers; Selden Durgom Lamoureux, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Reported by Kyle Winward

Zachary Rolnik began the session speaking about the context of licensing, and how an increasing acquisition in digital content during the 1990s led to a shift in emphasis from copyright law to contract law for licensing.  The consequences have been higher costs, bottlenecks in the ordering process, access being delayed or never initiated, and large publishers, with large resources, being favored over small publishers.  The cumulative effect is that library patrons are not well served, library financial resources are not maximized, and small publishers are frequently under-represented in many libraries’ online collections.

Rolnik next spoke about the challenges for small publishers in creating licenses, including the cost of creating a license, attorney fees, and that three quarters of all licenses require some revision.  Rolnik added that he has never responded negatively to requests to change terms, but that the process results in a minimum delay of weeks and sometimes several months.

Selden Durgom Lamoureux followed with information concerning previous presentations on the problems of licensing at the 2005 Charleston Conference and other conferences - the response was enthusiastic for licensing alternatives.  At the Charleston Conference, Oliver Pesch (EBSCO) spoke with Lamoureux, and this conversation inspired a working group of librarians and publishers, which formed the NISO Shared E-Resource Understanding (SERU) Working Group.

The first step the working group took was to divide a license into three parts: contract (legal) boilerplate, business terms, and the remainder of the license.  The next step was discarding the contract boilerplate, moving the business terms to a purchase order, and focusing on the remaining content.  There was a general consensus about what constitutes a site, who is a user, what are appropriate and inappropriate use, confidentiality and privacy, online performance and service, and archival and perpetual access.

Rolnik followed with the reasons why a new model could work, including the significant and shared experience of publishers and librarians with e-resource licensing, and a high level of trust based on the amicable resolution of problems.  For example, there have been fewer than five court cases between publishers and libraries for license violations in the past few years, and there is strong motivation to find a licensing alternative.

Lamoureux provided more details on SERU, and emphasized that it is a mutual understanding between libraries and publishers in which they forego a license agreement and instead rely on SERU and copyright law.  SERU is not a replacement for all license and contract agreements, nor is it a standard license or license of adhesion.  SERU’s next steps include a Draft Recommended Practice for Trial Use (version 0.9), a registry of participants, and a formal NISO review process in 2008.  The speakers encouraged interested parties to register on the SERU website – the registration form isn’t currently online but should be soon.  A very interactive and informative round of questions and answers followed.

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION 

Little Things Mean a Lot
Bob Pershing, University of Pennsylvania Library; Eve Davis, EBSCO Information Services; David Horwitz, SAGE Publications
Reported by Susan Markley

Bob Persing, Eve Davis, and David Horwitz represented the various constituents in the publishing game.  They each presented some of the common annoyances they face each day which in turn have a cumulative impact on their daily activities and workload.  Although these minor complaints are often rather humorous, they do increase stress and workflow problems for all involved.

One of the “small” issues that libraries face include postal regulations for bulk mailings which limit the number of characters on the mailing label so items continually are sent to the wrong location.  Added to this annoyance are postal charges not included in the publication price so the journal is not even sent to the library.  Then there are hidden fees bundled into the journal’s actual cost, making it difficult to determine the service charge.  Another nuisance mentioned was the small notification postcards sent by fulfillment centers that extend your subscription one month when claims are placed. In addition, unanswered claims are always a major concern.  Libraries often have a real problem with the numbering system of many journals that follow no logical arrangement or units, making check-in and claiming very problematic.

Publishers and vendors complain that university accounts payable and procurement departments are often rigid about exact payment and about receiving e-mails instead of written letters.  Publishers often find that their automated or bulk e-mails to libraries end up in university spam files.  Universities often use confusing acronyms for their buildings or libraries, making it difficult for the publishers to recognize who is actually subscribing to the journal.  Publishers have problems with libraries that claim too soon or too often, not allowing time for the problem to be resolved.  They also find libraries try to circumvent publisher policies by trying to cancel requested titles after the subscription has already begun.

Vendors have problems with fulfillment houses that start subscriptions immediately after the order is received rather than waiting until the start of the year and volume.  There is also the problem of renewals or invoices sent after the cancellation period has ended.

In the new electronic serial world, additional problems have emerged, such as registration and activation headaches.  Why is there a need to re-register year after year and why can’t vendors register for the library?  In addition, automated e-mail responses from publishers that don’t include your initial question rank high on the list of petty annoyances.

The session concluded with this piece of advice: you can make a difference by complaining loud and clear.  Publishers do listen if enough people complain.  This was truly an excellent suggestion for an enjoyable presentation.

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION 

Creating a Local Print Repository for State Consortium Online Purchases
Douglas P. Kiker and Jay Wiese, University of Florida
Reported by Selina Lin

The presentation entitled, “Dim Archive Project 2004-2007: an Experiment in Creating a Local Print Repository”, details the University of Florida’s project in 2003 to begin a statewide cooperative effort to preserve an archival print copy of each online journal from Springer/Kluwer.  The University of Florida is a member of the Florida Consortium of eleven public universities which joined together for this project.  Springer/Kluwer is one of the six large publisher packages acquired by the consortium.  Each participating institution agreed to maintain and house print copies of a designated publisher package.  The rationale for the project was “apprehension about no longer maintaining a print version in any state university collection.” 

The number of journals in the Springer/Kluwer package totals 1,324, of which 361 titles, 3,605 issues, have been processed in this experimental pilot project.  These journals were received and labeled using a locally designed macro and efficient automated workflow to create item records in the ILS.  In all, 45.5 hours of staff time was spent over 200 weeks to process 361 titles which are housed in 91 archival boxes.  The end result is approximately 136 linear feet and 3.3 sections of storage space in the University’s Auxiliary Library Facility (ALF). There are 5000 titles remaining for the entire consortium to process.

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION 

EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) for Libraries, Publishers, and Agents
The Reality Show—SUSHI, ONIX, and ?
Tina Feick, Swets Information Services
Reported by Valerie Bross

Tina Feick’s electric presentation countered the stereotype that standards are dry.  Beginning with the Berlin Airlift and ending with Tina’s dream for the future, the session spanned a half-century of standards development.

The first standard—the grandfather of the bunch—is EDI. Electronic Data Interchange entails the computer-to-computer exchange of data according to a specified format agreed to by all parties, with no human intervention. This was a revolutionary concept in 1945, and in some senses remains an ideal.

Within the serials community, EDI took off in 1979 with ICEDIS (International Committee on EDI for Serials) and, in the 1980s, with the SISAC SICI (Serials Industry Systems Advisory Committee’s Serial Item and Contribution Identifier).  Fritz Schwartz, in whose name the NASIG award was created, helped develop and promote use of EDI standards.  Many NASIG members first learned not to fear these new technical standards through his excellent workshops and patient explanations.  By 1992, EDI had been implemented for agent-to-publisher/publisher-to-agent transactions (orders, renewals, and transfers), as well as some library-to-agent/agent-to-library transactions (invoices, packing lists, claims).

Of more recent vintage, ONIX for Serials (ONline Information eXchange), under the auspices of EDItEUR, provides a family of XML-based standards for communicating data among agents, publishers, and e-resources management systems (ERMs).  ONIX for Serials standards include: SPS (serial products and subscriptions), SOH (serial holdings), and SRN (serial release notification).  The latest in the suite of standards is ONIX for Licensing Terms, the first draft which was released in March 2007.

SUSHI addresses a much different problem than either EDI or ONIX—the problem of statistics collection.  SUSHI, or Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative, is a protocol that formats data so that ERMs can more efficiently load it.  By combining SUSHI-based data with payment data, a library can create useful management reports of, for example, cost-per-use.

Finally in Tina’s dream-world, all standards are in place and fully implemented; library automation systems use the same standard; manual work has been reduced; and the librarian finally has time to focus on issues of quality.

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION 

Risky Business: Outsourcing Serials Cataloging
Faye Leibowitz, University of Pittsburgh
Reported by Kurt Blythe

Leibowitz’s presentation arose from her experiences managing an outsourced cataloging project for a collection of serials at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs and Economics Library.  The GSPIA/Economics Library’s serials and monographs ostensibly serve a wide range of research, but were nonetheless difficult to access.  These materials had not been included in Pittsburgh’s previous retrocons, and were only accessible via an incomplete shelf list.  Beyond that, the collection was classified using a local, hybrid classification system.  In point of fact, access was primarily afforded through browsing.

When the decision was made that the collection needed to be made accessible from the online catalog, grant funding was sought for an outsourcing project.  After analyzing the collection to determine the scope of the project, Leibowitz won a $75,000 grant.  This grant would fund the outsourcing of approximately 7500 volumes of which 1200 were serial in nature.  OCLC TechPro contracted to do the retrocon inside of one year.

Since the shelf list was incomplete, actual volumes were shipped to OCLC in lieu of cards; but only those volumes embodying major changes or first and last issues of a run were sent.  This process required a great deal of prep work to be done by Pitt’s library staff.  Students performed much of this work, checking OCLC to discover if any records relating to materials in the collection were already held, to follow up on 780 and 785 fields, and forwarding all available information to a librarian for vetting.  Few title changes were found, and most serials consisted of short runs or single issues.  OCLC was instructed to use CONSER records when available and serials were flagged before returning to the library so that holdings could be added.

Leibowitz’s experiences illustrate that serials cataloging is much more difficult to outsource than monographic cataloging.  The application of a cataloger’s judgment in determining major changes versus minor or recording designations breeds inconsistencies in treatment.  These inconsistencies are compounded when OCLC’s catalogers evaluate each volume of a title separate from the others rather than in the context of a library catalog, resulting in volumes from the same title being variously cataloged as serials and monographs.  Often, OCLC’s decisions conflicted with Pittsburgh’s policies.  At the same time, the student labor used in the preparatory phase and to process volumes returning from OCLC was often unsatisfactory due to the steep learning curve associated with training students and their lack of knowledge.

In the end, Leibowitz determined that she may have been better served had she been able to use her funding to hire full-time temporary workers to do the retrocon in-house.  With so much work required of the outsourcing institution before and after materials were handled by OCLC, and with the knowledge of students generally insufficient to the task, combined with the judgment of offsite catalogers sometimes in conflict with that of the outsourcing institution’s policies, it seems preferable to keep serials at home.

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION

ERM on a Shoestring: Betting on an Alternative Solution
Dalene Hawthorne, Head of Systems and Technical Services, Emporia State University; Jennifer Watson, Head of Electronic & Collection Services, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center
Reported by Virginia A. Rumph

Jennifer Watson and Dalene Hawthorne presented two options for keeping track of licenses and invoices for electronic resources.   At Tennessee, a FileMaker Pro database is used for individual title information.  It automatically generates URLs for the catalog’s 856 fields, and HTML for their A-Z list.  The advantages: ease of use, no IT help needed, no subscription fees, generates static URLs, and links to other databases.  However, the disadvantages include: the A-Z list cannot be incorporated into the new website’s content management system, it doesn’t include licenses and invoices, and the software must be installed on each computer, adding to expenses and training time.

The Health Sciences Center adapted Blackboard to manage licenses and invoices.  The pluses: already installed on campus with no additional cost, ease of use, no software to download, different levels of privileges can be set, and it is accessible from anywhere.  The negatives: no integration with other ERM systems, title linking is difficult, and a dependency on campus support.  Jennifer regards Blackboard as an interim measure until their EMS can handle invoices and licenses. 

The EMS was created using MySQL and Ruby on Rails (a Web application development framework).  The e-journals Web page is automatically populated, can be updated quickly, and works well with their content management system.  Jennifer thinks the best part of this EMS is its use of “smart” URLs which link each title on the A-Z list to the EMS, allowing usage statistics to be generated for all titles.  Loading data into the link resolver has improved, too.  Since it is Web-based, no software is needed, it is accessible from anywhere, and it is easy to use.  However, it requires a skilled IT person to create and maintain.

Currently, the Health Sciences Center employs FileMaker Pro to house usage statistics, Blackboard for invoices and licenses, and the EMS for everything else. However, the goal is to get all the information into the EMS.  This home-grown system meets their electronic resources management needs because they do not subscribe to many database packages (notoriously volatile).  Their systems are easily customizable, and cheap to set up and maintain, thus freeing money for more journal subscriptions to meet patron needs.

Emporia State has not purchased an ERM yet, has not been registering e-journals, wasn’t tracking licenses well, and relied on Serials Solutions to handle database content changes.  When the decision was made to get better control of their electronic resources, Emporia assigned responsibility for e-resources tasks to the appropriate staff, and subscribed to EBSCOHost Electronic Journals Service Enhanced version (EJS).  Suppressed brief bibliographic records are stored in a password-protected e-reserves course with attached scanned licenses and invoices are entered in the acquisitions module.  However, usage statistics are not being collected regularly.  EJS is being used as a registration tracker, to supply end user access notes, to create an A-Z list, and to generate administrative alerts.  Emporia has been satisfied with this combined solution to electronic resource management, but, unlike the Health Sciences Center, they subscribe primarily to databases.  Dalene doesn’t think their approach is scaleable to large institutions.

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION 

Verbal Bourbon: Speaking Secrets to Intoxicate Your Audience
Jeff Slagell, Director of Library Services, Delta State University
Reported by Stephen Headley

Slagell began by asking the audience their reasons for attending the session.  He then provided the purpose for his presentation: to facilitate discussion about improving the attendants’ public speaking and presentation skills.  Slagell said there were six key elements to productive public speaking: comfort level, gaining attention, organization, presentation style, discussion, and the wrap-up. The ideas presented would allow the attendants to gain the attention of their audience, communicate effectively, and enact change.

After giving an overview of his presentation, Slagell quizzed his audience on the significance of what he had done thus far in his presentation. He had injected some humor and interacted with his audience as a warm-up and a way to find out their expectations. Slagell had used a humorous story to emphasize a point and he had given an overview of his presentation.  A sizable portion of this was done very casually; but he pointed out that it was all very intentional and served a purpose.

The first element of effective public speaking is for the speaker to establish a good comfort level.  Slagell emphasized that practicing a presentation was very beneficial.  The presenter could practice front of a mirror, in front of a colleague or small group, or have the presentation videotaped and reviewed.  He also offered visualization as a way to mentally prepare for a successful presentation.

Secondly, the speaker must gain the attention of the audience.  Slagell stated that the use of humor is very important, but that the speaker must beware of anything that could be construed as offensive.  An important aspect of gaining the audience’s attention lies in listening carefully when they provide feedback.  Other ways to gain the audience’s attention are: showing visuals, the use of props, and the physical characteristics of the speaker, such as voice inflection and movement during the presentation.

The next factor Slagell presented was organization.  He emphasized that a presentation should have three important pieces: an introduction, the body or content of the presentation, and a conclusion.  He emphasized the importance of making the content interesting to the audience.  Slagell also warned the audience to keep to the topic and not get sidetracked.  He advised that it is difficult to keep the points together at times, but not doing so would leave the audience without a sense of the objective of the presentation.

Another key ingredient to a successful presentation is the presentation style.  A speaker must first determine the mechanics of the process. This includes the decision whether or not to use audio-visual equipment or simple handouts to support the presentation.  Equally important as the mechanics of the process is the method used by the speaker.  Slagell strongly emphasized that the presenter needs to express energy and enthusiasm throughout the presentation.  He stated that nonverbal aspects of a speaker’s method are just as important as what is being conveyed verbally.

Another necessary component of a successful presentation is allowing time for discussion.  Slagell pointed out that this creates a “synergy” with the audience.  However, in order to make this effective, the speaker must be an active listener, so that the audience knows that their feedback is acknowledged and that their point of view is truly understood.

The final element of a good presentation is the wrap-up. The speaker needs to keep track of the time, especially allowing for the discussion period.  The presenter must “know when to stop talking.”  The wrap-up can leave a positive effect if an “attention-gaining device” is used at the end of a presentation, such as the humorous story that Slagell used at the end of his presentation.

Slagell concluded by encouraging the audience not to be afraid of making presentations or speaking in front of audiences. They should use the ideas he provided to share the information and ideas that they have, so that their organizations can benefit from them.  In this way they can foster effective communication and enact change in their organization.

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION

Making Sense of Your Usage Statistics
Bob Schufreider, NA Sales Manager, MPS Technologies
Reported by Christine Freeman

“Usage statistics are a key decision making tool and becoming more important.” This statement by Bob Schufreider was acknowledged by head nods throughout the room.  Everyone recognizes that usage statistics are one of the best ammunitions a library has for collection development decisions. The only problem is that the collection / collation of statistics is sometimes almost more trouble than they are worth. Not many libraries have the ability to have staff devoted to the collection of usage statistics, which means that when statistics are needed librarians spend days collecting / collating statistics from multiple vendors.

The first topic Bob discussed was the University of Tennessee’s Max Data Project in April 2006. This project consisted of a survey sent to library directors at more than two hundred sixty Carnegie I and II research institutions. The data returned noted that the average number of vendors that provide some sort of usage report was forty-three. The data also reflected the percentage of vendor reports by resource type: full text, abstract/index, electronic book, and others. Reporting, subscription decisions, justifying expenditures, and other purposes were acknowledged as reasons for using vendor-supplied usage statistics.

The University of Tennessee Max Data Project also helped identify the biggest challenges that libraries face when dealing with usage statistics: lack of consistency / standards, collection / collation takes too much time, and that COUNTER standards help but….   The libraries involved in this survey identified five of the most useful types of statistics for libraries. These include number of full text downloads, searches, sessions, COUNTER statistics, and turnaways.

COUNTER statistics could be some of the most useful statistics in the realm of electronic journals, but Bob asked the group to consider some ideas that COUNTER might be missing.  One of the ideas that COUNTER might be missing is that usage reports are title-level only with no indication of whether full text requests are front file or backfile.  Another issue to consider when comparing across publishers is that linking to an article renders its HTML, and if a user chooses to select the PDF version, that could count as two downloads. Other things to consider focus on how exposure in Google Scholar can skew usage, and the lack of benchmarks.

Bob then told the audience about another survey called the UKSG Usage Factor.  This survey was completed in two phases. Phase I consisted of personal interviews with twenty-nine authors, publishers and librarians, while Phase II was a broader online survey of librarians and authors.  Topics covered in this survey included: reaction to the Usage Factor, what time windows would be appropriate in calculation of the Usage Factor, practical ways to consolidate the information, who would take on that responsibility, and implications for non-COUNTER titles.  Results of this survey showed broad support for a usage-based quality measure.  If it existed, librarians would rank the usage factor high on their decision-making matrix.  Authors, on the other hand, appeared more reticent about changing their behavior based on a new quality measure.  Publishers were more mixed in their support, and the library community in general was very interested in a broader standard by which titles can be qualitatively measured.

Though this presentation did not get into all the factors of usage statistics, access was provided to tools that would help libraries collect usage data and learn more about types of usage data. The tools included Electronic Resource Management products, for example, Innovative Interfaces, Ex Libris, Serials Solutions, ScholarlyStats, Project COUNTER  and SUSHI.

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSIONS

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth:  New and Not-So-New Serialists Share Experiences
Susan Davis, University at Buffalo, State University of New York; Sarah Morris, Illinois College of Optometry
Reported by Gail Julian

Susan Davis, a long time serialist and leader in the NASIG organization, and Sarah Morris, a new professional and 2006 NASIG student grant award winner, led the audience in a discussion of serials’ changes over time and how different generations of librarians view the serials world and workplace today. 

Susan has recently been named co-head of a newly created department at her institution.  This new department, the Electronic Periodicals Management Department, combines acquisitions and cataloging functions related to electronic resources.  Susan recapped her career using slides and photos. She has attended all the NASIG conferences and has over twenty-five years of experience in serials work. 

In contrast, in 2005, as NASIG celebrated its 20th anniversary, Sarah was at the halfway point in library school.  Sarah originally planned to be a teacher but got a taste of acquisitions when she was an undergraduate working at CRL.  She later became a paraprofessional and then attended library school.  The audience was then asked to share stories of how they became serialists. 

The next part of the discussion revolved around changes that have occurred over the last twenty-five years.   Susan recalled using an IBM Selectric typewriter and how much time it took to send claims and correspond through the mail.  Sarah shared her experiences of the last five years as resources have increasingly moved to electronic format and patrons want everything available with one click.  The management of electronic resources is much more complex requiring training and documentation.   The audience was asked to discuss their experiences retooling existing staff to work with electronic materials. 

“What are our roles in the library today?”  Susan and Sarah continued the discussion by bringing up issues all too familiar to current day librarians:  pricing models, backfiles sold separately, the role of consortia, the “big deal,” and the consolidation of publishing.  The roles of publishers and agents have also changed, and the role of the platform provider is new to the mix.  However, regardless of format, title problems still exist.

The tactics session concluded with a discussion of the generational divide.  Serialists of all ages share some common traits.  They must be comfortable with change and ambiguity.  However, often they do not get as much positive feedback as colleagues in public services.  Studies indicate constant feedback is needed by the millennial generation.  In addition, how will experienced and newer librarians co-exist?  New blood may be needed to reinvigorate an organization, but these newer librarians must be cognizant of the history of the organization.  Experienced librarians may not appreciate the ideas of newer librarians.  Susan and Sarah concluded by distributing a list of readings on the subject.   

22nd CONFERENCE
TACTICS SESSION 

We All are Winners: Training Silents to Millennials to Work as a Team
JoAnne Deeken, Univeristy of Tennessee; Paula L. Webb, Delta State University
Reported by Michael J. Hanson

JoAnne Deeken and Paula Webb discussed the fact that library employees are various ages and how this can affect training sessions, particularly training related to the rapid advances in information technologies. They used the generational paradigm created by William Strauss and Neil Howe in their book, Generations: the History of America’s Future, 1584 – 2069, as the basis for breaking people into groups. The four categories they discussed were the Silents, those born between 1925 and 1942; the Baby Boomers, who were born between 1943 and 1960; Generation X, whose birth date falls between 1961 and 1980; and finally the Millennials, who were born between 1981 and 2000.

Deeken and Webb also explained some of the characteristics of individuals in each group and briefly discussed what training techniques the individuals preferred.  The long experience of the Silents provides them with a wealth of knowledge. They have a great respect for authority and expect trainers to acknowledge their skills. They take their own notes and respond well to learning from individual study manuals. If the trainer makes connections between what they know and what is going on, it helps them assimilate what needs to be learned. Once they understand a new technology, it becomes part of their knowledge base. 

Baby Boomers have less respect for authority than the Silents, but do respect authority that they themselves have established.  Although they say they like teamwork, Baby Boomers are concerned about their place in the group and want to be the star. They want to get rewarded so they demonstrate how they are responding to what is being learned.  Sometimes they are prone to policing the other members in the class who might be doing things which do not meet with their approval.

There are fewer Generation Xers than members of other generations. They share a common work ethic, but they express it differently than Baby Boomers, i.e., they work their forty hour week, but they leave work at work. They embrace and expect technological advancements.  Generation Xers have an understanding of Boomers and Millennials, and sometimes can interpret one for the other. They need feedback to know that they are doing well. 

Some Millennials are still in early education and others are just entering into the workforce. Few are in supervisory positions and they are primarily being trained. Their short attention span causes them to require a trainer to move around the room and do more than lecture.  Millennials are multi-tasking all the time.  If you want them to focus on you, you must interact with them.  Often they are unwilling to stay for any length of time in a particular job. They are gathering experience which they will bring with them to other employers.  Millennials desire challenges and excitement as well as constant stimuli. Their life experience with structured schools, sporting leagues, music groups, etc., has caused them to require lots of structure and they depend on mentors.

Deeken and Webb propose that acknowledging the differences between generations and modifying training methods for each group can improve the training experience for all involved.