Selection And Presentation Of Commercially Available Electronic ...
Selection and Presentation
of Commercially Available
Electronic Resources:
Issues and Practices
by Timothy D. Jewell
July 2001
Digital Library Federation
Council on Library and Information Resources
Washington, D.C.
ii
About the Author
Tim Jewell became head of collection management services at the University of Washington in 1998. He
has been involved in the coordination of electronic resources there since 1992, when he was appointed
head of the UW Libraries’ Electronic Information Program. He has been active in regional consortium
activities for several years and served as visiting program officer for electronic resources at the
Association of Research Libraries from 1996 to 1998. He received a master’s degree in library science from
SUNY-Albany, and a master’s degree in sociology from the Pennsylvania State University. He recently
published an article on “Library Resources and Services for Sociology” in the second edition of the
Encyclopedia of Sociology.
ISBN 1-887334-84-X
Published by:
Digital Library Federation
Council on Library and Information Resources
1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Web site at http://www.clir.org
Additional copies are available for $20 per copy. Orders must be placed online through CLIR’s Web site.
8 The paper in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information
Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials ANSI Z39.48-1984.
Copyright 2001 by the Council on Library and Information Resources. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transcribed
in any form without permission of the publisher. Requests for reproduction should be submitted to the Director of Communications
at the Council on Library and Information Resources.
iii
Contents
Preface ................................................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................vi
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Scope and Perspectives .................................................................................................1
1.2. Methodology, Aims, and Organization ......................................................................3
2. Selection Issues and Practices ....................................................................................................4
2.1. The Economic Context of Electronic Resource Selection .........................................4
2.1.1. Consortial Purchasing and Pricing ...................................................................4
2.1.2. Scholarly Communication Reform Initiatives .................................................9
2.2. Selection Policies and Strategic Plans ..........................................................................10
2.2.1. Selection Policies .................................................................................................. 11
2.2.2. Strategic Plans ......................................................................................................12
2.3. Institutional Finance and Organization .....................................................................13
2.4. Internal Procedures for Initial Evaluation and Purchase ........................................15
2.5. Licensing Issues and Practices .....................................................................................16
2.6. Web Presentation Strategies .........................................................................................18
2.7. User Support ..................................................................................................................21
2.8. Ongoing Evaluation and Usage Information ............................................................22
2.9. Preservation and Archiving .........................................................................................24
2.10. Toward Integrated Systems for Managing Electronic Resources ...........................25
3. Conclusions and Future Considerations ..................................................................................28
References ..........................................................................................................................................31
Appendixes ........................................................................................................................................42
A. Selection and Presentation Documents and Web Pages .......................................................42
B. Functions and Data Elements for Managing Electronic Resources ....................................51
Tables
1. DLF Member Libraries’ Consortial Memberships ................................................................6
2. Idealized Model of Effective Selection and Presentation Practices .....................................29
iv
Preface
In January 2000, the Digital Library Federation (DLF) launched an informal
survey to identify the major challenges confronting research libraries that use
information technologies to fulfill their curatorial, scholarly, and cultural mis-
sions. With astonishing unanimity of opinion and clarity of voice, respon-
dents pointed to digital collection development as their single greatest chal-
lenge. Whether the digital information came from a commercial publisher or
from a digitization unit within the library, it seemed to exist under a cloud of
profound and unsettling uncertainty. Would it be useful and useable in its
present or intended form, or require additional work by catalogers, systems
staff, or subject bibliographers? What new demands would its availability
make on library reference staff? What level of continued investment would
be necessary to ensure its accessibility on current hardware and software?
The survey also revealed that leading research libraries had learned a
great deal about their digital collections through experience. Though substan-
tial, that learning had rarely been expressed outside the collection policies,
working papers, and implementation guidelines that libraries create to coor-
dinate and manage their collection development efforts. Accordingly, in April
2000, the DLF commissioned three reports to address broader concerns about
digital collections. The three reports deal respectively with commercial elec-
tronic content, digital materials created from library holdings, and Web-
based “gateways” that link to selected Internet resources in the public do-
main. The reports mark a starting point for what we hope will emerge as an
evolving publication series.
Working to a common outline and based on the lessons of experience, the
authors demonstrate how decisions taken by a library when acquiring (or
creating) electronic information influence how, at what cost, and by whom
the information will be used, maintained, and supported. By assembling and
reviewing current practice, the reports aim where possible to document effec-
tive practices. In most cases, they are able at least to articulate the strategic
questions that libraries will want to address when planning their digital col-
lections.
Tim Jewell looks in depth at how a number of leading research libraries
select, license, present, and support the use of commercial online materials.
Uncovering a variety of practices, he is careful to identify those that converge
and illuminate the most effective means for integrating commercial online
materials sustainably into library collections. Since the cost of commercial
content is a major concern to both libraries and publishers, the report begins
there. It critically assesses the licensing options that are available to libraries,
individually and consortially, and some of the emerging strategies that librar-
ies are using to contain costs. Subsequent sections deal with operational chal-
v
lenges and follow the commercial resource’s “life-cycle” from ordering and
purchasing to cataloging, Web presentation, user support, use assessment,
and preservation. The report concludes with a table that summarizes the
most effective practices that are uncovered.
The author does not set out to provide a recipe for sustainability so much
as a commentary on the important issues that libraries must address as they
increase their investments in commercial online materials. In effect, he gives
us a decision tool that emphasizes and supports strategic planning, and en-
courages careful consideration of how libraries’ functions and professional
staff are organized. He also supplies an essential reference tool, citing work-
ing papers and operational guidelines that libraries rely on but rarely “pub-
lish.” Finally, he frames an important and practical development agenda by
encouraging libraries to collaborate in designing information systems capable
of organizing the detailed and often dynamic information they need to main-
tain about their commercial holdings.
Daniel Greenstein
Director, Digital Library Federation
vi
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the University of Washington Libraries and
the Digital Library Federation for the opportunity to conduct the research for
this report. Thanks are also due to the several people who provided informa-
tion about their local practices and who offered suggestions, feedback on ear-
lier drafts of the report, encouragement, or other support. Special thanks go
to Ivy Anderson, Ellen Duranceau, Sharon Farb, Beverlee French, Dan Green-
stein, Bonnie MacEwan, Joyce Ogburn, Kim Parker, Louis Pitschmann, Rue
Ramirez, Carole Richter, Diane Rosolowsky, Ronda Rowe, Tom Sanville,
Abby Smith, and Paula Watson.
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
Over the last decade, libraries of all kinds have been spend-
ing larger and larger shares of their budgets to acquire or
gain access to electronic resources from publishers and
vendors. Ten years ago, the user of a typical Association of Research
Libraries (ARL) library would have found little more than a handful
of the more prominent periodical indexes and abstracts—possibly in
CD-ROM format. Today, that user would find a daunting array of
resources that might include hundreds of databases and thousands
of electronic journals.
Electronic resources have enabled libraries to improve services in
a variety of ways. First, most electronic resources come equipped
with powerful search-and-retrieval tools that allow users to perform
literature searches more efficiently and effectively than was previ-
ously possible. In addition, because most relevant electronic resourc-
es are now available through the Web, users can have desktop access
to them 24 hours a day. In many cases, users also can now navigate
directly from indexing databases to the full text of an article and can
even follow further links from there.
Most users have welcomed these developments. Nevertheless,
libraries face a number of technical, financial, and organizational
challenges as they seek to continue offering the high level of services
that users have come to expect. The purpose of this report is to re-
view some of the key issues facing libraries and to describe some of
the more promising practices that libraries have devised—individu-
ally and collectively—to deal with them.
1.1.
Scope and Perspectives
This report focuses on practices related to the selection and presenta-
tion of commercially available electronic resources. As part of the
Digital Library Federation’s Collection Practices Initiative, the report
also shares the goal of identifying and propagating practices that
support the growth of sustainable and scalable collections. To give
readers a common reference, this section begins with a brief discus-
sion of key terminology.
2
Timothy D. Jewell
In an attempt to be as inclusive as possible, the term “commer-
cially available resources” is defined as virtually any electronic prod-
uct or service for which libraries spend funds. The breadth of this
definition is suggested by some of the types of electronic reference
resources enumerated by Demas, McDonald, and Lawrence (1995)
and Kovacs (2000a; 2000b), directories, dictionaries, abstracts, servic-
es providing indexes and tables of contents, encyclopedias and alma-
nacs, e-serials, bibliographies and bibliographic databases, and “key
primary documents.” The topic of electronic serials is itself quite
complex, as indicated by some recent overviews (Barber 2000; Curtis,
Scheschy, and Tarango 2000). To this basic inventory of types must
now be added a few new genres, such as historical full-text collec-
tions and electronic books.
It is also necessary to briefly consider the conditions that might
enable commercially available collections or resources to be “sustain-
able.” Librarians today tend to characterize pricing models, or the
information marketplace in general, as sustainable or not, and this is
the sense in which the word has been used recently in some influen-
tial documents. For example, a document issued in 1998 by the Inter-
national Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) states that “current
pricing models for e-information, which are developing during a pe-
riod of experimentation, are not sustainable” (ICOLC 1998a). Anoth-
er document, “Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publish-
ing,” employs the word somewhat similarly, but it also declares that
the current system of scholarly publishing and communication “has
become too costly for the academic community to sustain” (Princi-
ples 2000). Vendors and providers of electronic resources also need to
be concerned about the economic sustainability or viability of their
products, and their views of what may be required for sustainability
may conflict with what libraries view as the realities of their funding
situations.
Because pricing issues are fundamental to sustainability, this re-
port examines some emerging strategies for exerting economic pres-
sure within the marketplace for electronic resources. However, be-
cause substantial staff time may be necessary to acquire and provide
access to databases and e-journals, sustainability is also an operation-
al question. With that in mind, this report also focuses on operational
and organizational issues and practices. Nevertheless, it is important
to recognize the influence that vendor design and presentation choic-
es have on the amount and kind of time and effort required of librar-
ies. Libraries and vendors alike have important roles to play in fos-
tering an environment in which resources and services are
sustainable for both communities.
These broad definitions of commercially available resources and
of sustainability affected the scope of this study. Most important,
they limited the number of libraries whose internal policies and
practices could be surveyed and the way in which the survey could
be done. Because problems of scale, or size of collection, are among
the central concerns of this report series, it made sense to focus on
libraries that have relatively large collections of commercially avail-
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
3
able electronic resources. The member libraries of the Digital Library
Federation (DLF) generally fit that description, and they number
fewer than 30. Because it was possible to communicate with them
relatively easily, they also provided a convenient sample on which to
focus. Attempts were made to look beyond the DLF libraries when
trying to identify useful practices.
1.2. Methodology, Aims, and Organization
The foregoing considerations formed the starting point for an exten-
sive review of internal documents and local practices that started
with the two recent and useful ARL SPEC Kits on managing the li-
censing of electronic products (Soete and Davis 1999) and on net-
worked information resources (Bleiler and Plum 1999). The docu-
ments reproduced in these publications often pointed the way to
additional documents and discoveries or led to telephone conversa-
tions and e-mail messages with librarians involved in the practices
discussed or depicted. The public Web sites of DLF member libraries
and several other ARL libraries with large collections of electronic
resources were also reviewed. This led to further contacts and con-
versations, to discovery of additional internal documents, and to the
generation of still more ideas.
The main body of this report discusses 10 issues and practices
related to selection and presentation. The first issue is the economic
context of electronic resource selection. The discussion of this topic
describes the two most visible means libraries have developed for
dealing with the pricing of electronic resources: consortial purchas-
ing and alternative scholarly communication initiatives. The next
two sections cover selection policies and strategic plans, and organi-
zational matters. The remaining sections deal more directly with op-
erational questions and are organized roughly in a “resource life cy-
cle” sequence. The discussion starts with initial selection issues and
proceeds through ordering and purchasing, establishing and orga-
nizing access, providing support, and evaluating and assessing how
information is used. The report concludes with a discussion of some
local databases and systems devised to support or help rationalize
the treatment of electronic resources. It is hoped that this information
will help DLF libraries and others define standard functions and
data elements, and otherwise collaborate in developing improved
systems for supporting the acquisition and maintenance of licensed
electronic resources.
The most promising selection and presentation practices are as-
sembled and briefly discussed in the concluding section. Given the
dynamic nature of electronic resources, many of these practices may
soon be outdated. Accordingly, the goal is to assist in local decision
making, rather than to establish a set of formal standards. Many local
practice documents and related Web links are cited throughout the
report; these references, as well as additional relevant documents
and Web links, have also been organized into a table in Appendix A.
4
Timothy D. Jewell
2. Selection Issues and Practices
2.1. The Economic Context of Electronic
Resource Selection
ARL and DLF libraries have gradually increased the amount of mon-
ey spent for electronic resources over the last decade or so, and they
are spending an increasing proportion of their budgets on such re-
sources (Kyrillidou 2000, Jewell 1998). In each of the last five or six
years, the percentage of their resource budgets that these libraries
earmarked for electronic resources has grown by about 1 percent,
and in 1998–1999, both ARL and DLF member libraries spent about
10 percent of their resource budgets on electronic resources. More
than 85 percent of such expenditures were for serials and represent-
ed ongoing commitments. If prices for electronic resources rise as
rapidly as have serial prices in general, the shift in spending could
lead to additional financial pressures for libraries. The apparent need
to maintain print copies of electronic resources while electronic ar-
chiving agreements and technology are developed will add further
pressures.
There is good reason to predict that e-resource expenditures will
accelerate rapidly over the next few years. For example, more and
more journals from established publishers are becoming available on
the Web, and tens of thousands of electronic books are now available
through a single new company: netLibrary. Questia, another new
company, has begun to offer an extensive collection of electronic re-
sources directly to users. Although it is too early to tell whether such
new services will take hold, there is substantial concern in some li-
braries that they must respond to this competition if they are to re-
main important sources of information on their campuses. For these
libraries, one response to this new “competitive space” (Hughes
2000) will be to invest more heavily in electronic resources.
As libraries spend more money acquiring electronic resources or
access to them, there are growing concerns over the interrelated
problems of vendor pricing and institutional finances. In particular,
there is a common perception that libraries are at a disadvantage
when acting alone in this environment and that collaborative effort is
necessary. This is perceived to be especially true when libraries nego-
tiate with large corporate entities. Two important and fairly distinct
types of collaboration have begun to shape the electronic resource
market. The first of these is cooperative purchasing through library
consortia, and the second is the development of alternative outlets
for scholarly communication. The ultimate impact of each of these
developments on prices and the marketplace remain to be seen.
2.1.1. Consortial Purchasing and Pricing
The importance of consortia and consortial buying has become obvi-
ous to librarians around the world who are involved in acquiring
electronic resources. Consortia have been formed for a variety of rea-
sons and exhibit a number of similarities and differences. Some of
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
5
them, such as OhioLINK, VIVA, and the California Digital Library
(CDL), are state-based and limited to academic libraries. Other aca-
demic library consortia, such as the Committee on Institutional Co-
operation, include members in multiple states within a region. The
NorthEast Research Library (NERL) consortium also includes mem-
bers from several states, but its members are primarily private uni-
versities. There are also many state-based multitype consortia, such
as NC Live in North Carolina and INCOLSA in Indiana, as well as
national consortia based in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia,
and elsewhere. Some of these consortia originated with broad man-
dates to foster resource sharing through online catalogs; they are rel-
evant to this report to the extent that they attempt to negotiate better
prices and other terms for libraries that are purchasing electronic re-
sources.
Consortial arrangements for databases can benefit libraries fi-
nancially in various ways. Usually, as the buying group expands,
prices are lowered. One common practice is to put in place a price
per full-time equivalent (FTE) student that is based on a sliding
scale; as more FTE students are added to the consortial contract, the
price is lowered. Another approach, taken by journal publishers, is to
determine the scope and content of a consortial e-journal collection
on the basis of library holdings within the consortium. Examples of
this include the arrangements that OhioLINK and NERL have with
Elsevier under which members have access to all ScienceDirect titles.
Since no individual library is likely to be able to subscribe to all of
this publisher’s titles on its own, even the best funded of them stand
to gain access to considerable content under such arrangements.
Smaller libraries may be able to dramatically improve access to re-
sources for relatively small amounts of money. Sanville (2000) has
shown that this content is likely to be used when made available,
and has called into question the traditional assumptions on which
librarians have made local journal selection decisions.
Consortial purchasing also must be profitable for publishers and
vendors, and many of them see these arrangements as opportunities
to reduce marketing and invoicing costs. It has been argued that con-
sortial contracts for e-journal packages enable publishers to gain rev-
enue from smaller institutions that could not otherwise afford to sub-
scribe to any of these journals.
Although consortial arrangements can provide libraries with
much better pricing or other advantages, those benefits must be
weighed against the costs of doing business consortially, which can
include substantial staff time and some losses of local control and
flexibility. An added complication is that libraries can be formal or
informal members of a number of different, and sometimes compet-
ing or overlapping, consortia and buying groups. Deciding which
arrangements make the most sense in a given situation may be diffi-
cult.
An examination of public consortia member lists and other
sources reveals that most DLF libraries are members of multiple con-
sortia. As shown in Table 1, they are most likely to be members of a
6
Timothy D. Jewell
regional consortium such as the Center for Institutional Cooperation
(CIC), NERL, Association of Southeastern Research Libraries
(ASERL), or the Big 12 Plus. Most also belong to at least one major
state-based consortium. For example, Penn State is a member of the
regional CIC and two state-based groups: PALCI and PALINET. As
noted, many group-buying arrangements seem to be ad hoc and dif-
ficult to identify. Consequently, it seems likely that the typical DLF
library (and by extension, ARL library) will be involved in many col-
laborative buying arrangements with varying degrees of formaliza-
tion.
DLF Member
Regional
State Consortia
Institution
Consortia
California, Berkeley
CDL
Carnegie-Mellon
NERL (affiliate)
PALCI; PALINET
Chicago
CIC
Columbia
NERL
Cornell
NERL
Emory
ASERL
GALILEO
Harvard
NERL
Illinois, Urbana
CIC
ILLINET; IDAL; ILCSO; ICCMP
Indiana
CIC
INCOLSA
Library of Congress
Michigan
CIC
Michigan Library Consortium
Minnesota
CIC
MINITEX
New York Public Library
North Carolina State
ASERL
NCLive; TRLN
Penn State
CIC
PALCI; PALINET
Pennsylvania
NERL
PALCI
Princeton
NERL
Southern California
Big 12 Plus
SCELC
Tennessee
ASERL
Texas
Big 12 Plus
TexShare
Virginia
ASERL
VIVA
Washington
Big 12 Plus
Washington Cooperative Library Project
Yale
NERL, NELINET
ASERL = Association of Southeastern Research Libraries
CDL = California Digital Library
CIC = Center for Institutional Cooperation
IDAL = Illinois Digital Academic Library
ICCMP = Illinois Cooperative Collection Management Program
ILCSO = Illinois Library Computer Systems Office
NERL = NorthEast Research Libraries consortium
PALCI = Pennsylvania Academic Library Consortium, Inc.
SCELC = Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium
TRLN = Triangle Research Libraries Network
Table 1. DLF Member Libraries’ Consortial Memberships
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
7
This study attempted to discern the extent to which these librar-
ies are currently purchasing selected databases and e-journal access
through consortia by checking the Web sites of member libraries for
a limited number of expensive “big-ticket” databases and selected e-
journal packages. Appropriate consortia Web sites were then checked
to determine whether there seemed to be a consortial role, and fur-
ther contact was made with a few key individuals to double-check
the information.
Several of the databases selected for this review are prominent
general-interest and business-related full-text aggregator services,
such as Academic Universe from Lexis-Nexis; EBSCO’s, Gale’s, and
Bell & Howell’s primary academic and business databases; and H.
W. Wilson Company’s “Wilson Select” and Omni products. To help
reflect buying patterns in scientific, technical, and medical (STM)
fields, Chemical Abstracts Services’ (CAS) Scifinder Scholar and the
Institute for Scientific Information’s (ISI’s) Web of Science products
were chosen. Holdings of significant full-text databases in the hu-
manities from Chadwyck-Healey and participation in the Early En-
glish Books Online (EEBO) project were also reviewed.
Of the full-text aggregator databases selected for this review, the
most widely held among DLF libraries is Academic Universe, to
which all the academic members currently subscribe. This may not
be surprising, since more than six million FTE students across the
country have access to it through a national consortial arrangement
brokered by SOLINET. The popularity of this service among aca-
demic libraries of all sizes is probably due in part to the vendor’s
adoption of the sliding-scale fee structure described earlier. The situ-
ation with the other competing full-text aggregator databases offered
by EBSCO, Gale, Proquest/Bell & Howell, and H. W. Wilson Compa-
ny is much less clear. The Proquest ABI/INFORM and Research Li-
brary databases are the most commonly held of these services (about
half of the libraries subscribe to one or both of them), but consortial
arrangements seemed to be involved in only a quarter (or fewer) of
those cases. Gale’s Expanded Academic Index and Business databas-
es are also relatively popular, but consortial buying appeared to be
involved in only four cases. EBSCO’s general academic and business
databases were somewhat less popular, but statewide contracts ap-
pear to be the major factor where they were available. H. W. Wilson’s
databases appear rarely to be purchased by DLF libraries through
consortia.
Among DLF libraries, ISI’s Web of Science is almost as popular
as is Academic Universe; 21 of the 22 academic DLF member librar-
ies offer it. Roughly 80 percent of the subscribing libraries were pur-
chasing it through consortia (primarily through the CIC or NERL).
Eight of the nine DLF libraries having access to Scifinder Scholar
subscribe through consortia, but six of those eight institutions were
buying through NERL. Fourteen DLF libraries provide significant
full-text databases from Chadwyck-Healey. Six of these libraries
were buying through NERL. Seven libraries, five of which are NERL
members, subscribe to EEBO. Consortial arrangements appear to be
8
Timothy D. Jewell
important factors in buying most of these databases, with the appar-
ent exception of full-text aggregator databases.
To gain a sense of the role of consortia in the selection of elec-
tronic journals by DLF member libraries, a list of more than 20 prom-
inent e-journal publishers and vendors was assembled. The for-profit
publishers selected were Academic Press, Annual Reviews, Black-
well Science/Munksgaard, Elsevier, Kluwer, MCB Universities Press,
Springer, and Wiley. The following university presses or university-
based publishers or providers were included: Cambridge University
Press, Oxford University Press, Project Muse, and HighWire. In addi-
tion, a number of association publishers were included, such as the
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the American Chemi-
cal Society (ACS), the American Mathematical Society, the Institute
of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the Royal Society of Chemis-
try, and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM).
The two first JSTOR collections (Arts and Sciences I and General Sci-
ences) were also included, although they do not provide the current
journal access that the other publishers do.
To determine which DLF libraries had online access to journals
from these publishers and providers, their gateway e-journal lists
and online catalogs were searched. Publisher and consortia Web pag-
es were also examined to see which DLF-relevant consortia might
have signed agreements with which publishers. Because of the
prominence of its Electronic Journal Center, OhioLINK was included
in the study and was contacted for a current list of e-journal packag-
es available to its members. It was decided to consider only the ac-
cess that was available at the end of December 2000.
A few tentative conclusions may be drawn from this investiga-
tion. First, many of the listed publishers were offering individual li-
braries “free electronic access with print subscriptions” at the time of
study. Most DLF libraries had taken advantage of those offers and
were providing their users with such access. Second, consortial ar-
rangements appeared to be somewhat less common and important
for the not-for-profit publishers than the for-profit group.
To illustrate, almost all DLF libraries provided access to the two
JSTOR collections, but largely because JSTOR does not provide spe-
cial consortial pricing, only three libraries subscribed via consortia.
Other publishers with relatively high rates of subscription (i.e., 60
percent or more) but low rates of consortial adoption (i.e., four librar-
ies or fewer) were ACM, the American Institute of Physics, SIAM,
and Oxford University Press. The publishers showing similar rates of
subscription, but higher rates of consortial adoption (i.e., six or more
libraries), included two not-for-profits (Project Muse and ACS) and a
number of for-profit publishers (Academic Press Ideal, Annual Re-
views, Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley). Fewer than half of these libraries
appeared to have online access to journals from two other for-profit
publishers (Kluwer and Blackwell Science); however, consortial ar-
rangements were generally found to exist for the Kluwer subscribers,
and almost always for Blackwell Science.
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
9
2.1.2.
Scholarly Communication Reform Initiatives
Although the consortial movement appears to have had a significant
effect on prices, the recent development of Web-based alternative
outlets for scholarly communication may also influence the market
for scholarly information. One of the earliest and most successful of
these alternatives is the physics preprint server at the Los Alamos
National Laboratories, now known as arXiv, which is provided free
of charge and serves researchers in a wide variety of physical science
disciplines (Los Alamos National Laboratories 2000). Within a rela-
tively short time, it has become an important part of the research cul-
ture in several of these disciplines. For example, a recent study of the
20 most cited sources in Chemical Abstracts revealed that the fourth,
eighth, and sixteenth most-cited sources are, respectively, the arXiv
preprint archives for High Energy Physics, Condensed Matter, and As-
trophysics (Roth 2001). The success of this initiative has inspired other
efforts, such as those of Pubmed Central and the Public Library of
Science, to make research articles available free via the Web.
The ARL has organized several initiatives aimed at addressing
the problem of high journal prices. Most recently, these efforts have
focused on three complementary programs. The first of these is the
Scholarly Publishing and Resources Coalition (SPARC), which has
helped fund the development of a number of electronically based
scientific journals and resources (Case 2001; Michalak 2000; Stoffle
2001). One of SPARC’s main goals is to foster competition in the STM
journal market; consequently, some SPARC journals have been de-
veloped to compete directly with specific journals deemed to have
especially high prices. SPARC’s related Create Change and Declaring
Independence initiatives are aimed at raising journal editors’ aware-
ness of pricing issues and at encouraging them to take remedial ac-
tions to restrain prices. Suggested strategies include negotiating with
publishers about pricing policies or, if pricing negotiations are un-
successful, starting competing journals.
Some of these efforts have been successful. For example, the
American Association of Physical Anthropologists has reported that
the publisher of its journal agreed to significantly reduce its sub-
scription price after lengthy discussions and negotiations (Albanese
2000). The SPARC initiative appears to be well received among ARL
members, and most DLF member libraries have supported it by be-
coming founding members or initiating SPARC-affiliated projects
(e.g., Columbia’s Earthscape, Cornell’s Project Euclid, and CDL’s e-
scholarship initiative). Nevertheless, the program is not free of con-
troversy. For instance, librarians sometimes complain that faculty
may not accept the cancellation of established but expensive titles or
the packages that include them and that funds must therefore now
be found both to pay for the SPARC titles and to continue the estab-
lished titles.
Although libraries seem to have good reason to support both the
consortial and scholarly communication reform movements, a num-
ber of recent articles have pointed to a tension between the two ap-
proaches. For example, Landesman and Van Reenen (2000) have pos-
10
Timothy D. Jewell
ited that there is a natural affinity or congruence between consortia
and large publishers or vendors. Both are looking for the economies
of scale that are represented by large packages, and although these
packages typically do provide subscribers with more content for
their money than individual print subscriptions used to, the large
dollar commitments required can quickly claim larger and larger
shares of scarce resources. These commitments will appear more jus-
tified as usage climbs because of visibility and easy availability.
When that happens, there will be less money to pay for the individu-
al titles and smaller packages that consortia are poorly equipped or
unprepared to handle; these will tend to be the more modestly
priced offerings from the scholarly associations and university press-
es. In a similar vein, Frazier (2001) has warned of the dangers of the
“big deal”—high-cost packages of e-journals from for-profit publish-
ers. In response, supporters of such package deals have emphasized
the added content that may be made available and the importance of
user choice. They have also stated that libraries do not surrender
their ability to negotiate terms when they enter such agreements
(OhioLINK 2001; Mulliner 2001).
There seems to be much value in both the consortial and “re-
form” approaches to influencing the market, and thoughtful people
might reasonably lean in one or the other direction. However, as
Landesman and Van Reenen (2000) suggest, consortia could help en-
sure the success of SPARC-like initiatives if those initiatives could be
made more “consortia friendly.” Bundling significant amounts of
content, as the SPARC BioOne initiative is doing, seems to be one
way to address the need for economies of scale. As noted earlier,
some for-profit publishers have also found that consortial contracts
can provide them with new income from smaller institutions if the
contracts provide those institutions with substantial content for little
money. In addition to supporting these institutions financially, con-
sortia could facilitate faculty education efforts and help create alter-
natives to established publishing outlets.
2.2. Selection Policies and Strategic Plans
Faced with high user expectations, rapid change, and competitive
pressures, it is not surprising that many librarians characterize local
selection decisions as ad hoc or opportunity driven. Such decisions
are also sometimes described as having strong political elements; this
may be especially apt when the purchase of one expensive service
for a particular group rules out the acquisition of another service that
a different constituency may feel it needs.
Many libraries have tried to overcome such tendencies and per-
ceptions and to give shape to their licensed digital collections by
writing and adopting formalized local policies and plans. It seems
clear that such documents should reflect and support the differing
missions of these libraries and their parent institutions, and several
do, although sometimes in only in a general way. For instance, Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT’s) document, entitled “To-
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
11
ward a Networked Resources Policy,” begins by noting that the li-
brary “seeks to acquire access to the primary digital information re-
sources which support the educational and research missions of the
Institute” (MIT 1997). A similar statement appears in the University
of Southern California’s (USC’s) Collection Policy Statement for In-
formation in Electronic Formats (University of Southern California,
undated).
A general sense of institutional mission may or may not prove
helpful in making real-life decisions. Libraries that are funded to
serve broader state, regional, or national constituencies face special
dilemmas in the digital environment. For example, the Library of
Congress has traditionally served an archival function for printed
materials, and that will be more difficult when these materials are
both digital and licensed (National Research Council 2000). Similarly,
the libraries of large, state-funded universities are often expected to
share their resources with other libraries or individuals in their
states. When subscriptions to scholarly e-journals come with signifi-
cant license-based restrictions or prohibitions on use for interlibrary
loan, the institution can find itself caught in a new way between the
priorities of local users and other groups.
2.2.1.
Selection Policies
Perhaps the most common thread running through the selection pol-
icy documents sampled for this project is that although electronic
resources raise new questions, the value system brought to bear on
selecting more traditional resources is still valid. That idea was pro-
mulgated several years ago in Demas’s (1994; Demas, McDonald,
and Lawrence 1995) descriptions of efforts to “mainstream” selection
of electronic resources at Cornell. It is also expressed in policy docu-
ments used at Penn State University (2000), the California Digital Li-
brary (1997), and the Library of Congress (1999). The University of
Texas’s General Libraries Digital Collection Development Frame-
work elaborates on this notion, noting that, “as with all formats, digi-
tal material should meet the same subject, chronological, geographi-
cal, language and other guidelines as outlined in the library’s subject
collection policies; and possess the same standards of excellence,
comprehensiveness, and authority that the library expects from all of
its acquisitions” (University of Texas 1999).
It may be difficult to translate such general considerations—well
stated as they may be—directly into decision making. Several selec-
tion-policy documents also refer to the need to support programs or
to define the constituency to be served by a given resource. The doc-
uments mention other interesting considerations, including the need
to maintain a balance among disciplines or subject areas, or with tra-
ditional formats, when choosing electronic resources. Some policies
stipulate that there need to be identifiable and strong reasons for se-
lecting electronic access over print or other formats. The CDL’s Col-
lection Framework document points to six pertinent factors, among
which are the potential added values of greater timeliness, more ex-
12
Timothy D. Jewell
tensive content, and greater functionality or access (California Digi-
tal Library 1997).
Selection guidelines also typically discuss factors unique to elec-
tronic resources. In some cases, these are presented in checklist form,
but the Database Selection Criteria in use by the CDL (California
Digital Library 1999b, 2000d) incorporate an interesting refinement
to this approach by differentiating between the non-content factors
deemed “critical” and those viewed only as “important.” Yale’s Ex-
amining Networked Resources checklists (Yale 1998) are unusually
thorough, but have much in common with those used elsewhere. The
following list of topical categories is based largely on Yale’s lists:
• Content: Comparisons with printed versions in terms of such con-
siderations as completeness versus selectivity, back-file coverage,
and update frequency
• Added Value: Wider access, searchability, potentially greater cur-
rency
• Presentation or Functionality: Usability, searching and limit func-
tions, linking
• Technical Considerations: Hardware and software requirements, in-
cluding storage space, Web browser compatibility, plug-in require-
ments, and authentication
• Licensing and Business Arrangements: Problematic license restric-
tions, ongoing access rights, costs
• Service Impact: Documentation, publicity, staff training needs
2.2.2.
Strategic Plans
Many institutions are beginning to consider project-selection deci-
sions more carefully and to strategize about the acquisition of differ-
ent types of resources. For example, the University of Texas “frame-
work” document incorporates strategic considerations in a section
on Observations and Qualifications that concerns different categories
of resources, such as electronic journals and indexing and abstracting
databases (University of Texas 1999). These sections contain discus-
sions of the context for each type of resource and attempt to delin-
eate goals.
Several other DLF member libraries have gone much further in
strategic planning for electronic resources, and there are interesting
differences in their respective planning timeframes. For example, the
time span covered by Cornell’s Digital Futures Plan is 2000–2002. It
seems especially valuable because it targets specific planned actions
or outcomes (Cornell 2000). Virginia’s Library of Tomorrow plan
(University of Virginia 2001) is somewhat more visionary, as appro-
priate for its five-year scope. Carnegie-Mellon’s Digital Library Plan
is for an even longer period of time (seven years). It presents three
progressively more ambitious levels of project development for dif-
ferent levels of funding: “steady state,” “higher profile,” and “lead-
ing” (Carnegie-Mellon University Libraries 1999). The University of
Illinois Library Electronic Collections Plan is notable because it men-
tions the challenge that licensing poses to its traditional role as a re-
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
13
source for other libraries in the state—a concern that is probably
shared by many state-funded DLF and ARL libraries (University of
Illinois 2000).
The futures projected in these plans and the issues identified in
them are somewhat different, but like selection policy documents,
they highlight a set of core concerns. These concerns, identified in
the following bullets, might serve as a starting point for other librar-
ies interested in forming their own strategic plans for electronic re-
sources, including those to be digitized locally or selected from
among freely available Web sites.
• Value Context. Decision making should be done with reference to
the traditional values articulated by the policy documents men-
tioned earlier in this section.
• Funding Issues. Additional internal funds will need to be reallocat-
ed to fund electronic resources, and consortial arrangements will
need to be pursued to conserve funds.
• Scholarly Publishing. It is important to be proactive and to develop
alternative services and publications that libraries and their insti-
tutions will be able to afford over time.
• Licensing and Fair Use. The emerging reliance on licensing as the
basis for access rights poses challenges that must be understood
and actively addressed.
• Evaluation and Usage Information. Vendors have generally not sup-
plied the kinds of quantitative information that libraries need to
evaluate the resources they have licensed. Cross-library efforts are
needed to motivate vendors to correct the situation.
• Archiving. Archiving is a serious problem that may require main-
taining both local print and electronic subscriptions while work-
ing toward long-term technical solutions.
2.3. Institutional Finance and Organization
The discussion of costs and expenditures thus far has focused on
subscription and purchase prices and on how collaborative action
through consortia and publishing initiatives can help control those
prices or mitigate their rates of increase. The prices of electronic re-
sources represent only a part of the larger cost picture.
The University of Michigan’s 1997 Electronic Resources Task
Force Report offers a useful list of some “non-content costs” and
shows how those costs might be distributed locally (University of
Michigan 1997). Libraries must consider acquisition and processing
costs, as well as the costs of providing “intellectual access.” For non-
electronic resources, the latter costs were attributable strictly to cata-
loging; however, because electronic resources are now commonly
presented through gateway lists, this category also includes the costs
of adding and maintaining list entries. An analysis of Drexel Univer-
sity’s move toward a completely electronic journal collection found
that the costs of acquiring and providing intellectual access to elec-
tronic journals were actually higher than those of other formats
14
Timothy D. Jewell
(Montgomery and Sparks 2000). The Michigan report also found that
access systems (including interface design, application development,
and server capacity) and library infrastructure (workstations and
connectivity) required more funding. There is also a need for what
the Michigan report identified as “user support.” Drexel referred to
this as “information services” and determined that increased staff
time was required for reference support and instruction, preparation
of documentation, and selection.
The decision to acquire a given resource must consider these
“non-content” costs and ramifications; as has been seen, questions of
policy, strategy, and mission may also be involved. It is not surpris-
ing that libraries have recently been experimenting with different
organizational approaches to these questions. Some have tried to ad-
dress the apparent tension between centralized and decentralized
decision-making models. Several institutions have made large
amounts of money available to centralized budget lines. This seems
particularly appropriate when resources are heavily interdisciplinary
or multidisciplinary, when large amounts of resource funds are in-
volved, or when there is a contractual requirement to maintain a cer-
tain level of expenditure with a given publisher. On the other hand,
many institutions believe it important that subject selectors or spe-
cialists have the leeway to spend noncentral or subject funds for elec-
tronic resources without having to go through multiple levels of re-
view and approval. These considerations have prompted some
institutions to write guidelines on such questions as how different
categories of funds should be used, who should be involved in deci-
sion making, and how to develop new committee structures.
A number of interesting but similar organizational models rely
heavily on a specially constituted, broadly representative group to
make decisions. For example, Yale’s Collection Development Council
has a Committee for Digital General Resources (CoDGeR) reporting
to it (Yale 2000b). This group consists of nearly a dozen members
representing various subject or functional areas. Harvard’s Commit-
tee on Electronic Reference Services includes more than a dozen rep-
resentatives from a wide range of libraries; in contrast to the Yale
model, it reports to the Libraries’ Public Services Committee (Har-
vard 1999).
Some institutions involve subject-oriented groups in discussions
and decision making. For example, since the 1980s, Stanford has had
an Access to Information Committee reporting to its collection devel-
opment officer. It has added three resource groups: for humanities,
social sciences and government publications, and sciences and engi-
neering. In addition to evaluating resources within their subject ar-
eas, each group is expected to maintain contact with the libraries’
systems department. Michigan has a steering committee (the “E-
Team”) plus a core resources group and several other groups that
focus on broad subject areas, such as humanities or science (Univer-
sity of Michigan 2000). How these arrangements work in practice
and how tied they may be to a particular setting and context are in-
teresting questions that could not be pursued during this project.
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
15
Aside from the fact that many staff in these libraries have ab-
sorbed several related tasks, there appear to be two fairly distinct
and interesting trends in how job tasks are distributed. The first of
these is a trend toward having single individuals responsible for co-
ordination or orchestration of electronic resource purchases. There
are many examples of these positions among the DLF member librar-
ies and elsewhere. Stanford has recently defined and filled the posi-
tion of digital program officer, who reports to the collection develop-
ment officer (Pisani 2000). Harvard has a coordinator for digital
acquisitions, who reports to the Systems Department, and MIT has
an assistant acquisitions librarian for digital resources. The Califor-
nia Digital Library has a director of shared content.
One of the problems for electronic resource coordinator positions
is the broad scope of possible responsibility. To respond to this prob-
lem, several institutions have been developing ways to distribute
some of the tasks; this emerged as the second trend. The CDL, for
example, has defined what it calls resource liaisons, who are respon-
sible for monitoring the “technical and content performance” of ma-
jor products or product groupings, for reviewing and compiling us-
age data, and for identifying and communicating “enhancement
requests and performance failure reports” to vendors. Harvard has a
somewhat similar Resource Stewardship Program, in which “stew-
ards” serve functions similar to those of CDL’s resource liaisons
(Harvard 2000b, 2000c). MIT has defined the role of product sponsor
(MIT 1998c), and Yale maintains a “list of contacts for electronic re-
sources” (Yale 2000a).
2.4. Internal Procedures for Initial Evaluation
and Purchase
Many large libraries have invested substantial time and effort in try-
ing to understand, document, streamline or rationalize, and commu-
nicate their local procedures for acquiring e-resources. The resulting
documentation may be of significant value to other libraries grap-
pling with the same issues. For example, Loghry and Shannon (2000)
provide a window onto many operational complexities in their dis-
cussion of workflows and forms devised for use at the University of
Nevada-Reno. Some MIT internal documents provide especially
helpful glimpses into their local process. One of these is a map that
illustrates the process of acquiring electronic resources (MIT 1998a).
Another is a detailed workflow proposal that deals with ordering,
cataloging, managing, and maintaining such resources (MIT 1998b).
Although the California Digital Library is larger and more complex
than most library systems at single institutions, its acquisitions pro-
cedures outline could serve as a helpful template for some of them
(California Digital Library 2000a).
Many different pieces of information must be gathered and orga-
nized as a particular acquisition makes its way through most local
processes. As with the acquisition of traditional materials, much of
this information, such as basic descriptive information, vendor, selec-
tor or selectors, and fund or funds involved, is fairly standard. For
16
Timothy D. Jewell
resources accessed through the Web, the appropriate URL or URLs,
relevant user names and passwords, Internet protocol ranges from
which they are available, and system requirements are needed. The
ability to determine the status of a resource within the overall selec-
tion process is also important, and that can be a complex question.
For example, libraries typically establish trials of resources that they
are considering buying, and it is important to know when and to
whom the resources are available for review, how and by whom in-
put about them is to be received, and so on. Establishing funding for
large expenditures can also take time, as can resolving license details
and issues.
To accommodate the complexity and range of these details, sev-
eral libraries have developed standardized forms for selectors and
other staff. These forms may be used simply as templates for gather-
ing appropriate information, which is then used in paper form—as is
the case at Nevada-Reno—or they may be transferred more or less
by hand to other systems or Web pages (Loghry and Shannon 2000).
In large-scale operations it may be a challenge to track and identify
what resources are under consideration or “in process” at a given
time. Some large libraries, including Harvard, Yale, the CIC, and the
CDL, maintain trial or “status” Web pages for staff and, in some cas-
es, users. Although some of these pages continue to be edited manu-
ally, some libraries have developed automated approaches (see Sec-
tion 2.10).
2.5. Licensing Issues and Practices
One of the biggest and most often-discussed changes facing libraries
as they increase their reliance on electronic resources is that the use
of these resources is typically governed by contract rather than solely
by copyright. The full significance of this development and its im-
pact on libraries have yet to be realized, but there are reasons for
concern.
For example, while existing copyright law provides for the time-
honored practice of interlibrary loan, licenses may forbid or so con-
strain this practice that it becomes too costly or otherwise impracti-
cal. Such license provisions can undermine a library’s ability to
continue serving as a regional or state resource. Licenses may also
interfere with a library’s archival roles and responsibilities if ongoing
access rights are excluded or if there are severe restrictions on photo-
copying. There may also be prohibitions against user copying that
the library is unable to enforce. Noncompliance by library staff or
end users may permit the vendor to discontinue the service without
a refund for time remaining on the contract. In addition, the parent
institution may be put at financial risk if its libraries are required to
accept responsibility for user actions or agree to indemnify the pro-
vider against third-party damage claims. Finally, if, as frequently
happens, a distant state’s or country’s laws and courts are named as
the contractual authority, the institution could incur substantial trav-
el and other costs in the event of litigation.
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
17
Many of these issues are now widely recognized within the li-
brary community, partly because of initiatives that have been orga-
nized over the last few years to help educate librarians. For example,
for several years ARL has offered excellent training materials and
classes for librarians wishing to upgrade their skills and to institute
organized local processes for dealing with licensing issues. The pop-
ular Liblicense Web site and Liblicense-l listserv have also had con-
siderable impact, because they facilitate discussions among librari-
ans and publishers about licensing issues. Efforts to develop more
favorable license terms and standardized language have also been
important. For example, the International Coalition of Library Con-
sortia’s “Statement of Current Perspective and Preferred Practices for
the Selection and Purchase of Electronic Information” articulates a
library-oriented viewpoint on several licensing issues, including fair
use and perpetual access rights and liability for user actions (ICOLC
1998a). The concentrated purchasing power within that group has
undoubtedly prompted some vendors to be more responsive to the
concerns of potential buyers about licensing terms. Some consortia
(California Digital Library 2000b, 2000e; Center for Institutional Co-
operation 1999) and individual libraries (Harvard 2000a, 2000b; Uni-
versity of Washington 2001a) have clarified and strengthened their
bargaining positions by defining their own sets of standardized li-
cense terms or requirements. Additional impetus to standardize has
been provided by the development of a suite of model licenses by
John Cox Associates (Cox 2000), the CLIR/DLF Model License (CLIR
2001), and Liblicense software (Liblicense 2000), which libraries and
publishers can use to negotiate mutually agreeable licensing terms.
Despite these noteworthy efforts, libraries may still agree to
terms that they regard as less than ideal. For example, if libraries are
not required to accept responsibility for user behavior, they may still
agree to make “reasonable efforts” to inform users of license terms.
Most library compliance efforts have focused on presenting stan-
dardized disclaimers to users, such as the following statement found
at the top of MIT’s database and e-journal lists:
Use of many of these resources is governed by license
agreements which restrict use to the MIT community and to
individuals who use the MIT Libraries’ facilities. It is the
responsibility of each user to ensure that he or she uses these
products only for individual, noncommercial use without
systematically downloading, distributing, or retaining substantial
portions of information (Duranceau 2000a).
It should be relatively simple for libraries to adopt and use such
a general disclaimer, but because license details vary from one prod-
uct or service to another, a general statement may be insufficient to
make users aware of relevant terms. Some licenses require that sub-
scribing libraries route their users through a “click-through” page
containing standardized language about use restrictions and may
also require users to certify that they are eligible to use the product.
18
Timothy D. Jewell
It seems impractical for libraries to consider investing the staff time
required to write and maintain such pages for a large number of
products.
If vendors do not provide rules of use or brief versions of license
terms through their Web sites and services, libraries must devise and
implement their own ways of tracking license terms and making
them available to users and staff. Several libraries have done so. As
interesting and promising as their efforts appear to be, there are still
significant barriers to developing truly efficient systems for address-
ing this problem. One alternative that has recently been proposed is
for libraries to share the effort of analyzing and reporting license de-
tails, much as cataloging effort is shared through bibliographic utili-
ties (Richter 2001, Okerson 2001). Libraries could then incorporate a
license profile for a given product into appropriate gateway or cata-
log descriptions of the resource. This idea seems to have merit, but
since licenses for a product can vary among institutions, it could be
difficult to establish the canonical version. The development of stan-
dard definitions of key provisions could facilitate the growth of such
a system.
2.6. Web Presentation Strategies
There are three general strategies for providing access to commer-
cially available electronic resources: local loading by an individual
library, loading by a consortium, and relying on vendor sites. Indi-
vidual libraries have generally been moving away from the local
load strategy because of its cost. Consortia have done likewise, al-
though there are notable exceptions, such as OhioLINK. Whether re-
liance on publisher and vendor services is truly the most cost-effec-
tive strategy is an interesting question, since an argument can be
made that it entails a range of hidden costs. Local loading provides
some important advantages, including control over the number and
functioning of user interfaces and normalization of usage measure-
ment.
Presenting electronic resources effectively to users poses chal-
lenges for collections of locally digitized, commercially available,
and “free” Web resources, and each type of resource has its own dis-
tinctive issues and complications. The role online catalogs should
play in providing access to these resources is controversial because
users accustomed to the Web expect to be able to locate resources
through just a few mouse clicks. This is especially true of students
who, without a quick means of retrieval, will tend to rely even more
extensively on Web search engines than they currently do. A number
of institutions have observed that the use of specific resources jumps
or declines quickly on the basis of their gateway placement and visi-
bility, and this phenomenon has recently been documented (Ocker-
bloom 2000).
Large libraries appear to follow a strategy in which resources are
presented both through catalogs and e-resource gateways. These
gateways typically provide alphabetical or subject lists of databases
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
19
or electronic journals, along with an effective gateway search tool.
Providing such multiple paths to resources in a cost-effective manner
requires establishing synergy between cataloging and the methods
used to generate lists, which can be accomplished by systematically
deriving metadata from an online catalog system and using it to cre-
ate a separate database from which resource lists are generated (Jor-
dan 2000). The practice of highlighting and making new resources
more visible has also been reflected in the Web pages of a number of
libraries, including those at the University of Texas (2000b).
Several writers have pointed to the extent and importance of the
trend toward customized services (Ketchell 2000; Lakos and Gray
2000), and there have recently been efforts aimed at providing closer
fits between user needs and the organization of resources than may
be provided through established subject schema. For example, a sys-
tem at the University of Pennsylvania organizes resources according
to flexibly defined communities of interest (Ockerbloom 2000). In
this system, bibliographers identify the resources they believe to be
the most critical to a particular user community, and new resources
are brought to the attention of users through highlighting. The Uni-
versity of Washington’s (UW’s) HealthLinks service provides a num-
ber of “role-based toolkits” targeting specific user groups, such as
administrators, clinicians, instructors, and students (University of
Washington 2001e).
Several institutions have taken this approach a step further by
introducing fairly simple but effective ways for users to personalize
their views of available resources. Among the more prominent ef-
forts in this area are those at Cornell (Cohen et al. 2000; Cornell un-
dated); North Carolina State University (Morgan 1999; Morgan 2000;
Morgan and Reade 2000); the University of Washington (Jordan
2000); and the California Digital Library (2000g). Through these sys-
tems, once users have identified resources of particular interest, the
selected resources are visible as a default when that user logs in to
the local system. Though important, such services are unlikely to be-
come the predominant means by which most users will access librar-
ies’ electronic resources (Jordan 2000; Ghaphery and Ream 2000).
Both established and newer presentation strategies tend to treat
e-resources as distinct entities that are located and then searched and
used one at a time. However satisfactory the presentation of distinct
databases may be, users may find the effective integration of dispar-
ate resources to be just as important. One step in that direction was
the development of broadcast search functions, which were intro-
duced first for traditional indexing and abstracting databases. Useful
as those functions are, it is also important to integrate full-text con-
tent with the indexing and abstracting services.
As suggested in the section on buying strategies, many libraries
subscribe to one or more aggregator full-text databases that may cost
tens of thousands of dollars and contain full-text coverage for thou-
sands of periodicals. Until recently, few libraries had been able to
systematically make users aware of what periodicals were included
in which aggregator databases; however, techniques for doing so are
20
Timothy D. Jewell
now being developed (Sanders, Goldman, and Fitzpatrick 2000). An
important step toward making the content of these collections more
visible and usable is the development of the jake (for Jointly Admin-
istered Knowledge Environment) initiative (Chudnov, Crooker, and
Parker 2000) and the related jake2marc program (Simon Fraser Uni-
versity 2000). Both of these services are available to interested librar-
ies free of charge. jake incorporates periodical holdings or coverage
information for nearly 200 databases and enables users to determine
which database or databases include a given title. Institutions can
customize jake to reflect their own holdings. The jake2marc service
uses the jake database to enable libraries to generate catalog records
for local use. Companies such as SerialsSolutions and Bell & Howell
have also begun to provide full-text list-generation, URL mainte-
nance, or MARC- and MARC-like catalog record services.
Still greater user convenience is provided by systems that pro-
vide article-level links between abstracting and indexing databases
on the one hand, and aggregator databases and e-journal collections
on the other. Several vendors have developed such services. These
offerings include PubMed’s LinkOut (National Center for Biotech-
nology Information 2001), Silverplatter’s Silverlinker, ISI’s Web of
Science linking feature, and OCLC’s links between their databases
and Electronic Collections Online (ECO). Similar services are avail-
able from Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, OVID, and others. Though
popular, each of these systems has drawbacks, such as the ability to
link only to specific islands of content. For example, Silverlinker and
ISI links feature offer links only to content from publishers with
which these companies have agreements. Similarly, the OCLC link-
ing utility currently works only for e-journals that a library accesses
through the ECO service. This means that many links to available
and locally licensed content cannot be presented, and differences in
vendors’ linking coverage can be confusing to users and staff alike.
Most also require setup and ongoing maintenance, and since large
libraries often have subscriptions to abstracting and indexing data-
bases from multiple vendors, much of this effort must be duplicated.
Libraries clearly have reasons to want more universal, standard-
ized solutions to the problem of providing such links to full text. One
new approach is Crossref; an industry-based initiative aimed at en-
abling article linkages across participating publishers (Brand 2001).
Although the initiative includes a significant number of for-profit
and nonprofit publishers, it has some drawbacks, the most important
of which may be libraries’ inability to control which links are en-
abled. This can be an important issue, since publishers can provide
Crossref links only for their “premiere” e-journal services, and links
to less-costly alternatives from a given publisher may not work.
Some librarians believe that what is needed is a single utility that can
be used to establish and maintain full-text links for indexing data-
bases from various publishers and that gives them control over
which links are enabled. A particularly promising alternative solu-
tion to this problem is the SFX service that is based on open URLs
(Van de Sompel and Hochstenbach 1999a; 1999b; 1999c; Van de
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
21
Sompel and Beit-Arie 2001). In addition to providing local choice
and control of links, SFX enables libraries to administer and maintain
links for multiple vendor offerings without duplication of effort.
More visionary is the idea of establishing a broader “scholars’
portal” (Campbell 2000) or commons that could be searched more or
less like such established Web search engines as Yahoo, Alta Vista,
and Google. The advantage of such an approach is that it combines
convenient access with appropriately “vetted” academic content.
Practical means toward achieving such a vision may be available
through metadata harvesting, a method being investigated and de-
veloped through the Open Archives Initiative (Open Archives 2001).
The viability of the scholars’ portal idea may depend on the avail-
ability of consistent and comparable metadata, and this may be diffi-
cult to achieve.
2.7. User Support
As libraries have increased their investments in electronic resources,
providing ongoing support has become more complex. For example,
as libraries rely more heavily on access through multiple remote ven-
dors, interfaces and potential points of failure have proliferated. As
indexing services and e-journal collections become more closely
linked, such “pieced-together” or eclectic systems present additional
possible points of failure. Any number of problems may arise for us-
ers accessing licensed resources remotely. For example, a particular
service may suddenly become slow to respond or unavailable be-
cause of technical problems, Web browser configuration or unrelated
connectivity issues, or invoicing and payment problems. Users com-
ing to a library’s gateway through a commercial Internet service pro-
vider may also find services to be unavailable to them and not real-
ize that this is because they have not authenticated themselves
through a proxy service.
Most users of Web-based services expect these services to be un-
derstandable and usable with a minimum of help or intervention
from others. When users do need support, their expectations are
high. For example, users may wish to use a consortium’s or library’s
gateway at any time of day and may expect live support at those
times. Just what support may be needed and how it is to be provided
are continuing questions, and libraries’ responses to them are based
on local perceptions, resources, and priorities. Of course, users need
to know what services are available, who is eligible to use them, and
how to connect to them. These basic needs have typically been ad-
dressed through the design of gateway Web pages and e-resource
lists mentioned in the previous sections. These approaches can be
helpfully supplemented by basic “how to use” instructions (Califor-
nia Digital Library 2000f; University of Texas 2000c).
Connectivity and other technical problems are more difficult and
seem likely to require ongoing efforts of various kinds. Provision of
basic information about how to make a library-specific connection
may be necessary (University of Washington 2001b). Lists of known
22
Timothy D. Jewell
problems and solutions can be posted for users (University of Wash-
ington 2001c), as can browser configuration pages that inform users
if they need to adjust settings and that provide information on how
to contact staff for help (University of Texas 2000d; University of
Washington 2001d). Some libraries have begun to experiment with
online “chat” functions for reference and other services (Tennant
1999; LiveRef 2001), and it seems reasonable to suppose that such an
approach would work for asking questions and receiving advice on
access problems.
Several libraries and consortia have determined that they can
respond more effectively to support problems if the work can be dis-
tributed among a number of units or individuals, such as those iden-
tified as resource coordinators or liaisons. This strategy necessitates
some coordination and orchestration; some libraries have done this
by establishing and communicating triage paths for different situa-
tions. Doing so may be easier if vendor contact information is assem-
bled and maintained centrally.
2.8. Ongoing Evaluation and Usage Information
Libraries have long had a strong interest in knowing how, how
much, and by whom their collections are being used. A prevailing
motivation has been to focus spending on those parts of the collec-
tion that appear to be used most heavily, although it has long been
recognized that some specialized materials are likely never to receive
much use. Measuring the use of print collections has been ap-
proached in various ways; early efforts to develop and apply unob-
trusive techniques have given way to reliance on online systems for
tracking external circulation and systematically recording in-library
use.
It has been possible to track the use of electronic resources for
many years, and many libraries have considerable experience gather-
ing, analyzing, and presenting such data for internal and external
consumption. In addition, libraries have come to expect vendors to
provide usable and useful data. Although it may be possible to state
such an expectation fairly simply, defining it has proved to be diffi-
cult. Just what should be measured, how the information should be
presented, what data might mean, and how they might be used con-
fidently in decision making are all questions without obvious an-
swers.
ARL has recently launched an intensive investigation of some of
these questions. The first detailed report on this project (Shim, Mc-
Clure, and Bertot 2000) identifies three types of situations in which
such usage information may be used for decision making. The first
category is termed “external resource contracts” and includes the use
of data for journal or database renewal or cancellation or for changes
in numbers of concurrent users. The second is “reporting and com-
munication” and includes budget justification (the most common
response in this category), strategic planning, and comparisons with
other institutions. Third is “service assessment and improvement,”
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources 23
which includes the use of data for the redesign of Web pages, mar-
keting and instruction efforts, staffing changes, and the evaluation or
assessment of resources available on a trial basis.
There are some obvious impediments to obtaining data useful
for these purposes. First, most libraries currently depend on vendors
for usage information, and many supply no data at all. As noted by
Luther (2000) in a white paper on e-journal usage statistics, “less
than half of the publishers who offer journals in electronic form to-
day are able to provide statistics on the usage of these journals.” Sec-
ond, data provided by different vendors may not be comparable.
Again, quoting Luther, “librarians currently receive reports with dif-
ferent data elements that are not clearly defined and that cover dif-
ferent time periods, making it impossible to analyze them in a con-
sistent way.” The extent of this problem is indicated by the frequency
with which libraries complained about it to the ARL team and by the
diversity of measures and other practices reported in the detailed
inventory of electronic vendor statistical reporting capabilities repro-
duced in the team’s report (Shim, McClure, and Bertot 2000).
A number of responses to these problems warrant mention. First,
it is important that libraries institutionalize evaluations of their elec-
tronic resources on the basis of what is currently available from ven-
dors. One part of such a strategy may be to treat the available infor-
mation, despite its inconsistencies and other problems, as good
enough for “best guess” decision making. Such an outlook has been
adopted by Virginia Tech, which routinely assembles the available
data into simple but useful spreadsheets. Yale has also established
clear Web pages for reporting usage information to interested staff
(Shim, McClure, and Bertot 2000), as have several other libraries, in-
cluding Harvard (2000d). Another useful strategy is to adopt a plan
for evaluating each resource before renewal and to distribute respon-
sibility for the evaluation, a practice adopted by Harvard’s resource
stewards and coordinators (Harvard 2000b; 2000c; 2000e) and the
CDL’s resource liaisons (California Digital Library 1999e, 1999f,
2000c).
Second, it is important for libraries and vendors or publishers to
reach a consensus on standard definitions and reporting practices.
The International Coalition of Library Consortia took a significant
step in this direction when it published its Guidelines for Statistical
Measures (ICOLC 1998b). This document provides a reasonable stan-
dard that many vendors have already attempted to reach. The group
is reviewing the guidelines and vendor responses, and it plans to re-
view the extent of vendor compliance, which may have further posi-
tive impact. The ARL E-metrics initiative may also hold potential for
establishing additional consensus, as well as for encouraging reform
and standardization of vendor practice. Finally, when vendors do not
provide what individual libraries need, it is important that they be
encouraged to do so.
Standardization need not be the only goal of measurement ef-
forts. Libraries and consortia such as OhioLINK, which rely on their
own equipment and staff for access to electronic resources, are well
24
Timothy D. Jewell
positioned to develop and initiate measurement and presentation
methods that could become standards in the future. The usage mea-
surement and presentation methods developed at the University of
Pennsylvania demonstrate that it is possible to be innovative without
an extensive local investment in infrastructure (Shim, McClure, and
Bertot 2000). Some libraries are also attempting to show how elec-
tronic resources affect student learning or facilitate research produc-
tivity (Blixrud 2000; Smith 2000). If successful, these efforts could also
be widely emulated.
2.9. Preservation and Archiving
The need to preserve electronic resources and continue to make them
available has been recognized for years, but only recently have there
been serious and broad-based efforts in this area. One reason is that
many libraries now have experience with significant numbers of
electronic journals and have started to consider whether they can
truly afford both online and print subscriptions. The prospect of rely-
ing completely on electronic access to large numbers of journals or
other resources raises a number of questions. For example, if libraries
rely completely on electronic access and have to cancel their electron-
ic subscriptions in the future, or if the publisher goes out of business
or discontinues access to older content, the library risks losing access
to back issues. If the publisher provides libraries with electronic files
in those eventualities, how are libraries to use them? Last, there is
increasing awareness that electronic versions of journals may differ
significantly from printed versions. Electronic versions may include
video and sound clips, special-purpose data requiring specific soft-
ware, and links to ephemeral Web sites that may be difficult or im-
possible to archive.
Several recent articles have explored the meaning of electronic
archiving and who should take responsibility for it (Anderson 2000;
Boyce 2000; Douglas 2000; Graham 2000; Hunter 2000; Leggate and
Hannant 2000; Marcum 2000; Morris 2000). There seems to be a
growing consensus that although publishers might be expected to
provide archival access in the short term, libraries are the appropri-
ate agencies to serve this function for posterity. Possible costs of
long-term preservation could be substantial, if, for example, data
must be frequently refreshed and migrated or if emulation software
must be developed and maintained (Rothenberg 1999, 2000). Most
libraries will have difficulty devoting substantial local funds to these
activities.
A few key and related initiatives take on special significance in
this context. The first is the effort by the Council on Library and In-
formation Resources (CLIR) and the DLF to establish shared under-
standings within and across the publishing and library communities
about the elements that will be required to successfully establish
working archival repositories. The second is The Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation’s award of planning grants to a number of larger librar-
ies. CLIR identifies the roles of these libraries as follows:
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources 25
Yale, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania will work
with individual publishers on archiving the range of their electronic
journals. Cornell and the New York Public Library will work on ar-
chiving journals in specific disciplines. MIT’s project involves ar-
chiving “dynamic” e-journals that change frequently, and Stanford’s
involves the development of specific archiving software tools (Digi-
tal Library Federation 2001).
The importance of these efforts to publishers and libraries is in-
dicated by a joint announcement by Yale and Elsevier of their intent
to work together on this problem (Yale 2001). Both parties hope to
establish a model archive within the next two or three years.
2.10. Toward Integrated Systems for Managing
Electronic Resources
Several locally developed computer-based systems for acquiring,
managing, and supporting electronic resources were identified dur-
ing the research for this project. Among them were MIT’s VERA sys-
tem (Duranceau 2000a, 2000b; Hennig 2001), Penn State’s ERLIC
(Stanley, Holden, and Nirnberger 2000; Pennsylvania State Universi-
ty 2001), and the License Tracker system developed at the University
of Texas at Austin (Rowe 2000). These and other systems were found
at larger institutions with significant levels of investment in electron-
ic resources and substantial organizational complexity. In some cas-
es, considerable amounts of staff time have been devoted to design-
ing, implementing, and maintaining them.
Although these electronic resource management systems vary in
purpose and function, they have all been implemented to remedy
perceived deficiencies in these institutions’ online cataloging, acqui-
sitions, or other systems. For example, some are used to generate al-
phabetical lists of databases and electronic journals or to keep track
of important license terms. Some integrate the listing and license
tracking functions; others focus on tracking acquisition status or or-
ganizing technical information. As these systems’ similarities and
common functions began to emerge, the value of a more thorough
and systematic inventory became apparent. That is, if many libraries
are trying to solve much the same problem, it might be possible to
devise common functional and data definitions and standards that
could be used as the basis for future design and implementation
work—by libraries working individually or collectively or by ven-
dors.
With this in mind, the author and another librarian at the Uni-
versity of Washington performed a thorough review of known elec-
tronic resource management systems. On the basis of this initial re-
view, a coding form containing appropriate functions and data
elements was developed and used to profile the systems. Staff at the
institutions having relevant systems generally performed these re-
views, but UW staff analyzed a paper-based system in place at the
University of Nevada-Reno on the basis of a published article about
it (Loghry and Shannon 2000). In some cases, UW staff did an initial
26
Timothy D. Jewell
analysis of a system’s functions and data elements and sent it for re-
view to staff at the library responsible for that system. Thirteen elec-
tronic resource management systems were analyzed. These included
the four already mentioned (MIT, Penn State, Texas, and Nevada-
Reno) and five other systems that are in place and operating (Michi-
gan, Notre Dame, Simon Fraser, Virginia, and Yale). Three of the re-
maining systems analyzed (Cornell, Stanford, and UCLA) are in
various phases of planning or development. A similar analysis of
functions and data elements was also done for the University of
Washington, although its current system consists of its Innovative
Interfaces system, Digital Registry, and paper-based license file and
inventory tool.
The results of the analysis are summarized in a spreadsheet in
Appendix B: Functions and Data Elements for Managing Electronic
Resources. The systems are presented in three categories: paper-
based, systems in production, and systems in planning or develop-
ment. The appendix lists nearly 150 functions or data elements, al-
though careful analysis will probably reveal some overlap. Seven
fairly distinct functional areas were identified, including listing/de-
scriptive; license-related; financial/purchasing; process/status; sys-
tems/technical; contact and support; and usage. For the first catego-
ry, it seemed useful to distinguish between “listing or reporting”
functions and the data elements themselves. That distinction seemed
less clear or relevant for the other categories.
The spreadsheet points to some interesting similarities and dif-
ferences among these systems. First, they are based on several differ-
ent database software packages or other platforms, although File-
maker and Microsoft Access are in use at five of the institutions. As
seen in category 1.A. of the spreadsheet (listing and descriptive func-
tions), several of the systems are used to generate “production” al-
phabetical and subject lists of resources for users and staff. Separate
lists of databases and electronic journals are frequently generated,
and several libraries generate “composite” full-text lists that include
both e-journals and coverage by “aggregator” full-text database pro-
viders. A few libraries also generate lists by “package” or publisher.
Many of the data elements used to describe print resources, such as
title and publisher, are shown in category 1.B (listing and descriptive
data elements). A few fields that are particularly appropriate or
uniquely relevant for electronic resources are also shown, such as
description, genre, and inclusion of full-text. Two institutions also
facilitate their reporting of e-resource expenditures to ARL by record-
ing appropriate expenditure categories from the ARL Supplemental
Survey.
License term recording and display practice (Section 2) is some-
what more varied. Several institutions track and display common
license terms for users and staff. For example, Yale’s system uses a
clear, standardized format to inform users whether a resource can be
used for Interlibrary Loan, e-reserves, or course packs. MIT had one
of the more interesting display strategies. In addition to a standard-
ized notice about appropriate and prohibited use, MIT’s resource
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources 27
lists display a red “L” icon appears when a license for a resources
contains specific terms of which users and staff should be aware.
When the icon is clicked on, the terms are displayed (Hennig 2001).
Several institutions record and display links to electronic versions of
their licenses, and Penn State has initiated a special project to digitize
and make its licenses available.
As noted, libraries rely extensively on established online acquisi-
tions systems for tracking and reporting financial details (Section 3).
Whether the complexities involved in e-journal pricing and their
many permutations can be successfully captured in this way is open
to some question, however. Interestingly, several libraries try to save
key e-mail correspondence with vendors because they record impor-
tant transaction details.
Where traditionally designed online acquisition systems appear
to be least successful in supporting the purchase of electronic re-
sources is in how they allow for coverage of “process” or status in-
formation (Section 4). The importance of doing so is indicated by the
fact that most of the electronic resource management systems incor-
porate some sort of “order status” information. However, the range
of relevant system characteristics suggests that devising a standard-
ized approach to process tracking may be difficult. One reason for
this is that keeping track of a resource as it passes through the local
acquisition process is likely to require steps that are highly specific to
a given institution.
Several of the systems track and provide reports of upcoming
renewals. This is important for two reasons. First, an unpaid invoice
may result in the sudden interruption of an institution’s access to an
electronic resource. Second, as mentioned in the section on evalua-
tion and usage information, several libraries and consortia conduct
cyclical reviews of electronic resources prior to renewing them. It
would be difficult to plan for and coordinate such reviews without
being able to see which resources will be up for renewal at what
time. A couple of institutions have also included a “follow-up need-
ed” reporting function in their local e-resource management systems,
which should help prevent staff from losing track of problems.
Section 5 of the spreadsheet summarizes the technical and access
details that are routinely recorded to assist in managing collections
of e-resources. Six of the systems allow for tracking availability or
“problem status,” which is important when collections consist of re-
sources from dozens of vendors. An attractive feature of the VERA
system is that a special “resource broken” icon can be displayed on
resource lists when a resource is unavailable. To support multiple
vendor offerings, the recording of vendor billing and technical sup-
port information is also required, and most of the systems evaluated
allow for that (Section 6). In addition, most allow for the identifica-
tion of an internal contact person who might be responsible for re-
solving a particular problem and reporting back on it to staff and us-
ers. A few of these systems also allow for recording where usage
information can be obtained or include a usage reporting function
(Section 7).
28
Timothy D. Jewell
3. Conclusions and Future Considerations
One of the goals of the DLF Collection Practices Initiative was to
identify “best practices.” This goal began to seem overly ambitious
as research for this report progressed and as more and more com-
plexities and specialized local circumstances surfaced. Therefore, it
seems more appropriate in closing to identify a few practices that
appear to be effective or that seem to be promising. On the basis of
this and future work, more definitive “best practices” may perhaps
be defined.
Before doing so, it is important to recall that the introduction to
this report noted that commercially available resources must be af-
fordable for libraries to be able to build and sustain significant collec-
tions of them. That comment served as the rationale for exploring
two strategies for controlling costs—consortial purchasing and schol-
arly communication initiatives. The recent literature concerning
these strategies indicates that there is much to be said for each. Be-
cause of that, and because it is difficult to assess their current impact
or to predict how either might help control prices for electronic re-
sources over the long term, neither is being put forward here as an
“effective practice.” Affordability remains a necessary precondition
for sustainability, however.
Leaving such strategies and related controversies aside, it was
still difficult to choose objectively from among the practices dis-
cussed in the other sections of this report. Nevertheless, a selection
was made and is presented as Table 2. Another researcher could easi-
ly have chosen differently, and that element of subjectivity should be
kept in mind when reviewing it. Table 2 follows the organization of
the text and the list of practices and links in Appendix A; for this rea-
son, only a few brief comments are given. Readers may refer to the
appropriate text and appendix sections for more information.
The discussion of selection policies and strategic plans empha-
sized that it is important for libraries to articulate what they wish to
achieve through the acquisition of commercial electronic resources
and to identify the values that should inform their decision making.
Creating strategic plans for e-resource collection development—
especially plans that incorporate concrete steps and benchmarks—
seems to be another worthwhile activity. For large libraries, the pur-
chase and presentation of electronic resources is a complex process
involving large numbers of staff. Coordination of decision making
and other activities is a significant problem. Quite often coordination
is achieved partly through one or more e-resource committees, for
which there are many interesting organizational models. An impor-
tant emerging role that appears to be common to many institutions is
that of e-resource coordinator. Finally, as resources grow and diversi-
fy, it seems inevitable that support responsibility for electronic re-
sources must be distributed across the organization. As a result, a
number of institutions have defined a separate but complementary
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources 29
stewardship role that different staff will take on for specific resources
or platforms.
The acquisition of electronic resources can be operationally com-
plex, and efforts to make the local process more coherent are impor-
tant. Steps such as systematizing and documenting workflows, orga-
nizing and providing standardized information for vendors, and
adopting appropriate forms all hold potential for expedited order
handling. Managing the licensing of electronic resources is also one
of the bigger challenges that libraries now face. Operationally, effec-
tive local licensing practice requires the adoption of clear policies
and responsibilities as well as the creation and communication of
smooth processes for dealing with them.
Ideas about how best to present licensed resources to users con-
tinue to emerge rapidly. Recent initiatives aimed at making the con-
Topic Area
Suggested Practices
2.2
Selection Policies and
•
Create well-developed selection guidelines and policies
Strategic Plans
•
Articulate goals and strategic approach for developing e-resources
2.3
Institutional Finance and
•
Create broad-based oversight/coordination committee structures
Organization
•
Appoint e-resource coordinators
•
Distribute responsibilities for resource stewardship
2.4
Internal Procedures for Initial
•
Create systematic, understandable workflows; use appropriate forms
Evaluation and Purchase
to expedite handling
•
Make it easy to determine the order status of a given e-resource
•
Make standardized information about the library (FTEs, IP ranges,
site definition, licensing policies) available to vendors
•
Establish a clear system of conducting trials that includes communi-
cation of availability and process to staff (and users, if appropriate)
2.5
Licensing Issues and
•
Establish process for smooth handling of licenses with clearly stated
Practices
policies and responsibilities
•
Systematically inform staff and users about general and specific li-
censing terms
2.6
Web Presentation Strategies
•
Make aggregator database periodical holdings visible to users
•
Link abstracting & indexing database citations to e-journal holdings
•
Present resources and services in a way that meets users needs and
that they can personalize (“My Gateway”)
2.7
User Support
•
Make general support information readily available to users
•
Create comprehensible problem escalation/triage paths for staff
2.8
Ongoing Evaluation and
•
Conduct planned/cyclic reviews prior to renewal
Usage Information
•
Systematically report usage to staff
2.9
Preservation and Archiving
•
Support joint efforts to establish preservation techniques and stan-
dards
•
Realistically assess the preservation and access risks of relying on
electronic formats, and develop an archive strategy on the basis of
local circumstances and risk tolerance
2.10 Toward Integrated Systems for
•
Put in place plan e-resource support systems
Managing Electronic Resources
Table 2. Idealized Model of Effective Selection and Presentation Practices
30
Timothy D. Jewell
tents of aggregator databases more visible to staff and users and at
linking indexing databases to licensed e-journal collections enable
libraries to derive more benefit from those resources. Establishing
open standards for both seems important, for to do otherwise may
mean supporting multiple vendor-specific systems. Efforts to better
identify and meet the needs and interests of particular user groups,
as well as to enable users to personalize their own views of relevant
resources based on their own interests and usage patterns, also stand
out.
Extensive reliance on vendors for access to e-resources, and the
attendant proliferation of interfaces and possible sources of prob-
lems, is likely to necessitate a creative look at how the support func-
tion can best be organized. Establishing clear problem-triage paths is
an important step. Reliance on vendor performance has also been
problematic for libraries that rely on vendors exclusively for usage
information. Ongoing efforts to establish standards for such data and
to urge vendor compliance are quite important, and individual li-
braries should support those efforts in their contacts with vendors.
The systematic, ongoing presentation of such data to staff and its re-
view under organized, ongoing programs when resources are up for
renewal also seem to qualify as effective practice.
Although clear solutions are not yet on the horizon, it is extreme-
ly encouraging that a number of organizations and libraries are tak-
ing a keen interest in archiving and preserving electronic resources.
Finally, it is clear from the time and effort invested by many li-
braries creating local systems for managing electronic resources that
existing library management systems and software lack important
features and functionality. Although developing local systems proba-
bly contributes to effective local practice, coordinated efforts to de-
fine needs and establish standards may prove to be of broad benefit.
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
31
References
Web site addresses were valid
Albanese, A. 2000. AAPA Negotiates Wiley Journal Price Cut! Library
as of July 20, 2001.
Journal Academic Newswire (Sept. 12).
Anderson, Rick. 2000. Is the Digital Archive a New Beast Entirely?
Serials Review 26(3):50-52.
Barber, David. 2000. Internet-Accessible Full-Text Electronic Journal
and Periodical Collections for Libraries. Library Technology Reports
36(5).
Bleiler, Richard, and Terry Plum. 1999. Networked Information Resources.
SPEC Kit 253 (December). Washington, D.C.: Association of Research
Libraries.
Blixrud, Julia C. 2000. Establishing A Role For Research Libraries In
Learning Outcomes Assessment Programs. ARL: A Bimonthly Report
on Research Library Issues and Actions from ARL, CNI, and SPARC 213
(December):1.
Boyce, Peter B. 2000. Who Will Keep the Archives? Wrong Question!
Serials Review 26(3): 52-55.
Brand, Amy. 2001. CrossRef Turns One. D-Lib Magazine 7(5). Avail-
able at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may01/brand/05brand.html.
California Digital Library. 1996. CDC Principles for Acquiring and Li-
censing Information in Digital Formats. Available at http://
sunsite.berkeley.edu/Info/principles.html.
California Digital Library. 1997. CDL Collection Framework. Available
at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/docs/framework.pdf.
California Digital Library. 1999a. Joint Steering Committee Criteria for
Priority Selection. Available at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/
sharedcoll/jsc/PriorityPoints.rtf.
California Digital Library. 1999b. Database Selection Criteria. Available
at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/system_services/tswg/
database_selection_criteria.rtf.
California Digital Library. 1999c. Tiered Approach for Access to Pur-
chased Electronic Content. Available at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/
sharedcoll/docs/tiers.rtf.
California Digital Library. 1999d. Tier 2 Acquisitions Procedures. Avail-
able at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/toolkit/cdltier2.rtf.
32
Timothy D. Jewell
California Digital Library. 1999e. Resource Liaisons Charge. Available
at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/liaisons/charge.rtf.
California Digital Library. 1999f. Resource Liaisons and Usage Statistics.
Available at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/liaisons/
UsageStatistics_Goals.rtf.
California Digital Library. 2000a. CDL Acquisitions Procedures. Avail-
able at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/docs/
acquisitions_proc.rtf.
California Digital Library. 2000b. Checklist of Points to be Addressed in a
California Digital Library License Agreement. Available at http://
www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/docs/checklist.pdf.
California Digital Library. 2000c. Resource Liaisons. Available at
http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/liaisons/.
California Digital Library. 2000d. Resource Selection/Evaluation Crite-
ria. Available at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/system_services/
tswg/Database_Selection_Criteria_v4.rtf.
California Digital Library. 2000e. Standard License Agreement. Avail-
able at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/toolkit/
CDLModelLicense1-12-00.rtf.
California Digital Library 2000f. CDL User Guides. Available at
http://www.cdlib.org/guides/.
California Digital Library. 2000g. MyLibrary@CDL Release Notes.
Available at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/july2000/mylibrary/.
Campbell, Jerry. 2000. The Case for Creating a Scholars’ Portal to the
Web: A White Paper. Available at http://arl.cni.org/newsltr/211/
portal.html.
Carnegie Mellon University Libraries. 1999. Digital Library Plan 2000-
2007: Supplement to the 1998 Strategic Plan. Available at http://
www.library.cmu.edu/Libraries/digitallibrary.pdf.
Case, Mary M. 2001. Capitalizing on Competition: The Economic Under-
pinnings of SPARC. Available at http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/
index.asp?page=f41.
Center for Institutional Cooperation. 1999. Standardized Agreement
Language. Available at http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/cli/contracts/
standardized_agreement_language.htm.
Chudnov, Daniel, Cynthia Crooker, and Kimberly Parker. 2000. jake:
Overview and Status Report. Serials Review 26(4):12-17.
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources 33
Cohen, Suzanne et al. 2000. MyLibrary: Personalized Electronic Ser-
vices in the Cornell University Library. D-Lib Magazine. 6(4). Avail-
able at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april00/mistlebauer/
04mistlebauer.html.
Cornell University Libraries. MyLibrary@Cornell. Available at
http://mylibrary.cornell.edu/.
Cornell University Libraries. 1999. CORC at Cornell: Final Report.
Available at http://campusgw.library.cornell.edu/corc/.
Cornell University Libraries. 2000. Cornell University Library Digital
Futures Plan: July 2000 to June 2002. Available at http://
www.library.cornell.edu/staffweb/CULDigitalFuturesPlan.html.
Council on Library and Information Resources. 2001. CLIR/DLF Mod-
el License. Available at http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/
modlic.shtml.
Cox, John. 2000. Model Generic Licenses: Cooperation and Competi-
tion. Serials Review 26(1): 3-9.
Curtis, Donnelyn, Virginia M. Scheschy, and Adolfo R. Tarango. 2000.
Developing and Managing Electronic Journal Collections: A How-To-Do-It
Manual for Librarians. N.Y.: Neal-Schuman.
Demas, Sam. 1994. Collection Development for the Electronic Li-
brary: a Conceptual and Organizational Model. Library Hi Tech
12(3):71-80.
Demas, S. G., P. McDonald, and G. Lawrence. 1995. The Internet and
Collection Development: Mainstreaming Selection of Internet Re-
sources. Library Resources and Technical Services 39(3):275-290.
Digital Library Federation. 2001. Preservation of Electronic Scholarly
Journals. Available http://www.clir.org/diglib/preserve/
presjour.htm.
Douglas, Kimberly. 2000. Digital Archiving in the Context of Cultural
Change. Serials Review 26(3):55-59.
Duranceau, Ellen Finnie. 2000a. License Compliance. Serials Review
26(1):53-58.
Duranceau, Ellen Finnie. 2000b. License Tracking. Serials Review
26(3):69-73.
Frazier, Kenneth. 2001. The Librarians’ Dilemma: Contemplating the
Costs of the “Big Deal.” D-Lib Magazine 7:3. Available at http://
www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/frazier/03frazier.html.
34
Timothy D. Jewell
Ghaphery, Jimmy, and Dan Ream. 2000. VCU’s My Library: Librari-
ans Love It . . . Users? Well, Maybe. Information Technology and Librar-
ies 19(4)186-190.
Graham, Rebecca A. 2000. Evolution of Archiving in the Digital Age.
Serials Review 26(3):59-62.
Harvard University Library. 1999. Committee on Electronic Reference
Service (COERS). Available at http://hul.harvard.edu/cmtes/ulc/
coers.
Harvard University Library. 2000a. Licensing Electronic Resources at
Harvard University: Guidelines for Vendors. Available at
http://hul.harvard.edu/ldi/resources/vendor_guidelines.pdf.
Harvard University Library. 2000b. Resource Stewardship Program.
Available at http://hul.harvard.edu/digacq/stewards.html.
Harvard University Library. 2000c. Responsibilities of Stewards and Co-
ordinators. Available at http://hul.harvard.edu/cmtes/ulc/coers/
stewards_coordinators.htm.
Harvard University Library. 2000d. HOLLIS and HOLLIS Plus Fiscal
Year 2000 Statistics. Available at http://hul.harvard.edu/ois/
services/reporting/stats/YR2000/.
Harvard University Library. 2000e. Re-evaluation of Digital Resources.
Available at http://hul.harvard.edu/cmtes/ulc/coers/
Re-evaluation1.htm.
Hennig, Nicole. 2001. Improving Access to E-journals and Databases at
the MIT Libraries: Building a Database-backed Web Site Called “VERA.”
Available at http://www.hennigweb.com/publications/vera.html.
Hughes, Carol Ann. 2000. Information Services for Higher Educa-
tion: A New Competitive Space. D-Lib Magazine 6(12). Available at
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december00/hughes/12hughes.html.
Hunter, Karen. 2000. Digital Archiving. Serials Review 26(3):62-64.
International Coalition of Library Consortia. 1998a. Statement of Cur-
rent Perspective and Preferred Practices for the Selection and Purchase of
Electronic Information. Available at http://www.library.yale.edu/
consortia/statement.html.
International Coalition of Library Consortia. 1998b. Guidelines for Sta-
tistical Measures of Usage of Web-based Indexed, Abstracted, and Full-Text
Resources. Available at http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/
webstats.html.
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources 35
International Coalition of Library Consortia. 1999. Guidelines for Tech-
nical Issues in Request for Proposal Requirements and Contract Negotia-
tions. Available at http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/
techreq.html.
Jewell, Timothy D. 1998. The ARL “Investment in Electronic Resources”
Study: Final Report to the Council on Library and Information Resources.
Available at http://www.arl.org/stats/specproj/jewell.html.
Jordan, William. 2000. My Gateway at the University of Washington
Libraries. Information Technology and Libraries 19(4):180-185.
Ketchell, Debra S. 2000. Too Many Channels: Making Sense Out of
Portals and Personalization. Information Technology and Libraries
19(4):175-179.
Kovacs, Diane. 2000a. Building Electronic Library Collections: The Es-
sential Guide to Selection Criteria and Core Subject Collections. New
York: Neal-Schuman.
Kovacs, Diane K., and Angela Elkhordy. 2000b. Collection Develop-
ment in Cyberspace: Building an Electronic Library Collection. Li-
brary Hi Tech 18(4):335-359.
Kyrillidou, Martha. 2000. Research Library Spending on Electronic
Scholarly Information Is on the Rise. ARL: A Bimonthly Report on Re-
search Library Issues and Actions from ARL, CNI, and SPARC. No. 213,
December.
Lakos, Amos, and Chris Gray. 2000. Personalized Library Portals as
an Organizational Culture Change Agent. Information Technology and
Libraries 19(4):169-174.
Landesman, Margaret, and Johann Van Reenen. 2000. Creating Con-
gruence. JEP: the Journal of Electronic Publishing 6(2). Available at
http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-02/landesman.html.
Leggate, Peter, and Mike Hannant. 2000. The Archiving of Online
Journals. Learned Publishing 13(4):246-250.
Liblicense. 2000. LIBLICENSE Guide to Digital Information. Available
at http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/software.shtml.
Library of Congress. 1999. Collections Policy Statements: Electronic Re-
sources. Available at http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/devpol/
electron.html.
LiveRef: a Registry of Real-Time Digital Reference Services. 2001. Avail-
able at http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/
LiveRef.htm#livereference.
36
Timothy D. Jewell
Loghry, Patricia A., and Amy W. Shannon. 2000. Managing Selection
and Implementation of Electronic Products: One Tiny Step in Organi-
zation, One Giant Step for the University of Nevada, Reno. Serials
Review 26(3):32-44.
Los Alamos National Laboratory. 2000. arXiv.org e-Print archive.
Available at http://arxiv.org/.
Luther, Judy. 2000. White Paper on Electronic Journal Usage Statistics.
Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources.
Also available at http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub94/
contents.html.
Marcum, Deanna. 2000. Digital Archiving. College & Research Library
News 61(9):794-797, 807.
Michalak, Sara. 2000. The Evolution of SPARC. Serials Review
26(1):10-21.
MIT Libraries. 1997. Toward a Networked Resources Policy. Available at
http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/networked/policy.html.
MIT Libraries. 1998a. Process “Map” for Acquisition of Electronic Infor-
mation Products. Available at http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/
networked/webmap.pdf.
MIT Libraries. 1998b. ERESCAT/NERD Subgroup on Workflow for Elec-
tronic Resources Workflow Proposal. Available at
http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/networked/erescat.htm.
MIT Libraries. 1998c. Partnership Between Product Sponsor and As-
sistant Acquisitions Librarian for Digital Resources. Available at
http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/networked/partnership.html.
Montgomery, Carol Hansen, and JoAnne L. Sparks. 2000. The Transi-
tion to an Electronic Journal Collection: Managing the Organization-
al Changes. Serials Review 26(3):4-18.
Morgan, Eric Lease. 1999. MyLibrary: A Model for Implementing a User-
Centered, Customizable Interface to a Library’s Collection of Information
Resources. Available at http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/development/
mylibrary/sigir-99/.
Morgan, Eric Lease. 2000. Guest Editorial: The Challenges of User-
Centered, Customizable Interfaces to Library Resources. Information
Technology and Libraries. 19(4):166-168.
Morgan, Keith, and Tripp Reade. 2000. Pioneering Portals:
MyLibrary@NCState. Information Technology and Libraries 19(4):191-
198.
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources 37
Morris, Sally. 2000. Archiving Electronic Publications: What are the
Problems and Who Should Solve Them? Serials Review 26(3):64-68.
Mulliner, Kent. 2001. The “Big Deal”: I Beg to Differ. D-Lib Magazine
7(4). Available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april01/04letters.html.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. 2001. LinkOut–Link-
ing from PubMed and Other Entrez Databases. Available at http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query/static/linkoutoverview.html.
National Research Council. 2000. LC21: A Digital Strategy for the Li-
brary of Congress. Available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook/
0309071445/html/R1.html.
Ockerbloom, John. 2000. Let’s Get Together: Or, How to Integrate Li-
brary Resources So Our Users Can Find Them. Paper presented at
the Digital Library Federation Fall Forum, November 19, 2000, Chi-
cago. Available at http://www.clir.org/diglib/forums/fall00/
ockerbloom.htm.
OhioLINK Library Advisory Committee. 2001. Letter to the Editor.
D-Lib Magazine 7(4). Available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april01/
04letters.html.
Okerson, Ann. 2001. An ILL contract terms clearning (sic) house? E-
mail posting to Liblicense-L Listserv (Feb. 5). Available at Liblicense-
L List Archives: http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/
ListArchives/ (accessed 29 June 2001).
Open Archives Initiative. 2001. Available at http://
www.openarchives.org/.
Pennsylvania State University Libraries. 2001. ERLIC Shareware: Elec-
tronic Resources and Licensing Information Center. Available at http://
www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/fiscal_data/ERLIC_SHARE/
Publish/index.html.
Pennsylvania State University Libraries. 2000. Evaluating Electronic
Resources. Available at http://www.libraries.psu.edu/crsweb/
select/manual/guide.htm.
Pisani, Assunta. 2000. Stanford University Libraries/Academic Infor-
mation Resources Paper presented at the Digital Library Federation
Spring Forum, March 31, 2000, Atlanta, Georgia. Available at http://
www.clir.org/diglib/forums/spr2000/stanford/index.htm.
Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing. 2000. Available
at http://www.arl.org/scomm/tempe.html.
38
Timothy D. Jewell
Richter, Carole. 2001. RE: ILL & Licensing questions. E-mail posting
to Liblicense-L Listserv (Feb. 2). Available at Liblicense-L List Ar-
chives: http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0102/
msg00026.html.
Roth, Dana. 2001. Sign of the times—most cited sources in CA. E-mail
message to SLA PAM Discussion List <slapam-l@lists.yale.edu>
(Feb. 21). Note: Reported summary of article appearing in quarterly
supplement to Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index (CASSI)
2000(4):28.
Rothenberg, Jeff. 1999. Avoiding Technological Quicksand: Finding a Via-
ble Technical Foundation for Digital Preservation: A Report to the Council
on Library and Information Resources. Available at
http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub77.html.
Rothenberg, Jeff. 2000. An Experiment in Using Emulation to Preserve
Digital Publications. Koninklije Bibliotheek. Available at http://
www.kb.nl/nedlib/results/emulationpreservationreport.pdf.
Rowe, Ronda. 2000. An Interim Solution for Managing Electronic Re-
sources at UT Austin. Paper presented at the Digital Library Federa-
tion Fall Forum, November 20, 2000, Chicago. Available at http://
www.clir.org/diglib/forums/fall00/ramirez_files/frame.htm.
Sanders, Thomas R., Helen Goldman, and Jack Fitzpatrick. 2000. Ti-
tle-Level Analytics for Journal Aggregators. Serials Review 26(4):18-29.
Sanville, Thomas J. 2000. A Method Out of the Madness: OhioLINK’s
Collaborative Response to the Serials Crisis. Three Years Later–Progress
Report. Paper presented at the North American Serials Interest Group
Conference, June 22-25, 2000, University of California, San Diego.
Shim, Wonsik, Charles R. McClure, and John Carlo Bertot. 2000. ARL
E-metrics Project: Developing Statistics and Performance Measures to De-
scribe Electronic Information Services and Resources for ARL Libraries.
Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. Also available
at http://www.arl.org/stats/newmeas/emetrics/phaseone.pdf.
Simon Fraser University. 2000. jake2marc. Available at
http://www.lib.sfu.ca/kiosk/mjordan/jake/.
Smith, Kenneth R. 2000. New Roles And Responsibilities For The
University Library: Advancing Student Learning Through Outcomes
Assessment. ARL: A Bimonthly Report on Research Library Issues and
Actions from ARL, CNI, and SPARC 213 (December):2-5.
Soete, George J,. and Trisha Davis. 1999. Managing the Licensing of
Electronic Products. SPEC Kit 248. Washington, D.C.: Association of
Research Libraries.
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources 39
Stanley, Nancy Markle, Angelina F. Holden, and Betty L. Nirnberger.
2000. Taming the Octopus: Getting a Grip on Electronic Resources.
Serials Librarian 38(3-4):363-368.
Stoffle, Carla. 2001. A Library View of the SPARC Initiative. Against
the Grain (April):34, 36,38. Also available at http://www.arl.org/
sparc/ATG.pdf.
Tennant, Roy. 1999. Human and Humane Assistance. Library Journal
Digital (June 15). Available at http://www.libraryjournal.com/
articles/infotech/digitallibraries/19990615_4807.asp.
University of Illinois Libraries. 2000. Electronic Collections Plan.
Available at http://www.library.uiuc.edu/eirc/finaldraft.htm.
[Note: Access to this site is restricted.]
University of Michigan Libraries. 1997. Electronic Resources Task Force
Report. Available at http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/staff/
eresources/TFreport.html.
University of Michigan Libraries. 2000. Selection Structure. Available
at http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/staff/eresources/
structure.htm.
University of Southern California Libraries. University of Southern
California Library Collection Development Policy Statement for Informa-
tion in Electronic Formats. Available at http://academic.uofs.edu/
organization/codes/uscl.html.
University of Texas Libraries. 1999. General Libraries Digital Library
Collection Development Framework. Available at http://
www.lib.utexas.edu/admin/cird/policies/subjects/
framework.html.
University of Texas Libraries. 2000a. Licensing & Copyright of Electron-
ic Resources: License Process. Available at http://staff.lib.utexas.edu/
divisions/dlsd/dls/process/index.html.
University of Texas Libraries. 2000b. Recently Added Resources. Avail-
able at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Indexes/new.html.
University of Texas Libraries. 2000c. UT Library Online User Guides.
Available at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/guides/index.html.
University of Texas Libraries. 2000d. Off-Campus Access to Library Da-
tabases and Electronic Resources.
University of Virginia Libraries. 2001. Library of Tomorrow Program.
Available at http://staff.lib.virginia.edu/LofT/.
40
Timothy D. Jewell
University of Washington Libraries. 2001a. Information Resources
Council Task Force on Electronic Information Acquisition and Licensing:
Draft Principles, Guidelines and Checklists. Available at
http://staffweb.lib.washington.edu/irc/comm-taskforces/
tf_licensing_checklists.html.
University of Washington Libraries. 2001b. Connecting to the Libraries.
Available at http://www.lib.washington.edu/help/connect.html.
University of Washington Libraries. 2001c. Known Issues and Bugs.
Available at http://www.lib.washington.edu/help/knownissues/.
University of Washington Libraries. 2001d. Proxy Server Wizard.
Available at http://www.lib.washington.edu/asp/browser/
proxy.asp.
University of Washington Libraries. 2001e. Healthlinks. Available at
http://healthlinks.washington.edu/.
University of Washington Libraries. 2001f. Why Use My Gateway?
Available at http://www.lib.washington.edu/resource/help/
MyGateway.html.
Van de Sompel, Herbert, and Patrick Hochstenbach. 1999a. Reference
Linking in a Hybrid Library Environment, Part 1: Frameworks for
Linking. D-Lib Magazine 5(4). Available at http://dlib.ejournal.
ascc.net/dlib/april99/van_de_sompel/04van_de_sompel-pt1.html.
Van de Sompel, Herbert, and Patrick Hochstenbach. 1999b. Reference
Linking in a Hybrid Library Environment, Part 2: SFX, a Generic
Linking Solution. D-Lib Magazine 5(4). Available at
http://dlib.ejournal.ascc.net/dlib/april99/van_de_sompel/
04van_de_sompel-pt2.html.
Van de Sompel, Herbert, and Patrick Hochstenbach. 1999c. Reference
Linking in a Hybrid Library Environment, Part 3: Generalizing the
SFX solution in the “SFX@Ghent & SFX@LANL” experiment. D-Lib
Magazine 5(10). Available at http://dlib.ejournal.ascc.net/dlib/
october99/van_de_sompel/10van_de_sompel.html.
Van de Sompel, Herbert, and Oren Beit-Arie. 2001. Open Linking in
the Scholarly Information Environment Using the Open URL Frame-
work. D-Lib Magazine 7(3). Available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/
march01/vandesompel/03vandesompel.html.
Yale University Libraries. 1998. Examining Networked Resources. Avail-
able at http://www.library.yale.edu/ecollections/ereschecklist.pdf.
Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources
41
Yale University Libraries. 2000a. Contact Information for Electronic Re-
sources Licensed by Yale University Library. Available at
http://www.library.yale.edu/ecollections/contactinfo.html.
Yale University Libraries. 2000b. CoDGeR (Committee for Digital Gen-
eral Resources). Available at http://www.library.yale.edu/CDC/
public/subcommittees/codger/.
Yale University Libraries. 2001. Yale and Elsevier Science Plan E-
Journal Archive. liblicense-l. (Feb. 26). Available at
http://kokopeli.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0102/
msg00078.html.
42
Timothy D. Jewell
eb Pages
Appendix A: Selection and Presentation Documents and W
Statement of Current Perspective and Preferred Practices for the Selection and
Purchase of Electronic Information
<http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/statement.html>
Office of Scholarly Communication <www.arl.org/scomm>;
Tempe Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing
<http://www.arl.org/scomm/tempe.html>;
SPARC <www.arl.org/sparc>;
Create Change <www.createchange.org>;
Declaring Independence <www.arl.org/sparc/DI>
e-scholarship <http://escholarship.cdlib.org/>
arXiv: Los Alamos Physics Preprint Database <http://arxiv.org>
PubMed Central <www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov>
Open Archives Initiative <www.openarchives.org>
BioOne <http://www.bioone.org>
CIAO (Columbia International Affairs Online) <http://www.ciaonet.org/>;
Columbia Earthscape <http://www.earthscape.org>
Project Euclid <http://projecteuclid.org>
Project Muse <http://muse.jhu.edu>
Highwire Press <http://highwire.stanford.edu>
CDL Collection Framework
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/docs/framework.pdf>;
CDC Principles for Acquiring and Licensing Information in Digital Formats
<http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Info/principles.html>;
Joint Steering Committee Criteria for Priority Selection
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/jsc/PriorityPoints.rtf>;
Tiered Approach for Access to Purchased Electronic Content
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/docs/tiers.rtf>
Collections Policy Statements: Electronic Resources
<http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/devpol/electron.html>
Toward a Networked Resources Policy
<http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/networked/policy.html>
General Libraries Digital Library Collection Development Framework
<http://www.lib.utexas.edu/admin/cird/policies/subjects/framework.html>;
General Libraries Electronic Journal Strategy
<http://www.lib.utexas.edu/admin/cird/ejournalstrategy.html>
ICOLC
ARL
CDL
LANL
NIH
Open Archives
Big 12 Plus
Consortium
Columbia
Cornell
Johns Hopkins
Stanford
CDL
Library of Congress
MIT
Texas
Pricing Structures and Consortial
Purchasing
General Resources
E-print/E-Publishing Initiatives
Publishing Initiatives
Appendix A
2.1 Economic Context of Electronic Resource Selection
§
§
§
§
2.2 Selection Policies and Strategic Plans
University of Southern California Library Collection Development Policy Statement for
Information in Electronic Formats
<http://academic.uofs.edu/organization/codes/uscl.html>
Selection Guidelines for Internet Resources
<http://staffweb.lib.washington.edu/irc/policies/internetselguide.htm>
Database Selection Criteria
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/system_services/tswg/database_selection_criteria.rtf>;
Resource Selection/Evaluation Criteria
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/system_services/tswg/Database_Selection_Criteria_v4.rtf>
Evaluating Electronic Resources
<http://www.libraries.psu.edu/crsweb/select/manual/guide.htm>
Examining Networked Resources (includes checklists for Content, Presentation,
Technical, Licensing and Business Arrangements, and Service Impacts)
<http://www.library.yale.edu/ecollections/ereschecklist.pdf>
CDL Mission and Strategic Goals <http://www.cdlib.org/about/planning/mission.html>
Digital Library Plan, 2000-2007 <http://www.library.cmu.edu/Libraries/digitallibrary.pdf>
Cornell University Library Digital Futures Plan: July 2000 to June 2002
<http://www.library.cornell.edu/staffweb/CULDigitalFuturesPlan.html>
University of Illinois Library Electronic Collections Plan (November 2000)
LC21: A Digital Strategy for the Library of Congress
<http://books.nap.edu/books/0309071445/html/1.html>
Building the Library of Tomorrow <http://staff.lib.virginia.edu/LofT/>
Sharing Costs of Electronic Resources Among UC Campuses
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/toolkit/costshareweb.PDF>
Guiding Principles for Use of Central Networked Resources Fund
<http://libraries.mit.edu/notice/netwguide.htm>
Central Fund for Multi-disciplinary Digital Resources (brief principles document for use
of central fund) <http://www.library.yale.edu/ecollections/Central%20Fund.html>
Joint Steering Committee on Shared Collections (document password protected)
http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/jsc/;
JSC Charge <http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/jsc/JSC_charge.rtf>
Database Review Committee <http://www.englib.cornell.edu/cul/a2i/drc/default.html>;
Electronic Resources Committee
<http://www.library.cornell.edu/staffweb/ERC/ERC.html>
Committee on Electronic Reference Service <http://hul.harvard.edu/cmtes/ulc/coers>
Electronic Resources Task Force Report
<http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/staff/eresources/TFreport.html>;
Selection Structure (includes e-team; core resources team, subject teams)
<http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/staff/eresources/structure.htm>
NERD (Networked Electronic Resources Discussion Group)
USC
Washington
CDL
Penn State
Yale
CDL
Carnegie Mellon
Cornell
Illinois
Library of Congress
Virginia
CDL
MIT
Yale
CDL
Cornell
Harvard
Michigan
MIT
2.2 Selection Policies and
Strategic Plans (contd.)
Evaluation Checklists
Strategic Plans
Funding/Budgeting Strategies
Committee Structures
Appendix A
§
§
2.3 Institutional Finance and Organization
§
§
Stanford University Libraries/ Academic Information Resources (presentation at Digital
Library Federation Spring Forum, April 12, 2000. Discusses committee structure,
including access to information committee; resource groups for humanities, social
science/government publications, science and engineering, which deal with content and
data appropriate to those areas.)
<http://www.clir.org/diglib/forums/spr2000/stanford/index.htm>
CoDGer (Committee for Digital General Resources)
<http://www.library.yale.edu/CDC/public/subcommittees/codger/>
Coordinator for Digital Acquisitions (Ivy Anderson)
Assistant Acquisitions Librarians for Digital Resources (Ellen Durancea)
Digital Library Program Officer (Paul Zarins)
Resource Liaisons <http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/liaisons/> (page includes
Charge) <http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/liaisons/charge.rtf>;
Resource Liaisons and Usage Statistics
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/liaisons/UsageStatistics_Goals.rtf>
Resource Stewardship Program <http://hul.harvard.edu/digacq/stewards.html>;
Responsibilities of Stewards and Coordinators
<http://hul.harvard.edu/cmtes/ulc/coers/stewards_coordinators.htm>;
Stewards’ Checklist <http://hul.harvard.edu/cmtes/ulc/coers/checklist.htm>
Product Sponsor (see Partnership Between Product Sponsor and Assistant Acquisitions
Librarian for Digital Resources)
<http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/networked/partnership.html>
Contact Information for Electronic Resources Licensed by Yale University Library
<http://www.library.yale.edu/ecollections/contactinfo.html>
CDL Acquisitions Procedures (revised 1/5/2000)
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/docs/acquisitions_proc.rtf>;
Tier 2 Acquisitions Procedures
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/toolkit/cdltier2.rtf>
Checklist for Acquisition of E-resources
<http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/staff/eresources/checklist.html>
Process Map for Acquisition of Electronic Information Products
<http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/networked/webmap.pdf>;
ERESCAT/NERD Subgroup on Workflow for Electronic Resources
Workflow Proposal <http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/networked/erescat.htm>;
Vera Procedures for Subject Specialists
<http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/webgroup/vera/procedures.html>
Adding Electronic Resources
<http://www.libraries.psu.edu/crsweb/select/manual/guide2.htm>
Stanford
Yale
Harvard
MIT
Stanford
CDL
Harvard
MIT
Yale
CDL
Michigan
MIT
Penn State
E-Resource Coordinators
Resource-Specific
Coordination/Stewardship
Committee Structures (contd.)
Selection Roles
q
q
E-Purchase Procedures
Appendix A
§
2.4 Internal Procedures for Initial Evaluation and Purchase
§
Timeline for Selection of Electronic Resources
<http://www.library.yale.edu/ecollections/timeline.html>;
Electronic Resource Evaluation Checklists
<http://www.library.yale.edu/ecollections/ereschecklist.pdf>
Networked Electronic Resource Form
<http://www.library.cornell.edu/voyager/Order/netrescatform.html>
Nomination Form (Hollis Resource Acquisition Request)
<http://hul.harvard.edu/digacq/nomination.html>
E-Resources Processing Forms (includes Order/Cataloging form, Cataloging Only form
and FAQ)
<http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/staff/eresources/eresources_processing.htm>
New Electronic Resources: Proposal for Purchase
<http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/networked/suggestedres.html>;
Digital Resources Change Report Form
<http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/networked/urlreportform.htm>
E-Journal Addition Request/Order Form
<http://staff.lib.utexas.edu/divisions/cird/Credits/serialorder.html>
E-resources Order Form for SML Selectors
<http://www.library.yale.edu/ecollections/SMLeorders.pdf>
CDL Content Provider Information Resource Page (includes Proposal Guidelines for
Producers of Electronic Products) <http://www.cdlib.org/about/publisher_info_pub/>
Instructions for Vendors (includes licensing electronic resources at Harvard University;
instructions for vendors (pdf); technical questionnaire and ip ranges)
<http://hul.harvard.edu/digacq/vendors.html>
Internal pages listing IP ranges, etc.
CDL “In Process” Collections (public and passworded update documents)
CIC Agreement Tracking Status Page
<http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/cli/contracts/statpage.html>;
CIC Contract Tracking Homepage <http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/cli/contracts/index.html>
Collection Development and Management Group (CDMG) maintains a Potential
Purchases page <http://staff.lib.utexas.edu/~dillon/databases.html>;
License Tracker shows status through UT system
<http://pcl-a382.lib.utexas.edu/OnlineServices/search.html>;
License agreements; outline of license process.
<http://staff.lib.utexas.edu/divisions/dlsd/dls/process/index.html>
Resources Under Consideration and on Trial (staff only); Prospective Hollis Resources
Networked Resources Page (has links to trials page and information on NERL and
NELINET deals) <http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/networked/>
Yale
Cornell
Harvard
Michigan
MIT
Texas
Yale
CDL
Harvard
Penn State
CDL
CIC
Texas
Harvard
MIT
E-Purchase Procedures (contd.)
E-Purchase Forms
Vendor Information Pages
Status Pages
Staff Only Trial Pages
Appendix A
§
§
§
§
Trial Database option listed on gateway database list
<http://www.library.emory.edu/IG/demodb.html>
Experimental Projects: Trials and Demos (public)
<http://www.indiana.edu/~libcodev/trials.html>
Includes test databases in public e-resource lists.
Liblicense Web site <http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/>;
LIBLICENSE Guide to Digital Information (software)
<http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/software.shtml>;
CLIR/DLF Draft Model License <http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/modlic.shtml>
Licensing Issues page
<http://www.arl.org/scomm/licensing/index.html>;
Principles for Licensing Electronic Resources
<http://www.arl.org/scomm/licensing/principles.html>
Statement of Current Perspective and Preferred Practices for the Selection and
Purchase of Electronic Information
<http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/statement.html>
CDL Model License <http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/toolkit/CDLModelLicense1-
12-00.rtf>;
Checklist of Points to be Addressed in a CDL License Agreement
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/docs/checklist.pdf>
Standardized Agreement Language (Revised May 17, 2000)
<http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/cli/contracts/standardized_agreement_language.htm>
Guidelines for Licensing Electronic Resources at Harvard University (staff only –
password controlled); Licensing Electronic Resources at Harvard University: Guidelines
for Vendors <http://hul.harvard.edu/ldi/resources/vendor.guidelines.pdf>
Information Resources Council Task Force on Electronic Information Acquisition and
Licensing: Draft Principles, Guidelines and Checklists (example of a policy still in
process of discussion) <http://staffweb.lib.washington.edu/irc/comm-
taskforces/tf_licensing_checklists.html>
E-journal and database browse pages have this header statement: “Use of many of
these resources is governed by license agreements which restrict use to the MIT
community and to individuals who use the MIT Libraries’ facilities. It is the responsibility
of each user to ensure that he or she uses these products only for individual,
noncommercial use without systematically downloading, distributing, or retaining
substantial portions of information.” <http://libraries.mit.edu/vera>
Emory
Indiana
Many (e.g.,Texas,
Yale)
CLIR
ARL
ICOLC
CDL
CIC
Harvard
Washington
MIT
General Disclaimers
Public Trial Pages
Model Licenses and Guidelines
License Term Communication
q
Appendix A
§
2.5 Licensing Issues and Practices
§
§
Web of Science page <http://www.lib.washington.edu/databases/isi/wos.html>;
Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe page
<http://www.lib.washington.edu/databases/LexisNexis/>
E-Journal ILL List
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/liaisons/E-Journal_ILL.html>
Has “Ill: resources that allow interlibrary loan” with specifics
<http://libraries.mit.edu/verareports>
ILL Provisions in VIVA’s contracts for Full Text Resources
<http://www.gmu.edu/library/fen/viva/illcontr.html>
Electronic Database and Journal Licensing Information by Vendor (shows copy,
download ILL, coursepack, etc., permissions)
<http://www.library.yale.edu/journals/licensing.html>
CDL Redacted License Agreements <http://libnet.ucsd.edu/cdl/licenses.html>
Public lists of databases and e-journals (see http://river.mit.edu:591/mitlibweb) contain
an “L” icon when license terms are available. Also provides “License Agreements (links
to licenses we have scanned)” for staff.
Communities of Interest as organizing principle/idea; prioritized lists of e-resources by
community (see DLF Forum Presentation: “Let’s Get Together; Or, How to Integrate
Library Resources so Our Users Can Find Them”)
<http://www.clir.org/diglib/forums/fall00/ockerbloom.htm>
MyLibrary@CDL Release Notes <http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/july2000/mylibrary/>
MyLibrary@Cornell <http://mylibrary.cornell.edu>
About MyLibrary <http://my.lib.ncsu.edu/?cmd=about&id=39>;
MyLibrary@NCState. <http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/development/mylibrary/>;
MyLibrary: A Model for Implementing a User-centered, Customizable Interface to a
Library’s Collection of Information Resources
<http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/development/mylibrary/sigir-99/>
Why use My gateway? (includes link to temporary guest account option)
<http://www.lib.washington.edu/resource/help/MyGateway.html>;
MyUW <http://myuw.washington.edu/>;
About MyUW. <http://myuw.washington.edu/about.html>
jake (Jointly Administered Knowledge Environment) customizable for various local
environments <http://jake.med.yale.edu/docs/about.html>;
jake2marc (utility for generating marc records from the jake database)
<http://www.lib.sfu.ca/kiosk/mjordan/jake/>
Incorporation of vendor MARC records (e.g., Bell & Howell’s program) or alternate
record sets (e.g., the Bryn Mawr/Haverford set for Academic Universe)
LinkOut function
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query/static/linkoutoverview.html#Libraries>
NISO/DLF/CrossRef Workshop on Localization in Reference Linking Meeting Report
<http://www.niso.org/CNRI-mtg.html>
Washington
CD
MIT
VIVA
Yale
CDL
MIT
Penn
CDL
Cornell
N.C. State
Washington
Yale
Various
PubMed
DLF
Intermediate Pages
Key/Excerpted Terms to
Staff/Users
Link to License Text or Images
Aggregator contents represented
in online catalog or Web gateway
lists
q
q
q
General
Personalization (“My Gateway”)
Aggregator Content Listings
E-Journal Links to A & I Services
Appendix A
2.6 Web Presentation Strategies
§
§
§
§
http://www.cdlib.org/guides/>
<
The Case for Creating a Scholars Portal to the Web: A White Paper (Jerry Campbell)
<http://arl.cni.org/newsltr/211/portal.html>
The Open Archives Initiative and Digital Libraries
<http://www.diglib.org/architectures/mdharvest.htm>;
A New Approach to Finding Research Materials on the Web
<http://www.diglib.org/architectures/vision.htm>;
DLF evaluation of the Open Archives Initiative
<http://www.diglib.org/architectures/testbedpv.htm>
Support for End-users of Libraries’ Networked Resources
CDL User Guides
UT Library Online User Guides <http://www.lib.utexas.edu/guides/index.html>;
Off-Campus Access to Library Databases and Electronic Resources
<http://proxy.lib.utexas.edu/help.html>;
Problems and Alerts <http://www.lib.utexas.edu/help/alerts.html>
Known Issues and Bugs <http://www.lib.washington.edu/help/knownissues/>;
Connecting to the Libraries <http://www.lib.washington.edu/help/connect.html>;
Proxy Server Wizard (includes link to browser compatibility test page)
<http://www.lib.washington.edu/asp/browser/proxy.asp>
Problem triage chart under discussion
Library Gateway User Support Procedures Outline
<http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/hlm7/GWSupportOutline.htm>;
Library Gateway Standard Responses
<http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/hlm7/GWStandardResponses.htm>
Vendor Contact Information for Tech Support (provides internal “escalation path” plus
vendor contact details.) <http://creek.mit.edu:591/mitlibweb/FMPro?-db=Resource.fp3&-
lay=web&-format=vendorlist.htm&-view>
Contact page for librarians and staff.
Guidelines for Statistical Measures of Usage of Web-based Indexed, Abstracted, and
Full Text Resources (Nov. 1998) <http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/webstats.html>
Measures for Electronic Resources (E-Metrics)
<http://www.arl.org/stats/newmeas/emetrics/>
ARL E-metrics Project: Developing Statistics and Performance Measures to Describe
Electronic Information Services and Resources for ARL Libraries (Jeff Shim, Chuck
McClure, John Bertot, et al., Nov. 2000)
<http://www.arl.org/stats/newmeas/emetrics/phaseone.pdf>
White Paper on Electronic Journal Usage Statistics (Judy Luther, Oct. 2000)
<http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub94/contents.html>
CDL Statistics (much is password protected) <http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/stats>
ARL
DLF
MIT
CDL
Texas
Washington
CDL
Cornell
MIT
Penn State
ICOLC
ARL
CLIR
CDL
Metadata Harvesting and Open
Archives Initiative
General
Escalation/Triage Paths
Appendix A
§
2.7 User Support
§
§
2.8 Ongoing Evaluation and Usage Information
HOLLIS and HOLLIS Plus Statistics
<http://hul.harvard.edu/ois/services/reporting/rptstats.html>
CDL Contract Renewal Dates
<http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/liaisons/Renewal_dates.html>
Re-evaluation of Digital Resources <http://hul.harvard.edu/cmtes/ulc/coers/Re-
evaluation1.htm>
Minimum Criteria for an Archival Repository of Digital Scholarly Journals
<http://www.clir.org/diglib/preserve/criteriapv.htm>;
A Framework for Sharing Digital Preservation Practice
<http://www.clir.org/diglib/preserve/pracsharepv.htm>;
Open Archives Initiative <http://www.openarchives.org/>
CEDARS Project (CURL Exemplars in Digital Archives)
<http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cedars/>
Project PRISM (Preservation, Reliability, Interoperability, Security, and Metadata)
<http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/prism.html>
CAMiLEON (Creative Archiving at Michigan and Leeds: Emulating the Old on the New)
Project. <http://www.si.umich.edu/CAMELION/about.htm>
Preservation Metadata for Digital Collections. Exposure Draft, 2000
<http://www.nla.gov.au/preserve/pmeta.html>
Metadata for Long Term Preservation, 2000
<http://www.kb.nl/coop/nedlib/results/preservationmetadata.pdf>;
An Experiment in Using Emulation to Preserve Digital Publications (Jeff Rothenberg,
April 2000) <http://www.kb.nl/coop/nedlib/results/emulationpreservationreport.pdf>
LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) <http://lockss.stanford.edu/>
Appendix B; includes output/functions and data elements
Web Hub for Developing Administrative Metadata for Electronic Resource Management.
<http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/home.html>
Brief descriptions and staff procedures for VERA are available at
<http://macfadden.mit.edu:9500/webgroup/vera/index.html.>; for a full discussion, see
Hennig, Nicole. 2001. Improving Access to E-journals and Databases at the MIT
Libraries: Building a Database-backed Web Site Called “VERA.” Available at
<http://www.hennigweb.com/publications/vera.html>.
ERLIC software is available on a shareware basis at
<http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/fiscal_data/ERLIC_SHARE/Publish/index.html>;
A tour is also available at
<http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/fiscal_data/ERLIC_SHARE/Publish/page2.html>
Harvard
CDL
Harvard
CLIR and DLF
Consortium of
University and
Research Libraries
(CURL)
Cornell
Michigan and
Leeds
National Library of
Australia
Networked
European Deposit
Library (NEDLIB)
Stanford
System
Comparison Chart
Cornell
MIT
Penn State
2.8 Ongoing Evaluation and
Usage Information (contd.)
Planned/Cyclic Reviews Prior to
Renewal
Appendix A
§
2.9 Preservation and Archiving
2.10 Toward Integrated Systems for Managing Electronic Resources
Rowe, Ronda. 2000. An interim solution for managing electronic resources at UT
Austin. Presentation at Digital Library Federation Fall Forum, November 20.
<http://www.diglib.org/forums/fall00/ramirez_files/frame.htm>
Texas
2.10 Toward Integrated Systems
for Managing Electronic Resources
(contd.)
Appendix A
Appendix B
51
e
opriate.
e appr
wher
chasing or financial functions and
se for pur
ed,” “Recommended,” or “Optional” for a futur
, several of the systems interact with and support
ofiled systems is complex; this highly schematic summary may tend to oversimplify or
e a function or data element was identified. However
e based on a planning document that identified functions and data elements as “Requir
ed as indicated (Cornell 1999). Each of the pr
.
e enter
. For example, those libraries using their Innovative Interfaces acquisitions systems to manage online subscriptions show “III”
esent them in some way
epr
Appendix B: Functions and Data Elements for Managing Electronic Resources
For each of the systems analyzed, an “X” appears in the cell wher
online acquisitions or cataloging systems, or systems for gateway page generation. Because of that, other codes, especially tho
data elements, appear
Because the entries for Cornell ar
system, those values wer
misr
III
DR
DR
DR
DR
L
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
DR
DR
License
LMS,L
L,LMS
Tim Jewell
Tracking
Multimedia
LMS,L,DR
Washington
Dig. Reg.(DR)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
UCLA
database
process
Sharon Farb
Acquisitions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Stanford
Paul Zarins
Artesia/TEAM
S and Oracle
na
Systems in Planning or Development
Adam
Cornell
Chandler
Metadata
Initiative
Optional
Required
Required
Required
Consider
Consider
Consider
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yale
Parker
Kimberly
NOTIS
Part of
Masterfile
In process
In process
In process
In process
In process
journal List
In process
In process
In process
In process
In process
E-Resources
ASP, NT SQL
“Production” E-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paul
SIRSI
Virginia
Rittelmeyer
Electronic
Resource
License
Information
MS Access
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Texas
LDAP
some
Licemse
Tracker
Ronda Rowe
III
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Simon
Fraser
EJDB
"source"
Mark Jordan
Perl, MySQL
MARC 110,710
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Betty
ERLIC
LIAS
Penn State
Nirnberger
MS Access
Systems in Production
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Titles
New Web
Notre Dame
Carole Richter
Filemaker Pro
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MIT
Ellen
VERA
X (if FT)
Duranceau
Filemaker
III
Mirlyn
Mirlyn
Mirlyn
Mirlyn
Mirlyn
Mirlyn
Mirlyn
Mirlyn
Mirlyn
LMS
Mirlyn
LMS,L
Michigan
Judy Wilhelm
Mirlyn,LMS
License DB =
Filemaker Pro
Mirlyn,LMS,L
Mirlyn, LMS,L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paper
Reno
Forms
System
Nevada-
Patricia
Loghry
Electronic
Products Work
paper system
Appendix B
Key to codes:
DR = Digital Registry (UW)
L = License database or file
LMS = Library Management System
P = Displayed to Public
Institution
Contact
Name of Project
Online Acquisitions System/LMS
Platform
URLs, etc.
1. A. Listing and Descriptive Functions
“Production” Database List(s)
Alpha
Subject
Other
“Production” E-journal Lists
Alpha
Subject
Package/Publisher
Full-text Title Lists, Including Aggregator Contents
1. B. Descriptive/Bibliographic Data Elements
Title
See Reference
Description (for users, staff)
Appending to
Database Type or Genre
Monograph/Serial
Full-text, Bibliographic, Numeric, etc.
ARL Supp. Survey Stat. Type
Order Number(s)
Catalog Record Number/Link
Publisher
Vendor
Hide
Includes Full-text
Coverage/Edition(s)
Completeness of Holdings
Update Frequency
Add to Subject Web Page
Add to Category Web Page
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L,LMS
Washington
X
X
X
X
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X
X
X
X,P
X
X
UCLA
X
X
X
X,P
Stanford
Systems in Planning or Development
Cornell
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
X
Yale
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
In process
linked to
In process
X
X
X,P
X,P
X,P
link
link
link
link
link
X
X
link
X
X
Virginia
linked to each
X
X
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
X
X
X
Texas
X
X
X
X
X
Simon
Fraser
central mgmt
X
X
X
X,P
Penn State
Systems in Production
X
X
X
Notre Dame
X
X
X
X
X
MIT
X,P
X,P
X,P
X,P
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L,LMS
Michigan
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paper
Reno
other
System
Nevada-
Appendix B
Key to codes:
DR = Digital Registry (UW)
L = License database or file
LMS = Library Management System
P = Displayed to Public
Location of Paper License
Active/Inactive
Institution
2. License-Related Data Elements and Display/Reporting Functions
Licensed?
Date Signed
Duration
License Terms (integrated into lists)
General Statement/Disclaimer
Key License Terms/Highlights
Usable for Interlibrary Loan?
E-reserves
Course-packs
Downloading
Copy
Print
Limited Sharing/Scholarly Purposes
Walk-ins
Commercial Use
User Guidelines for Each Resource
Confidential?
Special Terms
Archival/Ongoing Access Rights (if any)
Link to PDF, Word Document, etc.?
L
L
L
L
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS,L
LMS,L
LMS,L
LMS,L
LMS,L
LMS
Washington
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
UCLA
?
?
X?
X?
X
X
Type?
Stanford
Systems in Planning or Development
Cornell
Required
Required
Optional
Required
Required
Required
Required
Optional
Optional
Optional
Required
Consider
Consider
Consider
X
Yale
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
In process
X
?
Virginia
Texas
Simon
Fraser
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Penn State
Systems in Production
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notre Dame
X
X
MIT
X,P
L
L
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS,L
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
exempt
Michigan
paper copies
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paper
Reno
System
Nevada-
Appendix B
Key to codes:
DR = Digital Registry (UW)
L = License database or file
LMS = Library Management System
P = Displayed to Public
Institution
3. A. Financial Display and Reporting Functions
Expenditures by Title
Expenditures by Fund
Expenditures by Location
ARL Statistical Summary
3. B. Financial/Purchasing Data Elements
Selector(s)
Negotiator
Requester
Pricing Information
Discounts (consortial, time-based)
Cost Components (content, print, electronic)
Print Subscription Requirement
Funding (budgets involved, etc.)
Fund Code(s)
Gift?
Endowment Fund(s)
Payment History
Duration of Purchase/Renew Date
Subscription or One-time
Taxable?
Supporting E-mails
Basis for Decision (trial, flyer, etc.)
Description/Evaluation Information for Staff
L
L
LMS
LMS
LMS,L
LMS
L,LMS
LMS
LMS
LMS
Washington
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
UCLA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Stanford
Systems in Planning or Development
Cornell
Optional
Consider
Consider
Consider
Consider
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yale
In process
In process
In process
X
X
Virginia
X
X
X
X
X
Texas
X
X
Simon
Fraser
X
X
X
X
X
X
Penn State
Systems in Production
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notre Dame
X
MIT
LMS
Mirlyn
Michigan
Mirlyn, O
X
X
X
X
Paper
Reno
System
Nevada-
Appendix B
Key to codes:
DR = Digital Registry (UW)
L = License database or file
LMS = Library Management System
P = Displayed to Public
Dates
Routing Notes (who has it?)
Follow-up Notes
Institution
4. Process/Status Information and Tracking
Action (Trial, Purchase, etc.)
Order Status
Trial Information
Dates
Local Trial Contacts, etc.
Comments from Trial
Trial/Under Consideration Pages
Signature Needed
Generic License Received
Rejected
Signed
Mailed/Faxed
Countersigned
Last Contact
"Follow-up Needed" Reports
Post-signature "To Do" List
Added to Licensing Web Page
Descriptive Pages Done?
Available Yet?
Decision (yes/no/reconsider?)
Reason for Decision
Future Product
Upcoming Renewal Reports
Deselection Responsibility
Preservation Plans/History
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L,DR
L,DR
LMS
LMS,DR
L,LMS
L,LMS
L,DR,LMS
L,LMS,DR
Washington
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
UCLA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
status?
Stanford
Systems in Planning or Development
Cornell
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Optional
Optional
Optional
Req. or Opt.
X
X
X
X
X
Yale
LMS
Link to:
In process
In process
In process
In process
In process
In process
In process
In process
In process
In process
X
X
X
X
X
Virginia
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Texas
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Simon
Fraser
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Penn State
Systems in Production
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notre Dame
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MIT
L
L
L
L
O
O
L
L
O
Mirlyn
Mirlyn
Mirlyn
L,LMS
L,Mirlyn
L,Mirlyn
L,Mirlyn
L.LMS
Michigan
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
URL
Paper
Reno
System
Nevada-
X (y or n)
changes
changes in
Appendix B
Description (where/how available, etc.)
Key to codes:
DR = Digital Registry (UW)
L = License database or file
LMS = Library Management System
P = Displayed to Public
Institution
5. Systems/Technical/Access Information
Platform
Hardware Requirements
Software Requirements
URLs
Staff Access
Public Access
Authentication
IP Ranges Licensed
Username/Password(s)
Proxy
Domain Name(s)
Concurrent Users Allowed
Access Limits
By IP
By Location
By User Status
Remote Access Permitted
Interface
Format
Availability/Problem Status
Broken Resource
System Okay
Problem Reports/History
6. Contact and Support Information
Vendor Technical Support Information
Vendor Sales/Billing Information
Local Coordinator/Contact
Support Information for Users (classes, help contact,
etc.) Documentation Available
7. Usage Information
Data
Reports
