The 2012 UNC System-Wide E-Journal Survey

Patrick Carr, Robert Wolf,and Virginia Bacon

A discussion of processes, data, and outcomes

• Introduction• UNC system-wide e-journal survey:

BackgroundData collectionFindings and recommendations of the UNC reportData analysis

• UNC e-journal working group• Conclusion

Outline

COUNTER • Sets a standard for e-resource use data

collection and reporting• Clear definitions of use measurements• Allows cross-platform comparisons• Imperfect but powerful

The importance of using this data to measure and evaluate use is growing.

Cost-per-use • An e-resource’s annual subscription cost

divided by the use of the resource over the term of the subscription period

• A powerful tool for assessing return on investment

• Must be contextualized with qualitative data

What might we discover if we compare e-resource

use data across institutions?

UNC system-wide survey

Appalachian State UniversityEast Carolina UniversityElizabeth City State UniversityFayetteville State UniversityNC Agricultural and Technical State UniversityNorth Carolina Central UniversityNC State University

UNC AshevilleUNC Chapel HillUNC CharlotteUNC GreensboroUNC PembrokeUNC WilmingtonWestern Carolina UniversityWinston-Salem State University

UNC system schools

Table 1

Publishers

Cambridge University PressElsevierInforma HealthcareKargerLippincott, Williams, & WilkinsMary Ann LiebertNature Publishing GroupOxford University PressSAGESpringerTaylor & FrancisWiley-BlackwellWorld Scientific

Table 2

Table 3

If the libraries are performing well, increases in expenditures should result

in increases in access.

Metrics for access • Increases to the numbers of titles and

uses• Growth in cost-per-title (CPT) and cost-

per-use (CPU) that is lower than growth in expenditure (as well as decreases in CPT and CPU)

• Increases in the number of highly used titles (HUTs)

Overall findingsFrom 2009-2011, there was a:• 17% increase in e-journal expenditures• 10% increase in titles• 6% increase in CPT• 18% increase in use• 1% decrease in CPU• 25-33% increase in HUTs

UNC System expenditures (+5%)

E-Journal price increases (+9%)

How do we maintain our lead?

1: Develop an online repository in which UNC libraries can share expenditure and access data

2: Procure purchases of common library products using SciQuest

3: Develop a standard template and checklist for e-journal licensing

4: Evaluate and pursue strategies to promote the publication of the results of UNC research in Open Access venues

5: Develop a system-wide plan to contain expenditures and expand access

System-wide plan • Give special attention to four “high-risk”

publishers: Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and Oxford University Press

• Reduce annual growth in expenditures to the point that it parallels growth in use

• Lower annual growth in CPU and CPT to the point that it is less than annual growth in expenditures

• Reduce annual changes in CPU or CPT

Imperfections • Emphasis on number of accessible titles

and CPT

Cost-per-title$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

NC StateFSU

Cambridge University Press CPT

Cost-per-use$0$2$4$6$8

$10$12$14$16$18$20

NC StateFSU

Cambridge University Press CPU

Imperfections • Emphasis on number of accessible titles

and CPT• Emphasis on number of accessible titles

and CPT• Inconsistent data collection methods

among system schools

Goodenough.

5: Develop a system-wide plan to contain expenditures and expand access

Are these

publishers really “high-risk”?

Context is

everything.

LWW CPU

System Average: $1.61

UNC CH: $0.85ECU: $1.56

NC Central: $117NC A&T: $287WSSU: $399

Oxford University Press

CPU 2011: $1.88

CPU 2009: $1.70

CPU % increase: 10%

CPU $ increase: $0.18

• System CPU: $13.31• CPU lower for big deal

subscriptions, higher for individual subscriptions

• Individual subscriptions may offer more flexibility than big deals

Taylor & Francis

Lower CPU does not always equal

a better deal.

The larger the

school, the lower the CPU.

Enrollment by school

Average CPU by school

ECSU FS

UW

SSU

UNCPNCCU

WCU

NCAT

UNCW ASUUNCG

UNCC EC

U

UNCCHNCSU

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

ECSU FS

UW

SSU

UNCPNCCU

WCU

NCAT

UNCW ASUUNCG

UNCC EC

U

UNCCHNCSU

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

Are publishers’ pricing models fair?

Enrollment by school

Downloads per enrolled

student

ECSU FS

UW

SSU

UNCPNCCU

WCU

NCAT

UNCW ASUUNCG

UNCC EC

U

UNCCHNCSU

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

ECSU FS

UW

SSU

UNCPNCCU

WCU

NCAT

UNCW ASUUNCG

UNCC EC

U

UNCCHNCSU

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

SchoolCarnegie Classification

2011-2012 Full-text downloads

Student Enrollment Fall

2011 DPES

North Carolina Central University Master's 18,776 7,587 2.47UNC Pembroke Master's 18,233 5,477 3.33Elizabeth City State University Baccalaureate 12,686 2,772 4.58Fayetteville State University Master's 31,133 5,199 5.99

Winston-Salem State University Master's 35,414 5,765 6.14UNC Wilmington Master's 105,980 12,321 8.60Western Carolina University Master's 72,650 8,343 8.71Appalachian State University Master's 145,872 16,654 8.76UNC Charlotte Research 223,258 22,630 9.87NC A&T State University Research 110,023 10,063 10.93UNC Greensboro Research 214,738 16,855 12.74East Carolina University Research 484,984 24,588 19.72NC State University Research 1,248,504 30,950 40.34UNC - Chapel Hill Research 2,350,522 26,837 87.59

Schools by Carnegie Classification

Enrollment by school

Downloads per enrolled student

Average CPU by school

ECSU FS

UW

SSU

UNCPNCCU

WCU

NCAT

UNCW ASUUNCG

UNCC EC

U

UNCCHNCSU

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

ECSU FS

UW

SSU

UNCPNCCU

WCU

NCAT

UNCW ASUUNCG

UNCC EC

U

UNCCHNCSU

$0$2$4$6$8

$10$12$14$16$18

ECSU FS

UW

SSU

UNCPNCCU

WCU

NCAT

UNCW ASUUNCG

UNCC EC

U

UNCCHNCSU

0102030405060708090

100

UNC Libraries’ response

• Establish a working group to act on recommendations

• 5 year expenditure plan• 4% reduction by year 3• 8% reduction by year 5

A tip of the hat.

Our Final Recommendations

1: Carry out cross-institutional CPU analyses of e-journal collections to contextualize and maximize ROI

2: Develop consistent calculation guidelines and centralized data collection

3: Avoid and/or sidestep confidentiality clauses in licenses

4: Strive to improve ROI by working to enhance the discoverability of e-journal collections

5: Use cross-institutional analyses to make institution-level assessments rather than system-level assessments

6: Lobby publishers to develop pricing models that factor in research intensiveness as well as enrollment

Questions?Patrick Carr Robert Wolf Virginia Baconcarrp@ecu.edu robert.wolf@uncp.edu baconv@ecu.edu