Academic_Libraries_at_a_Pivotal_Moment_-_The_Scholarly_Kitchen


Academic_Libraries_at_a_Pivotal_Moment_-_The_Scholarly_Kitchen



1 Pages 1-10

▲back to top


1.1 Page 1

▲back to top


THE SCHOLARLY
kitchen
Academic Libraries at a Pivotal Moment
By ROGER C. SCHONFELD, CHRISTINE WOLFF-EISENBERG | APR 6, 2020
BIG DEAL | LIBRARIES | OPEN ACCESS | RESEARCH
Today’s post is co-authored by Roger C. Schonfeld and Christine Wolff-Eisenberg
(https:/sr.ithaka.org/people/christine-wolffeisenberg/) of Ithaka S+R.
Higher education institutions are suffering tremendously from the impacts of the
pandemic. And, as one university president noted last week, if any colleges and
universities are unable to reopen for residential instruction in the fall due to the
pandemic’s continuing effects, the results will be “cataclysmic
(https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulleblanc/2020/03/29/for-higher-education-nothing-
matters-more-than-september/).” Even putting aside worst case scenarios, instability
in the economy means that many higher education institutions will likely face
reduced revenue this upcoming academic year. It is hard to see a scenario where
academic libraries will be spared from the dynamics facing their parent institutions.
Instead, many library leaders will face the dilemma of how best to cut back
strategically.
A project team at Ithaka S+R conducted the most recent cycle of its large scale
survey of academic library leaders at four-year colleges and universities in the US
this fall, just weeks before the pandemic began its inexorable global circulation. Led
by one of us (Christine Wolff-Eisenberg) and our colleague Jennifer Frederick, the
team examined three broad topics: Leadership and Management; Roles and Services
of the Library; and Collections and Licensing. Findings were just published and the
complete report of findings is available freely online.
(https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/ithaka-sr-us-library-survey-2019/)

1.2 Page 2

▲back to top


While much has changed since S+R fielded this survey, it also provides some of the
most recent and comprehensive evidence for the directions that academic library
leaders may take as part of strategic cutbacks. In today’s piece, we provide an
overview of what lessons the scholarly communication and academic publishing
sector can draw from the survey. Later this calendar year, we will be conducting a
subsequent survey of academic library leaders to learn more about the approaches
they have taken in the wake of the pandemic and the implications on their
organizations.
Spending
Similar to previous cycles, directors are currently spending the majority (about two-
thirds) of their materials budget on online journals and databases. While they spend
the next highest share of their budget on print books, for the first time we’re seeing
that the percentage of their budget spent on e-books has risen to nearly the same
level as print books. These findings reflect the general trend of increased spending
on all forms of electronic resources and decreased spending on all types of print
resources.

1.3 Page 3

▲back to top


What percentage of your library’s materials budget is spent on the following
items? Percentages must add to 100%. Average percentages across all
participants, by survey cycle.
Online/digital journals and databases
Print books
E-books
Print joumals
All other items
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
m2010 =2013 m2016 m™2019
(https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/04/06/academic-libraries-pivotal-
moment/librarysurveyskpostimage1/)
The largest libraries are also the most digital in their spending. All subgroups by
institution type differ in their proportion of materials budget spent on online
journals and databases, with directors at doctoral universities spending the highest
proportion and directors at baccalaureate colleges spending the lowest proportion
(a difference of about 10 percentage points).
Value
Fewer respondents compared to the previous cycle believe that the value of
electronic resources is rising faster than cost — this could possibly increase the
likelihood of cancellations (more on this below). While about one-quarter of
respondents believed the value of licensed e-resources resources was rising faster
than cost in 2016, this share has fallen to just 14 percent in 2019.

1.4 Page 4

▲back to top


Cancellations
For the first time, we asked library directors how likely they are to cancel one or
more major journal packages in the next licensing cycle. Half of library directors say
that they will likely cancel a major journal package in the next five years. We have
not asked this question previously, so it is impossible to know that the figure has
trended higher, but it certainly is a remarkably strong response.
Across the half of survey respondents that reported being “very” or “extremely”
likely to make such a cancellation, we see that the proportion is quite consistent
across institution type. That is, there are no significant differences between
baccalaureate colleges, master’s institutions, and research universities.
However, cancellation exercises are clearly more complicated at doctoral
institutions, not only because of the institutional scale, but also because far more
stakeholder groups are likely to be involved and affected by the decision. While
across all institution types—from baccalaureate colleges to research universities —
the most important individuals with whom to discuss these decisions were
librarians and faculty, respondents at research universities rated additional
individuals and campus communities — -including senior academic leadership
outside of the library, library staff, leaders at peer institutions or consortial
members, and graduate students — as relatively more important compared to those
at other institution types.
How important, if at all, is discussing the possibility of cancelling one or more
major journal packages with each of the following? Percentages of respondents
that selected “highly important” in 2019 by Carnegie Classification.

1.5 Page 5

▲back to top


Librarians
Faculty
Senior academic leadership outside of the library
Library staff
Leaders at peer institutions or consortial members
Graduate students
Undergraduate students
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
= Baccalaureate Colleges « Masters Colleges & Universities | = Doctoral Universities
(https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/04/06/academic-libraries-pivotal-
moment/librarysurveyskpostimage2/)
Transformative agreements

1.6 Page 6

▲back to top


In recent years, transformative agreements
(https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/04/23/transformative-agreements/) have
received lots of attention among scholarly publishers and here at the Scholarly
Kitchen. But among US academic library leaders, it is a different story. A relatively
small share of libraries plan on pivoting to transformative agreements to bundle
publishing and subscription costs; only about 20 percent strongly agree it is a high
priority to bundle open access publish fees with subscription costs. While there is no
statistically significant difference across Carnegie Classification, a greater share of
doctoral university respondents is interested in these transformative agreements
compared to both master’s and baccalaureate college respondents; slightly more
than 20 percent of doctoral respondents, slightly less than 20 percent of master’s
institution respondents, and about 15 percent of baccalaureate college respondents
strongly agree with the statement provided. While it is unsurprising that those at
more teaching-focused institutions responded as they did, given their relative
volume of research outputs, some readers may find it unexpected that directors at
doctoral institutions are not more inclined towards these models of driving towards
open access.
Looking Ahead
Supported by publishers and vendors, academic libraries have been leaders in the
digital transformation of higher education institutions. Well before the pandemic,
they developed collections that are more digital — from journals to archives to
streaming media — and more accessible remotely, than most of the other academic
offerings of the typical college or university. The successes, but also the limitations,
of libraries’ digital transformation have become apparent in the disruptions that the
pandemic has wrought over the past month across higher education.
One limitation is that many academic libraries have not shifted their staffing,
facilities, and infrastructure with nearly as much alacrity as they have shifted their
spending towards digital formats. To take a small but vivid example, one of the top
unmet spending priorities of many of the respondents to the survey was facilities
expansions and renovations, presumably in many cases to update facilities designed
for collections storage and access to become spaces for research and learning. While
it may be the case that “the primacy of print is past (https://sr.ithaka.org/blog/the-
primacy-of-print-is-past/),” it is the rare case that technical and access services
staffing or infrastructure has recognized this emergent reality.

1.7 Page 7

▲back to top


To some extent, this is because libraries are about far more than this year’s
acquisitions. Whereas many libraries have shifted their acquisitions budgets
substantially towards digital collections (as we discussed above), they also have
substantial print holdings which, even if comparatively ill utilized, remain vital
scholarly and cultural records for which the libraries assume substantial
stewardship responsibility. Recognizing this dilemma, it is little surprise to see some
of the largest research libraries looking for how they might “manage the separate
collections of the Big Ten as if they were a single shared collection” [PDF].
(https://www.btaa.org/docs/default-source/library/the-big-collection.pdf) Just as
collections digitization was seen as a generation-long proposition before Google
brought mass digitization to academia, so libraries have seen the reorganization of
print stewardship responsibilities as a gradual process prior to the pandemic.
But in light of the present disruptions — not only to residential education but also to
academic library facilities (https://sr.ithaka.org/blog/first-this-now-that-a-look-at-10-
day-trends-in-academic-library-response-to-covid19/) — we have witnessed the
collapse of print browsing, print circulation, and print interlibrary lending. One
Access Service (https://www.hathitrust.org/ETAS-Description) to enable its members
to make vast swathes of their unavailable print collections accessible digitally. While
we hope these disruptions will soon end, it would be a real step backwards for
readers and libraries alike if there were then no way to continue such a service on
an ongoing basis.
Given the need to stay prepared for potential closures of physical library buildings
in the upcoming academic year, we expect a resulting acceleration in digital
collections and digitization at many libraries. And, given the cutbacks that they will
be managing, it is hard not to anticipate accelerated efforts to bring their staff and
infrastructure in line with increasingly digital service models. An unknown is
whether the large research libraries accelerate the reorganization of their print
stewardship responsibilities to enable greater operational efficiencies. But in North
America, at least, it is even more difficult than ever to imagine “publish
(https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/05/14/guest-post-evaluating-open-access-in-
a-consortial-context/)” universities electing to pay more through transformative
agreements to move the sector to open access.
Now that so many academic libraries today are largely virtual organizations, leaders
are beginning to work through these and other potential longer-term impacts of the
present-day disruption. To elucidate the visions being pursued and the cutbacks
being managed, we at Ithaka S+R plan to conduct and publish findings from a
follow-up survey of academic library leaders later in 2020.

1.8 Page 8

▲back to top


Roger C. Schonfeld
@RSCHON
Roger C. Schonfeld is director of Libraries, Scholarly Communication, and Museums for Ithaka S+R. Roger leads a
team of subject matter and methodological experts and analysts who conduct research and provide advisory
services to drive evidence-based innovation and leadership among libraries, publishers, and museums to foster
research, learning, and preservation. Previously, Roger was a research associate at The Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation.
Christine Wolff-Eisenberg
@CWOLFFEISENBERG
Christine Wolff-Eisenberg, manager of surveys and research at Ithaka S+R, leads a team of researchers in studying
student and faculty needs, academic support services, and organizational leadership in collaboration with
educational and cultural organizations.
Discussion
6 THOUGHTS ON "ACADEMIC LIBRARIES AT A PIVOTAL MOMENT"
Is this when we will see the full digitization of libraries and universities.
While there has been great effort made over the last couple of decades to
move print online, it has too often been replicating the analog world. We still
see business models that are based on one user at a time, book and journal
formats that have not changed much in centuries and platforms that work
like library shelfs with a traditional cart catalogue. In many ways libraries
and information providers have listened too carefully to their buyer and
users and in the words of Henry Ford created a faster horse (and thus not the
car). Why do platforms not adopt to the skill and knowledge level of users
based in their actions? A student who is new in the field nor seek nor have
the same need for in depth results as a researcher who have been in the field
for 20+ years. Still however most platforms provide a completely
undifferentiated experience, though simple analysis of the users’ actions can
provide a guide to on the fly optimize the experience (without need to invade
anyone’s privacy).

1.9 Page 9

▲back to top


It is time to end the last versions of business models that replicate a print
models (or are linked to previous print spend) and fully embrace the many
options for innovations around business models e.g. freemium, funder paid
publications, enterprise access, micropayments, go fund me etc.
There are many great reasons why traditional books and journal formats
persist, no less the tenure and promotion guidelines rewarding traditional
formats and publication venues. A crisis should never be waisted and there
is no better time to fully review these guidelines and enable a much broader
set of options for sharing and disseminating scholarly information. A change
in tenure and promotion guidelines to share research and learning objects,
to value active participation in open science projects and broader societal
sharing of insights in for example the form of podcasts, will in my view
spark creativity. It could be the spur of that inspires and attracts new
generations of students.
By NIELS DAM | APR 6, 2020, 6:15 AM
Where does streaming media fit in the expenditure survey? Is it part of the
online database figure or is it in all other items? I ask because I suspect
streaming media will play an increased role in online education, and I’m
wondering how that might impact library budgets. I understand it was
growing, but by how much, and how many HSS book purchases and journals,
e and print, is it displacing and how much will it displace in the future?
By TONY SANFILIPPO | APR 6, 2020, 10:57 AM
Tony, our group is involved with researching this very topic at this time.
More to come anon.
By JOSEPH ESPOSITO | APR 6, 2020, 11:05 AM
=
Fewer respondents compared to the previous cycle believe that the
value of electronic resources ts rising faster than cost — this could
possibly increase the likelihood of cancellations

1.10 Page 10

▲back to top


This is certainly possible, and it’s worth noting and bearing in mind. Also
worth noting and bearing in mind, though, is the fact that cancellations are
not necessarily driven by cost/benefit analysis at the journal or package
level. In fact, in the current environment — and this has been true since long
before COVID-19 came on the scene — I believe that cancellations are fare
more often driven by simple exigency: let’s say I subscribe to 20 journals or
packages, all of which offer high value relative to price, but I can no longer
afford to pay for all of them. What do I do? Canceling journals and packages
that don’t offer good value for money isn’t an option, because I cancelled all
of those long ago. What I’m now forced to do is cancel journals that offer
high value for money, and my strategy will be to try to identify those that will
cause the least damage to my university’s ability to do its work.
Cost always trumps value. Cost always trumps value. Cost always trumps
value.
By RICK ANDERSON | APR 6, 2020, 11:54 AM
Rick, can you say a little bit more about how you calculate “those that
€. will cause the least damage to my university’s ability to do its work”
in a way that is not ultimately a value metric? I’m wondering if we’re
just saying the same thing using different language here!
By ROGER C. SCHONFELD | APR 6, 2020, 12:26 PM
Good question. Both are certainly value metrics, but only one of them
‘4 isa value metric that speaks to the journal’s (or package’s) absolute
value as a good.
Let me try to put it another way: for many years, when there was a
more favorable balance of budget dollars and available purchases,
librarians had the luxury of shopping. We would evaluate the
expected value of a potential subscription, weight it against the cost,
and make a purchase decision based on that evaluation.

2 Pages 11-20

▲back to top


2.1 Page 11

▲back to top


Over the years, as both the number and the cost of available
purchases have grown while our budgets have remained stagnant,
we've gradually canceled subscriptions that are lower in value
relative to cost. We’re now left with only high-value subscriptions.
But the continued rise in prices and our still-stagnant budgets
combine to force us to choose between them. So we’re canceling
subscriptions — not because we’ve found them to offer low value
relative to cost, but because we can’t pay the bills and have nothing
but high-value subscriptions left to cancel.
So you're right that we’re canceling based on an assessment of
relative value to the campus (“Will it hurt more to cancel Journal X or
Journal Y?”), but we’re not canceling based on an assessment that
Journal X offers poor value relative to its cost. In other words, an
increase in cancellations doesn’t necessarily reflect the belief that the
cost of electronic resources is rising faster than their value, though it
may; in the current environment, I think, cancellations more often
reflect the fact that we can’t afford to keep those resources, even
though we believe that their value has remained strong (or may even
be rising, relative to cost).
There’s actually another important factor at work here, and that’s the
desire to change the world. Not all who are canceling subscriptions
(especially big deals) are doing so because they no longer believe that
those subscriptions offer good value for money. Some of them are
canceling because they believe the subscription model itself is
fundamentally wrong, and they want it to be destroyed and replaced
by a different model. Those who think this way tend to see the short-
term pain of canceling high-value subscriptions as a price worth
paying for the promise of a better future.
By RICK ANDERSON | APR 6, 2020, 1:08 PM

2.2 Page 12

▲back to top


Ly
The mission of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is to advance scholarly publishing and communication,
and the professional development of its members through education, collaboration, and networking. SSP
established The Scholarly Kitchen blog in February 2008 to keep SSP members and interested parties aware of
new developments in publishing.
The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog. Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. They are
not necessarily those held by the Society for Scholarly Publishing nor by their respective employers.
ISSN 2690-8085