Upload
david-barr
View
216
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Managing the Electronic Collection with qualitative and quantitative data
A case study: the Wiley-Blackwell collection at the University of Milan
Tiziana Morocutti and Federica Zanardini
Part 1. Context and methodology
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
University of Milan (year 2009)
• 65,000 students• 2,500 professors and researchers• 2,000 staff
• 9 faculties• 139 programs of study• 20 doctoral schools and 73 specialization
schools
UniMi Library system (SBA*)
• 250 FTE staff
• 1.5 M books• 25,500 print journals (7,500 current subscriptions)• 120,000 loans/y
• 9,000 purchased e-journals• 170 databases (bibliographic and FT)• 1.6 M downloads FT (e-journals)/y• SFX / Metalib / Ezproxy
* Sistema Bibliotecario di Ateneo
SBA and Digital Library costs
2009 budget:– UniMi 710 M €– SBA 8.1 M €
(permanent staff costs
excluded)
Bibliographic materials:– ER: 1 M € (2005) 3.2 M € (2009)– Print (print&online included):
5.1 M € (2005) 3.7 M € (2009)
ER acquisitions:– Directly from publishers 40%– CILEA DL (consortium) 30%– CARE (national contracts) 30%
SBA budget
1,03,2
5,1
3,7
1,61,2
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
2005 2009
ER Print other
Managing the economic crisis
Analysis of the relationships among…
content usefulnes
s
prices
(gears or mines?)
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
The first case study: the Wiley-Blackwell collection
2005-2009 contract
print subscriptions + online
access to the Full collection
(1,188 titles in 2009)
2010-2012 renewal
- E-only deal
- consortium purchase
(mirroring and backfiles
ownership)
Data:• Usage statistics (2008 JR1)• Economic data (2009 price list, contract terms)• Bibliographic data (2009 titles, subject coverage)• Demographic data about users (2009)• Results of a qualitative survey among users (2009)
A web-based survey to assess the perceived value
• Population: entire faculty (2,440 units)• Respondents: 25% in 40 days
Limits:• Subjective evaluation• Ambiguity (importance referred to user’s actual activity or
to relevance in the research field?) a generic perceived value that could be used together with usage data to measure usefulness
• No information about impact
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
Users were asked to select Wiley titles they consider important, specifying if essential or simply useful
Part 2. The Wiley-Blackwell collection: data analysis
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
Subject coverage
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
Title price ranges
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
Usage distribution
• 2008 downloads = 157,606
• 30% of titles => 85% of usage
(subscribed and unsubscribed)
• 4% of titles never used
• Below the threshold value “100”: 23.000 downloads in a long tail-like distribution (unlike Anderson’s model)
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
jou
rnals
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
Perceived value distribution (qualitative survey)
• “Which Wiley-Blackwell journals are important for you?”• 94% of titles were selected by users• 35% of titles were selected at least by 10 users
Relationship between usage and perceived value
• Usage and perceived value are related?
• Data are displayed on a scatter plot as a collection of points corresponding to titles
• => higher density in the area where there are low-usage low-valued journals
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
Relationship between usage and perceived value
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
selections
dow
nlo
ad
s
Correlation between usage and perceived value
• Is there a linear correlation between the two variables?
• Pearson’s index of linear correlation (0< R < 1)– R = 0.55 titles with #downloads > 100– R = 0.35 titles with #downloads <= 100
• A higher linear correlation between usage (actual
usefulness) and perceived value (perceived usefulness) in case of high-usage journals could be interpreted in terms of “conscious” usage of the resources?
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
Ratio between downloads and selections
• Are there anomalies in the relationship between usage and perceived value?
• Extreme values in the ratio M=(downloads)/(selections) give interesting information:
• M=∞ => titles used but not selected = underestimation?
Niche journals the users of which did not answer the survey? • M=0 => titles not used but selected = overestimation?
• Anomaly index
Journal ranking 1/2
• Usefulness is defined through an algorithm combining data about usage and perceived value:
U = (e + 0.2u) * downloadsU = usefulnesse = number of selections as essentialu = number of selections as useful
• Titles were given a score and ranked• By adding prices (p+e) the ranking list can be used
to calculate savings in relation to cancellations
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
Journal ranking 2/2
Remarkable savings can only be obtained by giving-up a significant number of titles
The first 300 titles cost as much as the entire Big Deal
Part 3. Conclusions
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
Results and findings
• Performance indicators• Journal ranking
• Hypothesis: hit content usage nonhit content usage
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO
The long tail-like usage of nonhit content
Are information needsatomizedor elastic(depending on perceptions of availability)?
After the building blocks… tasks for the future:
• Enhancing the assessment method measurement of content usefulness evaluation of content impact on research activity development of proper statistical methods to analize
together qualitative and quantitative data
• Supplying practical instruments for supporting collection-development decisions starting a benchmark activity of Big Deal packages
SISTEMA BIBLIOTECARIO DI ATENEO