This article was downloaded by: [Fondren Library, Rice University ]On: 16 November 2014, At: 07:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of InterlibraryLoan, Document Delivery &Electronic ReservePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wild20

Opportunities for InterlibraryLoan and Interlibrary LoanLibrariansNancy Egan a aa John Jay College of Criminal Justice , 899 10thAvenue, New York, NY, 10019, USAPublished online: 04 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Nancy Egan (2007) Opportunities for Interlibrary Loan andInterlibrary Loan Librarians, Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery &Electronic Reserve, 17:4, 43-54, DOI: 10.1300/J474v17n04_06

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J474v17n04_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Opportunities for Interlibrary Loanand Interlibrary Loan Librarians

Nancy Egan

ABSTRACT. New technologies and decreasing demand for interlibraryloan have led to speculation that a librarian may no longer be needed tomanage an effective interlibrary loan operation. This article describeshow interlibrary loan librarians have been applying their skills to moreadministrative tasks that contribute to the overall effectiveness of thelibrary. It also describes new services and enhancements to traditionalinterlibrary loan services, but still requires a librarian’s bibliographicskills. This article will also highlight some of the ways that interlibraryloan librarians have changed or enhanced traditional interlibrary loan.doi:10.1300/J474v17n04_06 [Article copies available for a fee from The HaworthDocument Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by TheHaworthPress, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Interlibrary loan, interlibrary loan librarians, interli-brary loan management, document delivery

A debate has emerged over the role of the professional librarian in theoperation of the interlibrary loan department (Divens, 1995, pp. 83-88;Hawley, 1995, pp. 89-94). According to Divens, new technologies

Nancy Egan is Assistant Professor and Circulation Librarian, John Jay Collegeof Criminal Justice, 899 10th Avenue, New York, NY 10019 (E-mail: negan@jjay.cuny.edu).

Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic ReserveVol. 17(4) 2007

Available online at http://jildd.haworthpress.com© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1300/J474v17n04_06 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

make it possible to run a successful interlibrary loan operation withoutrequiring the bibliographic skills of a librarian (1995, p. 86). While cur-rent technological changes initially supported large increases in vol-ume, many interlibrary loan operations are now experiencing declinesin demand due to the proliferation of full-text electronic sources. In thefuture, open access projects may further influence demand as more andmore material is made available on the Web. Many interlibrary loan li-brarians may soon find themselves on the crux of a dilemma. At thesame time, interlibrary loan has evolved into a more professional ser-vice center, staffed by people with more sophisticated skills. The ser-vice centers may experience declines in demand for their services. Inresponse, some libraries have already redeployed interlibrary loan staff(Robertson, 2003, p. 178; Preece & Kilpatrick, 1997). Still others, how-ever, have redefined the interlibrary loan function and in doing so havemade the interlibrary loan librarian a more vital member of the library.

BACKGROUND

Interlibrary loan operations got their first real boost from technologyin the middle part of the twentieth century when the Xerox model 914proliferated and made copying and consequently document sharingmore viable (Henderson, 2000, p. 160). Managing the resultant increasein demand was made easier by the OCLC interlibrary loan subsystem,which saved staff time because it eliminated the need for manualsearching in indexes, union lists and library catalogs. OCLC eliminatedthe need to send out ALA forms via mail for each individual request(Fong, 1996, p. 13). Studies performed on the system in the 1970sshowed that OCLC’s use lowered transaction turnaround time whileimproving fill rates (Reynolds, 1980). Later, the interlibrary loan MicroEnhancer made it possible to update records in batch mode and allowedfor scanning of interlibrary loan record numbers (Fong, 1996, p. 15).Countless new technologies, including Fax machines, e-mail, OCLCWeb, OCLC WorldCcat Resource Sharing, management software sys-tems and electronic delivery systems such as ARIEL, continued to im-prove staff and turnaround time. Patron’s time was saved as morelibraries accepted requests via e-mail and Web forms, and allowed pa-tron-initiated interlibrary loan through library OPACs, FirstSearch andother databases. Time traditionally spent on tedious manual tasks wasreduced for everybody. Turnaround time from supplier to patron gradu-ally decreased (Paine & Ward, 1996, p. 75).

44 Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

During this time of technological advances, library budgets wereshrinking. As fewer dollars came available for collection building, thedemand for interlibrary loan borrowing escalated (Henderson, 2000,p. 160). Libraries adopted a “just in time” approach to collection devel-opment over the traditional “just in case” concept of having materials onsite. According to the National Interlibrary Loan Code, it became “anintegral element of collection development . . . not an ancillary option”(Paine & Ward, 1996, p. 74). Between 1986 and 1991, both lending andborrowing of materials via the OCLC interlibrary loan system doubled(Nevins & Lang, 1996, pp. 116-122). Although technology was creat-ing vast improvements in interlibrary loan workflow and delivery, theseimprovements were negated by increases in interlibrary loan volumenegating any relief that interlibrary loan staff might have felt (Preece &Kilpatrick, 1997, p. 2). By 1994, Gilmer, citing several studies, sug-gested that the continued increase in interlibrary loan demand had noend in sight (1994, p. 19).

Recently, however, the increase in electronic full-text availability pro-vided evidence of a decline in demand. This has been borne out in morerecent user studies (Bravy & Feather, 2001, pp. 261-268; Egan, 2005,pp. 23-41; Morse & Clintworth, 2000; Vaughan, 2003, pp. 1149-1152).By 2000, Mary E. Jackson envisioned the future for interlibrary loan ser-vice in light of changes in the digital environment:

The type of material would become much more specialized be-cause interlibrary loan will no longer request in-print materials ormaterials held by many other libraries. The volume of borrowingand lending should significantly decrease as the majority of whatis currently requested via mediated interlibrary loan will move intoa remote circulation or distributed interlibrary loan environment.Finally, interlibrary loan may return to a very limited, specializedservice for a few users. Perhaps interlibrary loan services in thedigital information age will more closely reflect interlibrary loanservices in the first half of the 20th century–only that turnaroundtime will be vastly improved. (2000, p. 24)

For some libraries, much of her prediction has come true. Thesechanges should create more opportunities for interlibrary loan librar-ians. By alleviating the need for the micromanagement of operations,their skills may be applied to more administrative tasks like devel-oping more effective arrangements in their libraries, analyzing data tocontribute to the overall effectiveness of the operation, and negotiating

Nancy Egan 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

arrangements outside of their local library. In addition, there are newservices and enhancements that can be made to traditional interlibraryloan services that will still require librarians’ bibliographic techniques.

DEPARTMENT PLACEMENT

Traditionally, interlibrary loan was usually considered a referencefunction. It was standardized and studied in the ALA’s reference divi-sion. Studies performed in 1949 and 1965 on the placement of the in-terlibrary loan department in the library found that it was most oftenconsidered a part of reference. However, because of staffing and bookprocessing issues, many libraries chose to house interlibrary loan withinthe circulation department. In fact, later studies performed in 1988 and1992 found that interlibrary loan was more often placed in circulationor access services departments than in reference departments (Gilmer,1994, pp. 92-93).

In the Interlibrary Loan Practices Handbook, Boucher points outthat determining where Interlibrary Loan’s place should be in the libraryis an interlibrary loan management function: “It is necessary to under-stand the total organizational structure of the library, who influences de-cisions, and how to have a voice in changes that might be made” (1997,p. 126). In the past, the primary consideration in the department’s place-ment was decided by how the other department could facilitate interli-brary loan operations.

While Deiss suggests that changes in interlibrary loan will continueto impact on Interlibrary loan’s relations with other departments (1996,p. 81), many libraries are now positioning the interlibrary loan operationwhere it would best affect other departments’ operations. Followinga process improvement review, the University of Las Vegas (UNLV)library moved the interlibrary loan unit along with the Materials Orderingand Receiving section to the Collection Development and ManagementDivision. Staff felt that combining the divisions in this way, “could im-prove communication and foster more efficient customer-oriented pro-cesses in this strategically important arena and could encourage betterresource allocation among the various information delivery points inthe library” (Nozero & Vaughan, 2000, p. 420). As part of the serviceimprovements prompted by the move, UNLV’s library staff even-tually offered unmediated document delivery for its faculty (Nozero &Vaughan, 2000, p. 420).

46 Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

At the University of Bristol in the UK, interlibrary loan was placedunder the same umbrella as the serials department because it was foundthat staff could identify developments that shape decision making aboutserials. “Staff recognizes the need to work collaboratively; they can iden-tify developments in one area which may help them fulfill their aim ofmatching users with the required information in a timely and effectiveway” (Bradford, 2003, pp. 244-245).

At Eastern Michigan University, the interlibrary loan departmentwas moved from circulation to acquisitions where the same staff thatreceives purchase orders for books can take borrowing requests. As aresult, sometimes the decision is made to purchase a book instead of or-dering via interlibrary loan (Badics, 2004, pp. 52, 54).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Many libraries routinely use data from other library services to per-form administrative functions, and a few are beginning to make use ofthe valuable information that can be mined from interlibrary loan statis-tics. According to Knievel, Wicht, and Connaway, a review of the liter-ature showed that the use of circulation data in collection managementis widespread, the use of interlibrary loan data or some combinationof circulation and interlibrary loan data was much less common (2006,p. 37). These authors used data sets at the University of Colorado atBoulder (UCB), which compared the number of books in each subjectof the entire book collection with the number of circulated books in anygiven subject. They also compared interlibrary loan data with the entirebook collection and developed ratios to determine strengths and weak-nesses in the collection. The number of books owned in a given subjectfield was compared with the number of interlibrary loan requests in thatfield. Information gleaned from the study was useful for detecting over-all strengths and weaknesses in the collection and in making collec-tion development and remote storage decisions (Knievel, Wicht, &Connaway, 2006, pp. 35-49).

One of the most important benefits that automation has provided theinterlibrary loan office is the ability to detect weaknesses in the collec-tion (Gilmer, 1994, p. 108). Nicholson suggests that many librariansdo not concern themselves with transaction-level data and evaluate li-brary services using general aggregates. However, valuable service in-formation is gained by looking at interlibrary loan records. Bearing inmind privacy considerations, he suggests the use of a commercial data

Nancy Egan 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

warehouse that “cleans” data by throwing away personally identifiableinformation or replacing it with a coding system. The result is informa-tion that can be used for decision making but the original transactionscannot be duplicated. The data warehouse can be used for report writing,management-information systems or bibliomining, which makes it pos-sible to identify user patterns and evaluate library service effectiveness(Nicholson, 2003, p. 36).

NEGOTIATING COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

ILL Librarians have also turned their skills to the development of re-lationships with other libraries to facilitate resource sharing. Most li-braries solicit individual lending partners or joining groups such asLibraries Very Interested in Sharing (LVIS). A study sponsored by theAssociation of Research Libraries in 1992 found that libraries with highperforming interlibrary loan operations set up a number of reciprocalagreements to increase the number of lenders who will trade freely withthem (Simpson, 2000, p. 40). The use of reciprocal lenders becamemuch more practical in 1995 with the introduction of OCLC’s customholdings. Developing custom holding groups and paths may take a lit-tle time to set up initially but saves considerable staff time throughoutdaily operations.

Cooperation can extend beyond traditional lending partner situations.In 1994, the Greater Midwest Research Libraries Consortium (GMRLC)was the first to negotiate an interstate courier service. Now there aremany intrastate courier services in operation. The satisfaction withthe new service provided by Federal Express prompted several policychanges among member libraries, including a willingness to lend rareor fragile items and audiovisual materials (Geiser & Miller, 1996,pp. 5-22).

At UNLV, the Library negotiated with libraries in another state to gobeyond basic resource sharing to develop an expedited document deliv-ery service (Nozero & Vaughan, 2000, p. 420).

Portland State University, developed a Library Statistical CollectionAssessment Tool, or LibStatCAT, which used various bibliographicdata, including data mined from ILLiad. The librarians hoped to use thecooperative data to provide analysis for cooperative collection develop-ment opportunities (Clarke & Oberlander, 2003, p. 3).

There has been a virtual explosion of consortia that have beenformed in order to purchase electronic resources. These “buying clubs,”

48 Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

make more favorable pricing structures available, offering strength innumbers because they wield more influence than libraries acting ontheir own. This advantage could and should be used to negotiate licens-ing agreements that are less restrictive for interlibrary loan and encour-age resource sharing (Jackson, 2000, p. 22).

NEW PATRON SERVICES AND ENHANCEMENTSTO TRADITIONAL SERVICES

Interlibrary loan librarians are able to detect service needs or poten-tial service improvements as they have a sense of the entire organi-zation, its local patrons’ information needs as well as the informationneeds of the entire scholarly community. This, together with an under-standing of the interlibrary loan unit’s capabilities, can result in somevital new services outside the purview of traditional interlibrary loan.Creative uses of interlibrary loan can be implemented for both local andremote users.

ILL Librarians have been instrumental in developing new services fortheir patrons. Many interlibrary loan departments already purchase mate-rials in cases where they cannot find lenders. Ward, Tray, and Dubus-Lopez point out, “It is a small step from the occasional purchase of interli-brary loan requests to a more formalized program to develop criteria andworkflow to meet patrons’ immediate and future needs by routinely pur-chasing selected loan requests” (2003, p. 204). On-demand collection de-velopment programs involve the purchase of those books that cannot bequickly obtained via interlibrary loan. As books that are borrowed andloaned through reciprocal arrangements incur indirect costs, purchasing abook that is ordered through interlibrary loan is often cheaper. Typically,a book is purchased if it meets certain criteria. It is express cataloged andprocessed for the borrower. Once returned by that patron, it is then pro-cessed through the normal channels. Subsequent studies performed atPurdue University and University of Wisconsin-Madison, where on-de-mand programs were initiated, showed that books purchased in this man-ner circulated more often after their initial use than other books in thecollection. Several libraries–academic and public libraries alike–haveadopted on-demand collection development programs (Ward, Tray, &Dubus-Lopez, 2003, pp. 203-213).

Many interlibrary loan departments have introduced document deliv-ery services. In 2002, Texas A&M University Libraries began a ser-vice that in its first two years of operation had sent 193,139 documents

Nancy Egan 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

electronically to its patrons. Of that number, 108,693 were documentsthat had been ordered from other libraries and 84,446 were in-housedocument deliveries (Yang, 2005, p. 50). At Western Washington Uni-versity, in addition to sending pdf files of materials in their local collec-tions to faculty desktops, they also have loanable items sent to theirdepartments via a student courier. Librarians there state that the ser-vice was worked into existing workflows. Students now retrieve booksfor their own patrons as well as remote patrons. The only direct cost in-curred from the new program was the five-hour-a-week student wagefor the courier service (Haulgren, 2005, pp. 2, 4).

Another interesting use of interlibrary loan operations was the result ofa study performed at Iowa State University (ISU). It found that interli-brary loan turnaround time was comparable with recall time on bookschecked out to other patrons. Although the library kept its policy of re-calling books rather than requesting them via interlibrary loan, the studydid show that an interlibrary loan request was preferable to a recall for apatron who is second on the recall queue. Consequently, the library atISU explored methods of automatically referring second and subsequentrecalls to interlibrary loan. As the architects of the ISU study noted, “Forwhatever reason, librarians and library literature–quick to recognize in-terlibrary loan as the preferred means of accessing what a library doesn’town–have seldom considered Interlibrary loan’s potential in expand-ing access to material the library does own” (Gregory & Pedersen, 2003,pp. 283-299).

At the University of South Carolina, the interlibrary loan departmentoffers a service named “Faculty Express,” which gives priority to cer-tain materials. When faculty members order an interlibrary loan througha Web form, those items that are needed to meet a deadline for confer-ence presentations, grants, or publications, can be designated as timesensitive. Items are put into a queue where items are handled by the Fac-ulty Express Librarian who oversees the transactions and assists faculty(Hostetler, 2003, p. 2).

ILL librarians have also kept in mind the needs of the scholarly com-munity and remote patrons. Three libraries in Austria, the Universityof Graz, Innsbruck and the Department of Computer Science for theBlind, formed the Austrian Literature Online working group to investi-gate the possibility of digitizing monographs requested through inter-library loan. The intent of the project, BOOKS2U!, was to create adigitized collection of the most outstanding Austrian literature. Theonly criteria for digitizing an item requested through interlibrary loanwas whether it was in the public domain. Patrons were charged the price

50 Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

of shipping. Once the item was available, it was linked to its catalogingrecord. Muhlberger points out that putting time and money into digitiz-ing provides lasting benefit. Unlike the traditional method of handlingand shipping, digitizing allows placing the material into a digital librarywhere it can be used by subsequent scholars (2002, pp. 66-72).

Demonstrating the trend in Electronic Delivery of Theses and Disser-tations, or ETDs, was the establishment of the Networked Digital Li-brary of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) in 1996 (Morris, 2004,p. 5). Some schools make the filing of an electronic copy mandatory.ETDs are then available for interlibrary loan. At the University of Georgia,where paper theses and dissertations had always been popular interli-brary loan requests, it is now mandatory for graduate students to submitan electronic copy. The new policy includes a statement that the Librarymay make the electronic copy available to other institutions (Morris,2004, p. 7). In the first two years of the program’s implementation,the number of ETDs sent out through the interlibrary loan departmentgrew from sixteen to fifty-three. It was “a new phase in interlibraryloan,” and the department is thinking about the possibility of lendingother items electronically (Morris, 2004, p. 9).

TRADITIONAL SERVICES

Most interlibrary loan departments find themselves performing spe-cial projects within the purview of traditional interlibrary loan. In thesecases, an interlibrary loan librarian’s bibliographic skills and profes-sionalism are still needed. Abram described two such cases. In one, aprofessor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at theUniversity of Colorado is collecting and converting the earliest workson evolution to electronic format. He has made thousands of interlibraryloan requests and is constantly challenging the interlibrary loan staff toconvince research libraries to lend thousands of materials from theirrare book collections. Acquiring access to rare manuscripts (in this case,even the original copies of Charles Darwin’s works) would usually re-quire the authority of a professional librarian. Another patron from theCenter for Native Ecosystems required materials from plant and animalbiologists and ecologists–many of who keep secret the rare animal andplant species’ locations to help preserve their fragile ecosystems. Thesematerials must be borrowed and lent through a conduit that will respectprivacy and confidentiality. The interlibrary loan unit serves as that con-duit (2005, pp. 42-43).

Nancy Egan 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

CONCLUSION

Current debate over the role of the interlibrary loan librarian is notunlike the dialogue prompted by changes at the end of the twentieth cen-tury when faced with diminishing use statistics; many suggested thatthe entire field of librarianship would evaporate. “Again and again, wehave heard that some form of computer technology, such as artificial in-telligence or robots, would soon replace human beings” (Kassel, 1999,p. 95). Information professionals responded by developing new skills,honing their old ones and making themselves the most crucial part of theinformation retrieval and delivery process (Kassel, 1999, pp. 93-105).Similarly, modern interlibrary loan librarians have an important role,not only in the important business of resource sharing, but also in theoverall operation of their organizations and in the development of newservices.

REFERENCES

Abram, S. (2005). Next generation interlibrary loan: Not even close to dead. Informa-tion Outlook, 9, 42-43.

Badics, J. (2004, September). Acquisitions and interlibrary loan together: Good mar-riage or will George W. Bush object? Against the Grain, 16, 52, 54.

Boucher, V. (1997). Interlibrary Loan Practices Handbook (2nd ed.). Chicago:American Library Association.

Bradford, J. (2003). Not quite the end of the world as we knew it–reflections on change.Interlending & Document Supply, 31, 237-245.

Bravy, G. J. & Feather, C. (2001). The impact of electronic access on basic library ser-vices: One academic law library’s experience. Law Library Journal, 93, 261-268.

Clarke, J. & Oberlander, C. (2003, Fall). Foray into meaningful data with ILLiad andOCLC management statistics. The OCLC ILLiad Newsletter, 3, 2-3.

Deiss, K. J. (1996). Sweeping sand at the sea: The challenge of staffing as growing ser-vice. In A. Chang & M. E. Jackson (Eds.). Managing Resource Sharing in the Elec-tronic Age (77-85). New York: AMS Press.

Egan, N. (2005). The impact of electronic full-text resources on interlibrary loan:A ten-year study at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Journal of InterlibraryLoan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 15, 23-41.

Fong, Y. S. (1996). From paper forms to electronic transmission: The evolution of in-terlibrary loan electronic technologies. In A. Chang & M. E. Jackson (Eds.). Man-aging Resource Sharing in the Electronic Age (13-24). New York: AMS Press.

Geiser, C. & Miller, R. (1996). GMRLC negotiations for an interstate courier: History,results and trends. In P. L. Weaver-Meyers, W. A. Stolt, & Y. S. Fong (Eds.). Inter-library Loan/Document Delivery and Customer Satisfaction: Strategies for Rede-signing Services (5-22). New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

52 Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Gilmer, L. C. (1994). Interlibrary Loan: Theory and Management. Englewood, CO:Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Gregory, D. J. & Pedersen, W. A. (2003). Book availability revisited: Turnaroundtime for recalls versus interlibrary loans. College and Research Libraries, 64,283-299.

Haulgren, F. (2005, Winter). Access: Faculty document delivery. The OCLC ILLiadNewsletter, 2, 2, 4.

Henderson, A. (2000). The library collection failure quotient: The ratio of interlibraryborrowing to collection size. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26, 159-170.

Hostetler, M. (2003, Spring). Faculty express at the University of South Carolina. TheOCLC ILLiad Newsletter, 1, 2.

Jackson, M. E. (2000). Research collections and digital information. Will there be arole for interlibrary loan and document delivery services? Journal of Library Ad-ministration, 31, 15-25.

Kassel, A. (1999). The future for information professionals: Back to the future. Journalof Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 10, 93-105.

Knievel, J. E., Wicht, H., & Connaway, L. S. (2006). Use of circulation statistics andinterlibrary loan data in collection management. College & Research Libraries, 67,35-49.

Morris, S. (2004). Lending electronic theses and dissertations at the University ofGeorgia Libraries–new connections, new perspectives, changes for everybody. TheGeorgia Library Quarterly: The Official Journal of the Georgia Library Associa-tion, 41, 5-9.

Morse, D. H. & Clintworth, W. A. (2000). Comparing patterns of print and electronicjournal use in an academic health science library. Issues in Science and Technol-ogy Librarianship, 28. Retrieved April 2006 from http://www.istl.org/00-fall/refereed.html.

Muhlberger, G. (2002). Digitising instead of mailing or shipping: A new approach tointerlibrary loan through customer-related digitisation of monographs. Interlending &Document Supply, 30, 66-72.

Nevins, K. & Lang, D. (1996). Interlibrary loan: A cooperative effort among OCLCusers. In A. Chang & M. E. Jackson (Eds.). Managing Resource Sharing in theElectronic Age (116-122). New York: AMS Press.

Nicholson, S. (2003, October). On my mind: Avoiding the great data-wipe of ought-three. American Libraries, 34, 36.

Nozero, V. A. & Vaughan, J. (2000). Utilization of process improvement to managechange in an academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26,416-421.

Paine, N. E. & Ward, J. (1996). Changing workloads and productivity in interlibraryloan. Journal of Library Administration, 23, 73-93.

Preece, B. G. & Kilpatrick, T. L. (1997). Cutting out the middle: Patron-initiated inter-library loans. Paper presented at the 1997 ACRL National Conference in Nashville.Retrieved March 1, 2006 from the American Library Association Web site: http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/nashville1997pap/preecekilpatrick.htm.

Reynolds, D. J. (1980). Regional alternatives for interlibrary loan: Access to unre-ported holdings. College & Research Libraries, 41, 33-42.

Nancy Egan 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Robertson, V. (2003). The impact of electronic journals on academic libraries: Thechanging relationship between journals, acquisitions and inter-library loans depart-ment roles and functions. Interlending & Document Supply, 31, 174-179.

Simpson, S. (2000). Creating an ideal interlibrary loan operation. Current Studies inLibrarianship, 24, 39-53.

Vaughan, K. T. L. (2003). Changing use patterns of print journals in the digital age:Impacts of electronic equivalents on print chemistry journal use. Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 1149-1152.

Ward, S. M., Wray, T., & Debus-Lopez, K. E. (2003). Collection development basedon patron requests: Collaboration between interlibrary loan and acquisitions. Li-brary Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 27, 203-213.

Yang, Z. Y. L. (2005). Providing free document delivery services to a campus of48,000 library users. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & ElectronicReserve, 15, 49-55.

doi:10.1300/J474v17n04_06

54 Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 07:

41 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014