Development of Deal- and Journal-level Metrics and Methods Assists Librarians to Evaluate Big Deals

A Review of: Blecic, D.D., Wiberley, Jr., S.E., Fiscella, J.B., Bahnmaier-Blaszczak, S., & Lowery, R. (2013). Deal or no deal?: Evaluating Big Deals and their journals. College & Research Libraries, 74(2), 178-193. Objective – To assess the value of aggregated journal packages (Big D...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kathleen Reed
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Alberta 2014-06-01
Series:Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/21247
id doaj-1d0d86b6ce4b4943913c31b926752397
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1d0d86b6ce4b4943913c31b9267523972020-11-24T21:48:59ZengUniversity of AlbertaEvidence Based Library and Information Practice1715-720X2014-06-019210.18438/B8W317Development of Deal- and Journal-level Metrics and Methods Assists Librarians to Evaluate Big DealsKathleen Reed0Vancouver Island University Nanaimo, British Columbia, CanadaA Review of: Blecic, D.D., Wiberley, Jr., S.E., Fiscella, J.B., Bahnmaier-Blaszczak, S., & Lowery, R. (2013). Deal or no deal?: Evaluating Big Deals and their journals. College & Research Libraries, 74(2), 178-193. Objective – To assess the value of aggregated journal packages (Big Deals) and to select individual journal titles for continued subscription should a deal be cancelled. Design – Case study. Setting – Doctoral research university library in the United States of America. Subjects – Three anonymous Big Deals. Methods – The authors define metrics at two levels (deal and journal) to evaluate Big Deal packages. The metrics rely heavily on the COUNTER JR1 metric Successful Full-Text Article Request (SFTAR). Main Results – The authors found that while 30% of journals provide 80% of SFTARs, the cost of subscribing to these journals individually would not save significant sums of money. Additionally, they speculate that library users would increase the number of interlibrary loan requests to access the 20% of SFTARs that would be inaccessible if a Big Deal was cut, amounting to increased costs. Conclusion – With no sign of publishers moving to change the price and conditions of Big Deals, these arrangements are becoming unsustainable for libraries. As this occurs, librarians require methods of assessing which deals to keep and which to cut, as well as evidence of to which individual journals they should subscribe. The authors of this paper set out one method of conducting these assessments that they have found to be useful at an academic library. They conclude by stating that even with SFTAR data, individuals must keep in mind the necessity of providing equitable access to all of a university community’s user groups.https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/21247academic librarianshipcollectionsbig dealsassessment
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kathleen Reed
spellingShingle Kathleen Reed
Development of Deal- and Journal-level Metrics and Methods Assists Librarians to Evaluate Big Deals
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
academic librarianship
collections
big deals
assessment
author_facet Kathleen Reed
author_sort Kathleen Reed
title Development of Deal- and Journal-level Metrics and Methods Assists Librarians to Evaluate Big Deals
title_short Development of Deal- and Journal-level Metrics and Methods Assists Librarians to Evaluate Big Deals
title_full Development of Deal- and Journal-level Metrics and Methods Assists Librarians to Evaluate Big Deals
title_fullStr Development of Deal- and Journal-level Metrics and Methods Assists Librarians to Evaluate Big Deals
title_full_unstemmed Development of Deal- and Journal-level Metrics and Methods Assists Librarians to Evaluate Big Deals
title_sort development of deal- and journal-level metrics and methods assists librarians to evaluate big deals
publisher University of Alberta
series Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
issn 1715-720X
publishDate 2014-06-01
description A Review of: Blecic, D.D., Wiberley, Jr., S.E., Fiscella, J.B., Bahnmaier-Blaszczak, S., & Lowery, R. (2013). Deal or no deal?: Evaluating Big Deals and their journals. College & Research Libraries, 74(2), 178-193. Objective – To assess the value of aggregated journal packages (Big Deals) and to select individual journal titles for continued subscription should a deal be cancelled. Design – Case study. Setting – Doctoral research university library in the United States of America. Subjects – Three anonymous Big Deals. Methods – The authors define metrics at two levels (deal and journal) to evaluate Big Deal packages. The metrics rely heavily on the COUNTER JR1 metric Successful Full-Text Article Request (SFTAR). Main Results – The authors found that while 30% of journals provide 80% of SFTARs, the cost of subscribing to these journals individually would not save significant sums of money. Additionally, they speculate that library users would increase the number of interlibrary loan requests to access the 20% of SFTARs that would be inaccessible if a Big Deal was cut, amounting to increased costs. Conclusion – With no sign of publishers moving to change the price and conditions of Big Deals, these arrangements are becoming unsustainable for libraries. As this occurs, librarians require methods of assessing which deals to keep and which to cut, as well as evidence of to which individual journals they should subscribe. The authors of this paper set out one method of conducting these assessments that they have found to be useful at an academic library. They conclude by stating that even with SFTAR data, individuals must keep in mind the necessity of providing equitable access to all of a university community’s user groups.
topic academic librarianship
collections
big deals
assessment
url https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/21247
work_keys_str_mv AT kathleenreed developmentofdealandjournallevelmetricsandmethodsassistslibrarianstoevaluatebigdeals
_version_ 1725890232245551104