Senate approves document delivery of periodicals

-R. Burington

Author: Thomas Bremer

Returning to the University Senate meeting Feb. 12, following a January appearance, the Senate Library committee sought approval of 10 recommendations developed over the past several months in an effort to preserve the integrity of the Library.

Seeking approval for the 18-page report, with 11 major recommendations, was Mark McCourt, associate professor of psychology and chair of the committee. The number one priority calls for immediate movement in the direction of creating a massive electronic and hard-copy document delivery system to replace all but core academic journals.

"It's becoming obvious that short-term solutions need to be applied by Oct. 1, 1996, because vendors work on an economy of scale, and that's the deadline to determine which journals to keep and which to let go." A time-line presented by McCourt, indicated faculty will have to help identify core journals during March, April and May, and decisions will be finalized during June, July and August. The new subscriptions will go into effect Jan. 1.

Faculty will be surveyed to determine core journals, and records of use of various journals from past years will be used to determine which journal subscriptions will be canceled, said McCourt. There might be some additions, although reductions are expected to predominate.

In this fiscal year, the library is faced with a $234,000 shortfall in its operating budget of $1,330,408, largely a consequence of a 17.2 percent increase in serials prices.

"By substituting access for ownership some really substantial savings can occur," said McCourt. "Whether we will see anything like $200,000 in savings is hard to project, but that's our objective. We know that real savings will occur at least for a few years." He emphasized that many of the remainder of the Library committee recommendations deal with long-range objectives designed to preserve the integrity of the Library.

Concerns about use of some portion of the $50 a semester technology fee in the library, implementation of user fees, and the complexity of the total package of proposals in the 18-page report gained rapid support among senators for a step-by-step approach to approving recommendations.

After some deliberation, the Senate approved the number one priority recommendation in the Specific Recommendations (1a) to "Aggressively Implement Document Delivery."

Specifically, that recommendation reads as follows: "NDSU Libraries should immediately explore the use of document delivery (both by electronic and traditional means) as a substitute for serials ownership. In 1992 Louisiana State University, after years of 10-12 percent annual serial cancellations, initiated a bold experiment. They canceled $485,000 worth of serials (representing about 25 percent of their total serials budget at the time) and implemented mediated document delivery services using CARL Reveal/Uncover. That year 2,092 items were ordered via CARL from a total of 936 canceled titles at a cost of $25,000: a first-year savings of $460,000. The University of South Dakota has recently implemented a similar program, with significant savings. Following this lead, we recommend that a sizable portion of the NDSU serials budget be earmarked for cancellation, to be replaced by providing faculty and students with electronic document delivery services.

"We further recommend that the savings realized through implementing document delivery should remain with the Libraries, being applied toward improving and maintaining the core collection of owned books and journals, provide additional and/or improved database tools for access to information, and defray the cost of document delivery (copyright costs, vendor contracts, equipment, etc.). The process used to identify journals for cancellation will be similar to that used by LSU, and will involve substantial faculty input."

The next top priority brought to Senate now for later consideration, is as follows:

"(1B) Program Prioritization at NDSU. Even if substantial cost savings (which are not a certainty) are initially realized by shifting to document delivery from serials ownership, the economic realities of commercial publication dictate that these savings will diminish over time as delivery costs escalate. Therefore, we recommend that an effort be made to prioritize academic programs at NDSU. We take as axiomatic that the NDSU Libraries collections should reflect the program and research needs of the University. It is not (and should not be) the responsibility or prerogative of the Director of the Libraries to make academic programmatic decisions for the NDSU campus. This is, however, precisely what occurs when the Libraries are forced to make serials cancellations. NDSU faculty and administration need to provide leadership and direction in serials cancellations projects, perhaps by establishing an emergency program review committee to prioritize programs. The outcome must be some priority list to inform serials cancellations (or subscription) decisions.

Other priorities are as follows: (2) Request a Portion of the Technology Fee; (3) Implement User Fees for Some Library Services; (4) Receive Grant Indirect Costs; (5) Increase NDSU Libraries Appropriated Budget; (6) Expand and Develop NDUS System-wide Cooperative Efforts; (7) Support Faculty/Staff Development in the Area of Electronic Publication; (8) Permanent Information Technology Services Membership on Library Committee; (9) Encourage NDSU Libraries to Seek Extramural Support; (10) Develop Policy Guidelines for Acquisition/Expenditure of Internally-Generated Funds.

From It's Happening at State, February 22, 1996