Revisiting Access Patterns and COUNTER Statistics in Evaluating &ldquo;Big Deals&rdquo;: Future Directions on the Collection Development of Electronic Resources in DLSU Libraries

Karen Cecille  V. Natividad,; John Louie  Zabala,

Revisiting Access Patterns and COUNTER Statistics in Evaluating “Big Deals”: Future Directions on the Collection Development of Electronic Resources in DLSU Libraries

John Louie Zabala | Karen Cecille V. Natividad

Discipline: library and information science

Abstract:

“Big deals” have become the preferred way for libraries to acquire electronic resources. Over the years, “big deals” have evolved, including access to e-books, databases, and other electronic resources. The term has been used to describe the practice of academic publishers bundling their journals into large subscription packages and requiring libraries to purchase access to the entire package rather than selecting individual titles. Despite the advantages of subscribing to “big deals,” libraries cannot disregard the reality of budget problems in collection development due to various factors, including inflation, budget cuts, and increasing prices of materials. This paper focused on evaluating the ‘“big deals”’ the DLSU Libraries has entered into by analyzing the access patterns and COUNTER statistic reports to measure the calculated cost per access (CCPA), the actual cost per access (ACPA), and the ideal cost per access (ICPA), determining which databases are being used extensively and which are underutilized and can be used as a basis for future subscription decisions. The data suggests that factors such as schedules in academic terms, research demands, seasonal variations, and user preferences can influence access patterns. Further, it was revealed that ScienceDirect Focus Collection, ScienceDirect Focus Collection, IEEE, and Taylor & Francis Social Science and Humanities Library had the lowest monetary equivalents of actual costs, signifying that databases were successfully utilized and the initial calculated costs were amortized. Aside from usage patterns and statistics, it is also recommended to investigate the other factors that may determine the benefits of these “big deals” to the library and its users. Incorporating the results of these assessments can lead to more data-driven decisions to optimize budget proposals and allocations.

References:

Bergstrom, T. (2014). Secrets of journal subscription prices: For-profit publishers charge libraries two to three times more than non-profits. Impact of Social Sciences Blog. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/71542/1/blogs.lse.ac.uk-Secrets%20of%20journal%20subscription%20prices%20For-profit%20publishers%20charge%20libraries%20two%20to%20three%20times%20more.pdf
Bergstrom, T., Uhrig, R., & Antelman, K. (2018). Looking under the COUNTER for overcounted downloads. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/content/ qt0vf2k2p0/qt0vf2k2p0.pdf
Bucknell, T. (2008). Usage statistics for “big deals”: Supporting library decisionmaking. Learned Publishing, 21(3), 193–199.
Crawford, W. (2014). What can be done? Library Technology Reports, 50(4), 45–50.
Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Goerner, B., Darby, R., Hyppoelae, J., Igo-Kemenes, P., Kahn, D., ... & Witt, M. (2011). Highlights from the SOAP project survey. What scientists think about open access publishing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1101.5260.
De Groote, S. L., Aksu Dunya, B., Scoulas, J. M., & Case, M. M. (2020). Research productivity and its relationship to library collections. Evidence-Based Library and Information Practice, 15(4), 16–32.
Dominguez, M. B. (2005). Applying usage statistics to the CERN E-journals collection: A step forward. High Energy Physics Libraries Webzine, (11). Retrieved from https://webzine.web.cern.ch/11/papers/4/
Eve, M. P., Rooryck, J., & De Vries, S. C. (2017, June). The transition to open access: The state of the market, offsetting deals, and a demonstrated model for fair, open access with the Open Library of Humanities. In ELPUB (pp. 118-128).
Frazier, K. (2001). The librarian’s dilemma: Contemplating the cost of the big deal. D-Lib Magazine, 7(3). Retrieved from from https://www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/frazier/03frazier.html
Gallagher, J., Bauer, K., & Dollar, D. M. (2005). Evidence-based librarianship: Utilizing data from all available sources to make judicious print cancellation decisions. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 29(2), 169–179.
Gallagher, E. A., Schmidt, L. D., Timmermann, A., & Wermers, R. (2020). Investor information acquisition and money market fund risk rebalancing during the 2011–2012 eurozone crisis. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(4), 1445–1483.
Joshipura, S. (2008). Selecting, acquiring, and renewing electronic resources. In Electronic Resource Management in Libraries: Research and Practice (pp. 48-70). IGI Global.
Kao, S. C., Chang, H. C., & Lin, C. H. (2003). Decision support for the academic library acquisition budget allocation via circulation database mining. Information Processing & Management, 39(1), 133-147.
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS One, 10(6), e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Levenson, H. N., & Hess, A. N. (2020). Collaborative collection development: Current perspectives leading to future initiatives. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(5), 102201.
Martin, V., Gray, T., Kilb, M., & Minchew, T. (2016). Analyzing consortial “big deals” via a cost-per-cited-reference (CPCR) metric. Serials Review, 42(4), 293–305.
Massis, B. E. (2012). Using predictive analytics in the library. New Library World, 113(9/10), 491–494.
Mercer, H. (2011). Almost halfway there: An analysis of the open access behaviors of academic librarians. College & Research Libraries, 72(5), 443-453.
Pandey, P., & Misra, R. (2014). Digitization of library materials in academic libraries: Issues and challenges. Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information, 2(2), 136-141.
Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Fernández-Ramos, A., De-la-Mano, M., & Vianello-Osti, M. (2021). The evolution and revision of “big deals”: a review from the perspective of libraries. El Profesional de la información. Retrieved from https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/handle/10016/34415
Scott, M. (2016). Predicting use: COUNTER usage data found to be predictive of ILL use and ILL use to be predictive of COUNTER use. The Serials Librarian, 71(1), 20-24.
Shepherd, P. T. (2005). COUNTER 2005: A new code of practice and new applications of COUNTER usage statistics. Learned Publishing, 18(4), 287-293.
Suber, P. (2003). Removing the barriers to research: An introduction to open access for librarians. College & Research Libraries News, 64, 92-113.
Tennant, J. P., Crane, H., Crick, T., Davila, J., Enkhbayar, A., Havemann, J., ... & Vanholsbeeck, M. (2019). Ten myths around open scholarly publishing. Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=scholcom
Tenopir, C., Christian, L., Anderson, R., Estelle, L., Allard, S., & Nicholas, D. (2017). Beyond the download: Issues in developing a secondary usage calculator. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 5(2), 365-377.