ACS 240 th CINF: Assessing Collections and Information Resources in Science and Technology Happily ever after or not: E-book collection usage analysis and assessment at USC Library Norah Xiao USC Libraries
Springer e-books at USC USC e-books initiatives Springer at USC Initial acquisition: 2009 collection with archives of 2005 and 2006 Step 2: 2010 collection with archives of 2007 and 2008 Step 3: confirmed contract till 2012 Funding: cancellation of the approval plan funding plus voluntary contribution of subject funding
Market and Outreach Communication within libraries all librarians others in public services, interlibrary loan, technical services and IT Outreach to users Treat it as an e-database as result of our technical limitations department seminars (PHYS Feb. 2009; orientations) emails to list-serv reference interactions; library training sessions
Assessment Methods Usage statistics data Springer s comprehensive data (with permission) Counter-compliant usage statistics data from USC administrative account other data (e.g. interlibrary loan requests) User survey data two science disciplines departments (Chemistry; Physics & Astronomy) time period: 1 month (2 calls for participation) e-survey with 15 questions
Survey Analysis # Answer Response % 1 Faculty 3 8% 2 Graduate student 32 82% 3 Researcher 4 10% Total 39 100% 27 users from CHEM 32 users (82%) aware of Springer e-books in Usage data, both subjects have 10% access and usage (100 full-text requests/week)
Survey Analysis 24 users (62%) know that Springer e-books are available at USC Libraries from the librarian # Answer Response % 3 From my librarian (emails, newsletters, seminars, etc.) 1 Find them myself (results from catalog searching, Google searching, etc.) 2 From people around me (colleagues, students, etc.) 4 From the Library (staff working there, news blogs, etc.) 24 62% 11 28% 3 8% 1 3% Total 39 100%
Springer ebooks Usage Analysis The most effective outreach approaches Comparison of Subjects Springer ebooks Usage 1400 1200 1146 Number of section requests 1000 800 600 400 200 7480 1004 513 914 715 684 302 268 454 627 313 219 192196 262 91 442 422 361 298 332 294 388398 481 449 320 246 281 170 599 542 PHYS CHEM 0 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Time
Survey Analysis Access point* Google vs. USC in-house search systems various library guides # Answer Response % 4 USC Subject Research Guides (CHEM Guides, PHYS Guides, ENG Guides, etc.) 1 Google search or any search engine search 2 USC Libraries search tools (HOMER, e-resources, e-journals, etc.) 5 13% 9 23% 18 46% 3 Springerlink Directly 7 18% Total 39 100%
Usage Data Analysis Compared to journal articles, ebook usage is much less Usage Metrics Jan to Dec 2009 Visits 164,265 Page Views 498,852 Journals Page Views 336,053 ebooks Page Views 99,809 Other Page Views (Home, Navigation etc.) 62,990 Full-Text Requests 164,903 Journals Articles (COUNTER Journal Report 1) 113,575 ebooks Sections (COUNTER Book Report 2) 51,328 License denials 3,991 Journals Articles 1,899 ebooks Sections 2,092 Pay-per-View Requests 13
Survey Analysis # Answer Response % 1 Never 9 23% 2 Rarely 15 38% 3 Sometimes 7 18% 4 Often 8 21% Total 39 100% Response to the statement: I treat e-books as my regular consulting materials in research and study, like journal articles Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree 5 5 6 13 9 Strongly Agree
Survey Analysis Access platform # Answer Response % 1 Public computer stations 10 26% 2 Personal computers 37 95% 3 Smart phones 1 3% 7 iphone 3 8% 4 ipod (itouch, ipad, etc.) 4 10% 5 Ebook reader (Kindle, Sony Reader, etc.) 2 5% 6 Others 2 5%
Survey Analysis Access platform e-books format: I prefer all e-contents in PDF format including journals, books, references rather than via any e-content reader or software other than personal computer: I prefer to access e- contents from my mobile devices (PDA, smart phones, ipad, etc.) rather than my computer Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 0 1 5 10 22 12 12 13 1 0
Survey Analysis Ironically half to half of these users have used other e-books Wiley google books wiley, very similar to springerlink pdf Google Scholar many publishers. e-books is my last resource in case I do not have access to the material through regular paper books. Similar problems with difficulties in finding original articles by google search, e.g. articles in Methods in Enzymology wiley interscience, very similar to Springer Wiley-when available, great experience Knovel: Somewhat difficult to use
Usage Analysis What truly matters to users regarding e-books is as followed # Question 5 4 3 2 1 1 Subject coverage 26 9 2 1 0 4 Value to research and study 27 8 2 0 1 2 Easy to access 26 10 1 0 1 3 Easy to use 22 11 3 1 1
Conclusion Majority users (61%) will support future ebooks collection in the library with constructive suggestions It is great When given the options, I usually choose to read a paper copy of a book over the e-book copy. i would like to be able to more easily separate owned items from non-owned items; it would be nice to have a "coming soon" list of books which have been published in physical format already and for which the e-book edition is in progress Reading books online is terrible(undoable). We should be able to get a pdf and print to read comfortably. In the end it is better to always have the paper books. Although pdf is also useful in case you want to include a formula in presentation for example. Mostly good experiences, very nice that we have access to these resources I would like to have previous paper editions in e-book format search engine on springerlink is a bit confusing... gives results for all kinds of media, we then have to select books again and it still finds journal articles etc...
Conclusion A successful collection development plan Springer ebooks Usage (Total) 10000 9000 8729 8000 7731 Number of section requests 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 6407 5800 3583 4370 3352 2620 2841 3474 4480 5306 6046 6925 4987 6986 2000 1364 1000 0 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Time
Conclusion Funding wise collaboration among selectors across disciplines revise subject collection profile and approval plan purchase agreement no spending on extra requests from 2009 50 Interlibrary loan /Recommend a book requests administrative budget saving (e.g. books transferred between campuses) Space wise
Future Collection development No. 1 still applies to here Users need combination of art and science Marketing, marketing and marketing More collaboration between libraries and e- books providers and publishers New technologies