Promises an challenges of electronic journals 169 Learne Publishing (1999)13, 169 175 Introuction Rapi avancement of information technologies, incluing the internet an igitizing techniques, means that electronic journals () are mushrooming online, on the web an in CD-ROM format although no exact number is available. In recent years, many more journals have been earmarke for igitizing, a necessary process for turning a paper journal (p-journal) into an electronic one. In aition, a consierable number of journals are now publishe only electronically, which significantly enlarges the size of the e-journal pool. Acaemic libraries the major subscribers to scholarly journals are increasingly concerne about how they shoul eal with this expaning category of publications. Face with the e-journal boom, how woul an shoul acaemic libraries respon? Relate issues inclue: To what extent are American acaemic libraries aopting? What are the major reasons for acaemic libraries to subscribe to? What is the rationale for not oing so? The present writer attempts to answer the above questions via a survey conucte in the Unite States. Previous stuies Over the years librarians have face significant an continual changes in serials acquisitions. Compouning the problem has been the introuction of electronic versions of serials. In orer to help colleagues to cope with this problem, Aston outline some policies an criteria for selecting electronic materials (e.g. CD-ROM an ). 1 As eventually became incorporate into library serials/perioicals epartments, researchers began to weigh the pros an cons associate with such publications. 2 7 Some of the authors expresse Promises an challenges of electronic journals: acaemic libraries surveye Heting Chu Palmer School of Library & Information Science, Long Islan University, NY, USA Heting Chu 2000 ABSTRACT: In spring 1997, a questionnaire was maile to 95 major acaemic libraries in the Unite States to explore how serials librarians are responing to the boom of electronic journals (). Fifty librarians (52.6%) answere the survey with one follow-up. The stuy foun that over 70% of the libraries that returne the survey ha participate in e-journal-relate activities. Questions relating to access were consistently ranke high in explaining why librarians in major acaemic libraries think are valuable, yet cost seems to be a critical factor in etermining e-journal aoption. For most of the libraries surveye, the figure for appears moest, although some institutions claime to have more than 1,100 titles in their e-journal collections.
170 Heting Chu E-journals have inee become quite a visible entity in serials publications concerns as to whether coul offer any solutions to the journal crisis. 6, 8 Hawkins an Bailey escribe in their publications both pioneer e-journal titles an major e-journal projects (e.g. TULIP, The University LIcensing Program). 2,3 Hunter an her co-workers gave a etaile account of their TULIP experience, summarizing, among other things, the lessons learne an its implications for publishers as well as libraries. 9 McMillan epicte how Virginia Polytechnic Institute an State University trie to integrate five into its library processes an proceures 10 although Virginia Tech s practices may very well have change since 1991 as the web has become the most popular platform for accessing an elivering. More recently, Lancaster surveye irectors of university libraries an other acaemic aministrators to etermine their attitues towars the feasibility an esirability of networke scholarly publishing, incluing. The major conclusion of the stuy that acaemia was neither prepare nor equippe to unertake an enterprise of this kin 11 may have become invali ue to the positive changes an avancement mae in acaemia since then. A large percentage of the stuies ealing with are about their role an function in scholarly communications. 12,13 For example, Bishop presente her research on how were assesse from the reaer s perspective. She foun that users inicate a preference for. 14 Taking a more general approach, Metz iscusse the revolutionary change that ha brought or woul bring to scholarly an scientific communications. 12 In aition, researchers began to examine the impact of on aily library operations such as serials acquisitions an collection evelopment. 15,16 E-journals have inee become quite a visible entity in serials publications. Yet, how woul acaemic libraries in the Unite States respon to their rapi an continuing growth? In early 1994, the Systems an Proceures Exchange Center (SPEC) of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) conucte a survey on electronic journals among ARL libraries. The survey covere a wie range of topics an issues, incluing acquisitions policies, gopher access, training ocuments, an impact on journal management. 17,18 While the two-volume survey report is extensive an informative, it is not conclusive. The present writer therefore prepare the following survey, aiming to provie more focuse an up-to-ate answers to the three questions raise in the previous section, namely: (i) To what extent are American acaemic libraries aopting? (ii) What are the major reasons for acaemic libraries to subscribe to? (iii) What is the rationale for not oing so? The survey Accoring to the membership list of the Association of Research Libraries (http:// www.arl.org/members.html), there are 95 libraries locate in the Unite States affiliate with an acaemic institution. These libraries became the subject libraries for this survey. To ensure a reasonable response rate, the survey (a full copy of which is available from the author upon request) was aresse to iniviual librarians in charge of serials/perioicals epartments. However, this prove to be an aruous task it was simply not easy to locate the contact information for appropriate iniviuals for free. The survey was maile out in spring 1997 with a follow-up six weeks later. Fifty librarians returne the survey with one follow-up, totalling a response rate of 52.6%. Of the 50 returne surveys, several are incomplete as not all the questions aske in the questionnaire were answere. However, the incomplete answers have little impact on the stuy since their number is relatively small, an the finings of the stuy will not be generalize. Results an iscussion Reasons an challenges for aopting In the survey, various reasons an challenges for aopting at acaemic libraries were given, with the option of aing more. Librarians who participate in the survey were aske to check as many
Promises an challenges of electronic journals 171 Table 1 Reasons for aopting in acaemic libraries Frequency % Reasons for aopting 49 98 Allow remote access 47 94 Can be use simultaneously by more than one user 44 88 Provie timely access 43 86 Support searching capabilities 43 86 Accommoate unique features (e.g. links to relate items) 38 76 Save physical storage space 27 54 Contain multimeia information 1 2 Do not require physical processing (e.g. receiving an bining) 1 2 Can be environmentally valuable 1 2 Can be save igitally reasons as applicable. The ae reasons given by some of the responents when they were completing the survey are shown in italics. Tables 1 an 2 summarize the outcomes. It is obvious from Table 1 that Allow remote access is the main reason why are useful to acaemic libraries, closely followe by Can be use simultaneously by more than one user. The thir most common reason for aopting is that they Provie timely access. All three eal with the accessibility aspect of journal collections, inicating the importance of easy an convenient access in the library environment. In aition to the top three ranking factors, Support searching capabilities an Accommoate unique features such as links to relate items are also important factors in the aoption of by acaemic libraries. The avantage of saving physical storage space an the availability of multimeia information also seem to be non-negligible factors contributing to the value of. In aition, generally o not require physical processing (e.g. receiving an bining), they are environment-frienly, an they can be save igitally. These features, unavailable to their Table 2 Challenges in ealing with in acaemic libraries Frequency % Challenges in ealing with 28 56 Incur great expense particularly in the beginning of implementation 25 50 Nee special equipment 24 48 Lack compatibility among ifferent publishers 24 48 Require promotion an training 24 48 Cause more concern about copyright 22 44 Are more ifficult to browse than paper journals 22 44 Do not have sufficient journal an time coverage yet 19 38 Result in excessive printing 11 22 Are har to be incorporate with paper journals 6 12 Raise concern about archiving 4 8 Require complex licensing agreements 2 4 Nee technical support 1 2 Are har to cite because they are constantly changing 1 2 Are not portable 1 2 Are har to fin paper counterparts, may help to explain why can be preferable from the viewpoint of librarians. Table 2 shows that Incur great expense particularly in the beginning of implementation takes the lea among the challenges to aopting specifie in the survey. Nee special equipment an Lack of compatibility among ifferent publishers are affirme by responents as two very challenging factors in mounting. As more an more are publishe on the web, which is a popular, client/ server-base as well as platform-inepenent technology, these challenges may be reuce to a certain egree but they will not isappear. Other factors such as Require promotion an training, an Cause more concern about copyright also emerge as the major challenges for hanling. The relative ifficulty in browsing, the lack of sufficient journal an time coverage, Allow remote access is the main reason why are useful to acaemic libraries
172 Heting Chu Support searching capability was not ranke very high among the reasons for aopting e- journals the possibility of excessive printing, an the extra resources neee for integrating with p-journals appear to constitute more obstacles to the wier aoption of by acaemic libraries. Furthermore, several librarians pointe out that, even though not liste in the survey, archiving an complex licensing agreements were of grave concern when they consier whether shoul be acquire for their institutions. Inee, these two issues have receive substantial attention in the past few years. 19,20 In comparison with Table 1, the frequencies tallie in Table 2 appear smaller partly because more items are enumerate to explain why were not aopte. Furthermore, people tene to be more selective when they answere this question. Three librarians i not answer this question at all, as they believe that none of the liste challenges reflecte their thinking. In aition to frequency counting, the present author also aske the librarians to rank three reasons they ha checke from the lists, with 1 being the highest. As shown in Table 3, the reason Allow remote access again tops the ranking by a Table 3 Ranking of reasons for aopting Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Reasons for aopting 28 11 6 Allow remote access 11 11 8 Provie timely access 3 14 12 Can be use simultaneously by more than one user 3 5 5 Accommoate unique features (e.g. links to relate items) 3 4 11 Support searching capabilities 1 Don t require physical processing (e.g. receiving an bining) 3 6 Save physical space 1 1 Contain multimeia information Table 4 Ranking of challenges in ealing with Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Challenges in ealing with 17 2 5 Incur great expense particularly in the beginning 6 7 4 Nee special equipment 5 2 5 Require promotion an training 4 4 4 Cause more concern about copyright 4 1 6 Are more ifficult to browse than paper journals 3 1 Raise concern about archiving 2 1 Require complex licensing agreements 1 10 3 Don t have sufficient journal an time coverage yet 1 8 6 Lack compatibility among ifferent publishers 3 1 Are har to be incorporate with paper journals 2 3 Result in excessive printing 1 Nee technical support wie margin. Two access-relate reasons, Provie timely access an Can be use simultaneously by more than one user, inicate once more that easy access is the most important issue in having in libraries. By comparison, p-journals are only available to one user a time at institutions that physically hol them, with a publishing time lag of various lengths. Table 3 also inicates that Support searching capability was not ranke very high among the reasons for aopting e- journals. This is somewhat contrary to what the current researcher ha anticipate. One possible explanation for this fact coul be that searching capability is less useful over
Promises an challenges of electronic journals 173 Table 5 Participation in activities relating to E-journal-relate activities Yes No Missing No. % No. % case Receive any 37 79 10 21 3 sample? Trie any sample 37 100 NA NA 3? Participation in e-journal projects? 37 77 11 23 2 the current restricte range of although it may become a more valuable feature in the future. The ranking in Table 4 enotes that expense presents the biggest challenge of all in ealing with. This particular ranking actually confirms the col reality many acaemic libraries face: shrinking journal bugets an accelerating subscription increases. Moreover, the electronic format, an subsequently the complex licensing issue, woul only incur aitional costs to the subscribers. Compare with the top-ranking challenge, all others were evaluate as being much less prominent. In spite of cost being the primary consieration an costing more, at least in the initial set-up, the librarians participating in the survey were still enthusiastic about aopting, possibly for the following reasons. First, a couple of responents commente that there was no option or overriing reason for not aopting. In other wors, will evolve an become integrate into library collections regarless. Secon, sample an trial issues of are sent to libraries, an librarians an patrons alike, while trying them out, begin to learn an appreciate various features (e.g. remote access) that are unavailable to p-journals. Thir, many publishers offer attractive options (e.g. free access to for libraries with p-journal subscriptions). Cost, in this case, is not a concern at all. Finally, some journals, especially new titles, are publishe only in electronic format. Libraries have to get the electronic ones if they ecie to inclue them in their journal collections. Participation in activities relate to As a marketing an promotion exercise, e-journal publis hers often sen sample copies to target libraries. Of the 47 libraries that answere the questions about e-journal trials, 37 (79%) ha receive sample e- journals (Table 5). Moreover, all the libraries that ha receive sample trie them, which suggests that at least librarians in those institutions ten to be very receptive to changes an new evelopments in the fiel. It is wiely known that projects such as TULIP, CORE (Chemistry Online Retrieval Environment), an JSTOR (Journal STORage) have been conucte to test an explore, both technically an non-technically, the feasibility of e-journal implementation in recent years. Therefore, a question was specifically inclue in the survey to fin out if acaemic libraries ha participate in such programmes. It turns out that 37 (77%) institutions among the 48 libraries that replie to the survey question took part in at least one e-journal project espite the short history an limite scope of such eneavours. Overall, the acaemic libraries surveye in this stuy have shown great enthusiasm for. Size of e-journal collections Table 6 gives some picture of how many titles are actually fining their way into library journal collections. Thirtythree (66%) out of the 42 libraries that furnishe ata on this question have less Table 6 Number of in the libraries surveye Size of e-journal collection Libraries (no.) Libraries (%) < 100 8 16 100 250 13 26 300 400 12 24 450 900 3 6 1,100 4,000 6 12 Missing ata 8 16 Total 50 100 Overall, the acaemic libraries surveye in this stuy have shown great enthusiasm for
174 Heting Chu Publishers may want to invest more in implementing trial mechanisms for than 400 e-journal titles. Among them, 8 (amounting to 16% of the total) libraries subscribe to less than 100 ; 13 (26%) subscribe to 100 250 titles; while 12 (24%) have an e-journal collection of 300 400 titles. It is worth noting that 6 (12%) of the 42 institutions claime that the size of their e-journal collections exceee 1,000 or even reache 4,000 titles. The huge number may inclue titles covere in full-text atabases such as InfoTrac or thir-party aggregators of like OCLC s ECO (Electronic Collection Online). In fact, some responents i not answer this question because it seeme unclear to them whether full-text titles inclue in atabases like InfoTrac coul be counte as. Other institutions i not compile such ata. For comparison, Table 7 lists the approximate size of p-journal collections in the acaemic libraries uner consieration. A correlation analysis inicates that little association exists between e-journal an p-journal collection size (r = 0.08, p = 0.63). That is to say, the size of a library s p-journal collection appears to have little impact on the size of its e-journal collection, which may strike many of us as counterintuitive. However, as explaine previously, a library s e-journal collection size coul increase consierably if journal titles inclue in full-text atabases or thir-party aggregators were counte as such. Since no specific efinition was given to in the survey, ifferent responents interprete the concept of ifferently. As a result, some regare journal titles in full-text atabases or thir-party aggregators as, while others i not. On the Table 7 Number of p-journals in the libraries surveye Size of p-journal collection Libraries (no.) Libraries (%) < 10,000 18 36 10,000 13,000 22 44 18,000 30,000 8 16 Missing ata 2 4 Total 50 100 other han, still account for only a small percentage of all the journal publications at present. Therefore, a positive correlation between an p-journals in terms of collection size, if any, oes not yet exist. Moreover, as remain a new member in the serials family, policies an proceures for managing them nee to be explore an evelope, which emonstrates from another perspective why libraries with a large collection of p-journals o not necessarily possess a corresponing number of e-journal titles. More elaboration on in acaemic libraries About one-thir of the survey responents mae comments in aition to answering all the questions liste in the questionnaire. Their comments, some of which were alreay covere in the previous iscussion, can be briefly summarize as follows: Many are obtaine free or free with p-journal subscriptions so there is no har ecision to make about acquiring new. Free trial is an enticement or incentive for libraries to get starte with. Publishers may want to invest more in implementing trial mechanisms for. As the number of publishe on the web continues increasing steaily an significantly, it is very time-consuming for libraries to maintain the live links. There is a great an growing eman for reasonable e-journal pricing, a common gateway for e-journal access an elivery, an a eman for one single contract for ifferent e-journal subscriptions. E-journal archiving nees serious consieration as the lifespan of igital information is much shorter than that of print. One responent even suggeste that libraries wait for to evelop an mature before aopting them. Inee, are a new species in the serials family. The library community nees time to get to unerstan, accept, or even welcome them. But, accoring to Roger s moel, 21 the
Promises an challenges of electronic journals 175 process for this iffusion of innovation shoul not take long as we know that librarians are an shoul be the innovators an early aopters. Concluing remarks While reasons relating to access in the survey were consistently ranke high in explaining why librarians in major acaemic libraries think are valuable, cost remains the most significant factor in journal acquisitions even if the journal form has change from paper to electronic. Although the size of e-journal collections in some libraries inclue in this survey appears impressive, o not yet constitute a critical mass with respect to the entire collection both in terms of title an time. Overall, the acaemic libraries surveye in this stuy have shown great enthusiasm for. Given the small number of acaemic libraries inclue in the survey an the fact that the libraries were not ranomly selecte, the finings of this stuy cannot be generalize. Nevertheless, the finings are of interest to concerne parties for evising future plans with regar to. For example, publishers nee to reconsier their fee scheules an licensing agreements in orer to entice more libraries to aopt, an libraries coul evelop new strategies for acquiring an hanling since they are truly more accessible than p-journals. More stuies will be neee to explore further the implications of the expaning number of for libraries in general an acaemic libraries in particular. Despite the challenges that bring us, they also possess many features valuable to librarians as well as patrons. The tren seems to be that will sooner or later become part of the serials collection in our libraries, either physically or virtually. Acknowlegements The author wishes to thank Ellen Emmett, librarian in the Library & Information Science Library at Long Islan University, for her comments on the survey instrument. The author is also inebte to Sheila Fox, the author s grauate assistant, who reviewe an earlier version of this paper an helpe in locating the contact information of the 95 librarians inclue in the survey. References 1. Aston, J. The selection ilemma. Law Librarian 1996:2(4), 238 41. 2. Bailey, C. W., Jr. Network-base electronic serials. Information Technology an Libraries 1992:11(1), 29 35. 3. Hawkins, L. Network accesse scholarly serials. Serials Librarian 1996:29(3/4), 19 31. 4. Hickey, T. B. Present an future capabilities of the online journal. Library Trens 1995:43(4), 528 43. 5. Junnarkar, S. Science journals fin new life online. New York Times 30 October 1997: The CyberTimes Section. 6. Piternick, A. B. Electronic serials: realistic or unrealistic solution to the journal crisis? Serials Librarian 1991:21(2/3), 15 31. 7. Van Brakel, P. A. Electronic journals: publishing via internet s Worl Wie Web. Electronic Library 1995:13(4), 389 95. 8. Metz, P. an Gherman, P M. Serials pricing an the role of the electronic journal. College an Research Libraries 1991:52, July, 315 27. 9. Hunter, Karen et al. TULIP Final Report 1996. http://www.elsevier.nl/homepage/about/resproj/trmenu. htm. 10. McMillan,Gail. Embracing the electronic journal: one library s plan. Serials Librarian 1991:21(2/3), 97 108. 11. Lancaster, F. W. Attitues in acaemia towars feasibility an esirability of networke scholarly publishing. Library Trens 1995:43(4), 741 52. 12. Metz, P. The view from a university library. Change 1995:January/February, 29 33. 13. Harrison, T. M. an Stephen, T. D. The electronic journal as the heart of an online scholarly community. Library Trens 1995:43(4), 592 608. 14. Bishop, A. Peterson. Scholarly journals on the Net: a reaer s assessment. Library Trens 1995:43(4), 544 70. 15. Duranceau, E. F. Beyon print: revisioning serials acquisitions for the igital age. Serials Librarian 1998:33(1/2), 83 106. 16. Norman, O. G. The impact of electronic information sources on collection evelopment: a survey of current practice. Library Hi Tech 1997:15(1 2), 123 32. 17. Parang, E. an Sauners, L. (comp.) Electronic Journals in ARL Libraries: Policies an Proceures, SPEC Kit 201. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1994. 18. Parang, E. an Sauners, L. (comp.) Electronic Journals in ARL Libraries: Issues an Trens, SPEC Kit 202. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1994. 19. Keyhani, A. Creating an electronic archive: who shoul o it an why? Serials Librarian 1998:33(1/2), 213 24. 20. Robnett, B. Online journal pricing. Serials Librarian 1999:33(1/2), 55 69. 21 Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovation, 3r en. New York: Free Press, 1986. Heting Chu Palmer School of Library & Information Science Long Islan University/C.W. Post Campus Brookville, NY 11548-1300, USA Email: hchu@ liu.eu o not yet constitute a critical mass with respect to the entire collection