Charleston Conference Friday, November 5, 2010 2:00 PM This session presents the results of a three-year project at Auburn University Libraries to systematically identify online options for all paid serials subscription titles. The main objectives of the project were to identify: 1) those titles for which online is not available and must remain as print only subscriptions; 2) those titles for which print could be dropped completely for online only subscriptions; and 3) those titles for which print plus online subscriptions are still bundled together. A further objective was to identify those print plus online subscriptions for which online access had not been activated. A final objective was to record why some print subscriptions are maintained even when an online option is available. Now that the project is completed, Auburn has a better grasp of how much of our serials collection is still print-based and likely to remain so. We must now consider the implications for future staffing and workflow decisions. Comments and discussion from session attendees regarding their own libraries’ findings will be encouraged.

1. A Serials Format
Inventory Project
Paula Sullenger
Head, Acquisitions Department
Auburn University Libraries
sullepa@auburn.edu
Charleston Conference
November 5, 2010

2. Auburn University - Comprehensive Land Grant University
25,000 students
12 schools/colleges
Auburn University Libraries
Ralph Brown Draughon (Main)
Library of Architecture, Design, and Construction
Cary Veterinary Medicine Library
ARL since 1993
3 million+ volumes
2.5 million+ government documents
2.5 million+ microform

3. Electronic only at Auburn
In 2004 and 2005, Auburn decided that electronic-only
subscriptions are acceptable. By 2008, electronic only, with
perpetual access, was preferred for several disciplines
 “Big Deal” packages from the major publishers
 One license, one registration process covers hundreds of
titles
 Links easily established in OPAC, coverage dates same
for all
 Different story for smaller publishers
Still, publisher-by-publisher most efficient method since
generally one license and one process will cover all a publisher’s
titles

4. Inventory Project Goals:
 Change to electronic only where possible (Perpetual access
is the main consideration)
 Expected to become a large % of our subscriptions
 Upgrade to print+electronic where electronic only is not
an option
Expected to remain a sizeable % of our subscriptions
 Find those titles which must remain print only
Expected to be a small % of our subscriptions
 Identify access problems for titles already electronic

5. Serials Master List
Used Ebsco’s “Online Availability” report as starting point
For the project, created a smaller working list
 Sorted titles by publisher
 Eliminated Big Deal titles
 Working list of ~1,400 titles
 Would pick up non-Ebsco titles last (10%)
Began late spring 2008
Hoped for a two-year project but needed three years to complete
5% serials cut for 2011 altered approach slightly
Project completed late summer 2010

7. Electronic only subscriptions – Fewer than expected
 4,844 paid subscriptions in 2008
 1,852 already electronic only subscriptions in 2008
 In 2008 identified 234 titles to change to electronic only
for 2009
 In 2009 identified 224 titles to change to electronic only
for 2010
 In 2010 identified 135 titles to change to electronic only
for 2011

8. Print + electronic subscriptions – Fewer than expected
 No baseline count
 For 2011, will have 602 print + electronic
 64 keep print per faculty request
 310 have electronic only available but no perpetual access
guarantee
 19 have electronic only available but price is prohibitive
 209 have no electronic only option

9. Print only subscriptions – Many more than expected
 No baseline count
 1,323 print only for 2011
 1,050 true print only*
 162 have online available but on unacceptable terms
 email, password, one terminal, individual only
 109 have electronic access available but price is
prohibitive
*Some of these titles are available electronically in aggregators
but an electronic subscription is not available
Examples: ABA Bank Marketing; ABA Banking Journal
Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science
282 titles from original list canceled for 2011
190 others cancelled, ceased, now free online, etc.

10. Staffing/workflow implications
 Now have one full-time staff person dedicated to print
serials functions for ~2,000 titles
 Will likely remain
 Holding one vacant staff position to determine if needed
for electronic serials work
 Do we need one?
 Have accomplished all of this without an ERM
 Do we need one?
 Have ~600 print+electronic titles we want electronic only if
circumstances change
 Review every year?
 Have ~1,300 print only titles
 How often to review these?

11. Where does Auburn stand?
Elyse Profera & Christine Stamison, “An Agent’s Perspective on Issues and Best
Practices When Shifting from Print to Electronic Resources.” Serials Review, 36:1
Mar 2010 p. 3-9
Swets analyzed purchasing trends for North American academic
libraries
 2008 – 34% electronic only (Auburn 38%)
30% print only
36% print + electronic
 2009 – 40% electronic only (Auburn 56% in 2011)
29% print only (Auburn 30% in 2011)
31% print + electronic (Auburn 14% in 2011)

12. Chandra Prabha, “Shifting from Print to Electronic Journals in ARL University
Libraries.” Serials Review 33:1 Mar 2007 p. 4-13
2006 – ARL Libraries had 36% electronic only
Laura McElfresh, “Going E-Only: Coming Soon, the Deluge.” Technicalities
27:2 Mar/Apr 2007 p. 1, 11-14
2006 – Emory identified 600 titles to make electronic
only
Aparna Zambare, et al., “Assuring Access: One Library’s Journey from Print to
Electronic Only.” Serials Review 35:2 June 2009 p.70-74
2008 – Central Michigan University had 53% electronic
subscriptions, goal of 70%
 When can we really become electronic only?