1. 14 April 2014
1
Enhancing life-long learning, teaching and research through
information resources and services
2. 14 April 2014
2
Helen Adey, Resource Acquisitions and Supply Team Manager
Nottingham Trent University
Tell us what you want, what you
really, really want: a blank page
approach to reviewing
serial subscriptions
3. Abstract
Nottingham Trent University (NTU) has traditionally conducted
annual reviews of serial subscriptions in an attempt to ensure
that maximum value for money is achieved and the best profile
of subscriptions is maintained. Following a benchmarking survey
in May 2013, NTU decided to pilot a ‘blank sheet’ approach
to journal selection with three academic departments. This
session outlines the findings of the benchmarking survey and
presents initial outcomes from the blank page review, including
an analysis of the pros and cons of different approaches to
establishing a successful review of serial subscriptions
14 April 2014
3
4. Content
• Background - what problems are we trying to
solve?
• NTU Benchmarking survey 2013
– Benchmarking responses on Serials Review Processes
– Common Themes
• Blank page review at NTU
– Headlines, results,
• Pros and cons of different serials review
processes
• Ideas for successful serials review
methodologies
• Conclusions - what have we learned?
• Next steps……..
14 April 2014
4
5. Background - What problems
are we trying to solve?
• Why review serials subscriptions?
– Money - Journals subscriptions prices increasing
whilst library budgets are flat or decreasing
14 April 2014
5
• How to review serials subscriptions?
Methodology at NTU: review of all current subscriptions £ in:£
out - often leading to only minor changes in subs profile
Is there a better more effective review methodology?
Identified savings rarely enough to support new areas of
curriculum or research - “no point in asking for anything new as
there’s never any money”
What happens when you’ve cut all you can?
?? How have other libraries handled this?
7. NTU Benchmarking survey
May 2013
• International Survey ran for 3 weeks in May
2013
• 97 responses from 12 countries :
– 43% of the respondents were from the UK,
– 34% from the US.
– 87% were from Higher Education Institutions.
14 April 2014
7
Responses covered many aspects of managing serials including:
Serials selection
Roles and responsibilities
Budget allocations including Formula
Serials retention policies
Format preferences
Serials review processes
8. Q1: How frequently do you conduct reviews
of your serial subscriptions?
•Annually: 61 (64%)
•Every 2-3 years: 16 (17%)
•Every 4-5 years: 2 (2%)
•Infrequently, when required: 17 (18%)
14 April 2014
8
9. Q2: If you review your serial subscriptions,
which of the following methods do you
adopt?
14 April 2014
9
• In depth review of all serials Subscriptions: 44 (47%)
• Selective review (by subject, site or other: 33 (35%)
• Other : 16 (17%)
10. Q3: If you review your serial subscriptions,
which factors or data sources inform your
review process?
• Changes in subscription cost: 85 (16%)
• Usage data (electronic and print): 89 (17%)
• Qualitative feedback from academic: 81 (15%)
• Qualitative feedback from students: 20 (4%)
• Librarian discretion and expertise: 80 (15%)
• Changes in research activity in the institution: 60 (11%)
• Changes in teaching activity in the institution: 67 (13%)
• Space considerations: 41 (8%)
14 April 2014
10
11. Q4: If you review your serial subscriptions
and use a voting or scoring mechanism to
rate serial titles, who is given the chance
to vote?
• No-one: don’t use voting: 71
(65%)
• Academic staff 15 (14%)
• Researchers 9 (8%)
• Students 2 (2%)
• Other 1 (1%)
14 April 2014
11
12. Common themes from Survey
• Price / budget considerations: CPU; budget
driven decision making
• Usage: low usage as main driver for
cancellation
14 April 2014
12
Varying review methodologies:
• Annual reviews;
• Subscription committee;
• Discussion among library staff;
• Discussion with faculty;
• Annual review by academics;
• Faculty ranking of journal titles;
• 100 points scoring system which faculty
allocate to journals
13. Blank page review at NTU
• Attempt to inject some life into the
review process
• Start with a blank page and tell us what
you want
14 April 2014
13
Piloted methodology in Summer 2013 with 3 NTU Schools:
Art and Design
Social Sciences
Science
Survey requested 2 types of data
Q: Which journals do you use daily, weekly, monthly……..
Q: Desert Island Journals - which 7 journals would you take
and which ONE would you save from the waves
14. Headlines from blank page
review – expect the
unexpected!
• Level of engagement from Pilot Schools varied
• Methodology
– We DID
• ask them to tell us about Serials they use in their Teaching,
Learning and Research
• ask which serials do they recommend to students
– WE DIDN’T
• Give them lists of their current subscriptions
• Give them any stats or data to influence their thinking
• Discuss costs at all - start from a completely blank page and tell
us what you really, really want
14 April 2014
14
15. Results – Art and Design
• Initial round of voting,
• School consultation event with staff and
students voting
• Very visual approach, sample copies, colour
photocopies of title pages, coloured stickers.
• Huge spreadsheets capturing voting outcomes
• Used combination of usage stats and low / no
votes to identify possible cancellations from
existing subs
• Results:
– 6 cancellations
– 22 new subscriptions.
– Net additional cost of £1559.02
14 April 2014
15
16. Results – Social Sciences
• Awaiting sign-off by School Executive
• Proposed cancellations - low/no votes and low usage stats
• Pricing up proposed new subscriptions - harder than you
might think
• If total cost of new subs ≤ savings from identified
cancellations
• If total cost of new subs ≥ savings from identified
cancellations
• Priority order for new subscriptions based on:
– total votes;
– Cost;
– balance of subject coverage across the school;
14 April 2014
16
17. Pros & Cons of traditional review processes
14 April 2014
17
Pros - Traditional £ in
£ out
Cons - Traditional £ in
£ out
18. Pros & Cons of Blank page review processes
14 April 2014
18
Pros – Blank page
review
Cons - Blank page
review
Slow, not very
responsive service
Huge amount of work
Poor fit with library
subscription year
Academic buy-in -
Mixed levels of
engagement
More holistic view of
what’s required
Analysis of usage data
and firm metrics
embedded
A fit for purpose
collection to meet
current needs?
PR success –
advocacy &
engagement
19. Successful serials reviews
- is there a better
(Evidence based) way?
What evidence do we have of what
our users really want ???
• Talis Aspire Resource Lists reports
of All Journals and All Journal
Articles on Resource Lists
• Analysis of Interlibrary Loan data
• Analysis of Digitisation requests
• Data from publishers on turnaways
14 April 2014
19
Dear xxxxxxxx,
Demand for Emerald eJournals is high among users at Nottingham Trent
University.
In fact, your library users have tried to access
Emerald eJournals 5664 times in the last 12
months.
20. Talis Report - Journal Articles on Resource
Lists
14 April 2014
20
21. Top 30 Most requested ILLs by School
Journals
14 April 2014
21
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
NoofILLRequestssince2009
AAH
ARES
NBS
SOC
SST
22. Successful serials reviews -
is there a better (Evidence
based) way?
What evidence do we have of what our users really don’t want ???
Low usage figures
CPU exceeds cost of Document Delivery / Interlibrary Loans
Lost electronic access which goes unreported?
In house knowledge and expertise from Liaison teams of subjects / courses
no longer running at NTU
14 April 2014
22
Journal of public health medicine. 1 7 12 2 £157.49
Journal of public health. 114 57 88 96 £3.67
Journal of public policy 137 85 101 191 £1.16
Journal of research in crime and delinquency 137 £3.64
Journal of service research 478 £1.24
23. Conclusions - what have we learned? (1)
Never underestimate the importance of advocacy /
carrying academics with you
Don’t make the survey too complex - be wary of
different types of voting
Resist the temptation to ask too many questions
Don’t try to conflate frequency of use with
importance?
Consider direct personal approach rather than
impersonal surveys
Feedback from pilot departments very positive. PR
success – not seen as a cutting exercise
14 April 2014
23
24. Conclusions - what have we learned? (2)
Don’t underestimate:
Workload - pre and post review
The unpredictable nature of voting patterns
The likelihood of top wish list votes going to
existing subscriptions - highlighting issues for
training & discovery
The need to feedback on actions taken &
outcomes
The need to have a good news to feedback to
ensure future participation
14 April 2014
24
25. Next Steps – Options for
Future Serials reviews
Another set of Blank page pilots -
maybe face to face & not survey??
Combination of both survey and face
to face?
Rolling cycle of Departmental blank
page reviews every 3 years with
incremental £ in £ out in intervening
years?
Evidence based metrics approach
Plus
Complete analysis and write up /
publish outcomes of the survey
14 April 2014
25
