Articles on Demand: Library Perspectives ALA Annual Conference June 30, 2014 Susie Bossenga, Northeastern Illinois University

 7500 FTE  37 undergraduate majors, 31 graduate degree programs  Commuter campus, diverse student body  About the Library ◦ $1.1 Million Library Materials Budget ◦ 786,151 Volumes Held ◦ 32,795 Serials Titles Currently Received

 Search the web ◦ Presentations ◦ Committee Meeting Minutes ◦ Notes/minutes from task forces ◦ Academic library news blog  Consult other libraries ◦ Notre Dame ◦ Carlton University ◦ Virginia Tech ◦ Marshall University

 Mediated vs. Unmediated ◦ Unmediated provides more immediate access to patrons ◦ Mediated provides more control over document delivery use and spending

 Can patrons request an unlimited number of articles? ◦ How would you track the number of requests? ◦ What would be an appropriate limit? ◦ Would you need different limits for different groups of patrons (e.g. higher for faculty)? ◦ What are patrons options when their limit is reached?

 Do we worry about our holdings? (e.g. what if someone requests something the library already owns?) ◦ How much overlap exists? Is it enough to justify spending time worrying about our holdings? ◦ If using an unmediated model, what are ways to prevent/discourage patrons from requesting content already owned by the library? ◦ If using a mediated model, how much staff time should be spent verifying the library doesn’t own content?

 Should document delivery be directly integrated into link resolver (SFX)? ◦ Increase discoverability of content ◦ Require staff time to maintain ◦ Link direct to content or link to a request form? (mediated vs. unmediated)

 Do we require users to set up individualized accounts, or do we have a centralized library account?  Is document delivery a better option than maintaining publisher packages?  How does content available through document delivery fit in with the library’s overall collection?

 Document delivery would be mediated by ILL staff  No limit on number of requests  ILL staff would verify content not already owned by library  No separate links for document delivery in the link resolver – patrons requested articles using the same form as for ILL requests.

 Infotrieve  Ingenta  BLInside  BLDirect Plus (in beta)  BLInside selected for price and availability of desired content

 Cost per use analysis was done to determine high cost/low use titles as potential cancellations  Bibliographers searched BLInside to determine availability and quality of content from titles targeted for cancellation  Titles for which document delivery would be an acceptable alternative were cancelled.

 List was created of all cancelled titles  ILL staff were instructed to use document delivery as the preferred method for fulfilling requests from titles on the list  Document delivery only used for titles not on the list if content was unavailable through other ILL methods.

 Cancelled 50 Journal Titles  $90,000 saved from subscriptions  ILL/Document Delivery expenditures increased by about $22,000

 DRM software problematic for some users  Difficulty accessing and using new BL interface

 Copyright Clearance Center’s Get It Now ◦ Implemented as primary document delivery service in 2011 ◦ Remains a mediated service ◦ Use ILLead Add-on makes it easier to determine which articles are available through Get It Now ◦ Titles that reach threshold for copyright compliance also purchased using Get It Now

 Exploring possibility of individual accounts with British Library for faculty to allow them to make unmediated loans.  Revisiting titles we will automatically request through document delivery.

 Green, D. & Melian, C. (2011, March). A long and winding road: Document delivery project at NEIU. Presented at the I-Share IACQ Open House, Chicago, IL.