Slide 1 The OhioLINK eBook Aggregator Study Amy Pawlowski Joanna Voss Charleston Conference November 5 th, 2015

Slide 2 OhioLINK Vision & Mission Vision: Provide Ohio students, faculty, & citizens with the best academic library content to achieve their goals and aspirations. Mission: OhioLINK creates a competitive advantage for Ohio's higher education community by cooperatively and cost-effectively acquiring, providing access to, and preserving an expanding array of print and digital scholarly resources in order to advance teaching, learning, research, and the growth of Ohio's knowledge-based economy.

Slide 3 OhioLINK is…. A member organization 121 member libraries Wide range of types of institutions: 5 ARL libraries, the Cleveland Clinic, State Library of Ohio, small theological unions, colleges of arts and music, law and medical libraries, etc. All public universities, two year colleges, and technical schools in Ohio Members not only consume services – they fund, build, and sustain shared services

Slide 4 OhioLINK: Putting the “I” in “IT” for over 20 years Shared Print Collections 121 libraries 50 Million Items 600,000 items delivered per year Shared E-Resources Annual content purchase of $42,000,000 Millions of articles in 10,000 journals More than 100 databases 110,000 ebooks And more Technology Services E-Journal, E-book, and database platforms Statewide publishing platform for Electronic Theses and Dissertations Management and support of major Platforms – Central Catalog, Discovery Layer, Link Resolver E-book Cataloging (Metadata Services)

Slide 5 Quick History of eBooks at OhioLINK 2 Longstanding Packages – locally loaded in the EBC (OhioLINK Electronic Book Center) –Springer –Oxford eBook ITN (eBook Pilot) –Worked with YBP and ebrary on hybrid of a DDA & profile purchasing model Ashgate, Roman & Littlefield, Cambridge –Picked up a Wiley package (side effect of the ITN) –Very staff intensive, both for central office and librarians assisting in the pilot

Slide 6 Shaping OhioLINK’s eBook Strategy Recognized that there is no “silver bullet” Our strategy would have to involve several approaches Devised a plan to start looking at data and talking with aggregators and publishers to make decisions

Slide 7 OhioLINK “eBook Bake-off” How we started to gather information from potential vendor partners Invited a group of 5 aggregators to present their platforms and content to CIRM (OhioLINK’s resource selection committee) –each vendor had an equal time slot over one day –Also invited YBP to present last to talk about how they could augment or assist with the vendors who presented

Slide 8 Focused Data Analysis: Can We Answer Our Questions? After bake-off, we decided to focus on how best to pursue the purchasing of University Press eBooks for OhioLINK Had useful information for YBP (GOBI) We had many questions we wanted to answer. Such as: –Which aggregators provide the most UP titles? –Which aggregators provide the most percentage of front list titles? –Is there any relation to what OhioLINK institutions are purchasing in print with what we can purchase in electronic?

Slide 9 Data Sources Limit analysis to university press content Look at 5 aggregators with university press content –EBSCO –JSTOR –Project Muse –ProQuest (ebrary) –University Press Scholarship Online (Oxford) Focus on most-purchased content in print and already- owned electronic

Slide 10 Data Sources Data TypeSource Publisher availability per aggregatorAggregator website / from reps Title-level availability per aggregatorAggregator website / from reps Print output from selected publishersGOBI search output Publishers with content in EBCEBC metadata export To make it manageable: Limit title-level comparison to YOP 2014 Limit publisher comparison to top 10 most-purchased university presses Request data in spreadsheet format

Slide 11 Methodology Phase 1: Publisher-level analysis Where is the publishers’ content available? Where might previously-purchased content be available? Phase 2: Title-level analysis Which titles are unique to each aggregator? How much of print is captured electronically by aggregators?

Slide 12 Publisher Analysis How do we handle text data that’s just a little bit different? –Excel – Fuzzy Lookup Add-on Compile master list of all publishers represented in aggregators Match up variations of same name (e.g. Oxford University Press, Oxford U.P., etc.) Result: –Side-by-side table of publishers per aggregator

Slide 13 Publisher Comparison Table

Slide 14 Findings Very few publishers have content on all 5 aggregators

Slide 15 Findings The top most-purchased university presses are not distributed evenly across aggregators

Slide 16 Findings Uniqueness measurement limited by specificity of publisher data Publishers representing 80% of EBC content represented on both EBSCO and ebrary

Slide 17 Lingering Questions We know we won’t get all content in one place Need to overcome publisher-level data issues How do we tell if these aggregators really cover the content we want?

Slide 18 Title-Level Analysis How do we match up LOTS of text data that’s just a little bit different? OpenRefine (formerly Google Refine) – –Filter title lists by most-purchased university presses –Limit to YOP 2014 –Reconcile not-quite-matching text & ISBN data –Count occurrences per title

Slide 19 OpenRefine Methodology Combine titles lists from 5 aggregators –Reconcile not-quite-matching data –Count the number of occurrences per title Unique ID based on ISBN and platform Not all provided lists had both print and eISBNs –Link books using both print and e-ISBNs –Number of occurrences counted across both Group publisher name variations

Slide 20 Open Refine Title Analysis

Slide 21 Findings Each aggregator has varying levels of content unique to its platform

Slide 22 Findings There is unique content from each publisher across multiple aggregators (in alphabetical order)

Slide 23 Findings Focus on Oxford University Press –Not all print content is available in electronic via these aggregators –Academic content most represented in aggregators

Slide 24 Conclusions Problems: –Capture existing purchased shared electronic content –Transition (shareable) print buying patterns to (shareable) electronic Solution: –Confirmed there is not a one-stop shop answer Investigating the use of multiple aggregators –Need to keep in mind how this will affect the usability of cross platforms for our users –Print is not going away We need to think not just about an eBook solution, but take the use of print into consideration. They are not mutually exclusive.

Slide 25 Questions Amy Pawlowski Deputy Director, OhioLINK Joanna Voss Collections Analyst, OhioLINK