Introduction

In the library world, change generally happens by evolution rather than revolution, although it might be argued that recent advances in technology and communications systems, and the impact these advances have had on the ways in which library users seek to access services and resources, have brought about a revolution in academic library practices. This chapter has been written at a time of financial uncertainty, at least in the UK academic sector – cuts in government funding, coupled with significant increases in student fees, will inevitably impact on library budgets. At the same time, users are becoming increasingly demanding of the services offered.

In the UK public library sector, funding constraints have been met traditionally by reductions to the book fund, to the point where there is now little left to spend on resources, and branches are being closed to make further savings. Academic libraries have always had more to spend on information resources than public libraries, and this proportion of their costs has remained relatively stable, at around one-third of the total. The response of UK academic libraries to the changes in the higher education sector has been made easier, perhaps, by the migration of information resources to electronic formats, allowing seamless access for users initially from their desktop and latterly from wherever they happen to be via mobile devices.

Researchers’ information seeking now goes on mostly outside the library, with only a minority – mostly in arts and humanities disciplines – visiting the building to browse journal content (Research Information Network, 2011). Google and Google Scholar are often used for initial searching, and provide links to open access sources when subscribed content is not available. Institutional, and other, open access repositories are growing, as are the numbers of institutions and funders mandating deposit of research outputs in such repositories (Fry et al., 2011). As a result, the multiplicity of versions of an article which can sometimes be accessed is a source of confusion for researchers, and may be an argument for better branding of both library-provided content and open access sources.

Journal provision in UK academic libraries

Providing access to journal articles is a key service of academic libraries worldwide, and however this might be achieved in the future, it is necessary to start from where we are now. Recent work carried out for the Research Information Network (RIN) (2011) has shown that provision and use of ejournals is linked with research quality and academic success, so that measuring this is one way in which libraries can show their value. In the UK, SCONUL (the Society of College, National and University Libraries) members have collected data on journal provision, and ejournal use, for many years, adapting the detail sought as the models of provision have changed. The most recent changes were implemented for the 2009–10 return, and are documented in Barclay et al. (2012).

UK data presented in this section for 2011–12 are estimates, based on the most recent available statistical returns made to SCONUL by its members. In 2011–12, UK academic libraries provided their users with access to more than four million subscribed journal titles, and included links to almost two million open access titles on their web pages and in their catalogues. Of the subscribed titles, 98 per cent were available in electronic format. Over the last 15 years, the average number of titles to which UK academic libraries subscribe has increased more than sevenfold, to an average of almost 25,000 titles per institution. This increase has been driven by the subscription packages and offers put together by publishers and aggregators for electronic content.

The total expenditure on serial subscriptions in 2011–12 was some £186 million, equivalent to almost £90 per full-time equivalent (FTE) user. In contrast to the increase in the number of titles available, spending has increased by a factor of three over the last 15 years. However, this increase is equivalent to just 25 per cent in real terms, when the effects of inflation and increasing student numbers are taken into account. The average price paid per subscribed title in 2011–12 was just £45, compared to £102 15 years ago (equivalent to £157 at today’s prices). The average list price of academic journals in the UK in 2012 was approaching £800,¹ illustrating the effects that journal deals, database packages and selective purchasing have had.

It is relatively simple to measure library expenditure on journals, and to count the number of titles made available. Measuring the use made of these journals remains an inexact science, but one that is key to understanding the value of the journal collection. Before the advent of electronic journals, use was rarely, if ever, measured in any formal way. With content hosted on publishers’ servers, rather than the library shelves, and access dependent on authentication of the user as a member of a subscribing institution, it has become possible to monitor use at a detailed level, although there is no universal standard as to how this should be done. Project COUNTER (http://www.projectcounter.org/index.html) has done much to improve usage reporting for all electronic resources, and many vendors provide their subscribers with COUNTER-compliant reports on usage. Others may supply figures which do not comply with the COUNTER Code of Practice, while a few still provide no usage figures at all. As a result, aggregated ejournal usage, whether across the whole library collection or more widely at a national level, is not available with any degree of accuracy. That said, it is most likely that usage, in terms of the number of downloads of full-text articles, is under-rather than over-reported. In 2011–12, an estimated 207 million full-text downloads were made from ejournals subscribed to by UK academic libraries, giving a lower bound for usage levels. Relating this to use gives an upper bound for the average cost per download of 90 pence.

International perspectives

Comparing UK academic library provision with that elsewhere in the world is fraught with difficulty. International standards are available for the definition and measurement of libraries, intended for the purpose of international comparison.² However, use of such standards is not compulsory, and whether they are followed is a matter for each individual country and collecting body. Much of the data collected is available only to members of the organizations responsible for the collection, although access may be available at a price, and in some cases summary figures are made freely available.

This section is based on a small selection of countries for which recent data could be readily found. It does not claim to be a comprehensive survey of academic library journal provision, and the reporting years for which data were available differ. The data sources used are listed at the end of the chapter (see p. 328). Differences in culture, regulatory regimes and funding sources must be taken into consideration in the interpretation of any comparative figures, which are presented for illustrative purposes only.

Figure 13.1 shows marked variation in the number of serial titles available per FTE student. The extent to which this variation represents a genuine difference in levels of provision – rather than differences in the definitions, completeness of coverage, or the ways in which the statistics are compiled in the different countries included – is beyond the scope of this chapter. Leaving aside the extremes of New Zealand and the US, there is no relationship between the size of the student population and levels of journal provision.

Figure 13.2 shows a selection of expenditure ratios, again demonstrating the diversity between countries. Note that what is customarily included in library expenditure will affect the basis on which the percentages are calculated.

Figures 13.2a and 13.2b show that New Zealand, with the highest level of provision of serials, also spends the greatest proportion of the library budget on information resources, and the greatest proportion of that on serials. In all libraries, the importance of serials, and of electronic serials in particular, is demonstrated by the relative spending figures.

Fewer figures were available on the proportion of serial expenditure on electronic titles (Figure 13.2c) and this is one area where the definitions applied can differ considerably. Subscription and distribution models for the supply of serials to academic libraries take many different forms, and how the various products are allocated, according to platform, content or price, will affect the global picture. For example, the distinction between full-text journals supplied via databases and those supplied via publishers’ serials collections is a fine one, but how these products are categorized in each library, and by each agency collecting data, can affect apparent overall levels of provision. In the UK, for example, SCONUL recently reviewed its statistics on the provision of electronic information resources, with those serial titles accessed via databases included in the count of total serial titles for the first time. This had the effect of increasing the apparent number of serial titles available to students by 70 per cent in a single year (Barclay et al., 2012). The actual change from the users’ perspective would have been considerably smaller.

Libraries and open access

When considering academic libraries’ role in relation to journals, the question of open access to journal articles, whether via the gold route of open access journals or the green route of self-deposit in open access repositories, cannot be ignored. Much has been written on this issue, from the perspectives of both authors and publishers. Early work was summarized in a report for the UK Research Councils (Brighton et al., 2008). More recently, the Publishing and the Ecology of European Research (PEER) project (http://www.peerproject.eu/) has undertaken extensive research on the effects of large-scale green open access across Europe, looking at usage, researcher behaviours and economic factors.

Libraries are influencing the open access debate in two main ways. Firstly, as noted above, they are providing links to open access resources from their web pages and catalogues, and it is to be expected that such resources have been subjected to quality controls, even if these are quite basic. The Directory of Open Access Journals (http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTempl&templ=about&uiLanguage=en) lists over 7000 journals internationally which are available to readers at no charge. All are peer reviewed or subject to editorial quality control, and none has embargo periods – i.e., a period during which the content is available only to subscribers before becoming free to all. Many open access journals operate a business model whereby authors are charged a fee when a paper is accepted for publication; such fees may be paid by the author(s), or, more usually, by the research funder or institution. Others – the so-called ‘hybrid’ journals – may offer authors the option to pay a fee to allow open access to their article, which otherwise remains behind the subscription barrier.

Secondly, academic libraries are often involved in the operation of their institution’s open access repository. Such repositories are now widespread throughout higher education, with over 2000 listed worldwide by the Directory of Open Access Repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/). In the UK, around 70 per cent of university open access research repositories were managed by the library in 2011–12.

Scholars are wary of using open access resources, however, and open access repositories in particular. While open access to journal articles has been shown generally to increase citation rates (Swan, 2010), which in turn is seen to promote the reputations of both individual researchers and their institutions, many academics are conservative in their approach both to depositing copies of their own journal articles into repositories and towards using material they find there (Fry et al., 2011). There is particular concern about the citability of material in repositories, with many researchers actively seeking out the published final version for citation purposes.

There are notable disciplinary differences in attitudes towards and adoption of open access. In the field of high energy physics, arXiv (http://arxiv.org/) is an established open access repository for pre-prints, widely used and cited. In biomedical fields, funder mandates have driven open access to peer-reviewed articles, via paid-for open access journals and publisher deposits in PubMed Central (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/), after an embargo period. In arts and humanities disciplines, where traditionally the journal article has been less important for disseminating research than monographs or practice-based outputs, awareness and use of open access resources are generally low. Such disciplinary differences may become important influences on library collection development policies in the future, as libraries strive to achieve greater value for money from their services and resources. For the moment, however, subscribed, peer-reviewed content is key, and academic libraries remain the chief provider of published journal articles for researchers.

As more and more scholarly material becomes freely available at the point of use, whether by open access to published versions of articles or by self-archiving of pre-prints, working papers and accepted manuscripts, it could be expected that libraries’ information resource budgets might be affected, but this does not seem to have been the case, at least so far. A survey of UK libraries in 2008 suggested that open access had had little impact on collection development, or on levels of expenditure, although it was noted that open access could help libraries to make a wider range of material available on a fixed budget (Creaser, 2010). More concern was expressed over issues of access to material, and the potential longer-term implications for the libraries if the predominant publishing model moved from the current user-subscription basis to the gold, author-pays, open access model. The recommendations of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings (2012) – the ‘Finch Report’ – are expected to be a key driver in the UK.

Researcher behaviours and library use

One issue for academic libraries in relation to electronic journals is access – how to provide access to subscribed content for their own users when and where they want it, and how to control access to electronic resources for external users who previously were allowed to walk in and browse volumes on the shelves. These are separate aspects, related to changing technologies.

The advent of electronic journals first allowed library users to remain at their desks to browse and read articles, rather than going into the library to consult the print collection. As technology developed, authentication systems were developed to allow users access from their home computer. Virtual networks and wireless technology widened the scope even more, and the proliferation of mobile Internet technologies via smartphones and notebooks is providing the next challenge for libraries. There is particular evidence for this in the health context, where clinical staff are beginning to use mobile technologies at the bedside to access information, and a range of new services are being developed to match these new ways of working (Harrison et al., 2011). At least one academic publisher has already configured its journal collections for mobile use,³ and others will not be far behind.

Researchers can now search journal content easily via library portals, publisher and vendor interfaces, and both specialist and general search engines, although recent research (Fry et al., 2011) suggests that researchers, in all disciplines, use only a few sources to search for research information. Readers like to use known sources, but will tend to use search engines, including Google and Google Scholar, rather than library portals or publisher platforms, when it comes to identifying relevant journal literature.

Despite the ease with which library users can access resources from anywhere, physical use of academic library buildings has not declined as much as might be expected. Although the average number of visits per user has fallen in the UK over the last five years, the overall occupancy rate has increased from 35 to 40 per cent, suggesting that users now spend longer in the library. UK academic libraries are preparing for the move towards electronic information provision by increasing the number of seats with workstations, these having risen from 27 to 29 per cent over the last five years. A further 34 per cent of seats now have power and wireless network coverage for users to bring their own laptops. Other provision includes flexible learning spaces where students can work co-operatively and informal areas for networking and social activities, all of which attracts users to the library.

Providing access to electronic journals for external users is a different challenge. There are three kinds of external users: those who happen to be away from their ‘home’ library at the time; those whose ‘home’ library does not provide access to the resources required; and those who do not have a ‘home’ library – members of the public and independent researchers, for example. The needs of the first group are likely to be met increasingly through mobile technologies and networks. The needs of the second group, and to some extent the third, will require co-operation between libraries, IT departments and publishers. Many publisher licences now allow ‘walk-in’ access to journals, and, in 2007, the Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA) produced a best practice guide.⁴ In 2009, a study for RIN found that much remained to be done (Research Information Network, 2009). External users are not, generally, an academic institution’s first priority, and finding the resources needed to adapt the IT infrastructure to allow external users to access library resources may be a long way down the list.

Conclusion

The issues around provision and access to journals are common to academic libraries across the world, and well known to the scholarly publishing community. Libraries continue to facilitate access to information resources of all kinds. Researchers, particularly in academic contexts, do not, yet, trust open access resources, and, with some notable disciplinary exceptions, will seek to cite published journal articles in their own work, rather than open access versions. These attitudes are beginning to change, as understanding of open access develops, as more material is made freely available in high-quality journals, and as more open access mandates are introduced and enforced. Libraries will continue to have a role in providing access to subscribed content for their users, and in recommending quality open access sources, for some time to come. They are also well placed to manage open access to their own institution’s research outputs via institutional repositories.

Libraries will seek to provide what they perceive their users want. While users continue to use subscription journals, libraries will buy them. The move from print to electronic delivery of content, and the expansion in the amount of content available to students and researchers which resulted, presented a major challenge to academic libraries, and they rose to that challenge. Journal delivery evolved to provide users with content in the new format, and new services were developed to meet new needs. The next challenges have already arrived, from two directions.

Changing models of delivery present the first new challenge: if (when?) research output is freely available via open access, the library role will need to change from that of provider to that of interpreter or facilitator. Researcher confidence in open access research outputs has been slow to develop, and the academic library should have a crucial role in building confidence in open access resources. The move towards open access to journal content has begun slowly, but could be likened to a steamroller – difficult to stop and even harder to put into reverse. This change may come sooner than we think.

A more immediate issue, perhaps, as more and more material is made available electronically, is providing access to the technology required. This has become an integral part of the library service, and keeping up with technology is a new drain on library budgets. As noted above, publishers are already formatting journal sites for access by mobile devices. Libraries are embracing the full range of social networking platforms to communicate with their users. In a print-dominated library, special provision had to be made for partially-sighted users to enable them to access content. In the electronic library, text enlargers and screen readers are already available for such users, but will there be a new group – the digitally disadvantaged users, who do not have their own mobile device to access content? Libraries are already starting to loan ebook readers, laptops and other devices to address this need.

While research continues to be carried out, and the results of that research continue to be published in article form, there will be a role for academic libraries in managing access to the content created. That role will change as article delivery mechanisms change, and academic libraries will evolve to meet the changes, and continue to provide the services their users demand.