"Taylor & Francis empowers Wikipedia editors with access to all journals"

In a move aimed at enhancing the quality and reliability of Wikipedia articles, Taylor & Francis, a leading academic publisher, has announced an agreement with The Wikipedia Library. This collaboration grants volunteer editors free access to the entirety of Taylor & Francis and Routledge journals, providing them with a wealth of peer-reviewed research across diverse disciplines.

Read more at https://www.knowledgespeak.com/news/taylor-francis-empowers-wikipedia-editors-with-access-to-all-journals/.

No Big Splash after dropping the Big Deal

Just read "Leaving the 'Big Deal'... Five Years Later" by Jonathan Nabea & David C. Fowler.

• Via OpenSIUC: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/morris_articles/63/
• Via Taylor and Francis Online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1048037#

This article describes analysis on cancellation of three Big Deals five years later from two institutions.  Here are some of the conclusions with my commentary:

1. Demand for the content is not high enough to return to the Big Deal, since ILL requests for content which would have be covered by the Big Deal is about 10% of the downloads previously recorded.  I think the first part of the conclusion may very well be correct, but I don't think that ILL figures after cancellation of an ejournal collection doesn't map directly to real demand.  In fact, in extreme, the difference between the two could be interpreted in the opposite direction: access has dropped to 10% of what demand was previously.  Neither extremes are correct and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle since neither number is a good measure of actual demand in my opinion.
2. Savings were significant, particularly considering the size of the overall budgets, annual increases and inflation, and comparing it to the monographs budget.  This is not really an analysis but a statement, but I'm not sure that comparing the money saved with the purchasing power for books is useful.  Journals and books are two separate parts of a library's collection and it's not immediately valuable to say that with all the money we saved buy journals in a specific way, we were able to buy books in a different way.  The article uses this comparison as an illustration only but I'm not sure it's a very useful one.
3. Dropping the Big Deals gives us more flexibility.  Amen.  I think this is one of the best arguments for doing this.  The most dangerous part of the Big Deal is the lack of flexibility and control a library has when participating in it.  I just wish that flexibility and control could be given a dollar value so we could compare.

Not much analysis was done for this but something's better than nothing, I guess.  I would have expected something about any patron feedback that may be lingering, specific collections picked up since cancellation, changes in usage data for other collections or resources, etc.  What do you think?  Have you gone through any Big Deal cancellations?  What impact have you seen or expect to see?

Better electronic resource trials

Just read "Community organizing for database trial buy-in by patrons" by JJ Pionke.

• Via IDEALS (Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship): https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/79049
• Via Taylor and Francis: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1941126X.2015.1059643#

Good article suggesting some tips on running more successful, or rather, more patron-involved trials of electronic resources.  The typical trial process given in the article is basically what I do with a few "flourishes" added, so I learned a few things that I may try for next time and add to my list of steps:

1. Listen to the needs of the potentially affected patrons.  Although this seems obvious, I know we all find it hard to seek out the needs instead of just assuming we know them.  And sometimes the needs mentioned are not actual needs.  But understanding them better should be part of the process.
2. The trial acting as a case study was done in March.  I've tended to have them run whenever the trial requestor suggests or simply as soon as possible.  But there may be some value in running them during either March or November since, at my current institution at least, these are the peak periods of use for electronic resources.  All other things being held equal, this should ensure the most use and therefore the most supported feedback possible.
3. In the case study, the health librarian running the trial made personal contact with the relevant patrons, including the faculty department head.  I've always thought this should happen more but as eResources Librarian, it's not part of my role.  But I could encourage this and try to make it easier for those subject liaisons who would be doing this.
4. The article makes the true point that someone who is "one of us" is more likely to be listened to than otherwise.  Again, this is not my current role, and I'm not sure that it's as simple as that, but some aspects of becoming closer to the relevant patron group might be helpful in this and other situations.
5. The article finally mentions that training, support material, and updating communications followed immediately on the heels of the trial end.  Although this kind of this on my list of things to do, it might be helpful to increase the priority of the timing.

Good article, JJ.  Thanks for the tips!  Anyone else have anything interesting to suggest for running trials?

Allies in the effort to supply college students with textbooks

When I read the blurb about Algonquin College's new program to provide electronic books as textbooks for students through January 17th's Academica Top Ten email, I was impressed.  Sure, everyone's moving towards ebooks now, but it's always nice to see an academic institution move forward on such a project with this much effort and planning.  And speed too!  Three years might seem like a long time to take to do something like this but ebooks are still pretty new and, institutionally, we're all still testing the waters with the vendors to see what works and what doesn't.

The write-up on Contact North seems more like a press release than an actual information piece designed to help the other post-secondary institutions consider their own related projects but it points out many key strengths of the project from my perspective:

• Partnering with more than one publisher:  Excellent.  The more the merrier.  That gives the institution more flexibility in pricing and instructors more choice in titles to use as texts.
• One platform that isn't connected with a specific publisher:  Not bad.  Hopefully the developer will listen to the institution in terms of changing needs, customization, and support.  Although it is Ingram's product, and their other ebook platform, MyiLibrary, is pretty bad.
• AODA compliant to some degree:  It doesn't go into much detail but it's got something.  Again, hopefully they'll be able to work with the vendor.

However, the article claims several benefits that have nothing to do with the deal specifically and only apply since we're talking about electronic resources, online stuff, like how they can be kept current much easier and cheaper than with print.  Really?  An online resource can be changed by the vendor at a distance?  Wow.  Next you'll be telling me there are screens that respond to TOUCH.

There were a few details that bothered me:

• The constant referral to cost-savings:  That's great and all but it's a little cliched to lean on the not-quite-accurate idea that ebooks are always cheaper because of the lack of printing costs.  The deal includes, for now, a built-in discount for electronic versions compared to the print versions.  Phase One allows for perpetual access to the titles if the student downloads them to a personal device.  Hopefully that will last.  Publisher's haven't tended to just give away that kind of access in the past so hopefully it will survive the pilot stage.  Of course, I assume that students won't be able to sell the etextbooks they aren't using anymore, illustrating just where the students' "savings" are coming from.
• The library is not mentioned once:  Yes, this deal is about student "purchase" of textbooks, but I would hope that the library had at least a seat at the table since we've all been dealing with ebooks and access issues (not to mention the platform vendor and the publishers in this deal) for a long time.  Some of the texts being used might well be acquired for less and with more stability by their own library.  The library should also be used to negotiating consortially for ebook deals, a possible direction the article mentions at the end.
• 100% of students?  100% of programs?:  I hope that doesn't force the hand of faculty too much.  Despite the flexibility of platform and the selection of publishers, I would assume that it's not always going to be possible to find the ideal textbook in the list of system-compatible works.  I don't know how college instructors select textbooks for their courses but I hope that this doesn't mean that they will have to "make do" with a certain title just because the institution has demanded universal compliance.

Well, hopefully Algonquin and other institution's moving in this direction will learn and grow through this effort.  I will be interesting to see how it turns how, come next September.

[ Read "e-Textbooks at Algonquin College" from Contact North. ]