Use of print journals in an intracampus exchange program: implications for service and electronic journal subscriptions

BACKGROUND

At the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), there is an approximate one-mile separation between the Library of the Health Sciences (LHS) and the Science Library (Science). Journal price inflation rates have exceeded library budget increases in recent years, resulting in the need to cancel journal subscriptions at all libraries on campus. As journal cancellations were made, high cost and low use duplicate titles at both LHS and Science were logical targets. One copy was canceled at one library while the other committed to maintaining the subscription. Not all duplicate subscriptions have been canceled over the years; both libraries have still retained subscriptions to high use interdisciplinary journals.

So that faculty and students on both sides of campus would still be able to browse issues of titles canceled at one library, an exchange program was instituted between the two libraries in 1988. For each title in the program, newly published issues were routed to the exchange library for one week, then returned to their home library. Titles included in the program over the last decade were selected from duplicate cancellations and faculty requests for titles held only at the other library. Over the years, the exchange lists have grown large as duplicate cancellations mounted. This study of the use of titles while on exchange was initiated to determine which of the titles were being used, which were not and could be removed from the program, which titles patrons wanted to add to the program, and whether patrons preferred the print exchange or electronic journal subscriptions.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In recent years, serials inflation rates have been outpacing library budget growth for most health sciences libraries [1]. A 1997 survey of health sciences libraries has found that most libraries reported spending an increased percentage of their budget on journals while purchasing fewer titles when compared to four years earlier [2]. When journal cancellations are necessary, subscriptions that are duplicated elsewhere on campus are often logical targets for cancellation. At UIC, many duplicate subscriptions existed, and still exist, between the Science Library and LHS. Such duplication is not unusual; a study of serials duplication at the University of Michigan has found that the largest areas of duplication by Library of Congress (LC) subject were within the science and medicine call number ranges, with 21.6% of duplicates in science and 17.6% in medicine [3].

A 1993 study of duplicate journal subscriptions at the Chemistry and Physics/Astronomy Libraries at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that cancellation of all duplicate titles may not be cost effective. The results of the cost-per-use study suggests that “for highly used journal titles it is more cost effective to maintain duplicate copies than to rely on traditional interlibrary loan, commercial document delivery, or inhouse document delivery” [4]. At UIC, the exchange program offers an alternative to the document delivery services mentioned above.

METHODOLOGY

The exchange use study consisted of four parts: a study of the user's reports of their use of current exchange titles; a survey of interest regarding potential exchange titles; a study of reshelving of exchange titles at LHS as an accuracy check of self-reported use; and a follow-up survey regarding print or electronic journal preference. At both LHS and Science, the exchange journals are shelved in a special area of the library for a one-week period. The self-reported use data was gathered via a survey form attached to the front cover of each issue of an exchange journal received during October and November of 1998. The form asked patrons to indicate whether they were using the journal issue to photocopy an article or for current awareness. Current awareness was defined as scanning or browsing, whether table of contents or articles. Some patrons marked both types of use for an issue, which was counted as one overall use but also both types of use. Patrons were asked to supply their departmental affiliation while name was optional. As each issue was taken off the exchange shelves for return to its home library, the survey forms were collected and tabulated.

During the two-month study period, a survey was posted in the exchange area asking patrons which titles they would like added to the exchange program. A list of recent duplicate cancellations at each library was posted from which patrons were free to choose, and they were asked to suggest titles not on the list.

At LHS, patrons are asked not to reshelve journals after use. For the two months that the exchange study was in progress, shelvers recorded the number of times that they reshelved an exchange journal, providing another measure of use and a check on the accuracy of the self-reporting.

Respondents who self-reported use or requested that a journal be added to the exchange program were contacted via e-mail and asked if in the future they would prefer the print version of the journal on exchange, a library subscription to the electronic version if available, or both.

RESULTS

Use of the exchange program was much greater at LHS than at the Science Library (Table 1). During the two-month time span of the study, the 249 journal issues sent on exchange to LHS were used 302 times, with an average use of 1.2 uses per issue and a range of 0 to 3 uses per issue for individual journal titles. At the Science Library, the 97 issues sent on exchange were used 17 times, with an average use of 0.2 uses per issue and with no journal title averaging even 1 use per issue; all averaged below 1 use per issue. At LHS, 90 out of 100 titles (90%) were used, while at Science only 6 titles of the 24 (25%) sent on exchange were used. LHS had 157 (44%) current awareness uses and 198 (56%) photocopy uses, while Science had 13 (62%) current awareness uses and 8 (38%) photocopy uses.

Table 1.

Use of exchange journals

Of the 302 uses recorded at LHS during the study, 191 or 63% were by faculty from one program, the Program for Collaborative Research in the Pharmaceutical Sciences. At the Science Library, users of the exchange program were not concentrated in any one department.

At LHS, shelvers also kept track of the number of times they reshelved items. For the most part, the numbers they recorded matched or were close to the number of photocopy uses that were self reported by users of the exchange program. In 18 cases out of 100 titles on exchange to LHS, the discrepancy was two counts or larger, and, in 9 cases, it was three or larger. Overall, the number of photocopies reported was 198 while the number of reshelves was 207.

Faculty requested that fourteen titles be added to the Science to LHS exchange, while five titles were requested to be added to the LHS to Science exchange. For those who use it, the exchange program has proved valuable and expansion is desired.

Both exchange journal users and requestors of new titles were asked if they would prefer an electronic version of the journal if available and allowed by licensing, if they would prefer that the print copy be sent on exchange, or if they would prefer both formats. Only eight responded, and, of those, three preferred print, two electronic, and three preferred both an electronic subscription and the continuation of the print exchange. Comments indicated that the ability to scan large amounts of information quickly was imperative, especially for a faculty member from the Program for Collaborative Research in the Pharmaceutical Sciences who scanned journals for possible inclusion of articles in the Napralert natural products database produced by the program. The paper version of the journal was the preferred format for this type of work. Another faculty member commented that an electronic subscription would be preferable only if he were able to scan abstracts quickly and then link to full text as needed.

DISCUSSION

The use of the exchange program journals was steady at LHS and sporadic at Science. There was a group of faculty members at LHS who used the exchange journals regularly, rarely missing an issue of a title they were tracking. The same names turned up issue after issue. This repeat use indicated that while overall use was at one point low enough to cancel the duplicate title, most titles were of special importance to someone's research.

Five of the eight faculty members who stated a preference were willing to use electronic journals, but three of those faculty members also wanted to continue receiving the print version on exchange. While acceptance of electronic journals has been rising, there is still reluctance to give up print completely.

Electronic journal packages have varying features. Some permit both subject searching and table of contents scanning with links to the full text. Others only allow subject searching without the ability to scan the contents of the latest issue. Comments by faculty have indicated that electronic journals will be of most use if they allow the scanning of a large amount of contents information quickly. Current Web versions are often slow during peak periods of usage, not allowing for the speedy review of material. Faculty can be blocked at peak times of use if a university's number of licensed users is exceeded, a problem that could persist indefinitely if demand exceeds the number of ports a library can afford. In many ways, electronic journals cannot yet duplicate the functionality of having a print copy of an issue in hand. Tenopir and King have found that recent surveys show that university scientists find between 54% and 60% of the articles they read through browsing journals [5]. Browsing allows for current awareness and the serendipitous discovery of relevant articles. Good browsability will be essential for electronic journals to replace the print version.

CONCLUSIONS

The UIC library is developing an electronic journal collection that allows users to access journals from locales outside of the library buildings. The exchange titles are ideal candidates for electronic subscriptions due to their demand in two areas of the campus that are a mile apart. However, the comments received during this study suggest that print journals provide a mode of access that has certain unique benefits. Until technology improves so that users can scan electronic journals as quickly as they scan print, the print journals provide the preferred option for many faculty to stay abreast of their research focus. Therefore, the print exchange program will be continued for the foreseeable future with those titles used during this study plus requested new additions to the program. The exchange program offers an economical way to provide print access at more than one library location. Using the exchange program instead of purchasing duplicate print subscriptions saved UIC $186,000 in 1999.

Even if patrons prefer electronic versions over print, an electronic version of a title may not be available or it may not be possible to subscribe due to financial constraints or licensing restrictions. In those cases, the print journal exchange program provides a model that can be used to provide access at more than one library location when duplicate subscriptions are not feasible.