Keeping Score: Assessing the Value of Electronic Resources in Faculty Research

8/12/2019 Keeping Score: Assessing the Value of Electronic Resources in Faculty Research

1/15

Keeping Score Assessing the Value ofElectronic Resources in Faculty ResearchMedical Library Association Conference

May 18-23, 2012

Leslie Williams, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusDenise Pan, University of Colorado Denver

Gabrielle Wiersma, University of Colorado BoulderYem Fong, University of Colorado Boulder


2/15

Presentation Outline

Pilot Goals

Methodology Implementation

Results

Pilot Assessment Google.com


3/15

University of Colorado

Boulder Campus:

University Libraries

Downtown Denver

Campus: Auraria

Library

Anschutz Medical

Campus: Health

Sciences Library

Pilot Participants

CU.com
https://www.cu.edu/content/campuses


4/15

Measure the impact of library

collections on faculty research

productivity

Find a metric to expresslibrary value to our

administrators

Develop and test a cost

benefit model for librarycollections and faculty

research

Pilot Goals

Google.com


5/15

Inspired by the Elsevier Study at University of Illinois at

UrbanaChampaign

Quantitative model based on

Return-on-Investment (ROI) &

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

Mixed methodology approach

Quantitative citation analysis of published

articles/chapters

Qualitative interviews of faculty use of

library resources

Methodology


6/15

1. In your most recently published article, for every article you

cited how many additional articles did you read but did not

cite?

2. Approximately what percent of the articles cited or read

were obtained from the following:

electronically from the library?

in print format from the library?

via Interlibrary loan from the library?

from non-library sources?

Faculty Interview Questions

Google.com


7/15

Gathered articles published in

2009 and 2010

Identified journal titles of

articles cited in lists of

references by authors

Determined source of full-text

articles

Calculated from references

% from journals cited

% of citations from online

library resources

Citation Analysis

Google.com


8/15

CU Boulder and CU Denver Auraria Library results

published in the proceedings for the

2011 Association of College and Research LibrariesConference

available online at

http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/c

onferences/confsandpreconfs/national/2011/papers/towards_demonstratin.pdf

University of Colorado

Implementation & Results

Google.com


9/15

Study participants

Single academic

department: PhysicalTherapy

21 faculty members

contacted, 12

responded, 6 publishedin 2009 and 2010

Articles published 12

(2009) and 16 (2010)

Implementation at

Anschutz Medical Campus

Google.com


10/15

Anschutz Medical Campus

QualitativeFaculty Interviews# of articles published in 2009-2010

Avg. # of additional articles read but not cited

Avg. % of articles obtained electronically from

library

28

2.1

90%

QuantitativeCitation Analysis% of references from journals

% of journal citations from online resources

91.7%

91.9%

Data Analysis# of journal citation from online resources

# of additional articles read from online journals

(but not cited)

1,068

1,791

AMC Data


11/15

Benefits= Estimated cost for faculty to buy articles directly from

publisher with pay-per-view

AMC = $94,342.37

Costs= Library costs for online journals/databases cited

AMC = $127,788.03

Based on Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Return on Investment

(ROI)

CBAis the ratio showing dollar value of benefits gained for

dollar value of costs.Benefits Costs = CBA

ROI is the percentage showing the return or increase in value on

dollars spent to achieve a benefit. ((BENEFITSCOSTS)

COSTS) x 100

The Colorado Model


12/15

Phase 1 Average

Representative

Sampling

Phase 2 Average

Using

Random Sampling

Phase 2 Low

Standard

Deviation

Phase 2 High

Standard

Deviation

AMC

cost per article $33.00 $36.36 $30.44 $42.27

CBA $0.74 $0.81 $0.68 $ .95

ROI -26.2% -18.7% -31.9% -5.4%

Based on 25 observations the mean article price is $36.36,while a 95% confidence interval for the mean article price is($30.44, $42.27).

What does this mean?95% confident that CBA is between $0.68 and $0.95.95% confident ROI is between -31.9% and -5.4%.

AMCs CBA & ROI Results


13/15

Reinforces current concerns

Allocating 98.5% of materials

budget

continuing electronicresources

Flat budget means we cannot

keep up with serials inflation

Questions the sustainability ofbig deals

Should we consider alternative

acquisitions and access models?

Implications for HSL

Google.com


14/15

Time requirement

Sample population

Use of qualitative data in aquantitative model

Assuming correlation

between the publication

date of facultys articles

and subscription costs

Future Pilot Considerations

Google.com


15/15

Thank you!

Contact info:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Keeping Score: Assessing the Value of Electronic Resources in Faculty Research

Documents

Transcript of Keeping Score: Assessing the Value of Electronic Resources in Faculty Research