You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘digital library’ tag.

Open access publishing is slowly gaining a foothold in scholarly publishing.  The availability of scholarly publications for research through open access publishing is critical to the feasibility of an all digital research library.

In 2007 President George W. Bush signed a bill allowing the National Institute of Health to publish research as open access documents.  The NIH Public Access Policy implements Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008) states:

SEC. 218. The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.

Some members of Congress are trying to stop this policy from spreading to other federal agencies, with backing from the publishing lobby.   H.R. 801 was introduced by Representative John Conyers on February 3, 2009. Called the “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act,” this bill seeks to stop public access publishing from spreading to other Federal agencies.  This bill, or a similar version, has been introduced in previous sessions of Congress, but has been overshadowed by larger problems.  However, Representative Conyers, who oversees the House Judiciary Committee, has recently abolished the subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Policy.  It is believed that Rep. Conyers made this move in an effort to pass H.R. 801 this session.

Peter Suber believes that the success of the NIH Public Access Policy will provide key evidence to support the defeat of H.R. 801.  Currently, the NIH publishes 80,000 papers per year to advance research in every area of biomedicine. Even the most reluctant publishers will be forced to adapt to open access or fail if they wish to remain relevant.  Peter Suber foresees a lawsuit from the publishing industry lobby based on copyright protection, but predicts that this will fail.  The publishing industry will soon reach a tipping point in favor of open access publishing.

Mr. Suber also believes the current economic recession will play a role in reaching this tipping point, and not simply by rendering H.R. 801 as unimportant.  He states, “If TA publishers found OA journal business models unattractive a few years ago, one reason was that subscription models still looked better.  But the balance of attraction has to change as the odds of survival under a subscription model decline…and today at least three [OA] publishers are reporting profits, including BMC…which is based in expensive London.” (¶14, SPARC newsletter).

Even the most prestigious universities are not immune from financial pressures in the current economy. Every budget item is weighed and scrutinized, and in this economic climate, paying for access to subscription databases and  publishing contracts is relegated to the lower levels of the priority list.   On March 20, 2009, M.I.T. announced that ALL faculty research would be published in a free online repository.   The press release mentions that although other universities, like Harvard and Stanford, publish research from select departments as open access documents, MIT would set a higher standard by publishing research from every department in its online repository.

Mr. Suber tempers expectations that complete open access will be reached in 2009, much less 2010.  “[M]aking predictions based on what appears to be wise rather than what appears to be unavoidable, or treating reasons as causes, is most likely to pay off when the relevant players are informed and rational.”  (¶23, SPARC newsletter).  Indeed, those who oppose open access publishing surely believe that they are ones who are “informed and rational.”

As the quantity and quality of open access publications improve, so too will the likelihood that an all digital library will come into fruition.

Works cited:

Fair Copyright in Research Works Act.  Accessed March 29, 2009.

Plotkin, Natasha.  MIT Will Publish All Faculty Articles Free In Online Repository
The Tech.  Online Edition. Volume 129, Issue 14.  Published: March 20, 2009.   Article accessed March 29, 2009.

Suber, Peter.  Predictions for Open Access, 2009.  SPARC Open Access Newsletter, Issue #218.  December 2, 2008. Accessed March 30, 2009.

Website, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  Accessed March 29, 2009.


UC Merced Library bills itself as “Not what other research libraries are, what they will be.” This library is designed to be a model for future libraries. Traditional libraries may be envious of its sleek design and model for operations: 65% of the budget is used for collections development, and only 35% goes toward operations. The staff is purposefully slim, utilizing library assistants and student workers to help keep the operations budget down. The staff is available to answer questions in person, and via text, chat, e-mail, and phone.

The library staff has been energetic in their outreach efforts, conducting many classes to teach the customers how to use the library resources. From August 2007 – July 2008, over 100 classes in library instruction were taught to over 3000 participants. Given that there are 2,718 students on campus, and 898 faculty, if each participant attended only one class, then the library staff taught a class to virtually every student and faculty on campus. While that “if” is unlikely, it should be acknowledged that this level of outreach is outstanding.

The library collections are a mix of digital and print. It is interesting that the library collection features 70,000 books, but 150,000 eBooks. Online journals, databases, and online course readings also feature prominently in the collection. UC Merced Library has also assumed a leading role in digitizing personal collections. For example, “[t]he Library used a grant from the federal Institute of Museum and Library Services to create hundreds of digitized images of unique works of Japanese art belonging to the Ruth and Sherman Lee Institute for Japanese Art at the Clark Center in Hanford, California. High quality images of these artworks, enhanced with searchable metadata, are (or will soon be) available to anyone with an internet connection.”

The library itself features collaborative workspaces with comfortable sofas, private rooms with whiteboards and office furniture, and a quiet reading area on the fourth floor. The entire library has wireless and wired network access. The building is a modern glass and metal design with clean lines and windows for walls. The pictures on the website are beautiful; the library appears to be the antithesis of cement libraries with dark corners and dusty stacks. The library was also awarded LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) Gold Certification, which means the building is as energy-efficient and economical as it is beautiful.

Because this library concept is still fairly new, it will be interesting to see how it develops, particularly with the economy in California facing steep budget cuts. Will the library thrive with their budgeting design? If the University is forced to cut their budget, where will it be trimmed: the digital collection development, print books, database licensing? Or perhaps the current budget is perfect for maintaining quality service to its patrons without sacrificing anything in the collection. After the library has been in operation for a while, does the library see a need to add to the staff, and if so, would they continue to add library assistants or degreed librarians?

As a model for future libraries, it would be interesting to review customer satisfaction surveys from UC Merced. The results of those surveys would certainly point the way toward whether an all-digital library is feasible.

Sources Cited:

Ithaka ( conducted surveys in 2000, 2003, and 2006 to better understand “how new technologies are impacting faculty attitudes and behaviors.” (Housewright and Schonfeld, p. 4). These studies attempt to teach the academic library community what services the faculty likes, and how to add value to existing services so that the library remains a focal point for campus research.

As should be expected on a large campus with diverse research areas, each department has a different view of the library. Ithaka found that “[m]ore than 80% of humanities faculty think that the librarians’ role remains just as important, but less than 60% of scientists support that opinion – social scientists fall in the middle, at around 70%…” (Housewright and Schonfeld, p. 5) Faculty attitudes toward the usefulness of librarians can be further broken down by discipline. “While about 80% of sociology faculty feel that the role of librarians is of continuing importance on their campus, only about 30% of economists….agreed with this view.” (Housewright and Schonfeld, p. 4). In general, the scientific disciplines ranked librarians and the library’s electronic catalog below other electronic discovery tools as their first choice for locating resources.

Across the board, faculty members expected to depend less upon the library as their first choice for research, as they increase their dependence upon other electronic discovery tools. Paradoxically, librarians expect to become more important as the first choice for research because they know how much work goes into acquiring these electronic databases for the university. If the faculty can’t actually see the librarians working behind the scenes on database licensing and electronic collection development, how can the faculty understand that librarians still provide value in an electronic environment? This report suggests that libraries step up their marketing efforts on campus in order to increase awareness of the library’s role in providing electronic research tools for the university. Texas A&M has successfully used marketing as a means to increase the use of the library’s virtual reference services.

How are academic libraries adapting to these changing attitudes? Some libraries are attempting to license as many databases as the budget allows.  However, the research in Ithaka’s report suggests that libraries should approach their licensing efforts strategically, taking into consideration which departments of the university are ready to make the switch to all digital resources, and which disciplines still prefer to read from print journals. This is particularly important so that libraries do not change to all digital resources in an attempt to save money and shelf space; they may end up wasting their budgets on resources that a good portion of the faculty will not use. In any situation, rushing people into changes they are unwilling to make is not a productive strategy. 

Ithaka’s report focuses mostly on existing electronic resources in the form of databases. However, libraries are also active in the creation of digital collections through digital preservation. Preserving historical research articles, artifacts, and photo collections can help a library create a unique profile and attract a variety of researchers.  For example, the University of North Texas maintains the Portal to Texas History ( on its library site. This digital collection benefits North Texas as a whole by attracting researchers of all stripes to the North Texas Library Website.  If libraries maintain a close relationship with faculty as they develop and create a personal digital collection for the university, everyone will win. The library will have a unique collection that the faculty, students, and outside researchers will treasure.

Active collaboration between campus libraries and campus faculty will help raise the profile of librarians, and increase the faculties’ understanding of the role librarians play in acquiring electronic resources. Librarians must not passively assume “everyone knows” that libraries provide these resources. If librarians actively work with faculty members during the print-to-digital transition through workshops, faculty interviews, and regular surveys, librarians will be able to maintain a prominent role on campus whether or not their library is all print, all digital, or somewhere in between.

Source Publications:

Housewright, Ross and Schonfeld, Roger. “Ithaka’s 2006 Studies of Key Stakeholders in the digital Transformation in Higher Education.” Ithaka: Publications. 18 Aug 2008. Ithaka. 22 Feb 2009 <;.

MacDonald, Karen, vanDuinkerken, Wyoma and Stephens, Jane. “It’s All in the Marketing: The Impact of a Virtual Reference Marketing Campaign at Texas A&M University.” Reference & User Services Quarterly 47(2008): 375 – 385.

If you were opening a new research library and wanted to offer only digital collections, would that even be feasible?  Is enough material available in electronic formats to support research and teaching needs?   If you only needed to provide access to journals, perhaps you could go digital, since most journals are available online or moving that way.   According to a 2007 ARL report, “Approximately 60% of the universe of some 20,000 active peer-reviewed journals is available in electronic form” (Johnson and Luther 2007, 1). Moreover, 70% of libraries’ subscriptions in 2006 were to ejournals or ejournals plus print (Johnson & Luther 8).  Users seem to prefer ejournals; a University of California study found that online journals were used 10 times more than print journals (Johnson and Luther 2007, 1).  Although we are in an “extended transition zone” from print to digital, Johnson and Luther’s study predicts that over the next 5-10 years printed journals will decline, and ultimately 95% of journals will be electronic.

With monographs, the shift from print to digital gets more complex.  Once the Google Books settlement takes effect, research libraries can subscribe to digitized, full-text versions of out-of-print books, but currently relatively few newly published scholarly ebooks are available through ebook aggregators.   A recent study by Jason Price and John McDonald of Claremont Colleges investigated whether a research library could pursue “paperless acquisition” for recently published books.  Price and McDonald compared purchases of print books made by 5 research libraries in 2006 and 2007 to the catalogs of 4 major aggregators of ebooks for libraries (EBrary, NetLibrary, EBookLibrary, and MyILibrary). They found that around 70% of the libraries’ 2006 & 2007 print acquisitions were not available through the leading ebook aggregators.  According to their preliminary analysis, there is a mismatch between the content that some publishers (such as Routledge and Oxford UP) make available through ebook aggregators and what libraries purchase; also, some university presses do not yet appear to be making their publications available as ebooks.  In some disciplines (art, music, romance literatures), over 80% of library purchases are not available electronically, while in other disciplines (economics) only 53% are not available as ebooks.  (I would bet that the exorbitant cost of licensing artworks holds back the publication of art history ebooks, even though a shift to digital may be one solution to the publishing crisis in art history.)  Price and McDonald’s findings seem to jibe with a 2006 JISC report, which concluded that “the availability of ‘core reading list’ material (that is those monographs and textbooks that are central to most academic programmes, and which are intended to be widely and intensively used by students), has been slow to develop. There are a number of reasons for this, of which the most important is probably that publishers have been reluctant to make available fully electronic versions of popular texts for fear of losing hard copy sales” (Higher Education Consultancy Group 2006).

Price and McDonald point to another significant problem with the current ebook model: Digital Rights Management, or DRM, limits the usability of ebooks.  You can do a lot with a print book: photocopy or scan as many pages as you like, scrawl in the margins, highlight passages, bookmark pages, skip around, read it in the bathtub, give it to someone else, make art out of it, etc.   Due to limitations imposed by some DRM regimes, readers of ebooks may find that they only can print a limited number of pages, have to navigate awkwardly through the book, cannot take notes or bookmark pages, and cannot give the book to someone else.  Note that these limitations are not technological; some ebook platforms allow for printing, annotating, the incorporation of multimedia content, sophisticated searching, and more. (JISC provides a handy chart for comparing ebook platforms.)  Some ebook publishers, such as Pan MacMillan, are loosening up on DRM and allowing, for instance, people to read ebooks on their iPhones  and other publishers and aggregators seem to be exploring the possibility as well (Lonsdale and Armstrong 2008).  (See The once and future e-book: on reading in the digital age for a smart take on DRM.)  Then there are problems with reading on a screen—sure, many people will read articles, emails, Twitter feeds, etc. on a screen, but most seem to prefer to read long-form pieces in print, or at least on a more compact device than a desktop or laptop.  As someone from the ebook publisher Safari noted, Safari is “used much more for practical learning where someone has a very definite problem to solve or a research topic – they spend on average about 30 minutes, so it’s not for immersive reading.”(Lonsdale and Armstrong 2008)   Ebooks face significant obstacles in terms of data standards, portability from one system to another, intellectual propery policies, publishing models, cultural resistance, and the development of appropriate e-readers and other devices (although the Kindle has reportedly been selling quite well, partly due, I suspect, to Oprah’s endorsement).

Yet there are strong indications that ebooks will play a significant role in research libraries, perhaps in the next 5 years.  According to the IDPF, ebook sales in November 2008 increased 108% from the same period in 2007.   Mark Nelson, who studies ebooks for ECAR, claims that technical obstacles and IP concerns will likely be resolved within the next 5 years, and cultural obstacles will recede as new, digitally-savvy students enter college.  As Nelson argues, “While we are already seeing the beginning of a shift to e-books on many campuses, higher education has probably up to five years to prepare for significant e-book adoption on campus—at least in the area of course materials, such as textbooks” (Nelson 2008).  OK, but what about library books? A study by Primary Research Group found that library spending on ebooks increased 36% between 2006 and 2007 and that 69% of research libraries plan to increase spending over the next two years.  In a 2008 Library Journal article, Carol Tenopir declared that “Ebooks Arrive,” pointing to users’ preference for electronic reference books and textbooks as well as publishers’ marketing of new collections of scholarly ebooks.

In any case, by 2020, it’s likely that most published resources will be in a digital format—and that ebook readers and other reading interfaces will have evolved to the point where readers are perfectly comfortable using them.  According to a study cited by Lynn Brindley of the British Library,  “by the year 2020, 40% of UK research monographs will be available in electronic format only, while a further 50% will be produced in both print and digital” (The British Library).  Yet the Report of the C-LIB Subcommittee on Digital Information Technologies in the Research Library Environment at Stanford claims that “it will require at least two generations of faculty renewal—something like 50 years—before electronic media take precedence over paper support in some fields of inquiry.”  While these two perspectives are not incompatible—fields can continue to rely on print books long after digital publication begins to dominate—I wonder what the Stanford group’s assertion is based on.  As a book-lover and book historian, I certainly acknowledge the importance of the book as a physical object.  As books begin moving online, it’s important for libraries to preserve multiple copies of the physical works (and heck, maybe the digital too), perhaps through a network of regional collaborations.  But I’m skeptical that in 2058 researchers will rely on print for non-archival research.  Sure, scholarly culture is slow to change, and it may take as long as a generation—but most people adapted quickly to ejournals, word processing applications, and cellphones.  Why not ebooks—provided that appropriate works are available, the interface is user-friendly and enables both immersion and interaction, the cost of purchase or subscription is reasonable, IP issues are worked out, etc?  While a research library in 2009 could not depend primarily on electronic publications for its collections (except perhaps for special libraries in fields such as law and medicine),  I’m willing to bet that by 2058 it could.

Works Cited

C-LIB Subcommittee on Digital Information Technologies in the Research Library Environment at Stanford. 2008. Report of the C-LIB Subcommittee on Digital Information Technologies
in the Research Library Environment at Stanford. Stanford University, September 8.

Higher Education Consultancy Group. 2006. A Feasibility Study on the Acquisition of e-Books by HE Libraries and the Role of JISC . .

Johnson, Rick, and Judy Luther. 2007. The E-only Tipping Point for Journals: What’s Ahead in the Print-to-Electronic Transition Zone. ARL.

Lonsdale, Ray, and Chris Armstrong. 2008. Aggre-culture: what do e-book aggregators offer? Library and Information Update, April.

Nelson, Mark. 2008. E-Books in Higher Education: Nearing the End of the Era of Hype? EDUCAUSE Review 43, no. 2 (April).

The British Library. British Library predicts ‘switch to digital by 2020’.