Finding the right balance between ownership of journals and access to the content of nonowned journal articles is a challenge to all research libraries coping with static budgets and increasing subscription costs. The Iowa State University (ISU) Library has implemented an evaluation model utilizing both cost-per-use data and interlibrary loan (ILL) cost figures to determine the overall cost benefit of two Big Deals, ultimately leading to the breakup of both. Interlibrary loan cost thresholds were utilized to subscribe to journals on an individual basis. Funds saved from the breakups were applied to the addition of new subscriptions identified as in high demand by interlibrary loan requests from the Iowa State University community. The use of interlibrary loan cost and use data was an important component in breaking up both Big Deals and adjusting the journal collection to be more in tune with user demand and contributing to a continued drop in demand for ILL service. Finding the right balance between ownership of journals and access to the content of non-owned journal articles is a challenge to all research libraries coping with static budgets and increasing subscription costs. The Iowa State University Library has implemented an evaluation model utilizing both cost per use data and interlibrary loan cost figures to determine the overall cost benefit of two Big Deals, ultimately leading to the breakup of both. Interlibrary loan cost thresholds were utilized to subscribe to journals on an individual basis. Funds saved from the breakups were applied to the addition of new subscriptions identified as in high demand by interlibrary loan requests from the Iowa State University community. The use of interlibrary loan cost and use data was an important component in breaking up both Big Deals and adjusting the journal collection to be more in tune with user demand and contributing to a continued drop in demand for ILL service.

Librarians typically view interlibrary loan (ILL) as a means of providing access to items not owned by the local institution. However, they are less likely to explore ILL’s potential in providing timely access to items locally owned, but temporarily unavailable, particularly in the case of monographs in circulation. In a two-part study, the authors test the assumption that, on average, locally owned books that a patron finds unavailable (due to checkout) can be obtained more quickly via recall than via ILL. Phase 1 of this study establishes an average turnaround time for circulation recalls in a large academic library for comparison with well-established turnaround times for ILL borrowing transactions. In Phase 2, a more rigorous paired study of recalls and ILL compares the ability of each system to handle identical requests in real time. Results demonstrate that, under some circumstances, ILL provides a reasonable alternative to the internal recall process. The findings also underscore the need for more holistic, interservice models for improving not just access, but also the timeliness of access, to monograph collections.

No abstract