A journal cancellation survey and resulting impact on interlibrary loan

Abstract

Objective: The research describes an extensible method of evaluating and cancelling electronic journals during a budget shortfall and evaluates implications for interlibrary loan (ILL) and user satisfaction.Methods: We calculated cost per use for cancellable electronic journal subscriptions (n¼533) from the 2013 calendar year and the first half of 2014, cancelling titles with cost per use greater than $20 and less than 100 yearly uses. For remaining titles, we issued an online survey asking respondents to rank the importance of journals to their work. Finally, we gathered ILL requests and COUNTER JR2 turnaway reports for calendar year 2015.Results: Three hundred fifty-four respondents completed the survey. Because of the level of heterogeneity of titles in the survey as well as respondents' backgrounds, most titles were reported to be never used. We developed criteria based on average response across journals to determine which to cancel. Based on this methodology, we cancelled eight journals. Examination of ILL data revealed that none of the cancelled titles were requested with any frequency. Free-text responses indicated, however, that many value free ILL as a suitable substitute for immediate full-text access to biomedical journal literature.Conclusions: Soliciting user feedback through an electronic survey can assist collections librarians to make electronic journal cancellation decisions during slim budgetary years. This methodology can be adapted and improved upon at other health sciences libraries.

Borrowing trouble? The impact of a systematic review service on interlibrary loan borrowing in an academic health sciences library

“…Similar findings were reported by Calvert, Fleming, and Hill in 2013, where a largescale cancellation and loss of content led to a mere 2% increase in ILL borrowing [8]. In 2016, Nash and McElfresh noted that journal cancellations at their health sciences library had a negligible impact on their borrowing transactions [9]. Nash and McElfresh's study is particularly relevant to the authors' current investigation because it looked not only at ILL borrowing activity, but also at the impact on copyright fees.…”

Changing Times: Assessment of Continuing Resources Due to Budget Cuts Necessitated by COVID-19

“…Nash and McElfresh confirmed this when they determined that none of the titles they cut had generated a significant number of ILL requests. 29 Jaskowiak and Spires' cancellations did not significantly increase ILL's workload. 30 Murphy and Buckley shared a new model that integrates a library's OpenURL link resolver with document delivery to make articles more readily accessible.…”