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.

An analysis of interlibrary loan services: a case study of a university in South Africa

“…However, these results are at variance with Kelsall and Onyszko (2010), Raubenheimer and Van Niekerk (2015), Panda and Mallappa (2015), De Jong and Frederiksen (2015), Foran, (2015a), Stapel (2016), Yi (2016), Chalhoub (2017) who determined that ILL requests in Canada, South Africa, India and Netherlands declined but at odds with Fraser et al (2011) who noticed a substantial increase at a university in the Caribbean. Further, the results are at variance with Kilpatrick and Preece (1996), Calvert and Fleming (2013) and Nash and McElfresh (2016) in that the budget cuts do not seem to have a substantial effect on ILL activities. It is possible that the situation at UCT and other South African research-intensive universities was dealt with before it could have a clear impact on ILL of other institutions.…”

“…Five years after the cancellation of 727 journal titles, it was found that there were 3,143 requests for journal articles through ILL, and only 124 of those articles came from the 727 cancelled journals. Likewise, Calvert and Fleming (2013), and Nash and McElfresh (2016) found that despite the increase in overall ILL requests, very few requests were made from cancelled journals. Knowlton et al (2016) assert that cancelling information resources affects access to information by users irrespective of the availability of ILL services.…”

Measuring Cost per Use of Library-Funded Open Access Article Processing Charges: Examination and Implications of One Method

“…Scott and Eva found librarians describing thresholds of $20-25, or $5 at a large institution, for seriously considering cancellation (2017, p. 12). Others report such consideration at thresholds in the range of $10-$20 (Nash & McElfresh, 2016;Pedersen, Arcand, & Forbis, 2014) and $30 for one health sciences library (Fought, 2014 The specific examples in this study suggest that OA APCs may compare favorably to traditional publishing when considering value for money based on cost per use. However, the data in this study should not be interpreted as a verification of such an argument, as this study was not designed to answer that question, nor can it do so given the limitations on the data.…”