loading

SPEC Kit 316: Evaluating E-resources · 17
Various licensing terms are considered important
to libraries however, seventeen percent of consortia
and thirty-one percent of individual libraries do not
use any standard licensing terms or model licenses
for e-resources. Also, despite various legal and other
considerations in licensing, cost was the only criterion
considered a deal breaker by a significant percent-
age of survey respondents. Further, about one-third
are not yet using an electronic resource management
system and the majority of individual libraries do not
use the National Information Standards Organization
Shared E-Resource Understanding (NISO SERU),
which could provide a valid alternative to a license
agreement.
These shortcomings not only open the potential for
wasted staff time and poor decision making, they also
carry potential legal ramifications, due to the nature
of contractual licensing.
If ARL member libraries’ expenditures on e-re-
sources were negligible, the deficiencies mentioned
above might not be important or worth mentioning,
but preliminary 2008–2009 data shows that the uni-
versity libraries spent well in excess of $741,000,000 on
e-resources. However, the lack of established policies,
processes, and procedures for the overall assessment
of e-resources puts libraries at risk for financial loss
in terms of finances and staff time. Also, by entering
into contracts without first negotiating and, if neces-
sary, establishing and/or removing issues concerning
applicable law, deal-breaking language, indemnifi-
cation issues, renewal periods, and so forth, librar-
ies are rendering themselves vulnerable and putting
themselves at the mercy of vendors. Legal crises and
lawsuits concerning contract violations do not appear
to have occurred, but this should not let these libraries
become complacent.
The findings of the Evaluating E-resources survey
should be considered a call for concerted communica-
tion, organization, and action among those responsi-
ble for the acquisition of e-resources in ARL libraries.
In order to improve operational efficiencies and to
maximize their effectiveness, research libraries must
recognize as essential – and establish as their highest
priority – the need to:
• Develop and create policies for the acquisi-
tion of e-resources, both those acquired
through consortia and those purchased
directly
• Create standardized methodologies that
meaningfully accommodate the assessment
of those resources described above
• Train all library staff who manage and
engage in contractual relations with vendors
in the importance of contract negotiation
• Share their assessment strategies with other
research libraries
• Collaborate and cooperate in sharing not
only policies and strategies but also relevant
operational and best practices data
• Coordinate in the development of system-
wide evaluative standards.
Should these tasks be undertaken successfully,
it is hoped they will move research libraries to a fu-
ture defined by a shared understanding and a con-
sistent implementation of best practices in evaluating
e-resources.

SPEC Kit 316: Evaluating E-resources · 19
Survey Questions and Responses
The SPEC survey on Evaluating E-resources was designed by Richard Bleiler, Humanities Librarian, and
Jill Livingston, Liaison to Allied Health, Kinesiology, and Physical Therapy, University of Connecticut.
These results are based on data submitted by 73 of the 124 ARL member libraries (59%) by the deadline of
March 8, 2010. The survey’s introductory text and questions are reproduced below, followed by the response
data and selected comments from the respondents.
This survey reexamines the issues recognized and assessed by SPEC Kit 253, Networked Information Resources (December,
1999). In order to permit a meaningful comparison of the 1999 and 2009 responses to this survey, the definition of “networked
information resources” first proposed in 1999 and the structure of the earlier SPEC KIT are partially reused. To reflect current reality
and situations, sections have been dropped, amended, and expanded.
The definition of 1999 stated that, “a networked information resource is defined as a commercially available, electronic information
resource (library database, full-text service, e-journal, etc.) funded or enabled by the library, which is made available to authorized
users through a network (LAN, WAN, dial-in, etc.).” As the events of the last decade have shown, this definition is dated in several
respects. Many research libraries:
• developed their own networked electronic information resources rather than relied on or waited for the development of
commercial products
• routinely acquire e-resources that have no print equivalent
• offer e-resources via Web interfaces rather than loading vendor-supplied databases or offering LANS, WANS, and dial-in
resources
• would rather subscribe to the packaged content of a vendor or publisher than license a single e-journal or database
• will not consider subscribing to an e-resource unless the vendor or publisher can provide statistical data concerning its
usage
and there are high quality, freely available online discovery resources (such as PubMed, ERIC, WorldCat, Google Scholar, etc.)
Nevertheless, for all that portions of the original definition have become dated, the core of the definition remains sound. For
the purposes of this survey, networked information resources are thus defined as “commercially available electronic information
resources (databases, e-texts, e-journals, datasets, and information resources) funded or enabled by the library, which are made
available to authorized users through a pre-existing network.”
This survey remains designed to re-examine the ways in which ARL member libraries have (re)structured themselves to:
• identify the availability of new e-resources in the market