ARL, CNI, SPARC

RLI 282 The State of Large-Publisher Bundles in 2012 20 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC 2013 © 2013 Karla L. Strieb and Julia C. Blixrud This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. To cite this report: Karla L. Strieb and Julia C. Blixrud. “The State of Large-Publisher Bundles in 2012.” Research Library Issues: A Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC, no. 282 (2013). http://publications.arl.org/ rli282/.

Previous Page Next Page

Research Library Issues, no. 282 (2013) resources

Free Attachments

Follow Link RLI282.pdf

Extracted Text (may have errors)

RLI 282 The State of Large-Publisher Bundles in 2012 20 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC 2013 © 2013 Karla L. Strieb and Julia C. Blixrud This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. To cite this report: Karla L. Strieb and Julia C. Blixrud. “The State of Large-Publisher Bundles in 2012.” Research Library Issues: A Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC, no. 282 (2013). http://publications.arl.org/ rli282/.

Help

RLI 282 The State of Large-Publisher Bundles in 2012 19 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC 2013 trending toward a growing disconnect. Consortial licensing offers continuing benefits to institutions, but less and less often that benefit seems to be including access to a larger body of content. The licenses that are signed by the libraries or the consortia that represent them need stronger language in the clauses that are important to the research library community. The ability to use the content in new ways, the importance of sharing information between and among researchers and institutions, and the expectation that content will be available in the future all require diligent examination of and development of clauses that meet those needs. Especially important will be the emphasis on moving away from nondisclosure clauses to better position research libraries to negotiate license terms and prices individually or with their consortia more effectively. The authors acknowledge the value of the time taken by respondents to answer the survey and thank them for their willingness to share information about their contracts. Endnotes 1 The author published formerly under the name Karla Hahn and conducted an earlier journal- bundle study for ARL cited in this report. 2 Mary M. Case, “A Snapshot in Time: ARL Libraries and Electronic Journal Resources,” ARL: A Bimonthly Report on Research Library Issues & Actions, no. 235 (Aug. 2004): 1–10, http://www.arl.org/ storage/documents/publications/arl-br-235.pdf. 3 Karla L. Hahn, “The State of the Large Publisher Bundle: Findings from an ARL Member Survey,” ARL: A Bimonthly Report on Research Library Issues & Actions, no. 245 (Apr. 2006): 1–6, http://www.arl. org/storage/documents/publications/arl-br-245.pdf. 4 In the 2012 survey, 81 ARL member libraries responded, describing licenses and providing related information. 5 Charles B. Lowry, “Year 2 of the ‘Great Recession’: Surviving the Present by Building the Future,” Journal of Library Administration 51, no. 1 (2010): 37–53 and see Karla L. Hahn, “ARL Statement to Scholarly Publishers on the Global Economic Crisis,” Research Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC, no. 262 (Feb. 2009): 6–11, http://publications.arl.org/rli262/7. 6 Mary M. Case, “A Snapshot in Time.” 7 Charles B. Lowry, “Year 2 of the ‘Great Recession.’” 8 Mary M. Case, “A Snapshot in Time.” 9 “Elsevier Motion to Block License Release Denied in Open-Records Decision,” ARL news item, June 23, 2009, http://www.arl.org/news/arl-news/2421-elsevier-motion-to-block-license-release-denied.

Previous Page Next Page

Research Library Issues, no. 282 (2013) resources

RLI 282 21 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC 2013 Evolving Models of Reference Staffing at the University of Kansas Libraries Frances Devlin, University of Kansas John Stratton, University of Kansas T he proliferation of digital resources and technologies, coupled with a general decline in reference questions asked in research libraries, have brought new dimensions to librarianship and traditional reference services at ARL libraries. At the University of Kansas (KU) Libraries, reference services have evolved and been reconfigured several times over the past decade. Modifications to the service model have been made in response to changing user behaviors and technologically enhanced access to scholarly resources, and to focus on better utilization of library faculty time. In recent years, for example, librarians have assumed greater responsibilities while facing increased demands on their time, with expanded leadership roles in areas such as open access publishing, copyright consultancy, data services management, and classroom teaching. Given these changes in emphases, KU Libraries’ reference services have evolved to include formerly non-reference staff (i.e., paraprofessionals) who did not normally work in public service areas, but who nonetheless expressed a desire to work at the desk as a way to enhance their own skills. Over time, this staffing model has proven successful and, through a series of changes to the overall reference model, has been retained as an innovative and effective way to expand reference services and tap into expertise offered by library paraprofessionals. Early Changes Prior to 2002, KU Libraries had a traditional reference staffing model in Watson and Anschutz Libraries, which together contain the bulk of the collections for the humanities, social sciences, and sciences. Each library had its own reference desk and department, staffed by subject librarians housed in those locations. Due to anticipated budget cuts in 2002, the library administration implemented a pilot project integrating the functional units of reference and access services across the Anschutz and Watson Libraries. Following the departure of the head of Anschutz Library in 2002, it was decided that the position would not be filled. Instead, the library administration merged these separate reference departments, and the new combined unit was led by two co-coordinators. While it took some time for librarians and departmental staff to become used to the new arrangement and to working at both reference desks, eventually all made the transition. It was also during this same period that chat and instant messaging modes of communication were introduced as part of reference services, staffed separately away from the desks by librarians. In 2004, within two years of the merged approach, the library administration introduced another new reference staffing model, which was christened the “peer and tier” model and was based on the Brandeis Reference Model. This new model’s central feature was to place students and paraprofessionals at the Watson and Anschutz reference desks, backed up by librarians in their offices. Librarians, it was presumed, would concentrate on other duties, including outreach to academic departments, basic and

Previous Page Next Page

Research Library Issues, no. 282 (2013) resources

All section downloads (PDF) click to expand contents

Free Attachments

Extracted Text (may have errors)

Help

loading

Research Library Issues, no. 282 (2013) resources

Research Library Issues, no. 282 (2013) resources