N OT J UST D RIFTING : C HECKING O NLINE S ERIAL I SSUE A VAILABILITY NASIG 2009 Kitti Canepi & Andrea Imre, Southern Illinois University Carbondale Katharina Klemperer, HARRASSOWITZ and EDItEUR

C URRENT E NVIRONMENT History of verifying receipt of subscribed serials Past practice based on print journals Now in an online environment Should the library be reactive or proactive? Lacking an automated process

E NVIRONMENT AT SIUC Attended NASIG presentation in 2006 Set up homegrown “check on” process in 2007 Modified the process in 2008 Asked ourselves some questions in 2009 How are other libraries addressing this? What are the related implications of the developing serials information exchange protocols?

S TATEMENT OF THE P ROBLEM How many libraries systematically check? What method do they use? How many know about SOH and SRN? What effect would it have on current methods?

S YSTEMATIC C HECKING R EQUIRES Trigger/tracking mechanism How often/how do we know when to check? How do track what titles have been checked? Verification methodology Where do we go to check? How do we know we really have access? Task assignment/training Who will do the initial checking? Who will resolve problems?

M ETHODOLOGY Literature search Created survey Distributed survey Analyzed the results

S URVEY O VERALL R ESULTS 237 Responses 74.7% Fac/Lib completed 98.73% subscribe to journals available online

J OURNAL B UDGETS Journal budget: 35.9% $1-5M, 31.2% $ K Percent journals online only Correlation between budget size and online journal spending Less $ = Less Online ONLY RangeResponse < 25%19% 25-50%28% 51-75%27% %25%

W HO D OES S YSTEMATIC C HECKING ? Out of 234 respondents, 51% are checking systematically

H OW O FTEN D O T HEY C HECK ? 50% of libraries check annually, 18% biannually

W HAT KIND OF TRIGGER IS USED ? 57% of libraries systematically checking online access use triggers

H OW ARE THEY VERIFYING ACCESS ? 79% open HTML/ PDF of an article 46% check journal website for visual indication of access 27% use subscription vendor’s information 24% check publisher’s holding information

H OW ARE THEY VERIFYING ACCESS ? 24% check holding information on publisher’s library admin site

H OW A RE THEY VERIFYING ACCESS ? 46 % check journal website for visual indication of access

H OW ARE THEY VERIFYING ACCESS ? 79% open an HTML/ PDF version of an article

W HO DOES THE F IRST R OUND OF C HECKING ?

W HO R ESOLVES P ROBLEMS ?

H OW W ELL IS IT W ORKING ?

F AMILIARITY WITH ONIX FOR S ERIALS

L EVEL OF I NTEREST

W HAT IS O NIX FOR S ERIALS ?

W HAT D O WE NOT W ANT ? More incoming Another list to verify

W HAT D O W E W ANT ? Automated process Consistent, reliable and standardized holdings information

W HAT N EEDS TO B E D ONE N EXT ? Librarians need to… Communicate clearly what they need/want Publishers and online providers need to… Provide correct information using standardized formats Subscription Agents need to… Provide tools to verify and work with information ERMS need to… Accept standard data formats and act upon them Link resolver and A-Z list vendors need to… Communicate their interest in receiving standard data

T HANK Y OU Contact info: Kitti Canepi, Andrea Imre, Katharina Klemperer, Bibliography Anderson, R. (2007). It’s not about the Workflow: Patron-Centered Practices for 21 st -Century Serialists. Serials Librarian 52(3/4): Anderson, R. & Zink, S. D. (2003). Implementing the Unthinkable: the Demise of Periodical Check-in at the University of Nevada. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 27(1): Carr, P. L. (2006). The Claim: Staking Out New Practices for Achieving the Objectives of Check-In. Serials Librarian 51(1): Yesilbas, A. & Schwartzkopf, B. (2007). Old Is New Again: Using Established Workflows to Handle Electronic Resources. Serials Librarian 52(3/4):