New approaches to Collections Strategies Sally Krash Interim Associate Dean for Content & Discovery NETSL 2018 Annual Spring Conference

Talking Points Current Environment Changing Collections Focus Recent Developments Collections Budget Drivers Collections Data Moving Forward

Current Environment Like many academic research libraries, the UMass Amherst Libraries have been migrating from print to digital resources over the past twenty years. During this time, we began strategically expanding our collections through moving into collaborative publisher-specific license packages that at first were a great value However, over time, we found that licensing became less strategic and more reactive as we were locked into agreements that had annual increases above and beyond what the libraries could afford Also, during this time, the Libraries positioned themselves to create and acquire distinctive digital collections As well, our Libraries have been leaders in the fields of Scholarly Communications, Open Access (OA) initiatives, and Open Education Resources (OER)

The Future of Libraries @MIT MIT Libraries aim to develop a global scholarly community environment that will have the following characteristics: Shared repository ecosystem Unified deposit interface for all campus, government, and nonprofit repositories System for aggregated and inexpensive usage data, including research analytics Nonprofit campus-supported disciplinary repositories Shared print collections Shared print storage Shared digital collections and discovery systems Collaborative digital preservation Top quality open access journals Less expensive, open source publishing systems and services

Changing Collections Focus UMass Amherst Libraries are approaching exciting changes in collections strategies that include Moving the collections focus away from more traditional commercially published scholarly content towards more of a focus on locally produced distinctive digital collections Supporting new OA and OER scholarly ventures Positioning the collections budget to be more strategic, moving away from license deals that are hindering our ability to meet the broad needs of our community Developing innovative methods for appropriately collecting and disseminating data to inform collections decisions Sharing and collaborating with colleagues who are undertaking similar initiatives

Recent Developments Roger Schonfeld’s Ithaka Issue Brief “Red Light, Green Light: Aligning the Library to Support Licensing” (Schonfeld, 2017) confirms this trend/line of thinking that libraries need to take back control of collections budgets and continue to pivot towards increasingly distinctive collections and services in support of teaching, learning, and research. He concludes by stating “Controlling the collections budget is therefore a key strategic priority for the academic library vision or mission statement.” David Lewis, Dean of the IUPUI University Library, recently wrote “Thinking Differently About the Money: A First Step Toward the Open Scholarly Commons”. (Lewis, 2017) addresses the shortcomings of the current collections budget model where the majority of money is devoted to digital resources available through publishing monopolies that have developed “Big Deal” packages that squeeze library budgets to the point of making difficult decisions, like reducing or eliminating discretionary print monograph funds or dropping needed resources that are not part of a “Big Deal” package. Lewis proposes an Open Scholarly Commons that would be digital and distributed, and this project was discussed widely at CNI in December, 2017. (Lewis and Roy, 2017) This model will be funded and hosted by various cultural and government entities, not by publishers, and be freely available to all. Fall 2019, Mike Roy gathered data from over 30 academic libraries to inform the 2.5% Commitment conversation and reported on this at the CNI conference in December

Collections Budget Drivers Libraries have experienced a significant reduction in the ability to collect needed scholarly content due to a variety of reasons decreased funding increased costs of resources far outpacing inflation development of publishing conglomerates that are monopolizing the marketplace publishers strong-arming libraries via licensing of Big Deal packages Library budgets are approaching a tipping point, with resource costs accelerating at such a rate that things like print monograph funds and funds for journals from smaller publishers will be extinguished in order to perpetuate the Big Deal model It is time for libraries to take a different, more strategic and less reactive approach to managing and distributing the collections budget Libraries will develop licensing and acquisition strategies that favor the institution and support its core values At the same time, a trend towards managing reduction in local print collections is underway and a variety of shared frameworks are emerging. (Bell, Dempsey and Fister, 2015) One of those approaches is the inside-out model that is being advanced by the work of the MIT Libraries among others. While we do not envision our Libraries totally embracing an inside-out model, we do intend to develop innovative collections strategies that incorporate some aspects of the inside-out model. In the inside-out model, the collections focus supports resources which are unique to an institution over resources acquired by traditional scholarly publishers. (Dempsey, 2016) Traditionally, these resources have been available to the university community, but the audience for inside-out collections is the global community and supports OA initiatives.

Collections Data Responsible collection stewardship includes regular assessment of collection resources. This assessment should include, at a minimum, data from the following: academics & enrollment, acquisitions, circulation, interlibrary loan, and usage statistics. Collections-related data are currently collected in the UMass Amherst Libraries through various avenues and made available through Tableau software and other sources. However, there are no guidelines on how these data are used in decision making. Other libraries have added positions and formed teams to address collections data in the past few years (Brandeis, Columbia, NYU to name a few). George Washington University formed a Communications & Data Visualization team to clean-up data, a necessary preliminary step to provide accurate collections data that was then communicated out via a spending burndown report. (Sommers, 2017) In 2017, the Libraries’ Senior Management Group endorsed the Collection Analysis & Assessment Guidelines (Adamick et al, 2017) that were developed by the Collections Analysis Task Force. Guidelines document: https://works.bepress.com/sallykrash/17/ While some recommendations from our report have been accomplished, others remain to be realized.

Accomplished a short list….. Retired formula method of budget allocation for discretionary monograph funds in favor of a data-informed allocation method For fy18 we are conducting a pilot of data-driven monograph discretionary funding based primarily on data points Tested a model for assessment of large-scale subscription review projects UMass system-wide renewal of ScienceDirect ejournals package Developed one title list (previously had 3) based on both qualitative and quantitative data Used specific data points for e-resource usage to conduct regular reviews and engage stakeholders in the process Counter statistics (quantitative) Citation data (quantitative) E-journal survey (qualitative)

In Progress Expanding the use of Tableau for data informed collections assessment activities Using acquisitions purchasing data in combination with Five College Libraries data to conduct overlap analysis for collaborative spending projects to target areas that need more focus as well as areas that show changes in usage, allowing funds to be spent in more mindful ways Developing a subscription review checklist that advances our evolving collections focus Building systematic alerts to provide enough advance notice to conduct large-scale reviews Implementing a tri-annual database review process in order to free up funding for new continuing resources

Yet to be accomplished Hire a Collections Analysis Librarian and a Data Analyst for a re-imagined Assessment Unit that will expand assessment activities across the Libraries, including a focus on usability testing of resources, services and spaces Explore partnership opportunities between the Assessment Unit and university-wide assessment activities Provide regular training and information sessions about data assessment and analysis activities Use data in new ways, combining relevant data points to inform collection development activities in areas of more active student and faculty inquiry Use data to develop a deeper understanding of the users and uses of collections Tie ScholarWorks (institutional repository/IR), OA and e-reserves data into collection assessment activities

Moving Forward In order for the Libraries Collections Strategies to advance and be a leader in innovation, our priorities are Position the collections budget to be more strategic, moving away from license deals that are hindering our ability to meet the broad needs of our community Develop a framework for moving the collections budget to a more sustainable model that includes Establish licensing practices that support the Libraries’ mission Negotiate sustainable licensing including sustainable pricing models Use data in innovative ways to inform collections decisions De-bundle e-journal packages when the data shows that it makes more sense to do so (example: RSC/2017) Determine a viable way to convert some of the collections budget from licensed publisher resources to support digitization of distinctive collections Support OA and OER scholarly ventures Share and collaborate with colleagues who are undertaking similar initiatives.

References Adamick, J. et al. 2017, Collection Analysis & Assessment Guidelines. Available at https://works.bepress.com/sallykrash/17/ Bell, S., L. Dempsey, and B. Fister, 2015, A New Information Management Landscape: From Outside-in to Inside-out. New Roles for the Road Ahead (ACRL). Available at http://acrl.ala.org/newroles/?page_id=255 Dempsey, L. 2015, The Facilitated Collection: Collections and Collecting in a Networked Environment. Presented 12/1/2015 at the Libraries Australia Forum, Melbourne. Available at https://www.slideshare.net/oclcr/the-facilitated-collection- collections-and-collecting-in-a-network-environment-55785234 Dempsey, L. 2016, The Library in the Life of the User: Two Collection Directions. Available at https://www.liberquarterly.eu/articles/10.18352/lq.10170/ Lewis, D. 2017, The 2.5% Commitment. Available at http://fedorarepository.org/25- commitment

References cont. Lewis, D. 2017, Thinking Differently About the Money: A First Step Toward the Open Scholarly Commons. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1805/13774 Lewis, D and Roy, M. 2017, Towards a Scholarly Commons. Presented 12/11/2017 at CNI, Washington D.C. Available at https://scholarlycommons.net/2017/12/10/cni2017/ MIT Libraries. 2017, The Future of Libraries. Available at https://future-of- libraries.mit.edu/ Schonfeld, R.C. 2017, Red Light, Green Light: Aligning the Library to Support Licensing. Available at http://www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/red-light-green-light- licensing/  Sommers, H. 2017, This is a Story About a Collections Budget. Research Library Issues 292. Available at http://publications.arl.org/u3htpt/

Sally Krash UMass Amherst Libraries krash@umass.edu Questions or Comments? Sally Krash UMass Amherst Libraries krash@umass.edu