eResources in the Spanish Academic Libraries Isidro F. Aguillo Cybermetrics Lab. CINDOC-CSIC Biblioteca de Andalucía Granada, March 8th, 2007

2 Independent review A biased overview:  An external referee  Not librarian, but information specialist  Researcher point of view  Open access evangelist  Quantitative oriented

3 Everything you need to know… "Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" T.S. Eliott, in Choruses from The Rock (1934) Olivier Ertzscheid, 2006

4.. Did you mean Internet? Public WebPrivate Web Databases Repositories E-Journals Visible Web Invisible Internet

5 Role of the Spanish librarians Visible Web  Increasing the presence of Spanish academic web resources Invisible Web  New local resources  Integration of local and external resources Private Web  Larger collections and better access

6 ¿The new library?

7 Visible Web No local web search services  Even small specialized directories vanished Monopoly of search market  More than 90% of web searching in Spain uses Google (Yahoo, Live(MSN) and others contribution is neglible) Spanish contents in the academic Web  World: 2.5% (Spanish) vs. 80.1% (English)  Spanish speaking countries: 83,5% (Sp)/ 10,6% (En) But …  Google agreements with Universidad Complutense and Biblioteca de Cataluña

8 Researchers attitude Quality issues  Lack of confidence on Web contents  Proof: Limited self-archiving Access issues  No searching filtering by rich format files  Google Scholar = Google by other name?  Live Academic, what?  Scirus, Scopus need more marketing effort Web data  Hooray for Web Citation Index

9 Really huge and representative …?

10 Google Scholar Papers hosted in University domains (January 2007)

11

12

13 Invisible Web: Databases The new cataloguing: Metadata  DCMI (Dublin Core) is a real failure  No other serious attempt No new catalogs, but new databases  Few annotated web record services  Bibliographies not webliographies Repositories not directories  Combining existing resources Plus some digitalization  Major innovation: Hypertext (SFX,…) Link to full text (internal or external)

14

15 Invisible Web: Repositories Institutional  Few initiatives. Most signatories of the Berlin Declaration have not Open Access mandates  Thesis/dissertations: Copyright issue overcome? Thematic  Only international have succeeded: Arxiv, E-LIS Personal (self-archiving)  Extended CVs Mostly young new members of research groups Acrobat (pdf) format, almost no Powerpoint (ppt)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 Open digital collections at UCM E-Prints Complutense dissertations 188 papers 100 books chapters 52 conference proceedings 14 books Portal UCM journals papers in 62 collections Dioscórides books engravings OAI-PMH

25 e-ciencia

26 Rich files in academic personal pages Self-archiving, Yahoo! Search (March’07)

27 Invisible Web: e-Journals Few local “native” electronic journals  Disregarded by researchers Increasing interest in transferring to electronic version  Institutional mandate is working, but mainly because of technical support  Technical support also explained (limited) success of portals of journals  Librarians lead, standards and protocols applied

28 Limited number of e-journals

29

30

31 Limited number of e-journals

32 Private Web Major milestones  Consortia, Regional Consortia REBIUN, Madroño, CBUC And a few thematic ones (Medicine, Mathematics, Scielo España)  Integration of local and external resources Metalib, SFX DOI, OpenURL  Web of Knowledge national license  National e-journal collections license due 2008 Collective catalogs  Main task of consortia: Sharing local resources  ILL: SOD (national development) Web preservation initiatives  Catalonia Internet (PADICAT)  Google digitalization agreements

33

34

35

36 E-resources acquisition by consortia Justification  Incomplete global coverage Increased costs of both journals and ILL Many small collections  Advantages of electronic access Positive measures  Third parties funding Easier bureaucracy  Central TIC support and management Barriers  Difficult license negotiations

37 Librarians point of view: Advantages Access to larger collections welcomed  Especially from small libraries Management issues primary concern  Overlap, access, integration Pay per view (download), not for collection  Although real costs not well understood Future National license  80 million Euro/year  Scheduled for 2008

38 Librarians point of view: Disadvantages Closed packages  No easy access to journals published by scholarly societies Rights  Different wording in the contracts  Back-up files Collection development  Access to previous years Costs  US standards??

39 An interesting example Web of Knowledge  National license 24 million Euros for (4?-5?) years Funded by FECYT (Spanish government)  Granted access to 800 public and private research related organizations  400 concurrent users (never reached that limit)  Cheered for both librarians and researchers  But only used for (self-) evaluation purposes Now, what about SCOPUS?

40 End users point of view Still a not-so-small group of scholars and researchers use mainly print journals A new paradigm for the rest:  Searching not browsing  Obscure papers more frequently used  Larger offer??  Concern regarding access to restricted distribution journals Unknown individual paper cost Super-user

41 Supporting new publishing ways Repositories and e-journals  Self-publishing: Biomed Central Social “bookmarking”  RefWorks in Madroño, del.icio.us Multimedia  ADSL (7 million lines in Spain) greatly increases broadband  MySpace, YouTube, Flickr Library 2.0  Social tagging = uncontrolled metadata  Wiki new editorship  Syndication

42 Conclusions and recommendations Expanded role of the librarian  Choosing collections  Integrating local and external resources  New editorship (Library 2.0) The success of consortium  Technicians not politicians Better negotiation  Involving professional librarians  Reserve local funds for restricted circulation collections  More funds to local initiatives (Web 2.0)

43 For more information Sponsored Links Visit my Webometrics Ranking of World Universities