1. To Use Print Serials or Not to Use Print Serials: That is the Survey (Monkey)
Jared Hoppenfeld, Texas A&M University
Matt Torrence, University of South Florida
FLA Annual Conference – April 8, 2010

2. University of South Florida
Metropolitan University (population 47,111)
1,818 Instructional Faculty
8,789 Graduate Students
139 Advanced Degree Programs
Large Academic Library
Number of volumes 2,472,484
Periodical subscriptions 31,700
Licensed databases 685

3. Periodicals 2007-2008 31,700 periodical subscriptions
25,150 e-Journals purchased
11,180 open access e-Journals
Total E-Access = 36,330 e-Journals

4. Motivation Spend library money responsibly Transparent process
Faculty input was important
Address workflow, space and budget issues
Shift in format prevalence and preference
Why we did it was as important as what we did
Stop spending on low-use titles & instead subscribe to high-demand resources

5. When Do Libraries Retain Print?
Demand
Price
Function
Long-term Electronic Availability
Print Retention Responsibility
Timeliness and Reliability
Content
Demand: strong faculty demand to keep print
Price: cost/benefit superior; subscription model based on print
Function: better features (browsing), poor interface design in e-version, poor quality of images (architecture & art), limits on use of e-access (simultaneous users, physical location)
Long-term E-Availability: no guarantee of continued access to subscribed e-volumes in case of future cancellation
Print Retention Resp: Consortial or other responsibility to retain print archive of title or subject area
Timeliness and Reliability: Delay between pub of print and availability of online
Content: print contains significantly more content (letters, conference announcements, ads)
Source: Johnson, Richard K., and Judy Luther. The E-only Tipping Point for Journals: What’s Ahead in the Print-to-Electronic Transition Zone. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2007.

6. Is Print Used? Do students and faculty still use print journals?
Print journals are expensive to purchase, bind, store, and maintain
Dust in the stacks provides the first clue for some titles, but that’s not enough evidence
A legitimate question in the new age of electronic journals, books, and other resources

7. Trend from Print to Electronic Journals
Study tracked journal subscription & format data for sample of 515 journals in ARL univ member libraries from Print decreased 32%; elec increased 34%
*This data set pertains to ARL University Libraries
Print use has decreased by 32% while electronic use has increased by 34%
Source: Chandra Prabha. “Shifting from Print to Electronic Journals in ARL University Libraries.” Serials Review 33, no. 1 (March 2007): 4-13.

8. Faculty Engagement Dean of Libraries wanted to engage the faculty
Library Council and CD Faculty Representatives endorse study
Test survey instrument through a pilot project
Campus-wide distribution of survey early April, 2008
Began communication process early; With the combined efforts of the Library Council and the Research Services & Collections Unit,

9. Resources Used Databases Books Periodicals Others
Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory
Books
Journals of the Century by Tony Stankus
Periodicals
Magazines for Libraries by William A. Katz
Others
Curricula Vitae of USF Faculty Members
USF Libraries’ Core Title List
JCR: impact factors, etc
Web sites: Journal-ranking.com; others doing journal review projects (examples of communication-ND, UMich, UMaryland)
People: Library Council, Dean of Library System, Deans of Colleges, Adm Assts, Serials Libn (stats, lists, e-access tied to print)
Preferred journals to publish in by dept
Other: PRONTO request list

10. Survey Development
Subject librarians compiled lists of print journals, by discipline
Most core journal titles were exempt from the survey
Separate survey instruments created for use with each of the Colleges
Rather than ask faculty to review all 2,100 print titles, RS&C would instead survey faculty on their use of a subset of the collection, suspected low use print journals
Added incentive, survey would solicit recommendations from faculty for new subscriptions, print of electronic, to replace low use titles
Research Centers and other research areas

11. Survey Dissemination
Librarians worked with Deans and Department Heads to distribute survey materials
Publicity about the website was sent to faculty using a variety of methods
1,642 faculty members were contacted and 340 responded to the initial survey (21% response rate)
using blogs, announcements at faculty meetings, and other informal channels to spread the word; administrative assistants!
21% response rate

12. Timeline September 2007: Library Council briefed on proposal
January 2008: Pilot survey
March 2008: Journal lists created; Library Council reviewed & approved newly remodeled survey
April 2008: Campus-wide survey dissemination
As result of pilot survey, needed to simplify survey: 5 point use continuum to 3 point; simplify wording

13. SurveyMonkey Asterisks = print & online coverage
Suggest a new resource

15. Response Rates
18%
20%
24%
25%
31%

17. The Process
Survey results for each title were tabulated according to a three-point continuum of Use, Don’t Use, and No Opinion.
Two usage rates were computed for each title, as follows:
Including No Opinions
Excluding No Opinions
Wanted to look at both numbers, as it changed some titles position on the cut line.
Formula 1) Number Use/Total Response Count (including No Opinion)
Formula 2) Number Use/Number Use + Number Don’t Use (Excluding No Opinions)
-preferred; limited to responses of fac presumed to be familiar w/ particular title
Ex: Biz # journals w/ < 20% usage (compared to DON’T USE): 64
Biz # journals w/ < 20% usage (compared to DON’T USE & NO OPINION: 79
Two usage rates computed for each title

18. The Process Usage threshold of 20% was established
Librarians used discretion on the threshold for each subject, or discipline
Exceptions were the norm
Some titles saved from the axe
Talk about exceptions...small programs, grant-specific titles, etc.
Criteria: up to libn, elec access, embargo, price, # or % users (add to slide/handout?)
Math journals and other small department necessary exceptions

19. Initial Results
Example: Industry Week

20. Final Review Process
Faculty and students had one last opportunity to review the titles on the chopping block
In lieu of a follow-up survey, librarians developed a Print Journals Review website
Three lists were created, allowing respondents to view the titles alphabetically, by format, and by discipline
Format= 1.) Print Only and 2.) Print with Electronic Access
September 2008

21. Print Journals Review Website

22. Journal Retention
Each title was linked to an online Journal Retention Form
Subject librarians reviewed all Journal Retention Forms that were submitted
Journals retained in print were removed from the final review list
Some slight confusion with the form...some faculty thought other titles were going away
Journals retained in print were removed from the final review list

23. Journal Retention Form
90 graduate students and faculty members completed Journal Retention Forms, with roughly a dozen recommending the purchase of one or more new journals
Some faculty thought we were planning on cancelling e- and print version of titles when it was just print

24. Cancellation vs. Retention
602 titles on survey
223 cancelled, 379 retained

25. After Final Review 223 titles were canceled 54 journals added
$41, saved
54 journals added
$51, total expenditure
35 new e-journals added
Use statistics = 4,893 since the Review
Was it Worthwhile?
A dozen Journal Retention Forms recommended purchase of new titles
An objective and quantitative evaluation, but some subjectivity is inevitable
Each request was sent for purchase, showing the Tampa Library commitment to faculty to reinvest the savings from these low-use titles
Focus on:
Spending wisely
Objective and quantitative evaluation
Journal of college student retention, Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology, Journal of homosexuality, National Review, New Republic and Brain Injury

26. Cancellations by College
Subject Area
Total Savings
# of Titles
CVPA
$1,589.77 23
Social & Behavioral Science
$1,201.77 9
COBA
$23,216.70 61
Natural Sciences
$8,987.85 42
Library Science
$1,529.75 22
Arts & Letters
$2,916.76 37
Engineering
$1,137.07 8
Education
$1,231.06 21
Total
$41,810.73
223
Engineering cancelled 8 titles, Education 21 titles, same cost
Business had most cancellations and most $ saved – biz patrons want datasets, company & industry reports, financials, etc which are all electronic

27. Timeline September 2007: Library Council briefed on proposal
January 2008: Pilot survey
March 2008: Journal lists created; Library Council reviewed & approved newly remodeled survey
April 2008: Campus-wide survey dissemination
Summer 2008: Analysis of survey data
July 2008: Plan for final fall review
August 2008: Library Council approved final review
September 2008: Print Journal Review site goes live
October 2008: Final analysis & cancellation decisions
October 2008 & beyond: New subscriptions

28. Print Journals Review Summary
Findings: as long as a journal is available electronically, can get rid of print

29. Questions?

30. SurveyMonkey Demo SurveyMonkey
Create a survey; show survey question types and how to create the link to collect data
for info on exporting to Excel
SurveyMonkey  Analyze Results  Download Responses  Summary report automatically selected, keep  change format to Spreadsheet Formula  select open-ended if want these responses
Added columns for different stats, color-coded
How great was today’s presentation? 

31. Questions?
Thank You!
Contact Information
Jared Hoppenfeld–
Matt Torrence –
Presentation and handout available at
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.