1. A Leap in the Dark A Pilot Project for an Electronic-Only Engineering Collection Laurel Kristick and Margaret Mellinger Oregon State University Libraries

2. Introduction How we got here…

3. Introduction Making the case for e-only –What’s in it for the users? –What’s in it for the library? Why is it still a “leap in the dark?” –Challenges, issues, considerations What strategies can we use to move forward?

4. Why focus on Engineering?

5. Engineering Faculty Pressures –Greater responsibility for funding their own research –Balancing research & teaching Preferences –Comfortable with online access –Benefits of convenience –Types of information needed

6. Engineering students Undergraduate curriculum tightly defined Less use of the library than other students Technologically adept

7. Benefits of e-only

8. Benefits of e-journals Save the time of the user Access anywhere, anytime, multiple users Currency, earlier access Enhanced functionality –Search capabilities –Ability to link to other sources –Ability to include multi-media elements

9. Benefits of e-only Possible cost savings on subscriptions –Only one format Save shelf space No physical items to check-in, mark, shelve, claim Save costs of binding and replacement

10. Leap! What’s stopping us?

11. Odin’s Ravens MunninMemoryHuginnThought

12. Challenges of e-only

13. Publisher considerations? –Archiving issues –License agreements –Pricing models –Bundling –Availability of usage statistics

14. Challenges of e-only Content issues –Content discrepancies Version of record? Differences between vendors –Disappearing or masked content –Contents of bundled packages

15. Challenges Technological issues –Interface quality, ease of use –Staff expertise and time to provide systems –Hardware and software, server capacity –Pressures on campus computer network and printing provisions –Interoperability with other online tools: catalogs, link resolvers, meta search tools

16. Challenges of e-only E-journal management –Electronic collection more expensive to maintain: administrative, CD, PR and especially reference related expenses –Both print & electronic systems in place –Aggregator duplication; embargoes

17. Challenges Staff time to select, acquire, represent in catalog and manage e-subscriptions Staff training User training Reference

18. OSU Libraries

19. OSU Engineering Journal Collection

20. OSU Libraries 2004 Focus –IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) –American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) –American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) –American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE)

21. Looking Ahead: Going Beyond Journals Standards –IEEE Standards included in IEL –ANSI –ASTM –Other standards Electronic books –Knovel –CRC Handbooks Open Access Journals

22. Criteria used to judge IEL Rupp-Serrano, et al. 2002. Canceling Print Serials in Favor of Electronic: Criteria for Decision Making. Library Collections, Acquisitions & Technical Services 26:369-378.

23. Criteria Licensing –Restrictions –Archives Provider –Reliability –Aggregator Duplication

24. Criteria Publication structure –Completeness –Nature of the publication Technological considerations –Reproduction capabilities –Authentication –Hardware, software, etc

25. Criteria Local issues –Availability in local consortia –Importance to discipline, curricula, research –Faculty input –Institutional commitment –Subject –User preference/usage

26. Criteria Local resources –Cost savings –Space savings –Staffing

27. Conclusions Despite challenges, OSU moving ahead to meet needs of Engineering faculty and students Focus is on publishers with stable content which match our needs Bundles & “Big Deals” with weak titles or unneeded content not being considered right now Customer service key for libraries and publishers to work directly

28. Bibliography http://www.oregonstate.edu/~mellinma/bibliography.doc

29. Discussion?