1. Resource Sharing Survey 2013 Maria Elizabeth Collins Public Services Division National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

2. DOCLINE Today 2,558 libraries participating 1.41 million ILL Requests in FY2013 Over 1.7 million serial holdings records – 1.09 million print – 588,000+ e-journals (34.43%)

3. Performance Numbers Fill Rate is 93.0% Average number of routes is 1.30 Average time to fill normal request = 0.99 days Average time to fill rush request = 0.26 days Average time to fill urgent request = 0.22 days Epub ahead of print – Fill Rate: 88.9% – Routes: 1.65 – Average time to fill: 0.98 days

4. ILL Requests 54% decline since 2002

5. Loansome Doc Requests

6. 22% decline in Libraries 54% decline in Requests Libraries & Requests Comparison

7. * ILLs during Oct 2011 – September 2012 ILL By Library Type

8. “Investigate reasons for declining DOCLINE and document delivery use, determine if other systems are meeting user needs, and determine future direction for document delivery.” Strategic Planning: Resource Sharing

9. DOCLINE Will Continue “Docline is the best thing since sliced bread. I couldn't do my job without it.” “This is a vital service, that we truly can't live without. Even with numbers dropping, the ones that we do request are even more vital.”

10. Better understand – landscape of resource sharing in Network – challenges & successes of obtaining literature Learn more about patron and library needs Determine future direction for resource sharing Goals

11. Approach

12. N = # of responses Survey period: March 4-15, 2013 2,405 invitations Responses – 1,741 surveys started (72%) – 1,653 completed (68%) Analysis ongoing – 701 comments Survey Summary

13. 89% of those responding oversee or work directly in ILL 22.6% 16.3% 61.1% N = 1,723 Survey Responders

14. N = 1,723 77.8% of libraries have 5 or fewer staff Number of Library Staff

15. N = 1,692 Library Resources

16. N = 1,699 ILL Management Software

17. N = 1,622 Journal Titles Past 2 Years Holdings in DOCLINE increased 4.6%

18. N = 1,661 Journal Dates Coverage

19. 27.9% of articles more than 10 years old ILL by Publication Year – FY2012

20. N = 1,657 Electronic Journals Only 51.8% Permit ILL Only 30.8% easily know license terms DOCLINE Holdings 31.69% Electronic

21. N = 1,619 License Restrictions

22. N = 48 “My licenses are negotiated to allow ILL lending. But embargo periods limit availability, and that is hard to express in SERHOLD.” “I avoid problems with lending by only lending from print.” “Back issues freely accessible drying up; forced to purchase or try to borrow; more restrictions keep being created for interlibrary lending by publishers/middle vendors.” “Need to print first onto paper - and then deliver.” “The lending / scanning of documents is subject to so many judgment calls.” What You Said About Licensing

23. N = 1,656 What You Borrow

24. N = 1,690 Items Filled for Free from Lenders Does not include possible royalty payments

25. N = 1,663 Borrowing Past 2 Years

26. 105,313 Fewer Requests Greater than 5% DOCLINE Borrowing Last Year

27. Change in Collections Impact on ILL

28. N = 540 Why Has Borrowing Changed N = 599

29. N = 1,728 Use of Other ILL Systems

30. N = 1,657 How You Obtain Literature

31. N = 1,594 Why Use Methods Other than ILL

32. “… the information environment in which we all function is drastically changing... Students and health practitioners can find information that 'will meet their needs' without having to seek outside sources. So the number of actual 'must have' resources from external sources has drastically declined. Only a true researcher goes beyond what is a cursory literature review and this has had an impact on overall document retrieval needs. It has become an environment of 'I need it now vs. I need what is the best' literature.” What You Said About Borrow

33. N = 1,653 Lending Past 2 Years

34. DOCLINE Lending

35. N = 550 Why Lending Decreased

36. YOUR PREDICTIONS

37. N = 1,655 Journal Collection in 2 Years

38. N = 636N = 284 Why Journal Collection Will Change

39. N = 1,655 ILL Borrowing in 2 Years

40. N = 1,646 46.5% Stay the Same 8.1% Not Sure 46.5% Stay the Same 8.1% Not Sure 26.1% Increase Somewhat or “a lot” 19.2% Decrease Somewhat or “a lot” ILL Lending in 2 Years

41. N = 1,695 46.1% Stay the Same 11% Not Sure 46.1% Stay the Same 11% Not Sure 28.6% Increase Somewhat or “a lot” 14.3% Decrease Somewhat or “a lot” Staff Time on ILL in 2 Years

42. N = 1,654 Top Method for Obtaining Literature in 2 Years

43. Your Future in 2 Years … 38% say stay the same Collections 46% say stay the same Staff 57% say stay the same ILL Budget 40% say will increase Borrow 46% say stay the same Lending 71% say ILL top method Obtaining Literature

44. LIBRARY TYPE SUMMARY

45. Comparisons by Library Type Academic 40.8% report having 16 or more staffBelieve they have adequate staffing & budget41.9% say collections decreased 61.2% agree or strongly agree that collections are primarily electronic 58.1% agree or strongly agree that e-journals permit ILL70.1% often use OCLC72.8% have ILL management software 41.9% report borrowing increase 31.8% report borrowing decrease 77.8% believe ILL will be main source of obtaining literature in 2 years Hospital 55.9% report having only 1 staff memberBelieve they have adequate staffing & budget57.9% say collections decreased 55.5% agree or strongly agree that collections are primarily electronic 49% agree or strongly agree that e-journals permit ILL21% often use OCLC 35.1% have ILL management software 34.3% report borrowing increase 32.2% report borrowing decrease 70.5% believe ILL will be main source of obtaining literature in 2 years

46. Library Type Comparisons Government 47.5% report having 2-5 staffBelieve they have adequate staffing & budget59.2% say collections decreased 57.3% agree or strongly agree that collections are primarily electronic 53% agree or strongly agree that their electronic journals permit ILL 50% often use OCLC 42.1% have ILL management software 33.3% report borrowing increase 36.2% report borrowing decrease 64.2% believe ILL will be main source of obtaining literature in 2 years Special 44.8% report having only 1 staff memberBelieve they have adequate staffing & budget60.2% say collections decreased 45.5% agree or strongly agree that collections are primarily electronic 51% agree or strongly agree that their electronic journals permit ILL 28.4% often use OCLC 33% have ILL management software 36.7% report borrowing increase 22.8% report borrowing decrease 68.3% believe ILL will be main source of obtaining literature in 2 years Other 48% report having 2-5 staffBelieve they have adequate staffing & budget61.5% say collections decreased 51.2% agree or strongly agree that collections are primarily electronic 51.3% agree or strongly agree that their electronic journals permit ILL 44.2% often use OCLC 46.9% have ILL management software 26.2% report borrowing increase 42.8% report borrowing decrease 64.3% believe ILL will be main source of obtaining literature in 2 years

47. Your Summary “May resource sharing live on!” “I think ILL is in a transitional period. Docline is still the best and fastest way to obtain materials in the medical field. Because the patrons expect instant access, the pressure will be on...”

48. Library collections will continue shift to electronic Licensing terms and management issues of e- collections are challenges … to overcome Access to historical literature will be more challenging Users will continue to seek out “free” full-text immediately available Clinicians will continue use of point-of-care tools ILL will continue to be key method for obtaining literature, but in decreasing numbers Our Conclusions …

49. Allow Network members greater flexibility in how often and at what level they participate in DOCLINE Implement system changes to provide: – Calendar for flexible days of service (e.g., MWF) – Entering of multiple periods of Out of Office (e.g., academic library calendars, vacations for 1 person libraries) – Simple file uploading of serial holdings – Provide training via short video tutorials Our Ideas … What is Next

50. Electronic journal licensing assistance – Training – Repository of language clauses – Group licenses at regional or state level Improve interoperability between DOCLINE & ILL vendors What We’re Investigating … Future

51. DOCLINE & LOANSOME DOC

52. N = 1,647 Docline is a blessing for small solo librarians. Over time it has only gotten better. The only problems is that it is often so fast that patrons' expectations have grown to expect almost instant service. Docline is a great resource. Very user-friendly and the response I get from lending libraries is prompt. Long live Docline! Docline TOTALLY ROCKS 91.9% Somewhat or Very Satisfied DOCLINE Satisfaction

53. N = 1,647 You should close up shop and just use some other system like OCLC. What is the point of having this completely separate (and awful to use) system? It is a relic from the 90s. Your software is horrible, and you are totally unresponsive to peoples suggestions for updates and improvements. You really can only manually input periodicals? What a joke. 3% Somewhat or Very Dissatisfied DOCLINE Satisfaction Cont.

54. N = 1,643 Embargo terms in holdings & routing 30.9% Monthly statistical reports 26.5% No improvement needed 25% Better integration with 3 rd party vendor systems 21.8% Top Enhancement Requests

55. N = 1,645 Loansome Doc Satisfaction