[Eril-l] Evaluation of Electronic Resources

[Swindler, Luke]

UNC uses a priority system of 4 absolute categories to make acquisitions decisions for expensive resources, with items ranked relatively within each category:


  *   • Priority 1 = Essential (must have): a core resource integral to supporting a program and so necessary that the library needs to fund it if at all possible; the expectation is that the resource will get high use or at least heavy and on-going use among its primary audience
  *   • Priority 2 = Important (should have): a major resource for a program; the expectation is that the resource will get substantial and on-going use among at least its primary audience
  *   • Priority 3 = Useful (could have): a significant resource for a program; the expectation is that the resource will get appreciable use among its primary audience
  *   • Priority 4 = Marginal (would have if funds permit): directly relevant to supporting a field within a program; the expectation is that the resource gets at least occasional use of from it specialized audience

In addition, UNC also a review strategy predicated upon a user-focused, evidence-based, and metrically informed philosophy incorporating data-driven decision-making whenever appropriate in terms of evaluating e-journals individually or in packages that considers the following metrics:

  *   • Cost (based on best surrogate price for each title for the three most recent calendar years
  *   • Annual usage from COUNTER reports for the three most recent calendar years
  *   • Annual cost-per-use for the three most recent calendar years
  *   • Mean e-journal subscription price for the subjects included (with a standard metric for the STEM packages)
  *   • Document delivery charges as alternatives to subscribing, along with impact on readers and probable faculty reaction no long having immediate access to a title currently available via a package

  *   o If UNC cannot get an article on interlibrary borrowing or if the number of requests exceeds CONTU guidelines, the University Library typically goes to the British Library; its copyright fee for articles from STEM publishers coupled with the service charge total circa $50-55 [N.B. Librarians realize that realize that “click-and-view” totals will be much higher than the “click-and-request” numbers for trigging a document delivery]]


Using the above variable UNC establishes "value" by placing each title in one of five data-derived categories:


  *   • Good Value:

  *   o $10 or less per use and at least 100 usages [$5,500 potential ILB bill and massive user inconvenience that definitely would not be worth the subscription savings]

  *   • Acceptable Value:

  *   o $11-$35 per use and at least 100 usages [$5,500 potential ILB Bill and massive user inconvenience that would not justify the subscription savings]
  *   o >$35 per use and at least 50 usages [$2,750 potential ILB bill and massive user inconvenience that would not justify the subscription savings]

  *   • Problematic Value:

  *   o >$35 per use and less than 50 usages; or
  *   o $10 or less per use at least 30 usages [$1,650 potential ILB bill and would not meet the University Library‘s traditional STEM cancellation standards and probably not be acceptable to Academic Affairs faculty]

  *   • Low Value:

  *   o $11-$35 per use and at least 30 usages [$1,650 potential ILB bill and could be justified in term of cost-effectives in an extreme budget scenario and should be acceptable to faculty]

  *   • Unacceptable Value:

     *   o <30 usages regardless of price [minimal user inconvenience and completely justified as the ILB bill would certainly be much lower than subscribing and cancellation would acceptable to users as both a practical and political matter]



*****************************************************************************
Luke Swindler                                Collections Management Officer
Davis Library    CB #3918                          luke_swindler at unc.edu<mailto:luke_swindler at unc.edu>
University of North Carolina                            TEL (919-962-1095)
Chapel Hill, NC  27514   USA                        FAX (919-962-4450)
******************************************************************************

On Aug 19, 2015, at 5:00 PM, James Leftwich <jbl at berkeleycollege.edu<mailto:jbl at berkeleycollege.edu>> wrote:

Hello,

I am new to the list so apologize if this is an oft-covered topic.  My college is in the process of streamlining a process for evaluating eResources for possible purchase.  We plan a combination qualitative and quantitative approach with 5-6 categories to consider.  Chosen committee members will include comments and score based on a rubric I am developing.

I’m curious to hear how other institutions handle this evaluation process and if there are documents that can be shared.

I look forward to participating in this listserv!

James  Leftwich, MSLS
Berkeley College
Director, White Plains Campus Library
99 Church Street
White Plains, NY 10601
914-694-1122 Ext 3370
jbl at berkeleycollege.edu<mailto:jbl at berkeleycollege.edu>

_______________________________________________
Eril-l mailing list
Eril-l at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:Eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>
http://lists.eril-l.org/listinfo.cgi/eril-l-eril-l.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.eril-l.org/pipermail/eril-l-eril-l.org/attachments/20150819/e797e9ed/attachment-0001.html>