Thirty Years of NASIG: A Retrospective Look at Conference Programs, Publications, Workshops, and Webinars

Abstract

Over the past thirty years NASIG has evolved as a community, supporting the exchange of ideas regarding serials in the early days and more recently expanding into broader topics such as electronic resources and scholarly communications. Thirty years of NASIG conference programs, publications, workshops, and webinars will be evaluated to identify trends and understand the evolution of NASIG as an organization.

KEYWORDS:

• electronic resources
• literature review
• NASIG
• serials

INTRODUCTION

This article does not intend to cover every presentation, workshop, or webinar sponsored by NASIG during the past 30 years. Instead, the first, 10th, 20th, 29th, and current annual conferences will be discussed along with brief summaries of selected presentations, workshops, and webinars. Reviewing decadal increments was a good starting point, mainly because topics in libraries evolve slowly and therefore using larger intervals ensured that long-term trends could be more easily identified. The article will conclude with general trends and closing remarks.

REVIEW OF CONFERENCE SESSIONS

The First Annual NASIG Conference was held in 1986; see Figure 1 for a list of world events occurring in 1986.

Figure 1 The world in 1986.

Topics discussed at the 1986 conference included: automation, the future of serials, British journal pricing (Bryn Mawr treaty), Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs), standards, professional development, workflows, cataloging, and binding.

Richard Boss discussed the history and development of automated serials control systems.¹ Automation of serial functions lagged behind that in other areas, but by the end of 1984 twenty vendors offered automated serials control systems. The author noted that the current prices for serials management software ranged from a $75 program to a $90,000 package of hardware and software for a standalone system.

Roger L. Presley discussed some problems with patrons and public service employees that resulted from instantaneous access to serials check-in information.² The acquisitions department had experienced resistance to new automated systems from staff in public services. Presley determined that it was too much to ask the reference department to accept both an OPAC and the new serials system so quickly. Technical difficulties and training issues were expected during the implementation; however, the sociological issues were unexpected.

Michael Bosswood gave a presentation about the future of serials for 1976–2000 from the publisher’s perspective.³ The booming journal business of the 1960s declined in the 1970s. Everyone was struggling with inflation and publishers were seen as the “bad guys” because the volume of publishing had increased while inflation was growing out of control. A new situation emerged, where publishing outputs had increased, budgets had decreased, and there was less demand from readers. The last section of his presentation contained his predictions for the time between 1987 and 2000. He forecast that the CD ROM could be a convenient medium for acquiring back volumes and storing large amounts of data at a reasonable price. His most pertinent extrapolation was that rapidly evolving computer technology would change the way research is conducted.

Charles Hamaker noted that through research, he had found that some of the greatest price differentials were for the highest impact journals measured by impact factor in various citation indexes.⁴ Publishers were pricing journals by what the market would bear. This author referred to the then-upcoming Bryn Mawr discussion as a tea party. The Bryn Mawr Treaty consisted of a selection of speakers, some of which are highlighted here. Marcia Tuttle discussed how several British journals carried specific dollar prices that were not comparable to other overseas prices.⁵ The U.S. dollar conversion did not reconcile with the current market rate for a pound sterling conversion and American librarians believed this was unfair. This unfair pricing practice could have occurred due to complacency, as librarians are often less focused on price than they are on providing the journal to the reader as quickly as possible. Keith Courtney was a representative of Taylor and Francis, which was labeled one of the “bad publishers” for geographic discrimination in pricing.⁶ He explained that U.S. dollar prices were requested by American librarians as an enhanced service at a time when the exchange rate was stable; however, that began to change, leading to the pricing gap. John Merriman was a subscription agent representative at the time and he brought up the point that subscribers outside of the United States were leery of adjusting their prices because they may be faced with a large compensatory price increase.⁷

The Tenth Annual NASIG Conference was held in 1995; see Figure 2 for a list of world events occurring in 1995.

Figure 2 The world in 1995.

Topics discussed at the 1995 conference included: electronic data interchange (EDI), cataloging, computer files, gopher sites, electronic serials, Internet security, binding/preservation, electronic publishing, back issue trading, professional development, Request for Proposal process, workflow and change management, html/website design, political influence on information, journal use, document delivery, enhancing catalog access, and developing electronic journals.

Tina Feick led a panel that gave an overview of the first 10 years of NASIG and provides a great opportunity for people who need a quick NASIG history lesson. The panel consisted of John Riddick, John Merriman, Keith Courtney, Tina Feick, and Becky Lenzini.⁸ NASIG founders believed that the conference should, “Provide some strong learning or educational opportunities wrapped in a fun social environment.”⁹ NASIG was primarily promoted by word of mouth and was geared toward attracting and educating young professionals. John Merriman spoke about the beginnings of the UKSG and some of their founding principles which influenced the development of NASIG. Keith Courtney, a publisher representative, spoke about some of the social aspects of NASIG. NASIG had become known by outsiders as a place to bash publishers and vendors, and after the Library Hotline described the conference as a place to discuss predatory vendor pricing policies the executive board drafted a statement to combat this perception. Tina Feick noted that, “People are the essence of NASIG: the synergy that develops when you work within this organization is amazing.”¹⁰

Okerson’s standing room only vision session about copyright would have received little notice just five years prior. The talk covered key players in the copyright discussion and explained why they cared how their interests were expressed.¹¹ Interest in copyright issues has grown and remains a common point of discussion at NASIG conferences.

Aaron and Alan Nordman’s workshop “Serials Interfaces” gave an overview of software tools used to manage serials and discussed the processes involved with implementing EDI.¹² The presenters commented on how vital it is to get important details and promised functionalities in writing. Specifically mentioned was the need to define EDI capabilities, because some vendors claimed to support EDI while simply transmitting free-format text rather than the structured data required by EDI. The presenters encouraged librarians to be assertive, be creative, and be involved.

Leonhardt’s presentation, The Alarmists Versus the Equilibrists, captured the uneasy relationship between emerging technologies and librarians:

Librarians have always embraced technology, eagerly and creatively, to help us do things better, but we have not let technology lead us where we have not seen fit to go. That is until recently. The coming millennium seems to have robbed us of our practical reason, if we are to judge by the glut of articles that have been written about information technology, the information superhighway, and the future of libraries and Librarians, most of which include some version of the end of the book, the virtual library, and the end of the world as we great unwashed, technology- threatened librarians know it. Change our way or perish!¹³

Continuing in the vein of uncertainty regarding technology, Bellovin discusses some of the security issues that could prevent the Internet from becoming a robust platform for research and information.¹⁴ The presentation is alarmist in terms of the dangers posed by the Internet. The speaker believes too much of the Internet is about fun and games, which is portrayed as the gateway to danger.

Cohn, Brondoli, and Bedell, representing Duke University Press, sought to answer the question, “How do publishers add value?”¹⁵ Publishers add value by vetting materials/winnowing literatures, refining accepted literature, marketing, and delivering content to the reader. Duke University press maintains that without these functions scholarly communications would not work. The value that publishers bring to scholarly communications has been discussed as recently as the joint 2015 Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP)/NASIG conference session presented by Marks.

The Twentieth Annual NASIG Conference was held in 2005; see Figure 3 for a list of world events that occurred in 2005.

Figure 3 The world in 2005.

Topics discussed at the 2005 conference included: professional development, e-journals, troubleshooting, article linking, standards, CrossRef, cancellations, collection development, metadata, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), e-journal access, Really Simple Syndication (RSS), Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2), license negotiations, off-site storage, binding, scholarly communications, “Big Deals,” institutional repositories, Open Access, usage statistics, valuing e-journal packages, RFP, workflows, cataloging, and unique identifiers.

Cox addressed questions based on evidence from surveys and published materials.¹⁶ He looked at Open Access and how publishers and librarians are coming together (or not) to meet societal needs; noting that pricing models were being challenged. Cox notes that shifting the financial burden to the author instead of the reader could be a solution, as the publication serves the needs of the author. However, the opposite pricing structure has been established over the past three hundred years and it is very difficult to change a system that is working for authors, who after all are the ones who contribute the intellectual content to the process. Finally, Cox noted that the open archive model showed more promise, even though they were receiving less publicity at this time.

Hixson discussed how since January 2003 the University of Oregon had explored the use of an institutional repository (IR) to combat the problem created by spiraling budgets and quickly increasing scholarly output.¹⁷ An implementation of DSpace, which they named Scholars Bank, aimed to be a self-archiving solution where faculty would upload their own work. In reality, librarians uploaded the majority of papers, there were lingering copyright concerns, and potential for the IR to jeopardize relationships with publishers.

Hood discussed adding Open Access journals to the catalog as a means of making them truly accessible to users as they are not really Open Access if they are not discoverable.¹⁸ Hood considers cataloging of Open Access journals as a value adding process that must occur because adding records to the catalog gives them more credibility than uncatalogued freely available information resources on the Internet.

Keys’ futuristic vision session talk was described as entertaining.¹⁹ The speaker discussed some of the transitions occurring due to technological advances, and how librarians would meet the needs of the next generation of users. Keys noted that more students would be carrying technology in their pockets and the increasing value placed on community over privacy, writing that “Critical for libraries to understand is that privacy is not valued by bloggers. It is all about communities. And bloggers are our users, future users, and the next generation of library staff.”²⁰

The Twentieth-Ninth and Thirtieth Annual NASIG Conferences were held in 2014–15; see Figure 4 for a list of world events that occurred in 2014–2015. Topics discussed at the 2014 and 2015 conferences included: Resource Description and Access (RDA), license negotiation, “Big Deals,” digital scholarship, Open Access, Core Competencies for Electronic Resource Librarians, HathiTrust, metadata, standards, hybrid journals, mobile applications, linked data, workflows, professional development, e-book evaluation, cancellations, perpetual access, unique identifiers, copyright, and data curation.

Figure 4 The world in 2014/2015.

Erb’s presentation is an account of how the NASIG Core Competencies for Electronic Resource Librarians (CCERL) are scalable and can be used in restructuring staff positions.²¹ In 2012, the Colorado State University (CSU) Libraries’ Technical Services Department reorganized, catalyzing a reconfiguration of paraprofessional staff positions. The presenter was able to devise job responsibilities for staff-level positions using the CCERL.

Moore’s presentation gave audience members an overview of the current e-book environment in academic libraries, including a review of the literature on motivations for moving to an e-preferred collection development policy, information on user preferences and behaviors with e-books, and technological barriers and other obstacles that still impede library uptake of e-books.²² She concluded with a list of items to consider when incorporating e-books into a collection development policy.

Ferguson highlighted the importance of connecting to students through mobile applications.²³ In order to connect with students where they are most likely beginning their information searches, it is increasingly important that libraries make their collections discoverable via mobile platforms and create an effective mobile search environment for library resources. This program highlighted some of the mobile applications available for and in use by libraries, focusing on Murray State University’s implementations of BrowZine and Boopsie, why these were chosen, details and challenges involved in implementation, marketing and user education, and how the applications were received and used.

Members of the NASIG Core Competencies Task Force presented their draft “Core Competencies for Print Serials Librarians,” then led a discussion of the document centering on possible improvements and additional topics to be covered.²⁴ The presentation included a brief history of the core competencies and a description of the methodology used for the research the draft is based on.

Thomas, Chen, and Clement gave an overview of Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) and examples of how organizations are integrating ORCID identifiers (iDs) into their systems.²⁵ Librarians are well-positioned to partner with new and established scholars to accurately capture their record of scholarship, and to work with internal partners such as research offices and graduate schools.

THE CURRENT CONFERENCE

The current conference featured joint programming sponsored by NASIG and the SSP. Jane Marks, in her presentation, “Publisher Perspective: How One Publisher Is Responding to the Changing World of Scholarly Communication,” emphasized how publishers must be nimble in a rapidly changing environment.²⁶ Not surprisingly, publishers also face challenges related to the pressure to do more with less, fueled by a dramatic influx of new papers, demand for new journals, and Open Access mandates. T. Scott Plutchak, in his presentation, “A Library Perspective: Data Wranglers in LibraryLand—Finding Opportunities in the Changing Policy Landscape,” discussed new mandates and funding policies that specify the need to manage data.²⁷ In response, librarians have developed workflows to help researchers, but many approach data management as a library issue. Plutchak advises librarians to treat data management as a campus issue and reach out to their provost, vice president of research, campus labs, and beyond to garner institution-wide support.

WEBINARS

In 2012, NASIG began offering webinars covering a wide range of topics. Practice oriented sessions such as Planning for the Budget-ocalypse: The Evolution of a Serials/ER Cancellation Methodology and DIY E-Resources Management: Basics of Information Architecture help librarians cope with practical tasks in librarianship.²⁸ Emerging roles in scholarly communication are discussed in Protect Your Patrons from Predatory Publishers, Scholar Commons @USF: Sharing Knowledge Worldwide, and The Electronic Resource Librarian’s Role in Digital Scholarship and Scholarly Communications.²⁹ NASIG has also offered metadata and cataloging webinars including From Record-Bound to Boundless: FRBR, Linked Data, and New Possibilities for Serials Cataloging and Publisher Metadata in Library Systems and How It Helps the User.³⁰ Webinar offerings have filled a need for continuing education outside of the annual conference.

TRENDS

Detecting and articulating trends turned out to be a difficult task because so many topics clustered together or organically flowed to a confluence. The terms have changed, but we are still talking about automation thirty years later. The terms that I see in related clusters are: Automation–Serials Control Systems–ILS–OPACs–Discovery Layers–Next Generation ILS–Mobile access. The link I see here is that all of the work done in automation ultimately helped the patron have a better experience using the library. Prognosticative presentations are common and needed in an information environment that is evolving. Time has shown, in the case of the NASIG proceedings, that conservative predictions are fairly accurate. Concerns about journal pricing, inflation, the serials crisis, cancellations, budget shortfalls, and general gloom and doom about the future of serial budgets were common. However, when librarians began thinking creatively, Open Access, open archives, and institutional repositories brought a positive wave of relief. NASIG members are active in the development of standards; whether it is a cataloging, electronic resources, or Internet standard, NASIG has a voice. NASIG presenters study, measure, evaluate, determine the return on investment (ROI), estimate monetary expenses, and change workflows. The proceedings show a steady evolution and commitment to improvement in the library field.

CLOSING REMARKS

As I reflect on my own work here for this article, it occurs to me that one of the emerging topics discussed at Caitlin Trasende’s presentation at the Joint SSP/NASIG conference would have an application. Text mining topic modeling may provide interesting insight to this project. A good old fashioned lit review is a tried-and-true way of understanding a body of research. However, text mining could prove useful in identifying subtle evolutions of the language used to describe topics in the nearly 1,200 citations found in the NASIG literature. Topic modelling could also be used to produce a nice visual, and perhaps an updated version of the ubiquitous but tired word cloud. It was a great experience to look back through the NASIG proceedings to see how NASIG has evolved. David Woodworth, the chairman of the United Kingdom Serials Group in 1986 said ”The UKSG and NASIG are unique organisations, and I see no reason why, providing we adapt, adopt, and improve, there will not be a rosy future ahead of us both.” Let’s hope for a long rosy future!

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Angela Dresselhaus

Angela Dresselhaus is Head of Electronic Resources, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.

Notes

^1. Richard W. Boss, “Developing Requirements for Automated Serials Control Systems,” The Serials Librarian 11, no. 3–4 (1987): 37–70. doi:10.1300/J123v11n03_05 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^2. Roger L. Presley, “The Goldfish Bowl Effect of an Online Serials Control System,” The Serials Librarian 11, no. 3–4 (1987): 101–109. doi:10.1300/J123v11n03_09 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^3. Michael Boswood, “The Future of Serials, 1976–2000,” The Serials Librarian 11, no. 3–4 (1987): 11.doi:10.1300/J123v11n03_02 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^4. Charles Hamaker, “Journal Pricing,” The Serials Librarian 11, no. 3–4 (1987): 171–175. doi:10.1300/J123v11n03_16 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^5. Marcia Tuttle, “Discriminatory Pricing of British Scholarly Journals for the North American Market,” The Serials Librarian 11, no. 3–4 (1987): 157–161. doi:10.1300/J123v11n03_13 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^6. Keith Courtney, “British Journal Pricing,” The Serials Librarian 11, no. 3–4 (1987): 164. doi:10.1300/J123v11n03_14 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^7. John Merriman, “British Journal Pricing,” The Serials Librarian 11, no. 3–4 (1987): 167-169, accessed 7 July 2015, doi:10.1300/J123v11n03_15 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^8. Tina Feick, “NASIG Tenth Anniversary Conference Panel,” The Serials Librarian 28, no. 1–2 (1996): 23–35. doi:10.1300/J123v28n01_05 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^9. Tina Feick, “NASIG Tenth Anniversary Conference Panel,” The Serials Librarian 28, no. 1–2 (1996): 26. doi:10.1300/J123v28n01_05 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^10. Tina Feick, “NASIG Tenth Anniversary Conference Panel,” 33.

^11. Ann Okerson, “Whose Work is it Anyway? Perspectives on the Stakeholders and the Stakes in the Current Copyright Scene,” The Serials Librarian 28, no. 1–2 (1996): 69–87. doi:10.1300/J123v28n01_09 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^12. Amira Aaron, Alan Nordman, and Roger Presley, “Serials Interfaces,” The Serials Librarian 28, no. 3–4 (1996): 283–290. doi:10.1300/J123v28n03_12 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^13. Thomas W. Leonhardt, “The Alarmists Versus the Equilibrists: Reexamining the Role of the Serials Professional in the Information Age,” The Serials Librarian 28, no. 3–4 (1996): 189. doi:10.1300/J123v28n03_01 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^14. Steven M.Bellovin, “Security and Uses of the Internet,” The Serials Librarian 28, no. 1–2 (1996): 105–113. doi:10.1300/J123v28n01_11 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^15. Steve Cohn, Mike Brondoli, Matthew Bedell, and Barbara Woodford, “If Publishers Perished, just what would be Lost?” The Serials Librarian 28, no. 3–4 (1996): 371–375. doi:10.1300/J123v28n03_26 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^16. John Cox, “Access to Scholarly Literature,” The Serials Librarian 50, no. 1–2 (2006): 49–67. 2015, doi:10.1300/J123v50n01_07 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^17. Carol Hixson, “If we Build it, Will they Come (Eventually)? “ The Serials Librarian 50, no. 1–2 (2006): 197–209. doi:10.1300/J123v50n01_18 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^18. Anna Hood, and Mykie Howard, “Adding Value to the Catalog in an Open Access World,” The Serials Librarian 50, no. 3–4 (2006): 249–252. doi:10.1300/J123v50n03_07 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^19. Marshall Keys and Buddy Pennington, “Chaotic Transitions,” The Serials Librarian 50, no. 1–2 (2006): 29–36. doi:10.1300/J123v50n01_05 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^20. Ibid., 31.

^21. Rachel A. Erb, “The Impact of Reorganization of Staff using the Core Competencies as a Framework for Staff Training and Development,” The Serials Librarian 68, no. 1–4 (2015): 92–105. doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2015.1017417 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^22. Kate B. Moore, “Are We there Yet? Moving to an E-Only Collection Development Policy for Books,” The Serials Librarian 68, no. 1–4 (2015): 127–136. doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2015.1016836 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^23. Christine L. Ferguson, “Taming Mobile Applications,” The Serials Librarian 68, no. 1–4 (2015): 156–162. doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2015.1016854 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^24.. Sanjeet Mann, Susan Davis, Eugenia Beh, Taryn Resnick, and Sarah Sutton, “Core Competencies for Print Serials Librarians,” The Serials Librarian 68, no. 1–4 (2015): 243–248. doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2015.1017422 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^25. Wm. Joseph Thomas, Barbara Chen, and Gail Clement, “ORCID Identifiers: Planned and Potential Uses by Associations, Publishers, and Librarians,” The Serials Librarian 68, no. 1–4 (2015): 332–341. doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2015.1017713 (accessed July 7, 2015).

^26. Jayne Marks, “Publisher Perspective: How One Publisher Is Responding to the Changing World of Scholarly Communication” (presentation, NASIG-SSP Joint Meeting, Washington DC, May, 27, 2015).

^27. T. Scott Plutchak, “A Library Perspective: Data Wranglers in LibraryLand—Finding Opportunities in the Changing Policy Landscape” (presentation, NASIG-SSP Joint Meeting, Washington DC, May, 27, 2015).

^28. Sarah Hartman-Caverly, “DIY E-Resources Management: Basics of Information Architecture and Planning for the Budget-ocalypse: The Evolution of a Serials/ER Cancellation Methodology” (NASIG Webinar, 13 November 2014).

^29. Jeffrey Beall, “Protect Your Patrons from Predatory Publishers” (NASIG Webinar, October 22, 2013); Carol Ann Borchert and Julie Fielding, “Scholar Commons @USF: Sharing Knowledge Worldwide” (NASIG Webinar, September 26, 2013); Angela Dresselhaus, “The Electronic Resource Librarian’s Role in Digital Scholarship and Scholarly Communications” (NASIG Webinar, February 12, 2015).

^30. Marlene van Ballegooie and Juliya Borie, “From Record-Bound to Boundless: FRBR, Linked Data, and New Possibilities for Serials Cataloging” (NASIG Webinar, 23 October 2014); Steve Shadle, “Publisher Metadata in Library Systems and How It Helps the User” (NASIG Webinar, December 6, 2012).