Abstract
The presenters described the complex nature of managing electronic resources and demonstrated how services offered by subscription agents may assist with this effort, particularly for managing e-journal packages. Using the University of Alabama's experiences with EBSCO Information Services as a case study, the presenters discussed specific advantages and disadvantages of using agents and going direct to the publisher. The session also described metamediaries in the context of the library–agent relationship.
This session brought together two librarians and a subscription agent to discuss how a mutually beneficial relationship can be developed to deal with the complexity of e-journal management. Jodi Kuehl from EBSCO Information Services began the program by speaking about how agents can assist with the acquisition of electronic resources. Agents have had to adapt their internal processes to meet the current demands for assistance with e-journal management. She reviewed the many services agents can now provide to help librarians, such as providing management reports to track and alert library customers about electronic availability and providing information on pricing model changes, open-access titles, and titles moving from one e‐journal package or publisher to another. The agent's system can also provide registration and licensing information to assist with setting up electronic access. Agents have developed services to support e-journal package renewals, such as lists of titles moving into and out of a particular package and projected renewal spend (expenditures) based on the library's contract terms. In many instances libraries are able to obtain customized reports suited to their needs from their subscription agents.
How do these services benefit libraries? Kuehl talked about how agents have created specialized electronic resources teams to better support their customers. She emphasized the reduced processing time and accuracy of package renewals handled by subscription agents. Library customers report a very high level of satisfaction with these services, and many are even able to process their package renewals in less than one hour! Subscription agents may also be used to manage consortial or university-wide deals. Agents can provide detailed billing and one point of contact, as well as the list management services described previously to help manage these more complex situations. In conclusion, Kuehl noted that subscription agents have worked very hard to develop tools and services to help their library customers more effectively manage their e-journals.
Beth Holley then presented an acquisitions librarian's perspective. She mentioned some of the disparate systems that her library uses to track various aspects of electronic resources: the integrated library system (ILS) acquisitions module, the subscription agent system, Serials Solutions' electronic resource management (ERM) system, and many, many Excel spreadsheets. Noting exasperation at the proliferation of these spreadsheets, Holley delightedly reported that the University of Alabama has been trying to eliminate spreadsheets as they work on implementing the ERM system. Holley compared handling e-journal packages to dealing with membership and combination packages in the print world. The receipt of print issues prompted libraries to create check-in records for each of the publications received as part of a membership or combination. Definitive lists of benefits of memberships were easy to come by. It is not so easy to manage online packages especially when you cannot even identify which particular set of journals the library is entitled to access. Holley expressed a sentiment shared by many of the librarians in attendance—we need help! The University of Alabama has depended on their subscription agent for such help and has established an excellent working relationship with their subscription agent customer service representative.
Holley reviewed some specific advantages and disadvantages of using an agent or subscribing direct. She listed the following advantages for using an agent:
| • | Provides detailed title listing of paid subscriptions and access titles | ||||
| • | Provides loadable (machine-readable) invoice | ||||
| • | Tracks titles that fall in and out of a package | ||||
| • | Tracks publisher changes | ||||
| • | Verifies title lists | ||||
| • | Verifies changes with negotiated contract terms | ||||
| • | Tracks format details | ||||
| • | Provides library with registration details (such as identification numbers) | ||||
| • | Assists with license details (links to publisher license site, key license terms) | ||||
| • | Provides a variety of collection assessment and serials management reports | ||||
| • | Provides a mechanism to review and evaluate online renewals for packages | ||||
| • | Works with the publisher or provider to resolve problems | ||||
Holley presented the following disadvantages to using an agent:
| • | Service charges (library administration often questions these) | ||||
| • | Time factor (cycle of library fiscal year not in sync with subscription year) | ||||
| • | Consolidation (large libraries use multiple agents; using one agent for all subscriptions from a particular publisher may maximize value of reports and services) | ||||
| • | Switching agents is very difficult and time consuming | ||||
Holley listed a set of advantages and disadvantages for going direct with e‐journal subscriptions. The main advantages are receipt of a single line invoice and no service charge fee. Disadvantages are no loadable invoice, no verification of title lists, no reports, and no list of subscribed and/or accessible titles other than the list included in the contract. Holley pointed out that acquisitions librarians are concerned with accountability, which is why accurate and complete lists of subscribed and accessible content are so important to libraries.
Jill Grogg, E-Resources Librarian at the University of Alabama, offered a somewhat different perspective on the use of subscription agents. Grogg introduced the term “metamediary,” which Loghry used in her chapter “To Use or Not to Use: The Benefits and Challenges of Using Subscription Agents for Electronic Journals.”Footnote 1 Coined by Dr. Mohanbir Sawhney at Northwestern University, metamediaries offer the customer a trusted, single point of contact. This term resonated with Grogg as the way subscription agents work. She spends a good portion of her time dealing with access and other e-journal problems. If she can turn these problems over to her agent's customer service representative and have confidence that the problems will be resolved in a timely and effective manner, then the agent is a metamediary. Other companies, such as Serials Solutions, may also be considered metamediaries. Libraries often need to work with multiple metamediaries since, as Holley pointed out previously, no one system solves all the library's needs. The more these metamediaries are able to “talk” to one another, the more benefits they offer to the library.
Grogg gave an example of the intertwined nature of these systems. The library subscribes to “special package G” from publisher Y through its subscription agent. However, the ERM system, such as Serials Solutions, does not list this particular package name, but several that sound similar like “academic package G.” If the library activates the academic package that turns out to be the wrong package then inaccurate information is delivered to the patron. Is it any wonder librarians are confused?
Grogg recognized that it is difficult for metamediaries to handle institution- or consortium-specific publisher “big deal” packages because of the unique nature of each deal. Yet, she expressed hope that initiatives such as Knowledge Bases and Related Tools (KBART) and Transfer will improve the accuracy and timeliness of the data exchanged between the various systems mentioned during this session. She asked a librarian at another institution, North Carolina State University (NCSU), how they dealt with concerns about the accuracy of the knowledgebase. NCSU conducted an audit of the targets they had activated and developed policies to deal with some of the confusion. Such an audit is time-consuming, but Grogg felt that a more accurate list in the knowledgebase can help avoid problems down the line.
Grogg offered some excellent points to consider when deciding to use an agent or to justify the use of an agent to handle e-journal and package subscriptions. The subscription agent's system and services can usually be overlaid on existing workflows. Consider the aptitude and capabilities of existing staff. Dealing with electronic resources requires a special skill set and comfort dealing with ambiguity. The processes are spatial, not linear; chaotic, not orderly. Would not paying a service charge provide you with a sufficient salary pool, even if you could hire additional staff? It is time to evaluate legacy attitudes and current realities toward subscription agent consolidation. Would e-journal management work better if all subscriptions were with one agent? Do you have concerns about the financial risks of consolidation? And there are still situations where the library must go direct or other circumstances that make it preferable to order direct. Grogg also referred to a presentation by Ives, Anderson, and Emery at the 2007 Charleston Conference entitled “University Library Satisfaction with Publisher and Subscription Agent Services.” Based on a survey conducted by the authors, they found that “subscription agents perform significantly better than publishers on 6 of 9 key areas of service satisfaction.”Footnote 2
Grogg concluded her presentation with the astute observation that “e‐resources are a mess” and that we are all doing our best to keep the mess at bay. To which the audience replied “amen!”
Notes
1. Patricia A. Loghry, “To Use or Not to Use: The Benefits and Challenges of Using a Subscription Agent for Electronic Journals,” in E-Serials Collection Management, ed. David C. Fowler (Binghamton, NY: Haworth Information Press, 2004).
2. Gary Ives, Rick Anderson, and Jill Emery, “University Library Satisfaction with Publisher and Subscription Agent Services: A Report from the Results of the Swamp Fox Survey” (paper presented at the Charleston Conference, Charleston, SC, November 9, 2007), http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/6121 (accessed July 10, 2009).
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- National Information Standards Organization. “Knowledge Base And Related Tools (KBART) Working Group.” http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart (Accessed: 10 July 2009 ).
- UKSG. “Transfer.” http://www.uksg.org/transfer (Accessed: 10 July 2009 ).