Résumés
Abstract
Big Deals initially emerged as cost-saving purchasing models through which academic libraries could quickly grow their collections. Over time, the soaring costs of journal bundles have strained library budgets, and librarians have worked to transition away from Big Deals. Cancellation projects are complex processes involving a large amount of time and labour. Past research has examined how librarians use quantitative and/or qualitative data to make decisions around cancellations, but few go inside the process to understand the subjective factors influencing librarians’ choices. This study investigates the decision-making practices and processes of librarians concerned with the cancellation of Big Deals through interviews conducted at four medium-sized Canadian institutions that underwent cancellation projects from 2015 to 2020. The institutions investigated in this study adopted similar practices in deciding what packages to unbundle and selecting their teams. Differences in how qualitative and quantitative data were used in forming analyses, and the communication methods to counteract opposition heavily influenced the relative success of each library. Libraries seemed most successful if they could perform nuanced and complex data analyses, involved their Liaison librarians in faculty consultations, had the strong support of administrators, and wrapped the project together with an integrated communications plan. A model describing the decision-making steps in the process of unbundling journal packages and the influences that impact each step is presented, followed by recommendations for engaging with each influencing factor, based on the findings of this study.
Keywords:
- academic libraries,
- Big Deal cancellations,
- collections management,
- library collections,
- media
Résumé
Les grands ensembles ont d'abord émergé comme des modèles d'achat économiques grâce auxquels les bibliothèques universitaires pouvaient rapidement développer leurs collections. Au fil du temps, la flambée des coûts des ensembles de périodiques a mis à rude épreuve les budgets des bibliothèques, et les bibliothécaires se sont efforcé.e.s de s'éloigner des grands ensembles. Les projets d'annulation sont des processus complexes nécessitant beaucoup de temps et de main-d'œuvre. Des recherches antérieures ont étudié comment les bibliothécaires utilisent des données quantitatives et/ou qualitatives pour prendre des décisions concernant les annulations, mais peu explorent à fond le processus pour comprendre les facteurs subjectifs qui influencent les choix des bibliothécaires. Cette recherche examine les pratiques et les processus décisionnels des bibliothécaires concerné.e.s par l'annulation de grands ensembles au moyen d'entrevues menées dans quatre établissements canadiens de taille moyenne qui ont fait l'objet de projets d'annulation de 2015 à 2020. Les institutions étudiées dans cette recherche ont adopté des pratiques similaires pour décider des ensembles à déconstruire et pour sélectionner leurs équipes. Les différences dans la façon dont les données qualitatives et quantitatives ont été utilisées dans la formation des analyses et les méthodes de communication pour contrer l'opposition ont fortement influencé le succès relatif de chaque bibliothèque. Les bibliothèques semblaient avoir plus de succès si elles pouvaient effectuer des analyses de données nuancées et complexes, impliquer leurs bibliothécaires de liaison dans les consultations des professeur.e.s, bénéficiaient du solide soutien des administratrices.teurs et concluaient le projet avec un plan de communication intégré. Un modèle décrivant les étapes de prise de décision dans le processus de déconstructions des ensembles de périodiques et les influences qui ont un impact sur chaque étape est présenté, suivi de recommandations pour mobiliser chaque facteur d'influence, sur la base des résultats de cette étude.
Mots-clés :
- abonnements scientifiques,
- annulations de grands ensembles,
- bibliothèques universitaires,
- déconstruction,
- édition savante,
- gestion des collections,
- prise de décision
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire. Télécharger
Parties annexes
Biographical notes
Samuel Cassady is the Head of Collections & Content Strategies at the University of Western Ontario. His research interests include methodologies for collection librarian decision making, and sustainability in academic library collecting.
Madelaine Hare is a PhD student in the Digital Transformation and Innovation program at the University of Ottawa. Her doctoral research aims to understand how ongoing developments in open access and open science relate to equity, diversity, and inclusion in the scholarly research system.
Philippe Mongeon is an Associate Professor in the Department of Information Science at Dalhousie University, director of the Quantitative Science Studies Lab, Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science - La Revue canadienne des sciences de l’information et de bibliothéconomie (CJILS-RCSIB), and associate member of the Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST). His research focuses on the production, dissemination and use of research.
Catherine Johnson is emeritus professor at the University of Western Ontario where she taught in the Faculty of Information and Media Studies. This study grew out of her experience in teaching courses in Collection Management and Electronic Resources Management.
Bibliography
- Ambi, Alison, Erin Alcock, Pamela Morgan, and Amanda Tiller-Hackett. 2016. “Using Data to Break Apart Journal Packages.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 11 (4): 57–62. https://doi.org/10.18438/B81K9B.10.18438/B81K9B Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Bergstrom, Theodore C., Paul N. Courant, R. Preston McAfee, and Michael A. Williams. 2014. “Evaluating Big Deal Journal Bundles.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (26): 9425–30. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403006111.10.1073/pnas.1403006111 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Blecic, Deborah D., Stephen E. Wiberley, Joan B. Fiscella, Sara Bahnmaier-Blaszczak, and Rebecca Lowery. 2013. “Deal or No Deal? Evaluating Big Deals and Their Journals.” College & Research Libraries 74 (2): 178–93. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-300.10.5860/crl-300 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Botero, Cecilia, Steven Carrico, and Michele R. Tennant. 2008. “Using Comparative Online Journal Usage Studies to Assess the Big Deal.” Library Resources & Technical Services 52 (2): 61–68. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.52n2.61.10.5860/lrts.52n2.61 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Bucknall, Tim, Beth Bernhardt, and Amanda Johnson. 2014. “Using Cost Per Use to Assess Big Deals.” Serials Review 40 (3): 194–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2014.949398.10.1080/00987913.2014.949398 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Butler, Leigh-Ann, Madelaine Hare, Nina Schönfelder, Eric Schares, Juan Pablo Alperin, and Stefanie Haustein. 2024. “Open Dataset of Annual Article Processing Charges (APCs) of Gold and Hybrid Journals Published by Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, PLOS, Springer-Nature and Wiley 2019-2023.” Version 1.0. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CR1MMV.Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Calvert, Kristin, William Gee, Janet Malliet, and Rachel Fleming. 2013. “Is ILL Enough?: Examining ILL Demand After Journal Cancellations at Three North Carolina Universities.” In Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference, edited by Beth R. Bernhardt, Leah H. Hinds, and Katina P. Strauch. Purdue University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315297.10.5703/1288284315297 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN). n.d. “CRKN-Elsevier License Renewal.” Canadian Research Knowledge Network. https://www.crkn-rcdr.ca/en/crkn-elsevier-license-renewal.Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Clarke, Victoria, and Virginia Braun. 2017. “Thematic Analysis.” The Journal of Positive Psychology 12 (3): 297–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613.10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Cooper, Danielle, and Oya Y. Rieger. 2021. What’s the Big Deal?: How Researchers are Navigating Changes to Journal Access. Ithaka S+R. https://apo.org.au/node/312896.10.18665/sr.315570 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Dawson, Diane. 2015. “A Triangulation Method to Dismantling a Disciplinary ‘Big Deal.’” Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 80. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1641.10.29173/istl1641 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Enoch, Todd, and Karen R. Harker. 2015. “Planning for the Budget-ocalypse: The Evolution of a Serials/ER Cancellation Methodology.” The Serials Librarian 68 (1-4): 282–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1025657.10.1080/0361526X.2015.1025657 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Frazier, Kenneth. 2001. “The Librarians’ Dilemma: Contemplating the Costs of the ‘Big Deal.’” D-Lib Magazine 7 (3). https://www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/frazier/03frazier.html.Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Gagnon, Stéphanie. 2017. “Journal Publishers’ Big Deals: Are They Worth It?” Papyrus (institutional repository). Université de Montréal. https://hdl.handle.net/1866/18507.10.7771/2380-176X.7747 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Hardy, Beatriz Betancourt, Martha C. Zimmerman, and Laura A. Hanscom. 2016. “Cutting without Cursing: A Successful Cancellation Project.” The Serials Librarian 71 (2): 112–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2016.1196635.10.1080/0361526X.2016.1196635 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Hoeve, Casey Daniel. 2019. “Resource Management in a Time of Fiscal Scarcity: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment for Journal Package Cancellations.” The Serials Librarian 75 (1-4): 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2019.1576571.10.1080/0361526X.2019.1576571 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Ivanov, Asen O., Samuel Cassady, and Catherine Johnson. 2020. “An Agenda for Studying of Big Deal Cancellation Projects as Information Practice.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du Congrès Annuel ce l’ACSI. https://doi.org/10.29173/cais1162.10.29173/cais1162 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Johnson, Catherine Anne, and Samuel Cassady. 2018. “How Librarians Make Decisions: The Interplay of Subjective and Quantitative Factors in the Cancellation of Big Deals.” Collection and Curation 39 (1): 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-05-2018-0013.10.1108/CC-05-2018-0013 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Johnson, Catherine Anne, and Samuel Cassady. 2024. “Faculty Response to Journal Cancellations.” Collection Management 49 (4): 165–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2024.2422589.10.1080/01462679.2024.2422589 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Jones, Mary Ann, Derek Marshall, and Sharon A. Purtee. 2013. “‘Big Deal’ Deconstruction.” The Serials Librarian 64 (1-4): 137–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2013.760389.10.1080/0361526X.2013.760389 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Jurczyk, Eva, and Pamela Jacobs. 2014. “What’s the Big Deal? Collection Evaluation at the National Level.” Portal 14 (4): 617–31. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2014.0029.10.1353/pla.2014.0029 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- McLean, Jaclyn, and Ken Ladd. 2021. “The Buyback Dilemma: How We Developed a Principle-Based, Data-Driven Approach to Unbundling Big Deals.” The Serials Librarian 81 (3-4): 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2021.2008582.10.1080/0361526X.2021.2008582 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- McLean, Jaclyn, Diane Dawson, and Charlene Sorensen. 2021. “Communicating Collections Cancellations to Campus: A Qualitative Study.” College & Research Libraries 82 (1): 19–43. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.1.19.10.5860/crl.82.1.19 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Mitchell, Nicole, and Elizabeth R. Lorbeer. 2009. “Building Relevant and Sustainable Collections.” The Serials Librarian 57 (4): 327–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260903203645.10.1080/03615260903203645 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Mongeon, Philippe, Kyle Siler, Antoine Archambault, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, and Vincent Larivière. 2021. “Collection Development in the Era of Big Deals.” College & Research Libraries 82 (2): 219-36. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.2.219.10.5860/crl.82.2.219 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Nabe, Jonathan, and David C. Fowler. 2012. “Leaving the ‘Big Deal’: Consequences and Next Steps.” The Serials Librarian 62 (1-4): 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2012.652524.10.1080/0361526X.2012.652524 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Nash, Jacob L., and Karen R. McElfresh. 2016. “A Journal Cancellation Survey and Resulting Impact on Interlibrary Loan.” Journal of the Medical Library Association 104 (4): 296–301. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.008.10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.008 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Rogers, Jenica P., and Kathryn Wesley. 2015. “Reaching New Horizons: Gathering the Resources Librarians Need to Make Hard Decisions.” The Serials Librarian 68 (1-4): 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1016831.10.1080/0361526X.2015.1016831 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Scott, David R., and Nicole Eva. 2016. “The Canadian Dollar Versus the Collection: How Canadian Academic Libraries Are Coping.” Partnership 11 (2). https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v11i2.3771.10.21083/partnership.v11i2.3771 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Shu, Fei, Philippe Mongeon, Stefanie Haustein, Kyle Siler, Juan Pablo Alperin, and Vincent Larivière. 2018. “Is It Such a Big Deal?: On the Cost of Journal Use in the Digital Era.” College & Research Libraries 79 (6): 785–98. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.6.785.10.5860/crl.79.6.785 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Sjoberg, Cindy. 2017. “E-Journals and the Big Deal: A Review of the Literature.” School of Information Student Research Journal 6 (2): Article 3. https://doi.org/10.31979/2575-2499.060203.10.31979/2575-2499.060203 Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Urquhart, Cathy, Hans Lehmann, and Michael D. Myers. 2010. “Putting the ‘Theory’ Back into Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Grounded Theory Studies in Information Systems.” Information Systems Journal 20 (4): 357–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00328.x.10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00328.x Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar
- Wilson, Jacqueline, and Chan Li. 2012. “Calculating Scholarly Journal Value through Objective Metrics.” California Digital Library, February 13. https://cdlib.org/cdlinfo/2012/02/13/calculating-scholarly-journal-value-through-objective-metrics/.Google Scholar Rechercher cette référence bibliographique sur Google Scholar

