DOCLINE Users Group Meeting MLA 2013 Maria Elizabeth Collins Public Services Division National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health U.S. Department

DOCLINE Users Group Meeting MLA 2013 Maria Elizabeth Collins Public Services Division National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Back at the office Karen Kraly Lisa Theisen Lis Unger At MLA Maria Collins Martha Fishel Barbara Nicholson DOCLINE Team

Michelle Burda, Middle Atlantic P.J. Grier, Southeastern Atlantic Irene Williams, Greater Midwest Jim Honour, MidContinental Michelle Malizia, South Central Pat Devine, Pacific Northwest Marco Tamase, Pacific Southwest Meredith Solomon, New England Isabelle Julian, Canada Network Coordinators

Agenda DOCLINE Today MedPrint Update 2012 Changes Numbers Resource Sharing Survey

DOCLINE Today 2,731 libraries participating 1.55 million ILL Requests in FY2012 Over 1.7 million serial holdings records 1.13 million print 540,000+ e-journals (31.69%)

Performance Numbers Fill Rate is 92.7% Average number of routes is 1.30 Average time to fill normal request = 0.99 days Average time to fill rush request = 0.29 days Average time to fill urgent request = 0.18 days Epub ahead of print Fill Rate: 85.8% Routes: 1.75 Average time to fill: 1.02 days

MedPrint Update 18 signed agreements 42 libraries have committed to retain MedPrint titles 244 of ~ 250 MedPrint titles have commitments 51 MedPrint titles have 13 or more commitments

MedPrint Libraries & Titles 99 77 33 77 44 33 55 44 11 186186 LibrariesLibrariesTitlesTitles 212212 235235 1313 207207 212212 218218 7474 11

MedPrint Information MedPrint web page http://www.nlm.nih.gov/psd/printretentionmain.html Overview List of titles Agreement RMLs DOCLINE customer service

DOCLINE Changes DOCLINE 4.8 (July 2012) DOCLINE 4.9 (September 2012) Support for versioned articles in PubMed Improved response time for LD Status page Copyright alert in DOCLINE Borrow Added support for Internet Explorer 9 & Firefox 14

Working On Request Reports Adding PDF & comma delimited formats Evaluating change from quarterly to monthly statistics Adding more performance statistics Internet Explorer 10 support

Speaking of Browsers Firefox ## Internet Explorer 7 (Ending April 2014) 621 users Internet Explorer 8 (Ending ??) Move to IE9 or IE10 if you can

License restrictions Embargo periods DOCLINE holdings Routing Upload holdings to DOCLINE OCLC (deferred) Other vendors Not Yet

Numbers

49% decline since 2002 ILL Requests

16% decline in Libraries 49% decline in Requests Libraries & Requests Comparison

* ILLs during Oct 2011 September 2012 ILL By Library Type

Loansome Doc Requests 70.4% decline since 2002

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

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.

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

Customer Service & MLA MeetingsDiscussions with RMLs & CISTIFocus groupsNetwork-wide survey Approach

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

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

N = 1,723 77.8% of libraries have 5 or fewer staff 1 Person: 41% 2 to 5: 36.7% 6 to 10: 7.9% 11 to 15: 3.1% 16 or more: 11.2% Number of Library Staff

N = 1,692 Adequate Staff for Borrowing 53.5% Agree 24.5% Strongly Agree Adequate Budget for Borrowing 49% Agree 18.6% Strongly Agree Adequate Staff for Lending 53.9% Agree 23.4% Strongly Agree Library Resources

N = 1,699 ILL Management Software

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

N = 1,661 Varies by Title 59.8% Latest 5 10 years 28.5% Fairly Complete 8.9% Not Sure 2.8% Journal Dates Coverage

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

N = 1,657 Primarily Electronic 53.9% Agree 22.4% Strongly Agree Generally Permit ILL 42.4% Agree 9.4% Strongly Agree Easy to Know Licenses 25.4% Agree 5.4% Strongly Agree Electronic Journals Only 51.8% Permit ILL Only 30.8% easily know license terms DOCLINE Holdings 31.69% Electronic

N = 1,619 Embargo periods 32.5% Delivery methods 22.4% No ILL 12.9% Not sure 22.3% License Restrictions

N = 48 I avoid problems with lending by only lending from print. My licenses are negotiated to allow ILL lending. But embargo periods limit availability, and that is hard to express in SERHOLD. 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

N = 1,656 Outside date range of subscription 77.9% E-pub ahead of print not available as subscribed 60.7% Outside of scope 54.8% Material not included in subscription, e.g., supplements 35.4% What You Borrow

N = 1,690 Does not include possible royalty payments $$$Free 50% get free 18% get to free 13% get to free 6% Not sure 13% get less than free Items Filled for Free from Lenders

N = 1,663 Borrowing Past 2 Years

105,313 Fewer Requests 33.2% 113,385 55.2% 218,698 Greater than 5% DOCLINE Borrowing Last Year

Borrow 37.8% Saw Decrease 27% Same Lend 50% Saw Decrease 26.8% Same Decreased A LOT Borrow 47% Saw Decrease 18.1% Same Lend 48.2% Saw Increase 21.7% Same Increased A LOT Change in Collections Impact on ILL

N = 540 Why Has Borrowing Changed Increased Support evidence- based practice 65.8% Need items not included in library subscription 58.4% Ordering from cancelled titles 44.4% Decreased Availability of free full-text 68.9% Patrons choosing items immediately available 68% Library subscribed to more full-text 59.4% N = 599

N = 1,728 OCLC 68.6% Often or Sometimes Use 30.2% Never Use State / Regional 43% Often or Sometimes Use 56.1% Never Use Other 29.9% Often or Sometimes Use 69.4% Never Use Use of Other ILL Systems

N = 1,657 How You Obtain Literature

N = 1,594 Obscure or specialized material 35.9% Format or date of material hard to locate 25.2% ILL too expensive 11.3% Why Use Methods Other than ILL

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

N = 1,653 Lending Past 2 Years

28% 58.4% Greater than 5% DOCLINE Lending Greater than 5%

N = 550 Collection decreased 53.5% Not Sure 44% E-journal licenses restrict lending 17.8% Why Lending Decreased

YOUR PREDICTIONS

N = 1,655 38.4% Stay the Same 6.5% Not Sure 38.4% Stay the Same 6.5% Not Sure 16.9% Increase Somewhat or a lot 38.1% Decrease Somewhat or a lot Journal Collection in 2 Years

N = 636 Budget reduction 84.1% Space reduction 28.1% Patron-driven acquisition 26.3% Will Decrease N = 284 Collection development based on user needs 71.5% Consortia buying of packages 36.3% Patron-driven acquisition 14.4% Will Increase Why Journal Collection Will Change

N = 1,655 38.1% Stay the Same 5% Not Sure 38.1% Stay the Same 5% Not Sure 40.5% Increase Somewhat or a lot 16.4% Decrease Somewhat or a lot ILL Borrowing in 2 Years

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

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

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

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

LIBRARY TYPE SUMMARY

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

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

Summary / Preliminary Analysis Libraries believe ILL will be used 71% of time for literature in future Changes in patron behavior Collections impact on ILL More finely tuned collections Point-of-care E-journals impact Less overall ILL volume in DOCLINE system More challenges for ILL

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...

More analysis of data Review 701 survey comments DOCLINE compliments: 275 Enhancement remarks: 212 ILL trends: 146 DOCLINE essential, unique: 138 Library activities: 109 ILL problems: 71 License comments: 48 Discussion with RMLs & CISTI Report to NLM management Next Steps

DOCLINE & LOANSOME DOC

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

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.

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

N = 1,645 Loansome Doc Satisfaction

Thank You

Talk with DOCLINE Team NLM Booth Monday: 10:00am 12:00pm Resource Sharing SIG Monday: 4:30pm 5:30pm Hynes Convention Center - Room 204

Discussion

Documents

DOCLINE Users Group Meeting MLA 2013 Maria Elizabeth Collins Public Services Division National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health U.S. Department