Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Resource sharing among ARL libraries in the US: thirty five years of growth
Collette Mak
Head, Resource Access and Delivery
Hesburgh Libraries
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Structured Abstract
Mak
Purpose: To identify the factors that have led the US to be one of the few countries in the world that has
seen interlending and document supply continue to increase
Design/Methodology/approach: The factors are identified, reviewed and assessed
Findings: That the effectiveness of resource sharing facilitated by intra and inter state cooperatives
using OCLC as a framework is a major factor. Others being the improvement in discovery tools,
requesting processes and the more recent improvements in the delivery process. Finally the widespread
subsidising of access and delivery enables cheap or even free use of document supply.
Originality/value: The only study that addresses the current puzzle of US ‘exceptionalism’ for
interlending and document supply
Keywords: Self-service, Interlending, patron driven acquisitions, end user services, University
Libraries, United States
Paper type: General review
Received: 25th
October 2010 Accepted: 15th
November 2010
1
Resource sharing among ARL libraries in the US: thirty five years of growth
Introduction
Interlibrary loan among the Association of Research Libraries (ARL)1 has grown from 362,931
requests in 1974 to 3,562,401 in 2008.2 How is it possible that resource sharing continues to
grow in an environment where an enormous amount of content is available online and wealth of
older materials available for purchase at ‘fire sale’ prices through online used book dealers? In
spite of a seemingly endless supply of alternatives to interlibrary loan (ILL), the average request
per ARL library has increased in 31 of the 35 years ARL has kept ILL statistics.
A possible explanation is a philosophy of service combined with technologies that facilitate
access and a culture that embraces library cooperation as a mission-critical activity. The national
infrastructure is technically robust; that infrastructure coupled with thousands of libraries
participating in resource sharing with collections largely in a common language, provides a
foundation that makes resource sharing not only possible but practical and effective. That
infrastructure includes a common:
• de-facto national bibliography with over 203 million records and 1.6 billion associated
holdings3
• request routing system(s)
• currency
• language
• resource sharing code
• article transmission system
• mechanism for identifying and paying many royalty payments
United States libraries also have reliable and often subsidized:
• delivery within and across state lines
• internet access
In addition, American academic libraries have embraced self-service and supported it with
systems that automate the process and support delivery. All of which can be summarized as a
shared commitment to user service supported by common, facilitating, technologies.
1 ARL’s annual statistics are available for download at http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/arlstats/ (accessed
4 November 2010) 2 Based on ARL statistics available online for 1974-2008; averages calculated by using the total requests divided by
the number of libraries reporting. Libraries that did not contribute data or with negative numbers were excluded. 3 OCLC Facts and Statistics (http://www.oclc.org/us/en/worldcat/statistics/default.htm) (accessed 14 October
2010)
2
The dramatic growth of ARL ILL borrowing statistics is somewhat misleading because the
number of libraries contributing data also increased from 82 in 1974 to 122 in 2008. The
increased number of institutions overstates the growth of interlibrary loan. A more meaningful
measure is the average number of requests per reporting library. The table below shows the
average number of requests (total requests/number of libraries reporting ILL data) in ten-year
increments. The growth is still an impressive 660%.
Insert Table 1
Background
When ARL began keeping interlibrary loan statistics resource sharing was a boutique service appropriate for scholars with long time frames. Bibliographic and location verification were both paper based using the 754 volumes of the National Union Catalog Pre-1956 imprints and NUC Imprints. Larger libraries were able to supplement NUC with GK Hall catalogs that recorded specialized collections. Items were recorded only under the main entry and holdings were from libraries who contributed prior to publication. The request process itself was typed and mailed. When OCLC’s cataloging system expanded to a nation-wide service libraries were quick to see the advantages. Libraries had almost instant access to the collections of thousands of libraries.4 Even though holdings were recorded in the order in which they were ‘set’ —essentially a random screen of symbols—the improved bibliographic verification and the number of potential lenders showed clear value for resource sharing. With the introduction of OCLC ILL in 1979 the turnaround time dropped from weeks to days. With that single change in request transmission, from postal to electronic, interlibrary loan became a service that could be offered to all our users. Within a year Richard DeGennaro wrote that “Interlibrary loan started as an occasional privilege, but it is rapidly becoming a necessity and even a right”, (DeGennaro, 1980). The growth of interlibrary loan was made possible by OCLC’s ILL system but the demand for content was created by increased access to information. Automated interlibrary loan coincided with the adoption of electronic (CD and online) databases providing indexes and abstracts of current literature to users. Indexing services fed the demand and libraries had the means to meet it. Environment
Today’s resource sharing expectations are set not by libraries but by the commercial marketplace; those expectations are self-service, convenience and speed as defined by the Internet. Library services compete with all other online services for a share of the information market and they need to compete based on those same factors. While some are concerned that Google and Wikipedia do not offer authoritative information, the evidence is that most users are satisfied with the quality of the information and are more than willing to forego higher quality materials in exchange for convenience, (OCLC, 2005). A snap shot of Quantcast ratings taken October 13, 2010 (http://www.quantcast.com) , a site that measures and provides demographics on sites, shows that the most frequently visited sites (97 of the top 100) are commercial. Wikipedia is ranked 8th while the Library of Congress, the top
4 OCLC Annual Report 1983/1984 (1984) OCLC, Dublin Ohio p.1
3
ranked library site, was ranked number 1,064. Our services are successful to a large extent based on how well they match the information market place our users are already using. This also means that search engines and commercial sites are training our users for us on navigation, introducing concepts such as faceted searches and, establishing best practices for web delivery. In a very real sense our incoming freshmen are arriving better prepared to navigate our web-based resources and services than at any time in history. If the internet and the commercial market define our service expectations the economic climate
requires a high degree of fiscal responsibility and obligation to keep costs as low as practical
without degrading service. Resource Sharing, whether through traditional interlibrary loan or
remote circulation is a production operation where incremental improvements can result in
significant savings. The most successful resource sharing operations take advantage of both
technology and self-service, (Jackson, 2004).
Self service, Discovery and, Integration
All three of these components (self-service, discovery and integration) must be in place for effective resource sharing. Users must be able to search at their convenience on the device of their choosing, there must be enough relevant content for them to discover and the process must be integrated into the fulfillment process. Failure at any one of these points results in failure of the overall system. ARL libraries invest heavily not just in A&I services but in the full-text content5. In some
states, such as Georgia (Galileo) and Indiana (INSPIRE) the state or state universities licenses
content on behalf of its citizens. These state-wide initiatives make a wide range of A&I and full
content available from school through to university level. For some disciplines the critical mass,
where the amount of online content is not just acceptable but preferred, has been met -Stanford’s
new engineering library will be based almost exclusively on electronic resources, (Sydell, 2010).
Systems search across platforms, aggregate and facet the results; specific record items provide
links to the content, if available locally or suggest interlibrary loan. Building on the commercial
market’s recommendation model (other people who bought that also bought this) recommender
services are beginning to be implemented such as ExLibris bX and Serial Solutions Summon.
While it would be easy to discount convenience as a driving factor the integration of discovery
and requesting allows the user to pursue their train of thought, largely uninterrupted by the
request process.
These same systems are linked to resource sharing through systems such as ILLiad, Clio and
Relais for fulfillment. With these services available 24/7 for remote access, users are able to
search and request on their schedule, not the library’s. The role of convenience and integration
can be measured by comparing peak searching to peak requesting.
5 ARL’s 2008 statistics show over $75 million spent on electronic materials
4
The following chart maps peak use of the Hesburgh Libraries databases during the fall 2009 term
with the peak hours for ILL request submission with hours ranked highest (24) to lowest (1).
The peak hours for both services are after midnight which is long after our service desks close.
This clearly demonstrates the importance of integration between electronic resources and the
request function.
Insert Figure 1
Absorbing the growth of resource sharing would not be possible without supporting technologies
that aggregate requests and facilitate processing. ARL libraries generally have multiple
systems, most commonly OCLC and Rapid or, OCLC and Docline. Request management
systems combine requests into a single workflow and aggregate statistics and copyright tracking.
The primary request management systems in the United States are Clio, ILLiad and Relais.
These systems all offer an end-user interface to facilitate request tracking, some means of
combining requests from different systems, e.g. OCLC and Docline, and combining statistics.
All have the advantage of allowing libraries to eliminate paper files for request tracking while
relieving individual staff member of knowing which libraries should be charged, how much and
even how requests should be sent. SUNY Geneseo, for example, prints pull slips with an icon in
the corner showing how the material should be shipped. It’s almost impossible to overstate the
importance of these request management systems.
More efficient than interlibrary loan, resource sharing also includes circulation-based systems.
Circulation-based resource sharing, sometimes called remote circulation, allows the user to
request materials through a union catalog and have the transaction handled completely as a
circulation transaction. Instead of an ILL request the supplying library receives a pull slip ready
to be taken to the stacks to retrieve the material.
Probably the oldest and one of the most successful models is in Illinois. Illinois academic
libraries began resource sharing through ‘remote circulation’ in 1980. That model has been
replicated in other states, most famously, the OhioLINK project which began remote circulation
based resource sharing in 1994. Among the most common platforms is Innovative’s INN
Reach. In Ohio each library has its own ILS (also Innovative) and contributes holdings to a
central catalog where users are directed for searching and requesting. That model is being used
by the University of California libraries, the state of Michigan and others.
Evergreen, the open source ILS developed by the State Library of Georgia , is currently used by
275 public libraries6 When Georgia looked for a replacement for its system the State Library
dedicated a small staff of programmers to develop an alternative. The product was Evergreen, an
open-source ILS. In order to allow Evergreen to expand beyond Georgia the effort spun off
into a small company called Equinox. This large-scale shared ILS has been adopted in Indiana,
6 Georgia Public Library Service “PINES Online Library Catalog” available at
http://www.georgialibraries.org/public/pines.php (accessed 14 October 2010)
5
Michigan, British Columbia, Connecticut, Texas and, South Carolina. In all of these systems
the user is able to search the local and the group’s collection and place a hold. The transaction is
handled as circulation rather than traditional interlibrary loan.
These systems, while efficient, require that users be on the same ILS. In contrast OCLC’s
WorldCat Local and Navigator work across systems, at least for discovery. WorldCat Local
relies on WorldCat holdings that then link to the ILS for fulfillment. This brought a new
dimension to shared catalogs by allowing each library to define its partner libraries and to
present the entire WorldCat search results as part of the search. The University of Washington
reports that by presenting the full range of possibilities their interlibrary borrowing increased by
123%, (Ward, 2008). Washington’s experience reinforces the Illinois experience from 1980
where the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana saw resource sharing grow to 3.6% of
their total circulation in its first year by allowing the users to discover and request without staff
intervention, (Potter, 1986). Relais, long used by the National Library of Medicine to handle its
Docline traffic, now offers tools for loans. D2D (discovery to delivery) supports the Ivy
Leagues’7 EZBorrow program and is being implemented by PALCI (Pennsylvania Academic
Library Consortium, Inc).
Even with request management systems libraries would not be able to keep up with the volume if
all requests needed to be staff processed. Technology has moved borrowing from staff-
mediated to self-serve requesting but progress has been much slower on the fulfillment side.
Circulation-based systems are able to consider shelf status prior to sending requests but
appropriate routing for loans continues to challenge interlibrary loan systems. Ironically,
request routing for journal articles have advanced faster than appropriate routing for books.
NLM’s Docline, for example, was tightly integrated with Serhold – the database of serial
holdings statements for biomedical journals - from the beginning making Docline the first and
most effective resource sharing network for journal literature in the United States.
RapidILL was developed as an emergency measure at Colorado State University8 to allow them
to supply journal articles while they rebuilt their collection after a disastrous flood. This proved
to be so robust and effective that they offered it as a subscription based service beginning in
2000. Rapid ILL is now used by 58 of the ARL libraries with members contributing serials
holdings to the Rapid database and agreeing both not to charge each other and to deliver quickly
(24 hours). Because requests are routed based on the actual serials holdings, not just the title
level, both borrower and lender enjoy high fill rates. For example in September 2010 RAPID
libraries submitted 91,272 requests with a 96% success rate and an average turnaround time of
7 The Ivy League is comprised of eight, private universities on the United States’ Eastern seaboard and includes:
Brown University; Columbia University; Cornell University; Dartmouth University; Harvard University; Princeton
University; the University of Pennsylvania; and Yale University. 8 University History 1997 Flood available at http://www.colostate.edu/features/flood97-damage.aspx (accessed 19
October 201)
6
14.6 hours9. While Rapid ILL cannot meet the immediacy of a commercial document supplier
it is fast enough that many libraries, including my own library at Notre Dame, have greatly
reduced their use of commercial sites and use the Copyright Clearance Center for royalty
payments as required.
There is an almost 100% overlap between ILLiad10 and RapidILL libraries among ARL libraries.
If fully integrated these two systems have the potential to reduce turnaround time by hours.
ILLiad’s ‘trusted sender’ feature allows the system to accept an incoming document, match it to
the correct request, mount the document on the server and notify the user without staff
intervention. Rapid Manager, which imports RapidILL into ILLiad, begins that process of
integration.
As libraries move away from paper to digital the ability to supply through interlibrary loan is
increasingly governed by license terms. The necessity to check terms for electronic materials to
determine if and how requests can be supplied has complicated the delivery process. The most
innovative work on automating requests for licensed content comes out of the Information
Delivery Services (IDS) project in New York headed by SUNY Geneseo. ALIAS (Article
License Information Availability Service) starts with the assumption that no library is going to
request more restrictive use, therefore, libraries have at least as many rights as the standard, out-
of-the-box terms allow. Working with Atlas Systems, the developers of ILLiad, IDS developed
a system that works with ILLiad to route requests for digital material based both on holdings and
on rights. OCLC is building on IDS’s work with Direct Article Request to offer its customers
the same capabilities. The actual details of the terms are not disclosed to OCLC; libraries
provide a yes/no table with the local library responsible for following the specific terms. The
pilot for this program ended August 2010 and is now considered to be in production. Large-
scale implementation may be complicated in that US libraries have often used the paper, not
electronic, record for their holdings which will reduce the number of matches found as the
system looks for electronic, not paper, holdings.
Although articles can be delivered, nearly free of staff intervention, books still require physical
delivery. Libraries often measure turn-around time from request sent to materials received but
users consider turnaround from the moment they push the ‘submit’ button. This is another
example of where the commercial market is defining user expectations for service. Two useful
models are Netflix – a video downloading and DVD/Blu-ray lending service - and Amazon
(ranked 7 and 75 respectively by Quantcast). These top two commercial services sell
exclusively online and delivery is electronic or through a courier system. NetFlix’s service level
expectations are one day post shipping; Amazon’s standard shipping (fee-based) is 3-5 days and
free shipping is 5-9 days post shipping. This provides a market-based measure for what
9 RAPIDILL available at http://rapidill.org (accessed 22 October 2010)
10 ILLiad is a resource sharing management system that aggregates requests from differing systems (e.g. OCLC and
Docline) into a single interface for staff and users. ILLiad was developed at Virginia Technical Institute and is
marketed by OCLC.
7
acceptable delivery times should be. Allowing for ‘shipping’ time then good service would be 3
days or less with 4 to 11 being acceptable.
Unless a library is willing to pay for expedited service such as FedEx then meeting those user
expectations for delivery are best served by using libraries connected through a dedicated courier
serving local or regional consortia. With a few notable exceptions the large resource sharing
groups are supported by a shared courier system. That system may be dedicated to their group
such as with the CIC or it may be supported by the state such as Georgia. The Moving
Mountains Project11 attempts to catalog the courier systems in the United States. While the site
is admittedly incomplete at the time of writing, 37 of 50 states had one or more library courier
systems. The large academic consortia all have courier systems with one notable exception;
GWLA (Greater Western Library Alliance) would be challenged to support a courier service as it
covers the largest physical distance between its member libraries stretching between Illinois,
Hawaii, Washington and, Texas.
Arguably these courier systems deliver a high percentage of the benefit of any resource sharing
group. Circulation-based resource sharing (e.g. OhioLINK) is always supported by a dedicated
courier system; without such a delivery system the per-unit shipping costs would be prohibitive.
This is a critical factor in the success of resource sharing consortia—in 2008 Ohiolink
participants loaned over 770,00012 physical items among their consortia. Without courier
delivery the cost of that delivery would have meant paying per-unit delivery for over 1.5 million
shipments (delivery and return).
While courier systems were developed for speed and to avoid incremental costs associated with high-volume traffic, the time and cost savings is not just from avoidance of shipping costs. Courier systems use reusable bins and zippered bags to route materials. Dedicated shipping bags and bins reduce handling and packaging time. These practices, created for cost and efficiency, have proven to have the added benefit of being “green”. OCLC’s 2010 Greening Interlibrary Loan practices compares the carbon footprint across shipping methods and found that reusable bags and courier systems were the most environmentally friendly if physical delivery must be used. 13 The next step in matching commercial services is home delivery. In a convenience driven age
what could be more convenient than having materials delivered to, and returned from, your
home? If NetFlix can do it, why can’t libraries? Cyril Oberlander, then at Portland State
University tested the willingness of lending libraries to deliver to a private home. What he
found was that most libraries using an interlibrary loan management system pay little or no
attention to the ‘ship to’ address and use the standard address in their system’s database, (in
conversation). Since then there have been some experiments with home delivery. Montana
11
Moving Mountains Project available at: http://www.clicweb.org/movingmountains (accessed 19 October 2010) 12
Snapshot 2008 available at: http://www.ohiolink.edu/about/snapshot2008.pdf (accessed 19 October 2010) 13
Greening Interlibrary Loan Practices available at: http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-
07.pdf (accessed 19 October 2010)
8
partnered with OCLC to pilot home delivery; that pilot emerged as OCLC’s WorldCat Direct
where libraries can choose to borrow books from Better World Books and have the material
shipped directly to the users’ home. Better World Books charges a fee of between $15 and $25
for a loan, whether or not the book is subsequently purchased by the user. It’s unclear how
successful the service will be but may prove valuable in supporting special-needs users without
reliable transportation and distance learners.
Patron Driven Acquisitions
Libraries have long recognized that it is impossible for any single collection to meet perfectly the
needs of current and future users. Interlibrary loan’s raison d’être has been to provide access to
content not available locally with the assumption that materials requested on interlibrary loan
would be of limited interest at the home institution. Those views and that old model are
changing in response to the changing environment. The ease of discovery and the ease of
recommendations have meant that more and more ILL traffic has moved from the obscure to
recently published materials. Where libraries have embraced self-service for circulation and
ILL they are beginning to accept patron-driven acquisitions; for example Collection
Management, volume 35 issue 3/4 is dedicated to the subject of patron-driven acquisitions and it
has been identified as one of the top trends in academic libraries, (ACRL, 2010) and the subject
of a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, (Howard, 2010). As Suzanne Ward’s
research demonstrated in 2002, materials purchased in response to an interlibrary loan request
turned out to be an excellent predictor of repeat use, (Ward, 2002). The follow up study,
(Nixon, 2010), shows that patron-driven acquisitions continue to circulate at higher rates than
librarian selected materials.
The Information Delivery Services Project GIST14 begins the process of industrializing the
purchase option. The theory behind GIST harks back to RLG’s Conoco study which suggested
that libraries purchase some materials in order to enrich the collection at the consortia level,
(Hacken, 1992). GIST automatically reports the number of copies held within a group as well
as checking resources such as Amazon and Better World Books for purchase availability.
Libraries are encouraged to purchase content, rather than borrow, to enrich the consortia’s
overall collection.
Intellectual Property Rights:
In an age of unprecedented access to content we are also contending with constantly changing
and complex intellectual property rights. Prior to the explosion of digital content resource
sharing was concerned only with whether or not a request fell under the Copyright Law (CCL) or
with the CONTU Guidelines (CCG). While not law, the CONTU Guidelines provided a
simple test that could be easily applied by staff and tracked by US systems. The United States
14
Getting It System Toolkit available at: http://gettingitsystemtoolkit.wordpress.com/ (accessed 19 October 2010)
9
enjoys a central agency for royalty payments in The Copyright Clearance Center whose coverage
has been adequate to excellent for journal-based literature.
We are now waiting for decisions on two cases that will test the concept of fair use and, our
ability to loan the books in our collections. The first involves Georgia State University and
publishers. White the dispute is about electronic reserves it has fair use at its center. The
September 30th ruling allows the suit to continue solely on the basis of issues of fair use and
infringement. 15
The second case is between Costco, a warehouse shopping chain and Omega. The dispute
questions the doctrine of first purchase. Omega contends that the sale violated their copyright
on the mark on the watches’ casing because the United States’ doctrine of first purchase applies
only to items made in the United States, (Felten, 2010).
The legal landscape, fortunately, is not the only landscape. Beginning in 1997 with the
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) universities have been
actively supporting reform and open access as a means of providing the peer review required for
rigorous scholarship in new ways. Several large universities, such as Harvard, the University of
Michigan and, Columbia joined the Compact for OA Publishing Equity:
http://www.oacompact.org. COPE’s goal is to create a new business model for peer reviewed
journals in order to make scholarly research more widely available by financially supporting the
costs for their faculty to publish in open access journals.
The most significant open access advance has been the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH)
Public Access Policy that requires research, funded by the NIH to be submitted to PubMed
Central within twelve months of being accepted for publication AND made available to the
public within twelve months of publication16 While some publishers assume responsibility for
meeting that requirement others will make that the responsibility of the authors.
Rethinking Interlibrary Loan
Throughout the thirty-five years of the ARL statistics there has been an ongoing effort to
recognize excellence and innovation by the community; beginning with the “Directors are you
listening” program in 1991, continuing with ARL’s cost studies, white papers, conferences, and
awards designed to recognize excellence and innovation. ALA RUSA17 Interlibrary Loan
committee recreated itself as STARS (Sharing and Transforming Access to Resources Section)
to recognize that resource sharing was more than just interlibrary loan. The most recent effort is
15 Justia.com Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al Filing: 235 Available at:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/georgia/gandce/1:2008cv01425/150651/235/
(accessed 19 October 2010)
16 National Institutes of Health Public Access available at: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ (accessed 20 October 2010)
17 American Library Association (ALA) Reference and User Services Association (RUSA)
10
the Rethinking Resource Sharing forum, an unofficial movement beginning with a white paper
and resulting with the Rethinking Resource Sharing Manifesto and ongoing forum. The group
promotes a small, manageable set of principles to allow libraries to move towards removing
barriers and developing user-centric services18.
Conclusion
The ongoing study described above and the drive to develop efficient, user-centered services
provides an environment where interlibrary loan undergoes continual process improvement. Our
ability to meet the research material needs of our faculty, graduate and undergraduate students
allows them to see a direct connection between the service and their ability to research and
publish. As a result, interlibrary loan is both a highly-visible and a highly-valued service. That
visibility drives us to continually invest in systems that expand discovery and integrate the
request process. Our national resource sharing infrastructure includes a national union catalog
that aggregates the collections of thousands of academic libraries and we utilize a relatively
small number of systems to provide access to those collections.19 That our automation needs
can be well met by those systems is evidence of high-volume, production-oriented workflows as
well as a shared understanding of the process across libraries. Those same forces drive down the
incremental costs of increased activity. Ultimately the reason that the interlibrary loan service
continues to grow in the United States is because we encourage it.
“Interlibrary lending only works when, in some fundamental way, libraries consider all of us to
be their patrons. They must have the foresight and the imagination to see that all knowledge in
some way, someday, will serve everyone. What goes around may, both literally and figuratively,
come around, (Ashton, 2005).”
Acknowledgement and note
The Future of Resource Sharing (a special issue of the Journal of Library Administration, Vol 21 No 1/2, 1995) used in preparation for this article was available for thirty cents through Amazon used books.
References
ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee (2010), “2010 top ten trends in academic libraries” College and Research Libraries News, November 7. freely available at: http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/6/286.full (accessed 11 November 2010)
18
Rethinking Resource Sharing available at: http://rethinkingresourcesharing.org/ (accessed 19 October 2010) 19
OCLC 2008/2009 Annual Report (2009) OCLC Dublin, OH p. 8 Available at:
http://www.oclc.org/US/EN/news/publications/annualreports/2009/2009.pdf (accessed 9 November 2010)
11
Ashton, S. (2007), “What Goes Around”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 14 available at: http://chronicle.com/article/What-Goes-Around/46448/ (accessed 25 October 2010)
DeGennaro, R. (1980), “Resource Sharing in a Network Environment”, Library Journal, Vol.
105 No. 3, pp.353-355
Felten, E. (2010), “Watch Out For the Omega Copyright Windup; A case about pricing timepieces could crimp library lending”, Wall Street Journal (Online), 29 July Hacken, R. (1992), “The RLG Conoco Study and Its Aftermath: Is Resource Sharing in Limbo?”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp 17-23. Howard, J. “Reader Choice, Not Vendor Influence, Reshapes Library Collections” The
Chronicle of Higher Education, November 7, 2010
Jackson, M. J. (2004), “Assessing ILL/DD Services: New Cost-Effective Alternatives”,
159407657X, Association of Research Libraries, Washington DC, p. XI (executive summary)
Nixon, J. and Saunders, E. S. (2010), “A Study of Circulation Statistics of Books on Demand: A
Decade of Patron-Driven Collection Development, Part 3”, Collection Management, Vol. 35
No. 3-4, pp.151-161
OCLC. (2005), Perceptions of Libraries and Information, OCLC, Dublin Ohio. Para 3:6-3:14. Available at: http://www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm Potter, W. (1986), “Creative automation boosts ILL rates”, American Libraries, April, p. 245
Sydell, L. (2010), “Stanford Users in the Age of Bookless Libraries”, available at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128361395 (accessed 19 October 2010) Ward, J. Shadle, S. and Mofjeld, P. (2008), “WorldCat Local at the University of Washington Libraries”, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 4 No. 6, p. 24 Ward, S. (2002), “Books on Demand: Just-in-Time Acquisitions”, The Acquisitions Librarian, Vol 14 Issue 27, pp.95-107
