Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Why- UNC Charlotte experience
Mellon Grant Genesis and Overview
Principles from UCLA and Macalester
Research Teams o Course Use
o User Experience
o Licensing
o Interlibrary Loan
o Platforms and Preservation
Environmental Scan
Over to Theresa, Liz, Steve, John and Terry
Discussion
1
UNC Charlotte Faculty Feedback:
I did not realize this is how e-books work.
Now I can warn students in the future not to count
on using them for class and I will also make sure to put a hard copy on reserve.
2
Remove non-permanent ebooks
Focus on permanent, usable books and promote to
Faculty
New purchases guided by Three Principles
Irrevocable perpetual access and archival
rights.
Unlimited simultaneous users.
Freedom from any Digital Rights Management
3
Provision of irrevocable perpetual access and
archival rights.
Allowance for unlimited simultaneous users.
Freedom from any Digital Rights Management
(DRM), including (but not limited to) use of
proprietary formats, restricted access to content,
or time-limited access terms.
http://guides.library.uncc.edu/charlotteinitiative
* Per Steve Harris, University of Nevada, Reno, ER&L April 2016
4
o Aug. 2014 Don Waters site visit and invitation
o Aug. 2014-Jan. 2015 Project Team formed,
grant proposal written
o May 2015 Grant announced
o Sept. 2015 First meeting of Working Group
o Jan. 2016 Research Teams launched
o Sept. 2016 Second meeting of Working Group
o Spring 2017 Open Conference; Final Report
5
Chuck Hamaker, Special Projects Librarian, UNCC,
Principal Investigator
Alison Bradley, UNCC, Head of Research and Information
Services, UX Team Leader (Davidson College this month)◦ Beth Caruso, USC Columbia SLIS, Research Assistant
Elizabeth (Liz) Siler, UNCC Collection Development
Librarian, Course Use Team Leader◦ Kelly Denzer, UNC SLIS Greensboro, Research Assistant
October Ivins, Project Consultant, researcher for
environmental scan, supports two teams
6
• The data suggests that not all libraries are accepting
their heritage role.
• They are not planning for long term preservation and
access for their growing licensed digital collections and
resources.
• They rely increasingly on third parties to perform this
fundamental function. This shift may have far reaching
implications for long term preservation and access to the
world's knowledge and cultural and historical record.
-- Sharon Farb, UCLA, First Monday 2006
7
“Like Minded Institutions” for Collaboration
o Representing 13 libraries
o Four library consortia
o Three university presses
o One non-profit vendor- Project Muse
o Variety of size and types of libraries, roles in
library, geographical range, consortial membership
o Discussions conducted under the Chatham House
Rule (without attribution)
8
Librarians1. Ann Agee, San Jose State University2. Sharon Farb, UCLA3. Ellen Finnie, MIT 4. Katy Gabrio, Macalester College5. Tony Horava, University of Ottawa6. Theresa Liedtka, Univ of TN Chattanooga8. Joyce Ogburn, Appalachian State9. Katina Strauch, College of Charleston10. Mary Beth Thompson, Kentucky11. Will Wakeling, Northeastern University12. Keith Webster, Carnegie Mellon13. Stanley Wilder, LSU
9
Consortia
14. Ivy Anderson, CDL
15. Kate Davis, OCUL/Scholars Portal
16. Anne McKee, GWLA
17. Celeste Feather, Lyrasis
Publishers
17. Steve Cohn, Duke University Press
18. John Sherer, UNC Press
19. Charles Watkinson, Univ of Michigan Press
20. Terry Ehling, Project MUSE*
10
Proposed at September WG meeting
Does ILL of print books impact P and E sales for
university press books?
Develop procedure to collect statistics from
ILLiaD
Challenges◦ Open search in publisher name
◦ Identify ISBN stem
◦ Poor quality MARC records metadata for ISBN
◦ Expense?- Good news
Focus on Business Models, Pricing and Terms
Promote adoption of principles to publishers
Iterative processo Literature review
oSurvey (Volunteers?)
oSupplemental interviews
oShare findings with Working Group and Research Teams
oShare interim results publicly
oRe-survey, re-interview
Use Market pressure, findings, and time to
change behavior
Licensing Principles (Steve Cohn, Theresa
Liedtka◦ Interlibrary Loan
User Experience (UX),
Course Use
Platforms and Preservation (Kate Davis and Will
Wakeling)
And
Environmental Scan (project consultant)
Macalester College
http://www.macalester.edu/library/changingebooksfor
libraries/advocacy/
Oberlin Group
http://www.oberlingroup.org/node/14801
University of California System/UCLA
http://www.library.ucla.edu/about/collections/collectio
n-development-initiatives/e-book-value-statement
15
Scholarly Communication UCLA scholars expect and need the ability
to borrow e-books via interlibrary loan, in a way that is comparable to historic educational usage of print interlibrary loan. Conversely, the UCLA Library must be able to loan e-books to other institutions as part of its scholarly mission.
UCLA users routinely engage in scholarly sharing with their students and colleagues, and licenses must not hinder that practice.
http://www.library.ucla.edu/about/collections/collection-development-initiatives/e-book-value-statement
Licenses must not infringe on fair use (17 U.S.C. §107).
Faculty, students, and researchers need and expect access to e-book content for course reserves, course management systems, and course packs.
The use of an e-book for a course reading requires that it be simultaneously accessible by an unlimited number of users.
E-books must maintain the integrity and consistency of scholarly content with print.
E-Book Rights Advocacy
http://www.macalester.edu/library/changingebooksforlibraries/advocacy/
In order for libraries to carry out their long-standing missions of building collections for use and sharing over time for their communities and the public good, it is imperative that e-book restrictions set by publishers and vendors change.
For updates and further
information on the initiative please
see our web pages at:
http://guides.library.uncc.edu/Char
lotteinitiative
The grant will support a free public
conference Date TBA, March/April
2017 in Charlotte to report
findings and investigations and
invite wide feedback.
Kate Davis, OCUL/Scholars Portal, co-leader
Will Wakeling, Northeastern University, co-leader
Not in grant; recommendation from WG Sept 2015
8 members
Charge
Investigate current alternatives for digital preservation of ebooks collection in academic libraries and outline the strengths and weaknesses of each◦ 3rd party options like Portico and CLOCKSS/LOCKSS
◦ Commercially hosted platforms
◦ Non-profit platforms
o Co-chairs Steve Cohn, Duke University Press and
o Theresa Liedtka, Univ of Tennessee, Chattanooga
o Examine role of licenses to govern use and access to
ebooks, in light of existing copyright laws and
protections.
o Analyze current case law, white papers, and other
literature
o Review applications of the doctrine of First Sale in the
digital environment
o Compare findings to current licensing practice
21
Existing literature on patron satisfaction with eBooks in
academic settings does not differentiate between
platforms, formats, and other conditions that alter the
user’s ability to read, annotate, and use eBooks
Goal: evaluate the existing research published and use
this to develop consistent guidelines to accurately assess
patron satisfaction in consideration of the various formats
and platforms of eBooks in their collections content.
Intend to design research for replication.
22
• What are schools doing that we don’t already know about?
• What textbooks are most commonly assigned and how can libraries work together to make the important content in these books available freely to students?
• What options are their for libraries to provide course texts to their students?
• Can we create a best practices and/or a toolkit for libraries that are interested in implementing similar programs?
• What publishers can we work with on creating models for purchasing textbook content?
Charge (continued)
Create a checklist for evaluation of platforms.
Begin an inventory of platform options used by
various consortia and individual libraries
Sketch what libraries would need in order to
create their own preservation platforms in terms
of technical infrastructure, metadata and licensing
Articulate how these platform might fit into the
larger preservation ecosystem.
ILL? If STL is not the solution, what is?◦ Model policy on print; unavailable locally?
Promoting course assignments, Yes
Cutting into course adoptions- Yikes◦ Allow exceptions
◦ Upcharge for use over x amount?
◦ Special course use pricing $200-$250 for unlimited
UPeC model-sufficient collection purchases, loss of
course adoption sales won’t matter
Link to user purchase options-Google Books
25
