the asvin project: a study of electronic and printed veterinary science journals in the uk and...

© Blackwell Science Ltd 2002

Health Information and Libraries Journal

,

19

, pp.21–32

21

Blackwell Science Ltd

The ASVIN Project: a study of electronic and printed veterinary science journals in the UK and Ireland

Bryn

Davies, SUPER Project Manager, formerly ASVIN Project Manager, Norfolk County Council, Norwich, UK

Abstract

ASVIN was a Research Support for Libraries Programme (RSLP) FundedProject, whose principal aim was to develop better co-operation between ninelibraries in the veterinary and animal health field. The project examined anumber of library-related areas, such as journal archiving, collection developmentpolicies, development of a common Z39.50 catalogue interface, grey literature,and printed and electronic journals. This paper examines the latter, whilst alsoproviding a detailed analysis of printed journals held in partner libraries. Com-parisons of the nine partner library collections are undertaken with a range ofsecondary sources, and an ASVIN core list of veterinary journals was developed.It looks at some of the issues relating to e-journals, expressing the benefits andconcerns that many librarians are experiencing, such as licensing arrangements,archiving and general management issues.

Introduction

‘Today, the printed journal is the most importantmedium in which the progress of science isrecorded’ (Meadows, 2000).

The above comment is as true today as it was when

Nature

and

Scientific American

were first publishedin the nineteenth Century, or the post SecondWorld War scientific boom of the twentiethcentury. In 1973

Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory

listed around 50 000 journals in print. The currentedition of Ulrich’s

1

lists 157 000 titles, 7000 ofwhich were added in the last year. It also notes thatat least 10 332 are available on-line, whilst another3451 tiles are available on CD-rom. In the field ofresearch the number of journal papers has increased100% between 1975 and 1995

2

.The scholarly or research journal is still the most

acceptable means of communicating research find-

ings. The speed of publishing material in a journal,relative to publishing a book, allows the researcherto disseminate findings before they become dated.Both the author and the reader have the satisfac-tion of knowing that the referee, and review sys-tem, typically ensures that only the highest qualitymaterial is published. There is a comfort for thereader that the referees and reviewers will carefullyscrutinize papers to ensure that the researchmethodologies are appropriate for the reputationof the journal. The quality of current indexing andabstracting services also ensure that the journal isseen as the richest data source for researchers, whoinevitably have to commence with the all toofamiliar literature search.

3

In the majority of academic libraries, the journalacquisitions budget is second in size only to thestaffing budget, and is usually significantly higherthan that for monographs. SCONUL

4

indicates aratio of 57 : 40 for serials and books, respectively.As indicated earlier, the number of available journalshas increased substantially, whilst library budgetshave been shrinking over the corresponding period.

5

Correspondence: Bryn Davies, 17 Ipswich Grove, Norwich NR2 2LU,UK. E-mail: [email protected]

HLR_347.fm Page 21 Friday, February 15, 2002 2:11 PM

The ASVIN Project,

Bryn Davies



,

19

, pp.21–32

22

This has resulted in libraries cancelling subscriptionsto many journals, and conversely journal priceshave risen considerably as publishers seek to main-tain their financial targets. Taylor-Roe

6

neatlysummarizes the situation:

This budget is subject to innumerable externalpressures: spiralling price rises, fluctuating exchangerates and the inexorable growth of journalliterature ... demand for new titles is generallyinsatiable, matched only by users’ outcry at thethought of having to cancel existing subscriptionsto fund their new requirements.

E-journals

Increasingly libraries are considering utilizing thosesame journals in electronic format. Although theelectronic journals have been with us for sometime, they did not really gain widespread acceptanceuntil the late 1990s, after the introduction of web-accessed titles.

7,8

In that short time they made aconsiderable impact on the academic arena.

9

Somehave suggested that they might even reform theentire process of scientific communication, pro-viding great improvements in speed and efficiency.

10

Morris

5

believes that there are many advantages ofhaving e-journals, including international reach,speed of publication, costs and convenience.

It has been said that electronic journals couldbe the answer to the current journal ‘crisis’ inlibraries.

11–13

In reality however, this perceivedcrisis has been with us since at least the early 1960s.

3

It was believed that authors would embrace thenew medium enabling their work to reach the widestpossible audience.

14

Academics would becometheir own publishing houses, guarding the copy-right to their work, so that they could then usetheir own skilled staff to create publications avail-able free of charge to further their science. There isno evidence to suggest that this is happening, or islikely to do so in the short term.

12

Currently themajority of electronic journals are produced bycommercial publishers, with the emphasis on pro-viding electronic versions of their print titles.

7,11

This is because, as Meadows

3

states, there is still anaffinity with the format of the printed journal, andthere is considerable uncertainty as to a futurewithout print. A softly, softly approach might seem

overly cautious, but it is also one of commercialreality.

Furthermore the reforms carried out by publishersare designed to maintain or increase publishers’revenues, with very few actually lowering subscrip-tion prices.

12,13

There has also been an increasein the practise of publishers selling access to theirelectronic journals in ‘bundles’.

15

Rather thanpaying a subscription for individual titles, librariespay for a group of titles as a single product.

Theoretically these arrangements can benefitorganizations, allowing libraries access to a wholerange of titles at a lower cost. However there hasbeen some concern that these agreements are notsufficiently targeted to meet the needs of manylibraries.

15

They can encumber libraries with‘low-usage, high-cost titles’ that they would nototherwise subscribe to, and can cost the library theright to cancel individual titles.

7

Pricing electronic journals is a complicatedprocedure. Helal and Weiss

16

question whethere-journals are indeed a cheaper medium. It is relat-ively simple to estimate potential subscriptionlevels with a printed journal and to monitor anyfluctuation in subscription levels, however, it isconsiderably more difficult with e-journals. Toillustrate this, Morris

5

indicates that:With electronic journals, there are none of these

certainties, and furthermore no publisher yet knowswhat long-term effect electronic journals will have onprint journals. One of the reasons many publishersbegin by offering the electronic version free ofcharge is because they simply do not know whatthe uptake will be.

Licensing

Journal licence agreements inherent with the newmedia can also provide challenges and difficultiesof their own. Licence agreements can be quiterestrictive and can reduce access to information

10

.They usually include a clause stating that only‘

bona fide

’ members of the licensed organization canutilize the product, causing a number of manage-ment difficulties for libraries.

11

Libraries have inmost instances, traditionally allowed nonmembersto browse holdings on a reference only basis butthis clause outlaws this procedure. This restrictionis likely to cause increasing problems as more

HLR_347.fm 2 Friday, February 15, 2002 2:11 PM

The ASVIN Project,

Bryn Davies



,

19

, pp.21–32

23

information is moved to an electronic format. Itis usual practice for organizations themselves todetermine the criteria for membership. However,it can result in some difficult negotiations if thelicensing body does not agree. Furthermore ifthere is ambiguity within the arrangement it canleave organizations susceptible to legal action.There is also concern among library staff as to howcurrent arrangements to share resources throughinterlibrary loan can continue, as many licenceagreements also prohibit this activity.

11,15

Management

There are a number of issues that are causing greatconcern and consternation amongst librarians.Woodward and Archer

17

suggest that frequentlyasked questions are:

•

Can they be purchased separately from the printversion?

•

Can they be ordered via a subscription agent, orvia library purchasing consortia?

•

Should they be catalogued on the OPAC?

•

How do libraries alert their users to the fact thata serial title is available electronically?Another area of concern for libraries is that of

archiving and future access to back copies ofjournals. Despite the belief that national librariesshould be the ultimate archiving body, currentcopyright legislation is such that electronic journalarchives are still held by the individual publishers.At present, following the discontinuation of a sub-scription, there are also no rights of future accessto archived information, other than any agreementincluded in the licence.

There are also concerns over the technical issuesof maintaining access to the information. As anexample, will the information need to be transferredon to new media when technologies advance, orwill the old technologies need to be maintained inparallel with each other? These are real concernsas there is a belief that an electronic library canbe more expensive to maintain than one that ispredominantly print-based.

The ASVIN Project

ASVIN was a Research Support for LibrariesProgramme (RSLP) funded project, whose

principal aim was to develop greater co-operationamongst libraries in the animal health and veterinaryinformation field The nine partners involved in theproject were:

•

Animal Health Trust

•

Bristol University

•

Cambridge University

•

Edinburgh University

•

Glasgow University

•

Liverpool University

•

Royal Veterinary College

•

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS)

•

University College DublinThe seven universities all have veterinary schools,

with undergraduate programmes and substantialpostgraduate research interests. The RCVS valid-ates the undergraduate programmes in the UKand has substantial library resources in the field.It also offers an important information service topractising veterinary surgeons. The Animal HealthTrust is an organization that has a flourishingresearch community, with significant resourcesparticularly in the equine field.

ASVIN sought to enhance support to veterinaryand animal health researchers in UK higher edu-cation (HE) by developing a range of services toimprove access to information in the followingareas:

•

electronic journals;

•

journal archiving;

•

improved access to partner library catalogues(Z39.50 link);

•

document delivery;

•

common collection development policies;

•

consortia purchasing;

•

grey literature.It was expected that the principal beneficiarieswould be researchers but that there would also bebenefits for the wider community if most of theintended outcomes were achieved. In particularlibraries would be able to offer improved and morecost-effective services.

Methodology

The data used in this study was gathered betweenDecember 1999 and February 2000, with the excep-tion of University College Dublin where data wascollected in June 2000.


The ASVIN Project,

Bryn Davies



,

19

, pp.21–32

24

Lists of printed journals were provided by partnerlibraries and other than titles, such as the LibraryAssociation Record, travel guides, and similarworks often found in a reference library that wereremoved, the lists are unedited. This point is madebecause the current lists hold a significant numberof annual reports and conference proceedings,which other libraries might regard as grey litera-ture. It is clear that some partners concur with thisnotion, as such material does not feature on theirlist of periodicals. Certainly the various lists ofveterinary journals that were identified during thisresearch did not include such titles, nor does thedraft version of the Veterinary Serials Committee’sproposed list of veterinary journals. This left theASVIN project with the thought that it might beworth considering producing a definition of a veterin-ary journal, and as a start the following is offered.

‘a periodical or journal where most of the contenttakes the form of scientific papers which reportoriginal research, review published material fromresearch, and present clinical data from the artand the science of veterinary medicine, veterinarysurgery and animal health and welfare.

Most ASVIN partners were unable to supply uswith a list of their current electronic journal sub-scriptions in the veterinary or animal health field.As indicated earlier most of the universitiessubscribed to services such as International DigitalElectronic Access Library (IDEAL), where thenumber of titles occasionally ran into many thou-sands. Using a combination of Ulrichs Interna-tional Periodicals Directory, and the catalogues in

partner libraries, the lists were refined to one broadlycontaining veterinary and animal health titles.

A list of print and electronic journals held inpartner libraries is now available on the ASVINwebsite (http://www.asvin.ac.uk/journals/front.htm[last edited July 2000] ).

Research findings

The study indicates that partner libraries subscribeto a total, of 910 unique printed journal titles and1113 electronic journals. Figure 1 shows the totalnumber of electronic and print journal subscriptionsat each partner institution. As is evident, the graphdemonstrates a considerable variation in thenumber of journal titles at each partner library.Some difference is of course to be expected con-sidering the different sizes of the various facultiesand their parent organizations. Not surprisingly theuniversity partners have significantly more electronictitles than the two nonuniversity organizations.

Having access to this data has given the team theopportunity of analysing the holdings, with thepossibility of reporting patterns, gaps and oppor-tunities. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the numberof journals that are duplicated in partner libraries.

It is acknowledged that there is no commonveterinary undergraduate curriculum in the UKand Ireland, although it is expected that veterinarygraduates will leave university with common coreskills. As a result one might conclude that thecurricula of the seven partner veterinary schoolswould be broadly similar, but academics wouldargue that there are significant differences betweenthe curricula. Likewise it is accepted that the

Figure 1 Journal holdings for ASVIN partners


The ASVIN Project,

Bryn Davies



,

19

, pp.21–32

25

Animal Health Trust (AHT) and the Royal Collegeof Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) have different aimsand objectives to the Veterinary Schools. Thismight account for the fact that there appears to besuch a high figure 587 (65%) of journals takenby only one partner, and that only 20 (2%) of thejournals are taken by all partners. Different researchinterests amongst the organizations might also bea significant factor. The differences with e-journalsare even more marked with only one title takenby all partners, and 639 (58%) taken by only onepartner. To analyse this further it was decided toanalyse the holdings of the seven veterinary schoolsalone, where greater commonality might be expected.

As can be seen in Table 2, the number of titlestaken by all veterinary schools shows an increasefrom Table 1 to 32 (4%). However, it is interestingto note that the number of journals taken by onlyone school is still relatively high and, ironically, isexactly the same percentage of the total (65%).

The number of e-journals taken by the RCVSand the Animal Health Trust is relatively small,consequently the analysis of the collections whenthose two organizations are removed from the equa-tion remains largely unchanged. The results mightindicate that the curricula amongst veterinarycolleges are different. Together with the differentresearch programmes at the various organizations,this may well account for the lack of commonalitybetween the journal collections. Or does the analysissuggest flaws in selection policies? Answers to someof these questions might have been easier to ascertainif partners had clear collection management policies,but only the RCVS had a detailed policy (http://www.rcvs.org.uk/library_details/colldevelfinal.pdf ).This policy gives an historical account of its positionas a collector of veterinary material, together witha clear statement as to what it would be seeking tocollect in the foreseeable future. ASVIN attemptedto develop a collaborative collection policy, with

Print Electronic

No. of journal titles

No. taken by partners

% of total



% of total

20 9 (all) 2 1 9 (all) 018 8 2 1 8 013 7 1 7 7 0.516 6 2 16 6 1.519 5 2 91 5 844 4 5 90 4 873 3 8 101 3 9

120 2 13 167 2 15587 1 65 639 1 58

Total 910 100 1113 100

Table 1 Analysis of journal holdings in partner libraries.

Print Electronic



% of total



% of total

32 7(all) 4 7 7(all) 118 6 2 13 6 122 5 3 90 5 828 4 4 88 4 868 3 9 98 3 9

112 2 14 160 2 15520 1 65 637 1 58

Total 800 100 1093 100

Table 2 Analysis of veterinary journals in veterinary school libraries.


The ASVIN Project,

Bryn Davies



,

19

, pp.21–32

26

the aim of developing spikes of excellence, but thiswas rejected by the partners. However, as a result ofthis exercise many of the libraries are now activelyseeking to develop their own individual policies.

Benchmarking of journal holdings

To assist partners, the research team was askedto look deeper into the analysis of the journalholdings. One approach was to develop a list ofveterinary journals that could be used as abenchmark against the library holdings. Such alist was created by amalgamating the veterinaryjournals indexed by Medline (68 titles) and theScience Citation Index (171 titles). In addition,other lists of veterinary journals were identified viaa search of the Internet including the current list ofveterinary titles at the University of Montreal[http://www.medvet.umontreal.ca/biblio/vetjr.html](166 journals), and science.komm [http://www.sciencekomm.at/journals/vet.html] (98journals)

.

The four lists were merged together andduplicates were removed to give a list of 225veterinary titles. A basic list of Veterinary Serialswas published in the Serial Librarian in 1996.

18

Itwas compiled by the Veterinary Serials Committee(VSC) of the Veterinary Medical Libraries Section,which is part of the Medical Library Association.The VSC is currently reviewing the document, andfrom the proposed list of approximately 144 titles,84% are present on the benchmark list. We cantherefore conclude that a fairly unscientific approachto developing the list has still resulted with onethat broadly reflects the key journals in the veterin-ary science/medicine field. In addition 89% of thejournals on the benchmark list are on CABI’s listof animal and veterinary science journals, and 53%on the BIOSIS equivalent.

Electronic journal subscriptions were sub-sequently compared with the benchmark list ofjournals, and of the 1113 electronic journals, only44 were listed. This is surprising as many of thepartners reported that a significant number oftheir electronic journals were electronic copies oftitles they had in print. However, this low figurecan almost certainly be explained by the increasein ‘bundled’ licence agreements. Furthermore atthe time of data collection IDEAL was still provid-ing large numbers of electronic journals through

‘top sliced funding’, making the cost of the serviceinvisible to organizations. When the e-journals werecompared with the total print holdings it wasfound that 130 titles were duplicated in at least oneASVIN partner library. For example Bristol,Edinburgh and the RVC all subscribe to both printand electronic versions of the

New Scientist.

Afurther 65 were duplicated in at least one of thepartner institutions.

Veterinary Opthalmology

is takenby the Animal Health Trust, Dublin, Edinburghand Liverpool in print format, whilst Bristol takethe journal electronically, but not in print.

Table 3a lists the number of veterinary journalsheld by individual partners, together with thenumber and percentage of those journals that areincluded in the benchmark list. The final column(% of total list) is the number of journals takenby partners, as a percentage of 225. For example,Bristol has 140 titles of which 57 (41%) are listed,which is 25% of the 225 journals on the list. Thiscolumn should normally favour the larger collec-tions, and as an example Liverpool scores extremelywell against the percentage on the benchmarklist 59 (65%), but not so well when expressed as apercentage against the total list of journals (26%).Conversely Dublin and Edinburgh score relat-ively lowly against the benchmark list but muchbetter when compared to the total list. Withregards to the e-journals Table 3b reveals that fewof the titles appeared on the benchmark list. Theone exception being the RCVS whose percentagefigure is high, but this is due to its small base ofseven journals, of which four were present on thebenchmark list.

The question that the ASVIN project teamneeded to address was whether the benchmark listwas an accurate reflection of veterinary journals,and their relevance to animal health researchers inthe UK and Ireland. If partners accept the bench-mark list then a further test might be to ask whatpercentage figure might be deemed as acceptablein suggesting that a library has enough core veter-inary material within its stock. Are we correct inassuming that the scores are low? To some extentthe Edinburgh and Dublin’s ‘low scores’ of 28%can be explained by the fact that their periodicalslists contain a relatively high number of titles thatsome would regard as grey literature. The analysisreveals that Dublin has the highest number of


The ASVIN Project,

Bryn Davies



,

19

, pp.21–32

27

journals but if their ‘grey literature’ was excludedthe percentage figure would certainly rise. Thesame is true of Edinburgh University.

Having completed the exercise it becameevident that the benchmark list might not be themost appropriate means of developing a core listof veterinary journals. Whilst it is undoubtedly truethat a number of these titles are extremely importantin the field, perhaps a more reflective core list canbe developed by looking more closely at the hold-ings of the ASVIN libraries. During our research,which included wide-ranging discussions withlibrarians, academics and researchers, there wasnothing to suggest that their local libraries did notcontain appropriate material. An assumptioncould be made that the partner library collectionswere truly reflective of the needs of their users.

A core list of veterinary journals might there-fore be developed by focusing more closely on thetitles that are held in all or most of the partnerlibraries. For example, from Table 1 it can be seen thatthe total number of journals taken by the majority

of partners, i.e. more than four, is 86. Of these 65are on the benchmark list, which represents 76% ofthe total. If we limit this to the veterinary schools,as in Table 2, we see that the majority of theschools take exactly 100 titles, and of these 72(72%) are on the list. This list of journals wasadopted as an ASVIN core list of veterinaryjournals and can be seen on the project’s web-siteat (http://www.asvin.ac.uk/corejournals.htm)

.

Benchmarking: Science Citation Index

To develop these findings from the previoussection, the Science Citation Index (SCI) was usedto ascertain how library holdings correspond tothe most often cited veterinary journals. At theoutset it is acknowledged that there are a numberof factors that might influence why a journal iscited more often than another. Udofia

20

however,recommends citation analysis as means of selectingveterinary journals and as a result a similaranalysis of the ASVIN collections was regarded

Table 3a An analysis of printed journals against the benchmark list.

Table 3b An analysis of e-journals against the benchmark list.

Printed journals No. of titlesNo. on benchmark list

% of titles on benchmark list

% of total benchmark list

Animal Health Trust 79 34 41 15Bristol 140 57 41 25Cambridge 133 64 49 28Edinburgh 347 98 28 43Glasgow 115 67 58 30Liverpool 86 59 69 26Royal Veterinary College 267 94 35 41Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 274 95 35 42University College Dublin 411 114 28 50

Electronic Journals No. of titlesNo. on benchmark list

% of titles on benchmark list

% of total benchmark list

Animal Health Trust 13 1 8 0.4Bristol 580 32 5.5 14Cambridge 387 15 4 7Edinburgh 294 10 3 4Glasgow 482 14 3 6Liverpool 247 7 3 3Royal Veterinary College 82 15 18 7Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 7 4 57 2University College Dublin 161 8 5 3.5


The ASVIN Project,

Bryn Davies



,

19

, pp.21–32

28

as a desirable exercise. The analysis was conductedusing the 25 most cited journals from each of thelast 8 years in SSCI. As some titles dropped in andout of the top 25, the actual number of titlesanalysed over this period is 45. For example therelatively new journal

Vaccine

does not figure inthe analysis between 1991 and 1996, as is the casewith

Animal Science

. The full analysis is held ina lengthy table but a sample of the top indexedjournals from 1998 are displayed in Table 4, togetherwith their relative positions in previous years, ifthe journal was indexed. New journals such asVaccine would obviously not have been indexed.This data is preceded by the number of copies ofthe journal held in partner libraries. For example,

Theriogenology

is taken by seven partner libraries,and was the third most cited veterinary journal in1998, second in 1997 and first in 1996, etc.

Table 5 is a sample rearrangement of the previoustable showing the journals in order starting withthose taken by all nine partners, and this is furthersummarized in Table 6 below. Tables 4 and 5demonstrate that most partners subscribe to themost recently cited journals. The exceptions are thefish-related titles that, as the tables indicate, are not

subscribed to by any partner. This might well be dueto the fact that this is an academic area, that does notcurrently figure prominently amongst the curriculaof the veterinary schools in the UK and Ireland.

Table 6 is an initial summary of the printed andelectronic journal analysis. The table reveals howmany partners subscribe to the journals analysedin the SCI. For example, the printed journalscolumn tells us that all nine partners hold nine ofthe journals analysed, and 8 partners take a furthernine, etc. As the table illustrates, very few of thetitles most cited in the SCI are taken by the partnersin electronic format. However, the figures for printsubscriptions are considerably higher, with 40%of the top cited journals taken by at least eightpartners. Sixty-two per cent of the titles are takenby five or more partners.

E-journals in ASVIN libraries

At the time that this research was undertaken e-journals were relatively new to many of the libraries.All the librarians from the partner libraries agreedthat e-journals were here to stay. They could alsocite advantages and disadvantages, many of which

Table 4 Most cited veterinary journals in the SCI since 1991.

Journal title No.* 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991

Vaccine 4 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA NAActa Veterinaria Hungarica 2 2 68 65 69 76 86 72 73Theriogenology 7 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2Atla-Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2 4 12 12 4 4 7 10 30Domestic Animal Endocrinology 4 5 6 4 3 7 3 3 1British Veterinary Journal 9 6 18 23 13 26 35 36 NAAnimal Science 8 7 31 28 NA NA NA NA NAEquine Veterinary Journal 9 8 4 2 12 10 14 12 17Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 8 9 3 5 6 19 9 13 15Veterinary Pathology 9 10 13 20 16 8 21 20 10Journal of Fish Diseases 0 11 8 NA NA NA NA NA 3Veterinary Record 9 12 14 8 11 5 6 5 NADiseases of Aquatic Organisms 0 13 7 10 10 13 8 6 26American Journal of Veterinary Research 9 14 10 13 15 18 15 15 13Laboratory Animals 7 15 NA 31 NA 25 11 19 16Fish Pathology 0 16 37 NA NA NA NA NA NAVeterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 7 17 26 3 5 3 5 8 5Veterinary Microbiology 8 18 5 9 8 11 4 4 7Animal Reproduction Science 5 19 22 27 26 16 23 18 21Veterinary Parasitology 7 20 11 19 9 15 22 26 32

*Number of partners that hold this title.


The ASVIN Project,

Bryn Davies



,

19

, pp.21–32

29

resembled the findings of a survey of American aca-demic libraries by Chu.

19

The advantages included:

•

allowing remote access;

•

can be used by more than one user simultaneously;

•

saves physical storage space.

Interestingly slightly more disadvantages werecited which included:

•

more difficult to browse than printed journals;

•

copyright issues unclear;

•

lack of compatibility amongst publishers;

Journal titleNo. of partners that take the title

Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 9American Journal of Veterinary Research 9Equine Veterinary Journal 9Journal of Comparative Pathology 9New Zealand Veterinary Journal 9Research In Veterinary Science 9Veterinary Journal 9Veterinary Pathology 9Veterinary Record 9Animal Science 8Avian Diseases 8Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research-Revue 8Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 8Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 8Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 8Preventive Veterinary Medicine 8Veterinary Microbiology 8Veterinary Surgery 8Laboratory Animals 7Theriogenology 7Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 7Veterinary Parasitology 7Animal Production 0Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 0Fish Pathology 0Journal of Fish Diseases 0Journal of Medical Primatology 0

Table 5 Cited journals held in partner libraries.

Print Electronic



% of total



% of total

9 (all) 9 20 9 0 (all) 08 9 20 8 0 07 4 9 7 0 06 2 4 6 0 05 4 9 5 0 04 5 11 4 1 23 0 03 3 62 5 11 2 4 91 6 13 1 8 170 5 11 0 31 66

Total 45 100 47 100

Table 6 Journals taken by partners as a percentage of those analysed in the SSCI between 1991 and 1998.


The ASVIN Project,

Bryn Davies



,

19, pp.21–32

30

• can result in excessive printing;• difficult to incorporate with printed journals.

It was also clear that archiving and licensingagreements were of considerable concern. Manywere unclear how this would affect the consider-able number of users, such as practising veterinarysurgeons and organizations such as the Royal Societyfor the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA),who might use veterinary libraries for referencepurposes. Such users might be prevented fromusing e-journals by some agreements that allowonly registered library users, such as students andlecturers, to access the titles. This is a difficultconcept to explain to users, particularly when theyhave regularly used a printed journal in the past.

Users will also take some time to become fam-iliar with the concept of the bundles of e-journalswhich so many publishers provide. A good exampleof the problems such an arrangement can causewas when details of a new package was circulatedto library users by one of the partners. One user,after browsing through hundreds of titles, felt thatthe package was largely irrelevant to the needs ofthe organization. It was only after being informedthat the package cost less than the previous sub-scription to seven printed titles, which had beencancelled, that he could see the value. Such a situa-tion can be difficult to manage as there is littledoubt that printed journals are currently preferredby users to their electronic versions.3

Breaks21 believes that libraries can put pressureon publishers to change some of current policies.He outlines the benefits of ‘hunting in packs’ toobtain a range of advantages, including the obviousone of finance. Advocating a consortial approachsuch a development might pressurize publishers,for example, to provide access to all members of theconsortia whether they subscribe to the printedjournal or not. Breaks feels that libraries actingalone cannot influence publishers and that con-cerns surrounding e-journals need to be tackledinternationally through such initiatives as Interna-tional Consortium of Library Consortia (ICOLC).The Consortium is currently addressing issues suchas pricing, contract negotiation, data access andarchiving, system platforms, licensing terms,information content and its management, anduser authentication. The ICOLC22 argues thatas publishers today increasingly act globally to

provide electronic information, it is incumbentupon libraries to act globally to express theirmarket positions on the pricing and other termsand conditions related to the purchase of thatinformation

Jenkins and Morley23 cite the publication in1998 of statements of licensing principles first by agroup of Dutch-German librarians, and subse-quently by the ICOLC. They regard this as anexample of what can be achieved when librarieswork together to influence future developments.

The last decade has seen the growth of libraryconsortia in the United Kingdom (UK) whetherorganized on a regional basis, such as Consortiumof Academic Libraries in Manchester (CALIM)or Consortium of Health Independent Libraries inLondon (CHILL), or drawing together institutionswith similar missions, as is the case, for example,with Consortium of University Research Libraries(CURL). As mentioned earlier, ASVIN is a partner-ship of nine libraries, eight of which were alreadymembers of consortia. The concept of a consortialapproach by ASVIN was approached and accessto Blackwell Science’s e-journals package Synergywas negotiated for partners. Six of the nine partnerswere in the UK Higher Education sector, andthis enabled them to take advantage of some veryattractively priced packages via National Elec-tronic Site Licence Initiative (NESLI). However, itwas eventually conceded that the majority ofpartners could achieve better solutions relating toprice, licensing and archiving with their currentconsortia.

Conclusion

At the time of this initial analysis e-journals wererelatively new to partner libraries but it was evidentthat activity in the field was developing rapidly.It is acknowledged that the data relating to e-journals in this paper might well have changedsignificantly in a very short space of time, as partnerswere actively looking to access the ever growingnumber of available titles.

Most of the partners would suggest quite correctlythat their holdings were a reflection of the needs oftheir users. It cannot be ignored that partners haveaccess to a wealth of veterinary material, particularlyin printed format. The benchmarking analysis


The ASVIN Project, Bryn Davies

© Blackwell Science Ltd 2002 Health Information and Libraries Journal, 19, pp.21–32

31

revealed that the majority of partner libraries heldbetween 72% and 76% of the titles. Likewise fiveor more partners held 62% of the most recentlycited veterinary journals. These figure alone shouldhighlight the benefits of developing closer co-operation between the partner libraries.

However, this analysis does reveal some gapsin provision. From the former analysis above itsuggests that the majority of libraries do not holdbetween 24% and 28% of the benchmark titles.Additionally most of the libraries do not have 38%of the most recently cited journals. Taken togetherwith the fact that an initial analysis of the partnerjournals suggested that a significant proportion ofthe titles (65%) were unique to one of the partnerlibraries, there are some questions that could befurther addressed. Some possible reasons werediscussed earlier, but post-ASVIN this is an areathat would be well worth investigating.

In particular, ASVIN would question whetherthere is a some scope for more collaborative activityto increase the number of journals available tousers in partner libraries. It is acknowledged thatit does not make economic sense for partner librar-ies to join an ASVIN consortium at this stage. Manyare already members of much more powerfulconsortia such as CURL and the Southern Univer-sities Purchasing Consortium. However, one wasleft with a nagging feeling that some collaborativepurchasing might be possible without seriouslyweakening library collections. This need not involvea full scale consortium but an agreement that thelibraries agree to acquire certain titles, on conditionthat other partners reciprocate, should be achievable.Such a development might become easier if copy-right and licensing issues are clarified so that elec-tronic delivery of material becomes possible. Eightof the nine libraries have the facilities to engage inthis activity as a result of other developmentsrelating to the project.

It is evident, as Woodward and Archer17 suggest,that ‘e-journals have introduced a new level of com-plexity to serials management.’ Issues surroundingthe future of electronic journal provision still remainunclear. It is clear from this research that librariansappear to be confused by the plethora of often-conflicting information available from the varioussuppliers, which if anything seems to be gettingworse.

Electronic journals are undoubtedly the future ofscholarly publications, yet the form in which theyare delivered to the user remains uncertain. Untilissues pertaining to license agreements, intermediarysuppliers and document request services reacha greater level of commonality, it is likely thatprogress will not be made. What is also evident isthat the printed journal will be with us for sometime, although it is recognized that simple eco-nomics has seen libraries cancel hundreds of sub-scriptions over the last two decades. It is also far tooearly to confirm the death of the printed journal.

The ASVIN Project has investigated seven areaswhich were listed earlier. In assessing the successor failure of the project it is useful to examine themain outputs of the project. These can be listed as:• a Z39.50 solution for the short, medium and

long-term via WebClarity and SIRSI;• a union list of printed and electronic journals;• an electronic document delivery system;• a template for writing collection development

policies;• tools for searching grey literature sources.

Thus, significant outputs have been achieved infive of the seven subject areas which ASVIN inves-tigated. There is little doubt that as a result of thesedevelopments researchers will benefit, with easieraccess to library materials via the Z39.50 searchingsystem, the union list of journals, the grey litera-ture developments and eventually an electronicdocument delivery system. All involved believethat the effort invested in the ASVIN project hasbeen rewarded.

References

1 Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory 1999 R.R. Bowker.2 Tenpoir, C. & King, D. W. Trends in scholarly journal

publishing in the United States. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 1996, 28(3), 135–70.

3 Meadows, J. Why do we need serials. In: Kidd, T., Rees-Jones, L. (eds). The Serials Management Handbook. London: Library Association, 2000: 1–15.

4 SCONUL. Annual Library Statistics. London: SCONUL, 1999.

5 Morris, S. 2000 How and why serials are produced. In: Kidd, T., Rees-Jones, L. (eds). The Serials Management Handbook. London: Library Association, 2000: 16–41.

6 Taylor, R. Budgeting, ordering and paying for serials. In: Kidd, T., Rees-Jones, L. (eds). The Serials Management Handbook. London: Library Association, 2000: 59–78.


The ASVIN Project, Bryn Davies

© Blackwell Science Ltd 2002 Health Information and Libraries Journal, 19, pp.21–32

32

7 Hitchcock, S., Carr, L. & Hall, W. Web journals publishing: a UK perspective. Serials 1997: 10, 285–99.

8 Kidd, T. & Prior, A. 2000 The acquisition of serials. In: Kidd, T., Rees-Jones, L. (eds). The Serials Management Handbook. London: Library Association, 2000: 79–103.

9 Hobohm, H. Changing the galaxy: on the transformation of printed journals to the Internet. First Monday, 1997, http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue2_11/index.html

10 Langston, E. Scholarly communication and electronic publication: implication for research, advancement and promotion. 1996 http://www.library.ucsb.edu/untangle/langston.html

11 Edwards, J. Electronic journals: problem or panacea. Ariadne 1997, Issue 10. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/ issue10/journals

12 Odlyzko, A. On the road to electronic publishing. AT & T Research 1996, http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/tragic.loss.update

13 Sosteric, M. Electronic journals: the grand information future? Electronic Journal of Sociology 1996, http://www.sociology.org/vol002.002/Sosteric.abstract.1996.html

14 Walker, T. The electronic future of scientific journals. 1997, http://www.csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/epub/FWApage.htm

15 Rouse, K. The serials crisis in the age of electronic access.

Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues 1997, no. 177. http://www.lib.unc.edu/prices/1997/PRIC1777.HTML 177.1

16 Helal, A. H. & Weiss. J. W., eds. Electronic documents and information. From Preservation to Access. Essen University Library, Publication No. 22, 1996.

17 Woodward, H. & Archer, M. 2000 Serial information delivery options. In: Kidd, T., Rees-Jones, L. (eds). The Serials Management Handbook. London: Library Association, 2000: 42–58.

18 Anonymous. A basic list of veterinary serials. Serial Librarian 1996, 11(2), 5–39.

19 Chu, H. Promises and challenges of electronic journals: academic libraries surveyed. Learned Publishing 1999, 13(3), 169–75.

20 Udofia, U. I. Selecting veterinary medical periodicals through citation analysis. Library Review 1997 46(2), 105–12.

21 Breaks, M. Management of electronic information. In: Jenkins C., Morley M., eds. Collection Management in Academic Libraries, 2nd edn. Gower Publishing, Aldershot, 1999: 107–34.

22 ICOLC. Statement of current perspective and preferred practices for the selection and purchase of electronic information. 1998, http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/statement.html

23 Jenkins, M. & Morley, M. Introduction. In: Jenkins C., Morley M., eds. Collection Management in Academic Libraries, 2nd edn. Aldershot: Gower Publishing, 1999: 1–14.


the asvin project: a study of electronic and printed veterinary science journals in the uk and...

Documents