the state of ill in the state of il: the illinois interlibrary loan assessment project

The state of ILL in the state of IL: the Illinois InterlibraryLoan Assessment Project

Lynn Wileya, Tina E. Chrzastowskib,*aCoordinator, Illinois Research and Reference Center, 1408 W. Gregory, University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL 61801, USAbChemistry Librarian, 255 Noyes Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library,

Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Received 28 October 2000

Abstract

An 11-month survey of ILL activity in Illinois was conducted to study the borrowing and lendingof journal articles within the state. OCLC “PILLR” (Prism InterL ibrary LoanReports) managementdata were used to create a statewide database of ILL requests. The data were employed not only toanswer questions about our statewide collection, but also to help pose and answer othersquestions.For example, what does it mean to have a statewide collection? What measurement tools canconsortia employ to study, define, and evolve this statewide collection? What roles can resourcesharing play in identifying gaps in the state’s collection? Is knowing what we don’t own (andneed) as important as knowing what we own? How can libraries take advantage of the networkedenvironment in conjunction with new measurement techniques to best serve the statewideclientele?

The results of the study show that over 89,000 articles were borrowed for Illinois library usersduring the study period, and that most of these articles were located and borrowed within the state ofIllinois. The study results also demonstrate the importance of multi-type libraries within a sharingconsortium, as each library contributes to the research needs of a diverse population. In addition, 113frequently requested titles not owned in Illinois were identified as cost-effective to own within thestate based on out-of-state borrowing data and the cost/use ratio of the titles. © 2001 Elsevier ScienceLtd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Interlibrary loan; Document delivery; Collection assessment

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses:[email protected] (L. Wiley), [email protected] (T.E. Chrzastowski).

Library Collections, Acquisitions,& Technical Services 25 (2001) 5–20

1464-9055/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S1464-9055(00)00190-1

1. Introduction

Maintaining a core collection of journal titles continues to be a major problem forlibraries. Journal-article resource sharing offers the best relief for now, and the question ofcentral importance is: which titles can be cost-effectively shared, and which can’t? Sharingjournals can be accomplished through traditional ILL, document delivery via commercialsuppliers, or by buying electronic full-text journals through consortia agreements. Branin,Groen, and Thorin pose questions about the future of collection management in theirdiscussion paper “The Changing Nature of Collection Management in Research Libraries[1].” One question in particular (under the headingNew Boundaries and New Structures forCollection Management)is: “Collection boundaries are changing: what is a local collectionin a networked environment?” To which we add, “How can librarians manage and evaluatethese cooperative collections?”

Analyzing article-level ILL records is a basic way to determine what journals librariesneed, but do not own, or which are unavailable due to the library binding schedules, theft,or are simply missing from the collection. ILL records provide information on the requestmade, including borrowing frequency, to help answer the “buy or borrow” question forlibraries.

The Illinois ILL Assessment Project was initiated to review ILL records for the 26 largestlibraries in Illinois [2]. ILL data from these libraries were collected for an 11-month period,July 1996 to May 1997. The study was supported by a grant from the Illinois CooperativeCollection Management Program (ICCMP). The principal purpose of the ICCMP is “toenrich and strengthen the collective information resources available to the customers of theconsortium libraries and to the citizens of the State of Illinois [3].” ICCMP collaborativecollection plans grew naturally out of the planning and pilot efforts that have taken placesince its formation in 1977. Members of the consortium include 85 academic libraries inIllinois, plus the Chicago Public Library and the Illinois State Library.

The purpose of the study was to determine the nature and scope of journal-articleinterlibrary lending and borrowing in the state. The study was also designed to answeraccountability questions, such as collection use (within the state and outside Illinois) andcost-effectiveness. Due to the partnerships and agreements established within the state,journal articles held in Illinois are more quickly supplied and are not likely to incur a directcost to the library [4]. Those requests filled by libraries outside of Illinois may result incharges that can range from ten to twenty-five dollars per article when there is no otherreciprocal agreement between libraries. Partnerships address other issues, such as mainte-nance of online holdings for more successful ILL ordering, support of delivery systems, andsometimes agreements on a mandated turnaround time for processing. In Illinois, theseagreements have created a statewide core collection that draws from all partner libraries andrequires its own collection management tools and evaluation methods. These facts led to thisstudy’s data collection and analysis to determine use of journal titles within and outside ofIllinois.

This project describes Illinois’ journal title-level needs and documents the use of OCLCmanagement data as a tool for cooperative collection management. Many Illinois libraries arenetworked together by a shared union catalog and reciprocal agreements for shared collec-

6 L. Wiley, T.E. Chrzastowski / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 25 (2001) 5–20

tions. The goal for networking into the 21st century is to makeaccessto Illinois collectionsequal toownership—a journal title held within the state is available for local patron use, asif it were part of one’s local, physical collection. And while Illinois may be some distancefrom this goal, the need now is for study and research to determine what the statewide journalcollection must include and to begin to design the seamless access that will deliver it to usersstatewide.

Basic analyses conducted for the study include ILL journal article transactions by largesubject disciplines (based on LC classification) and net lender/net borrower status. Moredetailed analyses were conducted to determine, for example, those journal titles that wererequested more frequently than others, which would aid in establishing journal acquisitionpriorities for libraries. And since no other statewide study of article borrowing had beenpreviously conducted in Illinois, the project established a baseline of activity and set the barfor future studies.

2. Previous research

While there are many articles describing the level of journal article resource sharing invarious consortia, most of these studies focus on ILL as a component of a total resourcesharing plan, the economics of this sharing, or simply report the level of activity taking place[5]. However, new data collection tools have recently been made available to get a broaderpicture of requests for article-level photocopies taking place in single libraries, or collec-tively within consortia. Previously, title-level, journal-article ILL data were too difficult tocollect, manage, and maintain by consortia partners. With the advent of OCLC PILLR(Prism Inter L ibrary LoanReports) replaced now by the evolutionary OCLC ManagementStatistics Service, these data are now available to collect and analyze.

Prabha and Marsh published one of the first articles to look at title-level journal datainvolving, in this case, commercial document delivery suppliers’ potential coverage of titles[6]. They studied the entire OCLC 8.5 million requests processed in 1994/95, sampling onepercent (2,000 titles). They further reduced that number to 373 titles after removing allmonographs, taking a random sampling of the remaining journals, and disqualifying allincomplete citations in that sample. While their purpose was to verify and identify commer-cial suppliers’ journal coverage of these articles, their study was aimed primarily at abroad-based look at article-level requesting nationwide. One of their findings illustrated thelarge volume of single article requests for one journal title. Another article by Lacroix lookedat the over 205,000 requests made for journal articles in the biomedical literature utilizing theDOCLINE system in 1992 [7]. The study found that a small group of 100 titles accountedfor 20% of the activity, 500 titles together made up 40% and 1000 comprised 50% of the totalnumber of requests. The other 12,000 or so were titles requested infrequently. These analysesillustrate the need for access to a large number of library collections to fill requests for titlesthat would never have been bought based on the low use. There have also been many articlesfocusing on document suppliers of journal articles, but these have been limited to oneinstitution and one or multiple suppliers [8].

Another facet of ILL data collection includes statewide or multi-state consortia such as

7L. Wiley, T.E. Chrzastowski / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 25 (2001) 5–20

WILS (Wisconsin Interlibrary Services) and Minnitex, which centralize much of the ILLresource sharing within the upper Midwest states. These consortia collect and aggregate ILLdata for their states [9]. However, their data and analyses still lack journal use at thetitle-level, which this study focuses on in depth.

3. Methodology

Data documenting ILL transactions for Illinois were acquired from OCLC through their“PILLR” files. PILLR was a prototype program developed by OCLC to provide ILL data atthe record level to libraries, allowing them to manipulate the files as needed. Data availablethrough PILLR provided a needed, necessary link between ILL and collection developmentby providing libraries with information concerning ILL use by title and subject. The datawere consistently collected and recorded, greatly enhancing the potential for more accuratestudies across libraries as needed by many consortia. The PILLR pilot-project eventuallyceased, and the program has since been folded into an enhanced OCLC data-reportingsystem, the OCLC ILL Management Statistics Service. This program is available by sub-scription to any OCLC participant, as well as to library consortia [10].

To collect the data for this study, OCLC ILL files for the 26 largest libraries in Illinoiswere collected and stored on a server in Dublin, Ohio. Due to a change in databasemanagement systems at OCLC, a total of 11 months of data, rather than the originallyplanned 12 months, were made available to this project. Data from July 1996 through May1997 were electronically transferred to the University of Illinois’ Library Research Center inUrbana, Illinois throughout the project, and the transfer was completed in late summer 1997.All ILL material types were included in the file transfer. For the purposes of this study, focuswas placed on filled journal-article requests. Monograph ILL data from OCLC for Illinois areconsidered incomplete due to the widespread use of the statewide online catalog in Illinoisfor lending and borrowing books.

The study group consisted of 24 academic libraries, the Chicago Public Library, and theIllinois State Library. Permission was obtained from each library to access their OCLC ILLrecords. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Research Center (LRC)was commissioned to collect and organize the ILL data. Data were loaded to the library fileserver and SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was employed to query andanalyze the data. Analyses were conducted for all 26 libraries as borrowers. Lenders werecategorized into three groups: 1) the 26 libraries, 2) libraries other than the 26, but still withinthe state of Illinois, and 3) libraries outside the state of Illinois. The second category, otherlibraries within the state, included any Illinois library, public, academic, school, or special,with OCLC ILL activity with one of the original 26.

4. Hypotheses

The study was designed to test long-held assumptions about the level and nature ofjournal-title resource sharing in the state of Illinois, to verify what Illinois libraries are


sharing effectively, and, conversely, what Illinois libraries either do not own, or are not ableto share. It is also essential to know how Illinois collections serve users outside the state. Acritical measure of any collection is determining who uses it and what they are using, nomatter how far from the physical collection.

A subject analysis of the data using LC class numbers was conducted to test assumptionsabout which disciplines are driving the heaviest use, as well as to determine collectionstrengths and weaknesses in Illinois. By focusing on the distribution frequency by title, thesedata also begin to describe a statewide ILL core journal collection. This distribution cananswer questions at both ends of the spectrum: those journal titles with very high ILL usewhich must be maintained statewide (and perhaps more than one copy statewide), and thosejournal titles with low ILL use which are more cost-effective to access (even if outsideIllinois) than to own.

Three overarching hypotheses were identified to describe and define the nature of journal-article interlibrary lending in Illinois. In a general overview of the data, the authorshypothesized that the larger proportion of photocopy requests would be filled within the stateof Illinois, by a rate of 60% to 40%. We also predicted that the 26 libraries in the study wouldbe net lenders during the 11 months of the study; and that, within Illinois, the 26 librarieswould meet most of their needs. Further, it was predicted that over 50% of all photocopyrequests filled in Illinois would be met internally by the 26 libraries.

A second hypothesis predicted that the data would show that the sciences (LC classifi-cations Q, R, S, T and W) have the highest number of article-photocopy transactions, bothin borrowing and lending, compared to other groups such as the humanities and the socialsciences.

The third hypothesis states that photocopy requests filled within Illinois would come fromthe highest-requested titles. Photocopy requests filled from outside Illinois would more likelybe for a single article from a single title.

5. Results

The first hypothesis predicts Illinois’ strength as a statewide lender of journal titles. All thepredictions are supported by the data from the study. Table 1 shows that the larger proportionof photocopy requests was filled within the state of Illinois, very close to the prediction of

Table 1Requests made by the 26 and the suppliers/lenders

Borrower Number of borrowedarticle photocopies

26 Illinois Libraries 29,805Other In-State Libraries 22,374In-State Subtotal: 52,179 (58%)Out-of-state 37,137(42%)Total: 89,316


a 60/40 split. Illinois libraries filled 58% of ILL journal requests from the 26 libraries, andlibraries outside of Illinois provided 42% of needed journal articles. These data support thefirst hypothesis and show that Illinois’ libraries are meeting more than half of all thephotocopy requests placed by the 26 largest libraries in the state.

Total photocopy requests borrowed by the 26 libraries and filled by any source numbered89,316. While the number of borrowed photocopies neared 90,000 in 11 months, it is criticalto acknowledge that, based on ARL circulation data, ILL transactions may only representabout 1–2% of actual use taking place within individual library collections [11]. Rutsteinfound that few libraries experience ILL rates above 1% of their total circulation figures [12].Therefore data from this study may be extrapolated to show that the onsite collections of the26 libraries in the study could have local use approaching nine million transactions in lessthan one year.

Supporting another prediction, the 26 libraries were net lenders during the 11 months ofthe study. Photocopies borrowed in-state totaled 52,179 and photocopies supplied in-statetotaled 53,884, as shown in Fig. 1. In fact, the 26 libraries were also net lenders toout-of-state libraries, highlighting the broad range of titles available within Illinois, andwhich are equally valued outside the state. Fig. 1 shows the data supporting net lender statusof the 26 Illinois libraries.

The authors predicted that over 50% of all photocopy requests filled in Illinois would befilled internally by the 26 libraries, making them net lenders to each other and demonstrating

Fig. 1.


the interdependence these libraries have created in their journal collections. As shown inTable 2, of the requests filled within Illinois, the 26 libraries filled 29,805 requests (57%),and the other in-state libraries filled 22,374 (43%) of requests generated by the 26 libraries.The data in Table 2 support the second net lender prediction and confirm the interdependenceamong the 26 largest libraries in Illinois. Despite this interdependence, other Illinois librariesare also providing tremendous support to “the 26” by supplying 43% of articles supplied. Theimportance of multi-type library consortiums is illustrated here as these diverse collectionshelp to meet unanticipated research needs.

In support of the second hypothesis, the data from Figs. 2 and 3 show the high borrowingand lending activity found among science disciplines (call numbers Q, R, S, T, and W). Otherhigh activity areas are H (Social Sciences), B (Philosophy, Psychology, and Religion) and P(Literature). But by far, and as would be expected, the sciences experience the highest trafficin both borrowing and lending, demonstrating that no matter how strong local sciencecollections might be, it is still critical to establish borrowing agreements among peer

Fig. 2.

Table 2Photocopies borrowed by the 26 from Illinois libraries

26 Illinois Libraries 29,805 (57%)Other In-State Libraries 22,374(43%)In-State Subtotal: 52,179


institutions for additional access to science journals. The data illustrate the excellent breadthof the Illinois collections in that in most every LC range, more requests were supplied in-statethan out-of-state.

In addition, Figs. 4 and 5 show, by grouped subject areas, that the sciences experiencedhigher levels of ILL activity, by nearly two to one, than either the social sciences orhumanities. The data do suggest that despite strong state-wide collections in science journalholdings, it is not possible to “own it all,” and that an area to focus on in local collectionimprovement would be in the science fields.

The third group of predictions addresses photocopy-requesting frequency by journal title.The authors predicted that photocopies borrowed within Illinois would come from the mostfrequently requested or “core” titles, and that photocopy requests borrowed from outsideIllinois would more likely be for a single article from a single journal title. Data from thestudy, shown in Table 3, support this prediction. While the total number of ILL photocopytransactions measures overall activity, it is critical to determine the number of requests eachtitle received. Less than one percent of requests that were filled out-of-state were for ahigh-use title (determined to be title requested more than 20 times in 11 months). Conversely,over 60% of requests out-of-state were for single titles, compared to 43.7% from withinIllinois. These data show that high-use titles are more likely to be found within Illinois.Illinois libraries are subscribing to large numbers of journals to meet research needs, and ILLis supplementing that access, not substituting for it.

Fig. 3.


Another prediction related to article requesting frequency looked specifically at thenumber of titles making up the most frequently borrowed group, defined as those borrowedover twenty times in eleven months. This hypothesis states that a core group of journals notfound in Illinois could be identified that may be more cost-effective to own and share withinIllinois and that are now being accessed outside the state.

This prediction is supported by data in Table 4 showing the number of out-of-state titlesrequested over 20 times in 11 months. It was not assumed that the 113 titles borrowed fromout-of-state more than 20 times would be cost-effective to own. Some of the titles may behigh priced journals that few libraries can afford, while other journal titles are a reflection ofthe changing nature of research. They may be affordable, but only needed for a short timeby one researcher and a purchase may not be warranted.

Each of the 113 high-use titles borrowed out-of-state was researched to determine age,subscription price, and in-state holdings, all factors in availability. Fig. 6 shows the agebreakdown of the 113 titles. Thirty-six percent were ten years old, or older, and 46% were11–20 years old. The two categories together (titles ten to 20 years old) make up 82% of thetotal. As libraries began to feel budget crunches in the 1980s, many journals were canceled.It is now not surprising to see titles from this era so graphically represented in ILL requests,demonstrating the problems libraries had acquiring new titles and keeping existing titles inthe last two decades.

Price is also a significant factor in ILL use. The total known cost of the active 113 titles

Fig. 4.


was approximately $77,000 (several had ceased publication). The 12 most expensive titlestogether have subscription prices of over $55,000. Seventy-five percent of the total cost ofthe 113 journal titles would purchase only the top 9.8% of the titles. Fig. 7 shows that 78%of the titles cost $1,000 or less, a price which makes these titles, compared to their use,cost-effective purchases to hold within the state of Illinois. More attention should be paid tothese more cost-effective titles to address the question of ownership versus access.

Fig. 8 indicates the in-state availability status of these high-use titles. Fifty-four had beenpreviously owned and canceled. Twenty-nine percent were held, in-state, by one or more ofthe libraries. These data show that taking the time to look at the collective, statewide use ofjournal titles and not just local needs and budgets would improve cancellation projects. Since29% of the high-use titles borrowed outside of Illinois were owned in Illinois, it is obviousthat often one, or even many, in-state copies may not be sufficient to cover high-use titles.

Fig. 5.

Table 3Photocopy requesting frequency by journal title

Journal Titles Requested Out-Of-State Within Illinois

% of all titles requested once 62.3% 43.7%% of all titles requested 2–19 times 36.9% 53.0%% of all titles requested over 20 times .7% 3.2%


While no specific hypothesis was formed concerning a ratio of requests per title, this dataanalysis was possible. A comparison was conducted to analyze the relationship between thenumber of articles borrowed and the number of journal titles needed to fill those requests.This analysis reinforces previous predictions that the most highly requested titles would belocated within Illinois. Fig. 9 shows that the average request-per-title data for Illinoislibraries is 4.19 requests per title and out-of-state requests at nearly half that number, 2.3requests per title. Higher requests per title were found within the state, meaning a morecost-effective use of those materials. In addition, the lower numbers of uses per title outsidethe state also result in a cost-effective use of materials. When few requests are made for atitle, it is usually more economical to borrow that title than to own it. One very importantfinding is that the highest average number of requests per title does not exceed the Copyright

Fig. 6.

Table 4Number of out-of-state and within Ilinois titles requested

Journal Titles Requested Out-Of-State Within Illinois

Number of titles requested once 9,882 5,414Number of titles requested 2–19 times 5,865 6,517Number of titles requested over 20 times 113 397


Guidelines CONTU rule of five. The US National Commission on New Technological Usesof Copyrighted Works (CONTU) was appointed by Congress to review how many libraryrequests may be filled for articles from journal titles held in another library. This group maderecommendations to Congress that are not law (though appended to the Copyright Law of1978) but are instead guidelines to follow. CONTU states that libraries may receive in anyone year, five articles covering the past five years from any one journal title. The sixth andhigher filled requests may require permission or royalty fees. The CONTU guidelines maybe found in the US National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works[13]. This study found that while there are probably some individual titles generating morerequests than the “rule of five,” it is reassuring to see that overall, the average is within setcopyright guidelines.

6. Conclusions

The results of this study reaffirm the critical role resource sharing plays in providingarticle-level research material within the state of Illinois. Perhaps most importantly, the studydemonstrates that dramatically improved, easily manipulated collection management toolsare now available to collect, manage, and analyze ILL data, both for individual libraries and

Fig. 7.


across consortia. Any library interested in the relationship between collection managementand ILL should investigate these new options for ILL data collection.

In the broadest sense, the data support long-held assumptions about Illinois journalcollections. The study found that Illinois libraries are maintaining broad and deep journalcollections to the benefit of all their constituents. This finding is supported by the over 20,000unique titles provided through ILL in Illinois. In addition, the data show that Illinois librariesare net lenders to the world, and that further evidence of the collection breadth found inIllinois is demonstrated by the strong LC subject distribution for journal titles.

It is often acknowledged that research needs are best met by a variety of libraries andlibrary types. This assumption is supported by data from this study that found that 43% ofjournal articles located and shared within Illinois were from outside the 26 largest librariesin Illinois. Multi-type library consortiums meet unanticipated research needs through theirwide-ranging collections and different collection focuses, so more disciplines are covered forthe benefit of the entire state.

In addition, these collections are important to a larger community outside the state. Thisstudy reinforces the responsibilities libraries have in both recognizing and meeting nationaland international needs. Libraries must not only collect and keep unique materials, but shouldalso ensure that their interlibrary lending office will lend them. And, since the study alsofound that Illinois libraries had previously canceled many of the requested titles, a bettermechanism for reviewing both cancellations and new journal titles must be developed. “Last

Fig. 8.


copy” checking within any consortia group is not only a good idea, it should be the law. Moreimportantly, libraries must find mechanisms for keeping last copies within the state, whichmeans finding state funding to support titles needed within the state, but perhaps not by thepresent holding library. In addition, the analysis of the age of the high-use titles borrowedfrom out-of-state revealed the importance of watching for important new titles. Partners canwork together to be sure that these titles are cooperatively purchased.

This study focused on frequently requested titles, but, by far, the single most requestedarticles were for one article from one unique journal title. The majority of those titles did notcome from Illinois libraries, but from outside the state. As noted previously, this identifiablecollection gap may be appropriate when balanced against the cost of owning all uniquematerials requested, even within the state of Illinois. Illinois provided core collections to itsconstituents, but it is also true that unique materials, most likely in print format, will still befrequently requested. Since these are titles not likely to be digitized or offered electronicallyin the near future, it is critical to maintain resource-sharing agreements for those titles outsidethe statewide core collection. Conversely, for the most frequently requested titles alreadyheld in Illinois libraries, full-text electronic options should be explored to offer the bestaccess in our networked environment.

In summary, the data are critical for mapping out a plan to manage a statewide, shared

Fig. 9.


collection. By reviewing and analyzing statewide ILL article-level data, Illinois libraries canidentify what is needed, but not owned within the state. These collection gaps can then bereviewed for possible cost-effective ownership, or acknowledged as more cost effective toborrow from outside the state. Regular review of ILL data can identify emerging gaps andhelp libraries to anticipate needs of users, while effectively maintaining core titles within thestate for timely and cost-effective resource sharing.

7. Future research

Electronic full-text journal subscriptions are fairly new players in the resource sharinggame. The impact that full-text electronic resources, purchased locally or through a consor-tium, are having on our statewide collection is yet to be determined. The Illinois CooperativeCollection Management Program (ICCMP) has funded a follow-up, 12-month study of ILLjournal article activity in Illinois. This study will again collect ILL data from the 26 largestlibraries in Illinois, but will also look specifically for relationships between ILL and full-textelectronic journal subscriptions within Illinois. The data are being collected for a 12-monthperiod, July 1999 through June 2000, with a final report due to ICCMP in September 2000.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Illinois Cooperative Collection Management Program fortheir initial funding of the statistical analysis portion of this study, and to Mary Ann Monkand Cherie’ Weible, UIUC graduate assistants who contributed to the data analysis portionof this study.

References

[1] Branin Joseph, Frances Groen, and Suzanne Thorin, “The Changing Nature of Collection Management inResearch,” Association of Research Libraries, http://arl.cni.org/collect/changing.html, 1999.

[2] The 26 Illinois Libraries participating in this study, with OCLC lending/borrowing data available from 7/96to 5/97, are: Augustana College, Bradley University, Chicago Public Library, DePaul University, EasternIllinois University, Elmhurst College, Governors State University, Illinois Institute of Technology, IllinoisState Library, Illinois State University, Illinois Wesleyan University, Loyola University of Chicago,Millikin University, Northeastern Illinois University, Northern Illinois University, Northwestern University,Roosevelt University, Dominican University, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Southern IllinoisUniversity at Edwardsville, University of Chicago, University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Illinoisat Springfield, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Western Illinois University, and WheatonCollege.

[3] More information concerning the Illinois Cooperative Collection Management Program is found at http://libws66.lib.niu.edu/ccm/index.html.

[4] ILLINET resource sharing code found at http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/library/ill_code.html detailshow libraries within the organization are encouraged to provide free copies of journal articles.


[5] Two representative articles are: Sanville, Thomas J. and Barbara A. Winters, “A Method out of the Madness:Ohiolink’s Collaborative Response to the Serials Crisis (Paper Presented at the 1997 NASIG Conference),”Serials Librarian.34 (1998), 125–39 and Kingma, B.R. “The Economics of Access versus Ownership: theCosts and Benefits of Access to Scholarly Articles via Interlibrary Loan and Journal Subscriptions,”Journalof Library Administration,26 (1998), 145–162.

[6] Prabha Chandra G, and Elizabeth C. Marsh, “Commercial Document Suppliers: How Many of the Ill/ddPeriodical Article Requests Can They Fulfill? (Study of Requests Submitted Over a Period of TwelveMonths to OCLC PRISM),”Library Trends,45 (1997), 551–68.

[7] Lacroix, Eve-Marie, “Interlibrary Loan in US Health Sciences Libraries: Journal Article Use (Analysis ofthe NLM DOCLINE System),”Bulletin of the Medical Library Association,82 (1994), 363–8.

[8] For example, Nisonger, Thomas E. “The Collection Development Literature of 1996: a BibliographicEssay,”Collection Building,17 (1998), 29–39.

[9] As an example of such reports, the WILS reports are found at URL: http://www.wils.wisc.edu/morewils/member/ILL.html. Minitex ILL statistics can be found at http://kinglear.lib.umn.edu/mtx-org/facts.asp.

[10] Information concerning PILLR, and the OCLC Management Statistics Service is available at http://www.oclc.org.

[11] ARL statistics (http://www.arl.org/stats/arlstat/index.html) provide ILL figures, and circulation figures that,when compared, illustrate that ILL is 1–2% of circulation totals in ARL libraries.

[12] Rutstein, Joel S. “National and Local Resource Sharing: Issues in Cooperative Collection Development,”Collection Management,7 (1985), 1–16.

[13] The report can be read in its original text as the U.S. National Commission on New Technological Uses ofCopyrighted Works Final Report, July 31, 1979 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1979), 55, or at theweb site maintained by the Coalition for Networked Information at http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/CONTU.html.


the state of ill in the state of il: the illinois interlibrary loan assessment project

Documents