AAUP 2016: The Charlotte Initiative for Permanent Acquisitions of eBooks for Academic Libraries (O. Irvins)
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like299 views
The document outlines a project initiated at UNC Charlotte to address the challenges surrounding e-book accessibility, focusing on principles such as perpetual access, unlimited users, and the removal of digital rights management. It highlights insights from faculty feedback and collaboration among a consortium of libraries aiming to improve e-book lending practices and interlibrary loans. Additionally, the document proposes strategies for ensuring long-term preservation and access to digital collections amidst changing publishing landscapes.
AAUP 2016: The Charlotte Initiative for Permanent Acquisitions of eBooks for Academic Libraries (O. Irvins)
- 1. October Ivins, MLS [email protected] Introduction for AAUP June 18, 2016
- 2. 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
- 3. 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
- 4. 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
- 5. 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
- 6. 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
- 7. 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
- 8. • 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
- 9. “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
- 10. Librarians 1. Ann Agee, San Jose State University 2. Sharon Farb, UCLA 3. Ellen Finnie, MIT 4. Katy Gabrio, Macalester College 5. Tony Horava, University of Ottawa 6. Theresa Liedtka, Univ of TN Chattanooga 8. Joyce Ogburn, Appalachian State 9. Katina Strauch, College of Charleston 10. Mary Beth Thompson, Kentucky 11. Will Wakeling, Northeastern University 12. Keith Webster, Carnegie Mellon 13. Stanley Wilder, LSU 9
- 11. 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
- 12. 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
- 13. Focus on Business Models, Pricing and Terms Promote adoption of principles to publishers Iterative process o Literature review o Survey (Volunteers?) o Supplemental interviews o Share findings with Working Group and Research Teams o Share interim results publicly o Re-survey, re-interview Use Market pressure, findings, and time to change behavior
- 15. 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)
- 16. 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
- 17. 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.
- 18. http://www.library.ucla.edu/about/collections/coll ection-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.
- 19. E-Book Rights Advocacy http://www.macalester.edu/library/changin gebooksforlibraries/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.
- 20. 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.
- 21. 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
- 22. 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
- 23. 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
- 24. • 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?
- 25. 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.
- 26. 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