FOOLS RUSH IN . . .

THOUGHTS ABOUT, AND A MODEL FOR, MEASURING ELECTRONIC JOURNAL COLLECTIONS

Christie T. Degener and Marjory A. Waite
For many years libraries have used statistical counts as an indicator of an organizations worth. Total title counts have been a standard technique to measure collections and to document how libraries have spent funds. The number of printed journal volumes has been one component of the total count, generally tracked by acquisitions or serials staff. These counts illustrate how libraries have responded over time to environmental trends, justied the need for additional resources, provided a quality benchmark required for program certication and credentialing, and served a myriad of other purposes. When asked how many electronic journals they currently have, librarians realize they face a new challenge. Some previously employed measures are still useful, but otherssuch as volume countsare not appropriate in the electronic environment. In fact, most formerly applied measures need to be adapted. For example, the total title count now needs to reect more detail in order to provide a full and accurate picture of journal holdings for libraries that acquire electronic journals through various means, including consortial arrangements. A simple count of the number of paid and gift subscriptions no longer sufces; instead, librarians have to consider whether accessible subscriptions are paid for by another party, such as another library on campus. The budget picture is fuzzy for elec-

Degener is Cataloging Services/Serials Librarian, Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7585; e-mail: christie_ degener@unc.edu; Waite is Head, Resources Management Services, Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7585; e-mail: marjory_waite@unc.edu.

MEASURING ELECTRONIC JOURNAL COLLECTIONS

VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

tronic journals because there are so many ways to acquire them, and as a result, it is decidedly more challenging to precisely depict how budget funds are spent. Moreover, it is unclear which e-journal access arrangements should be counted and which should not. Some librarians might argue that a paid subscription, or at least a signed contract, is a necessary prerequisite for counting an electronic journal with other subscribed titles. While we agree that library mediation is not required for patrons to be able to access free-toall electronic journals, we believe that collections statistics need to reect the selection process just as accurately as in the print environment. The same argument can be made for counting electronic journals paid for by another campus library. Whether the format is print or electronic, selected journals must fall within the scope of a dened collection development policy. Once selected, both formats titles are publicized to patrons and maintained like any othersfor example, both are cataloged. Electronic journals also require that library staff update links as they change. In our view, these ongoing efforts warrant adding electronic journals to title counts. Another challenge regarding statistical counts concerns the availability of full-text articles from abstracting and indexing servicesshould these journals be included as part of the e-journal title count? At the Health Sciences Library at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH), the staff has decided to count full-text journals that are presented in a way that allows them to be identied as a journal and not just disparate citations with full-text links. This guideline covers full-text journals accessed via journal homepages, whether the titles are individually accessed or aggregated. The guideline also includes fulltext journals available through citation databases that can display tables of contents, for example, for fulltext journals available in Bell & Howells ProQuest or in EBSCOhost. Our thinking is inuenced by the ability of these services to link to the journal-title level. We exclude, however, journals in which full text is available only at the article level, without any table of contents view, such as the full-text journal articles that are available in CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature). Increasing pressure from patrons and library administrators to expand access to electronic journals underscores the need to signicantly improve methods for measuring these collections. Unless we can make signicant strides, it will be impossible to collect reliable data or do meaningful comparisons among

libraries. Providing consistent and accurate counts is especially important when libraries substitute an electronic subscription for a printed one. For example, if libraries cannot develop an accurate way to count electronic titles as well as their printed ones, their subscription count may appear to decrease at the same time that access to journal literature is actually being expanded.

RATIONALE FOR A NEW MODEL FOR COUNTING ELECTRONIC JOURNALS The question might be asked, Why not obtain an e-journal count from your catalog or a list compiled for the campus or consortium? We believe that a simple counting approach does not adequately describe the complex collection development process and payment variations for electronic journals. A single number cannot possibly portray the effort to balance print subscriptions against electronic ones, or purposeful efforts to expand access via collaborative arrangements. Statistics that measure e-journal collection development should attempt to give a detailed picture that will inform institution and library administrators as well as users about the extent of available resources. It also might be said that only fools would rush in when it comes to how e-journal titles should be counted. Whether this is the case or not, the authors are confronted with providing a count of both printed and electronic journals. In this article, we offer our thoughts on the topic and provide a practical approach to measuring Web-based, full-text electronic journals.

LITERATURE REVIEW All aspects of library services are being challenged by the introduction of electronic resources. The impact of electronic formats on collection development and acquisition services is substantial; the literature documents many changes prompted by electronic resources. Buckley and others discuss ve important consequences for collection development and acquisitions frequently mentioned in recent literature: access, pricing, cataloging and indexing, archiving, and licensing.1 The section on access issues written by Anneliese Taylor recognizes three major categories of electronic journals: those available from publishers, those available from aggregators, and those that are freely available. As already stated, we believe that all these different e-journal types need to be measured. Different

SERIALS REVIEW

CHRISTIE T. DEGENER AND MARJORY A. WAITE

options for accessing electronic journals and various access-related issues are explored in more detail by McKay.2 Other broad topics covered in recent literature include the impact of electronic resources on selection processes,3 strategies for assessing expenditures on electronic resources,4 changes in library business practices,5 and the changing relationship between publishers and librarians brought about by the digital environment.6 Our literature review also uncovered several articles that focused on statistical and other techniques for measuring electronic resource use. Cargnelutti, dAvigdor, and Ury developed and then expanded a series of key indicators to collect use data to support collection development decisions.7 The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) drew on a variety of sources to dene and create a common set of basic use information requirements applicable to vendor-operated Websites and software provided to libraries and consortia for local operation.8 Mercer evaluated electronic resource use statistics available from an e-journal aggregator and a locally developed statistical program and considered whether these data could serve as performance measures.9 Bishop discusses the role of use statistics in pinpointing barriers to online access.10 The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has long held a leadership role in this area and in June 2000, launched its E-metrics Project to determine how to develop statistics and performance measures.11 By contrast, a search of the professional literature for articles specically about measuring e-journal collections yielded very little. A major exception is Blixruds discussion of how the need to consider the identifying characteristics of electronic journals inuences libraries and the ARLs attempts to count them12; however, she does not present a specic format for statistical compilations that libraries can readily implement.

naire, 19992000. The instructions for this survey ask libraries to do the following:
Questions 57. Serials. Report the total number of subscriptions, not titles. Include duplicate subscriptions and, to the extent possible, all government document serials even if housed in a separate documents collection. . . . Electronic serials acquired as part of an aggregated package (e.g., Project MUSE, Academic IDEAL) should be counted by title. A serial is a publication in any medium issued in successive parts bearing numerical or chronological designations and intended to be continued indenitely. This denition includes periodicals, newspapers, and annuals (reports, yearbooks, etc.); the journals, memoirs, proceedings, transactions, etc. of societies; and numbered monographic series.14

After giving this denition, the instructions get more specic:

Question 6. Serials: Not Purchased. If separate counts of nonpurchased and purchased serials are not available, report only the total number of current serials received on line 7, and report 1, i.e., U/A, for lines 5 and 6.15

Questions 57 in the actual survey instrument read as follows:

Serials: (See instruction Q57.) 5. Number of current serials, including periodicals, purchased. 6. Number of current serials, including periodicals, received but not purchased. (Exchanges, gifts, deposits, etc.) (See instruction Q6.) 7. Total number of current serials received. (Add line 5 to line 6.)16

REVIEW OF PRIMARY SURVEY INSTRUMENTS An examination of the two primary national statistical survey instruments that our library receives (discussed below) provided some parameters that helped us shape a prototype model for measuring e-journal collections.13 Our analysis also uncovered a lack of standardization in how these two surveys gather their data. The rst survey instrument that we examined is the ARL Academic Medical Library Statistics Question-

The ARL statistics questionnaire asks libraries to report the number of individual titles in an aggregated package; otherwise, libraries should report the number of subscriptions. Libraries should not, however, report full-text titles included in indexing/abstracting products such as Wilson Social Sciences Abstracts Full Text, Lexis-Nexis, and ABI/INFORM.17 While we share the ARLs uncertainty regarding the counting of titles in such services, we argue that any of these journals treated individually in the catalog should be included in a title count.

MEASURING ELECTRONIC JOURNAL COLLECTIONS

VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

This questionnaire also asks libraries to separately report the number of nonpurchased serials, including free electronic subscriptions included as part of paid print subscriptions, and to use this number to calculate the total number of current serials received.18 This approach provides a way to count the total number of serial subscriptions but does not yield a count reecting unique titles. Since libraries are adding e-journal subscriptions for many print titles they currently receive, we wonder if distinguishing unique titles from total subscriptions is necessary now more than ever. Without this context, it could be assumed that a large rise in the number of subscriptions reported indicates signicantly expanded content coverage or that the librarys buying power had increased. The latter assumption could even undermine efforts to justify budget increases needed to cope with normal ination or to expand content. The second survey instrument that we examined is the questionnaire used to collect data for the Annual Statistics of Medical School Libraries in the United States and Canada. This survey is also known as the AAHSL Statistics or AAHSL Annual Statistics in reference to their sponsoring body, the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries. The survey instrument for 19981999 (22nd edition)19 includes these questions for serials:
Unique print serials titles received and shelved (6. _____) Report the number of current serials received by purchase, gift, or exchange. Exclude duplicates. Unique electronic full-text serials titles (7._____) Exclude serials titles you also receive in print form. Exclude titles that are outside the subject scope of your collection. Unique current serials titles, all formats (add 6 and 7) (8. _____)

This survey is quite different from the ARL questionnaire, perhaps because it focuses exclusively on a group (medical libraries) that was very quick to make electronic serials available to their patrons. The questions tease out counts of unique current serials titles while providing libraries the means to report the number of serials received in both print and electronic form. This approach gives a truer picture of the current environment and is less likely to mislead. Two questions acknowledge characteristics of the electronic environment that are quite different from the print environment. AASHL Question 7 allows that library patrons may have access to not just in-scope titles selected to support the institutions mission, but also to titles considered to be out of scope. Providing an accurate response to this question requires library staff to selectively count titles available through shared or consortial agreements. Question 11 of the AAHSL survey recognizes the existence of a new variety of subscription arrangement where costs are shared with at least one other library. It excludes, however, access for in-scope titles available through arrangements for which costs are not shared, an exclusion not necessarily supported by the authors of this article. For example, UNC-CH Health Sciences Library patrons can access electronic journals in packages purchased solely by another campus library, such as Project MUSE and JSTOR. We choose to count these additional in-scope titles to better convey the breadth of content available when furnishing data for the purpose of reaccreditation or for other reasons. We do want to be careful, however, not to count them twice when contributing data for a campuswide measurement. This example illustrates that a system for measuring collections of electronic journals should provide the data needed for individual library purposes as well as to answer these survey questions.

Overlap current serials titles (9. _____) Report the number of current serials titles you receive in both print and electronic form. Total electronic full-text serials titles (add 7 and 9) (10. _____)

ADAPTING TRADITIONAL MEASURES FOR THE ELECTRONIC ENVIRONMENT Given the problem and its signicance, can traditional ways of counting journal titles provide accurate statistics? There are several ways of categorizing print journals. Staff members at the Health Sciences Library at UNC-CH gather the following counts: Number of (print) journal volumes (as part of a total volume count) Number of paid subscriptions

Number of electronic serials titles in Q#10 whose costs are shared through a consortial, inter- or intra-campus arrangement.19 (11. _____)

SERIALS REVIEW

CHRISTIE T. DEGENER AND MARJORY A. WAITE

 Number of gift subscriptions Number of duplicate subscriptions In the print environment, the library either pays or does not pay for a subscription. Some libraries further subdivide statistics collected for unpaid subscriptions to note the sourcedepository, publisher, purchased with funds donated by faculty or department, and so forthwhen that information is considered to be important. We tested how these same measures would work for electronic journals by exploring the possible variations needed to count paid subscriptions. If we assume that paid describes any monetary transaction that results in having access to an electronic journal, our current environment allows the following variations: The electronic journal comes free with a paid print subscription. The electronic journal costs extra with a paid print subscription. The electronic journal is purchased separately from print or has no print counterpart. If the word supplement is substituted for the phrase electronic journal, these variations come close to resembling existing print subscription options. But unlike print subscriptions, electronic journals are typically purchased to offer access beyond the library building, whether access is available to an entire campus, all members of a consortium, eligible users off campus, or all of the above. Additionally, the need to collaborate to obtain maximum return for money spent is more prevalent with electronic journals and thus affects the number of possible variations. Therefore at least one more paid variation must be considered that is unique to the electronic environment: The electronic journal is part of an access package purchased by the library in collaboration with other partiesfor instance, other campus libraries, a local consortium, or a regional network. These variations may have varying levels or degrees of importance to individual libraries, but statistics collected in this manner give a more precise picture of expenditures for electronic journals. Our electronic environment also requires that we consider at least two possible variations for gift electronic journals: The electronic journal is free to all. Another party (another campus library, consortial

member, etc.) has paid for access to the electronic journal that our patrons may also use. Again, the second variation is considered unique to the electronic environment since the intent is to provide access regardless of location, and often to many users simultaneously.

NEW MEASURES FOR THE ELECTRONIC ENVIRONMENT So far it seems possible to expand upon traditional measures in order to collect the data needed for the two surveys we examined. But additional measures that are new for the electronic environment may be needed to collect data for other surveys or for internal use. For example, the Health Sciences Library at UNC-CH actively supports distance education programs, as well as students who are temporarily off campus doing clinical rotations, eld experiences, and the like. Thus, the model conceived for our library includes a category to indicate which electronic journals may be accessed off campus. These data will help document our support for these efforts and justify funding requests. Other new measures might be needed to show how library services are affected by the introduction of electronic journals. One example would be the number of electronic journals available for interlibrary loan and other document delivery services, since license agreements often restrict use for this purpose. Still other measures might be used to assess changing environmental trends, such as the number of electronic journals whose access is governed by IP addresses versus those that provide access through a log-in ID and password. The choice of additional measures will depend on the individual library.

DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A PROTOTYPE MODEL After identifying the measures considered to be relevant, we reviewed these carefully to determine how much detail to capture. For example, we opted to distinguish electronic journals currently received in print from those not currently received in print, even when access is jointly purchased or arranged via another librarys efforts. Based on our review of just two survey instruments, this distinction will provide desirable

MEASURING ELECTRONIC JOURNAL COLLECTIONS

VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

Table 1 Categories and Codes Reecting Subscription and Payment Variations

Category Print subscription with free electronic Print subscription with paid electronic Electronic subscription only (FREE) Category Code(s) PEF PEP EOF Comment Library receives print subscription and opts to register for free online access Library receives print subscription and opts to pay extra for online access Library does not currently subscribe to print subscription, or else no print equivalent exists Library does not currently subscribe to print subscription, or else no print equivalent exists, and pays all costs required for online access Library has current print subscription Library does not have current print subscription Library has current print subscription Library does not have current print subscription

Electronic subscription only (PAID)

EOP

Partial payment for electronic access (joint purchase) Electronic access via another librarys efforts

PEJP EOJP PFEC EOFC

exibility for answering survey questions as standardized measures continue to evolve. Table 1 shows these variations as separate categories, along with category codes (explained below) and brief denitions. To implement this model, we experimented with assigning each of our electronic journals one of the categories listed in Table 1. Assigning a category to each unique title allows the detailed view needed to answer different survey questions, as well as providing a total electronic journal title count. The category assigned to a title is represented by a shorthand code that will be stored in the library catalog record for that title. Since the codes are locally developed and not part of the titles bibliographic description, we decided that they are most appropriately stored in a holdings record rather than the bibliographic record. We also chose a holdings record for this purpose because we have implemented the MARC Format for Holdings Data standard and can thus take advantage of its eld and subeld structure. Local cataloging practice determined the choice of holdings record. We are adding codes to the holdings record for the UNC-Chapel Hill Health Sciences Librarys catalog location Electronic Resource since we currently use that location to designate online access for a given title.20 Since this coded information is for internal use only, we are loading these codes into the holdings

records 856 eld (Electronic Location and Access) Subeld X (Nonpublic Note). A prex, SC: (Statistical Code), is included to help identify the code portion of Subeld X since this subeld could be used to store other nonpublic note information. The library catalogs report-writing function can look for the presence of specic character strings in Subeld X to yield counts of individual categories, category combinations, or total number of titles as needed or for end-of-year statistics. We will revise the code assigned to a given title as access arrangements change. There are several reasons why multiple codes might be assigned to a given title and stored in that titles holdings record. A few of the electronic journals available to Health Sciences Library patrons have multiple online approaches; for example, we currently offer patrons two options for accessing core biomedical titles such as Lancet, both of which have distinct advantages. Since it is a conscious decision on the part of our selectors to offer both presentations, we have input both codes in the order of the applicable categories assigned to the title. An additional code designating such multiple (duplicate) access arrangements is added to more easily count titles of this type. Finally, we feel it is important to assign a code to designate electronic journals that may be accessed remotely (off campus) in order to count titles that directly support distance education programs.

SERIALS REVIEW

CHRISTIE T. DEGENER AND MARJORY A. WAITE

Table 2 Statistical Code Combinations Used at the UNC-Chapel Hill Health Sciences Library
Code(s) Loaded in Holdings Record 856, Subeld X SC:PEFOFF SC:PEPOFF SC:EOFOFF SC:EOPOFF SC:EOPPEJPOFFDUP Explanation of Statistical Codes Print subscription, currently received, with Electronic Free (PEF); has off-campus access (OFF) Print subscription, currently received, with Electronic Paid (PEP); has off-campus access (OFF) Electronic Only Free subscription (EOF); has off-campus access (OFF) Electronic Only Paid subscription (EOP); has off-campus access (OFF) Electronic Only Paid subscription (EOP); print, currently received, plus Electronic Joint Purchase (PEJP); has off-campus access (OFF); has duplicate access arrangements (DUP) Electronic Only Joint Purchase (EOJP); has off-campus access (OFF) Print, currently received, plus Free Electronic via Campus/Consortium (PFEC); has off-campus access (OFF) Electronic Only Free via Campus/Consortium (EOFC); has off-campus access (OFF)

SC:EOJPOFF SC:PFECOFF SC:EOFCOFF

Table 2 shows code combinations for the e-journal subscription and payment arrangements at the UNCChapel Hill Health Sciences Library. We selected the library catalog rather than a vendor acquisitions/serials system to store these codes because the catalog offers a more permanent solution; we expect to be converting to a new acquisitions/ serials system in future. Another reason for this choice is the ability to use an established standard record structure for this purpose. Additionally, our catalog provides a more complete list of our electronic journals than our acquisitions/serials system, most particularly for in-scope titles not owned in print but accessible via another librarys efforts. Other libraries that have separate catalogs and acquisitions/serials systems might choose to use the acquisitions/serials system for storing these data. We also considered which staff would assign, input, and maintain the codes. Acquisitions staff will assign codes for new titles and route them with other information to cataloging staff. Cataloging staff will create the holdings record 856 eld and enter codes during the postcataloging quality control check. In the future, it may be possible for cataloging staff to add codes as part of the cataloging process. Another process may result after we convert to an integrated acquisitions/ serials system that gives acquisitions staff the capability to create order or precataloging records in the library catalog. Currently, acquisitions staff maintain the codes.

CONCLUSION This article has discussed the need for libraries to measure e-journal collections and some of the challenges presented by this task. We have reviewed two primary survey instruments to determine which data need to be collected in order to answer the survey questions. It is important to note that the AAHSL questionnaire, in particular, asks for counts reecting the selection process, not just the end result, and collects data that appears to provide a truer picture of serials collections. We have also shown why traditional measures for print collections need to be expanded to accurately and consistently count collections of electronic journals. Librarians need a exible means to count electronic journals, one that enables us to answer highly diverse requests for statistics. These statistical measures need to be claried and standardized, specifying what gets counted and how, to permit meaningful measures of collection strengths and comparisons among peer institutions and an accurate picture of the complicated e-journal environment. To meet this need in the short term, we have presented a practical model that can be used to count electronic journals available through a variety of access arrangements. A complete copy of the model that we are implementing is shown in the Appendix. Other libraries can easily adapt this model. We have also suggested a method that is not system-specic for encod-

MEASURING ELECTRONIC JOURNAL COLLECTIONS

VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

ing and storing data that can yield different e-journal counts. We hope this preliminary effort will prompt further research and discussion in this area. The organizations sponsoring the surveys that we examined are among those taking a lead role in trying to develop standardized measures, but more work needs to be done. Until standardized measures are adopted, current statistical information cannot adequately or accurately describe the full extent of efforts being made to build print and e-journal collections, and librarians and administrators cannot rely on these data to inform management and budgeting decisions. NOTES
1. Chad Buckley, Marian Burright, Amy Prendergast, Richard Sapon-White, and Anneliese Taylor, Electronic Publishing of Scholarly Journals: A Bibliographic Essay of Current Issues, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. Spring 1999. http://www.library.ucsb.edu/istl/99spring/article4.html (28 November 2000). 2. Sharon Cline McKay, Accessing Electronic Journals, Database 22 (April/May 1999): 1623. 3. Faye A. Chadwell and Sara Brownmiller, Heads Up: Confronting the Selection and Access Issues of Electronic Journals, The Acquisitions Librarian 21 (1999): 2135. 4. Timothy D. Jewell, The ARL Investment in Electronic Resources Study: Final Report to the Council on Library and Information Resources. 24 December 1998. http:// www.arl.org/stats/specproj/jewell.html (28 November 2000). 5. Ron Feemster, When Libraries Faced the Future. University Business. February 2000. http://www.universi tybusiness.com/0002/library.html (28 November 2000). 6. John E. Cox, Publisher/Library Relationships in the Digital Environment: An STM White Paper. April 1999. http://209.41.0.61/vops/a06/999/upload/pics/lrcdoc1504. doc (28 November 2000). Note: this URL will download an MS Word le. 7. Tony Cargnelutti, Richard dAvigdor, and Joe Ury, Finding Ones Web Feet. Revisiting KIN: Key Indicators of Electronic Resource Usage in the Web Environment. January 1998. http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~eirg/ vala98.html (28 November 2000). 8. International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), Guidelines for Statistical Measures of Usage of WebBased Indexed, Abstracted, and Full Text Resources. November 1998. http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/ webstats.html (28 November 2000). 9. Linda S. Mercer, Measuring the Use and Value of Electronic Journals and Books, Issues in Science and

Technology Librarianship. Winter 2000. http://www.library. ucsb.edu/istl/00-winter/article1.html (28 November 2000). 10. Ann Peterson Bishop, Measuring Access, Use, and Success in Digital Libraries, Journal of Electronic Publishing 4, no. 2 (December 1998). http://www.press.umich. edu/jep/04-02/bishop.html (28 November 2000). 11. Association of Research Libraries, ARL Begins E-Metrics Project. 26 June 2000. http://www.arl.org/stats/ newmeas/emnews.html (28 November 2000). 12. Julia C. Blixrud, Counting Electronic Serials: A Discussion Document. May 1998. http://www.arl.org/stats/ counting.html (28 November 2000). 13. We also examined the Academic Library Survey 1998 issued by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This survey is available at http://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/ survey1998.html (28 November 2000). Line 31 of this survey asks libraries to report the number of electronic subscriptions as a subset of a count of current serial subscriptions. The other surveys examined in this article cover this question adequately so we have chosen not to discuss this particular survey instrument. The authors have learned this question will appear in the Academic Library Survey 2000, to be issued by the Elementary/Secondary and Libraries Studies Division of the NCES in the latter half of 2000. 14. The ARL Academic Law or Medical Library Statistics Questionnaire, 19992000. Instructions for completing the questionnaire, p. 2. 15. Ibid. 16. The ARL Academic Medical Library Statistics Questionnaire, 19992000. Survey instrument, p. 1. 17. ARL Statistics Q & A. http://www.arl.org/stats/ arlstat/arlstatqa.html (5 September 2000). 18. Ibid. 19. Association of Academic Health Sciences Library Directors, Annual Statistics of Medical School Libraries in the United States and Canada, 22nd Edition, 19981999. (Association of Academic Health Science Library Directors, Houston, TX: 2000), 23. 20. A holdings record for the location Electronic Resource is added to the catalog record for the print version if any campus library holds the title in print. If no campus library holds the print version, this holdings record is added to the catalog record representing the electronic version.

APPENDIX The following lists statistical categories and methods used to calculate collection totals for the UNC-CH Health Sciences Librarys electronic journals.

10

SERIALS REVIEW

CHRISTIE T. DEGENER AND MARJORY A. WAITE

Each electronic journal received is assigned a code from Categories 16. If an e-journal title has more than one method of access a code is assigned for each method. After assigning one or more codes from Categories 16, applicable codes are added from Categories 7 (OFF) and 8 (DUP). Each code string is stored in the holdings records 856 eld, Subeld X immediately following the prex SC: (Statistical Code). Counting occurrences of SC: yields the total number of titles having online access. Counting occurrences of a specic code (such as PEF) yields the number of titles having that particular online access subscription arrangement. Counting occurrences of the code DUP yields the number of titles having multiple (duplicate) online access subscription arrangements. Once codes have been assigned, these counts can be combined in different ways to yield the totals requested by the survey instruments reviewed in this article. For example, the total number of purchased serials (ARL Question 5) can be assessed by adding the counts from Categories 1, 2, 4, and 5 to a separate count of paid, print-only subscriptions. The total number of unique electronic, full-text serials titles, excluding titles also received in print (AAHSL statistics Question 7), can be measured by adding the counts from Categories 3, 4, 5(b), and 6(b). 1. Print subscription with free electronic (PEF). The library receives the print subscription and opts to register for free online access. 2. Print subscription with paid electronic (PEP). The library receives the print subscription and opts to pay extra for online access. 3. Electronic subscription onlyFREE (EOF). The library does not currently subscribe to the print subscription, or else no print equivalent exists. 4. Electronic subscription onlyPAID (EOP). The

library does not currently subscribe to the print subscription, or else no print equivalent exists, and pays all costs required for online access. 5. Partial payment for electronic access (joint purchase). The library pays less than the total costs required for online access; one or more other parties pay the remaining costs. Titles purchased jointly as a package or collection are counted individually when they are in scope. (a) The library has a current print subscription (PEJP) (b) The library does not have a current print subscription (EOJP). 6. Electronic access via another librarys efforts. The library pays none of the costs required for online access. In-scope titles are counted whose access and costs (if any) are handled by one or more other parties. (a) The library has a current print subscription (PFEC) (b) The library does not have current print subscription (EOFC). Total number of electronic journals available to users off campus. The number of titles assigned an additional code (OFF), indicating availability of off-campus access, are counted. Total number of electronic journals having duplicate online access arrangements. The number of titles assigned an additional code (DUP), indicating duplicate online access arrangements, are counted. Total number of electronic journals. The number of titles with SC: in the holdings records 856 eld, Subeld X are counted. Total number of unique journal titles, electronic and print. The total from number 9 (above) is added to a separate count of print-only journal titles.

7.

8.

9.

10.

MEASURING ELECTRONIC JOURNAL COLLECTIONS

VOL. 26, NO. 4, 2000

11