Abstracts
Abstract
Big Deals initially emerged as cost-saving purchasing models through which academic libraries could quickly grow their collections. Over time, the soaring costs of journal bundles have strained library budgets, and librarians have worked to transition away from Big Deals. Cancellation projects are complex processes involving a large amount of time and labour. Past research has examined how librarians use quantitative and/or qualitative data to make decisions around cancellations, but few go inside the process to understand the subjective factors influencing librarians’ choices. This study investigates the decision-making practices and processes of librarians concerned with the cancellation of Big Deals through interviews conducted at four medium-sized Canadian institutions that underwent cancellation projects from 2015 to 2020. The institutions investigated in this study adopted similar practices in deciding what packages to unbundle and selecting their teams. Differences in how qualitative and quantitative data were used in forming analyses, and the communication methods to counteract opposition heavily influenced the relative success of each library. Libraries seemed most successful if they could perform nuanced and complex data analyses, involved their Liaison librarians in faculty consultations, had the strong support of administrators, and wrapped the project together with an integrated communications plan. A model describing the decision-making steps in the process of unbundling journal packages and the influences that impact each step is presented, followed by recommendations for engaging with each influencing factor, based on the findings of this study.
Keywords:
- academic libraries,
- Big Deal cancellations,
- collections management,
- library collections,
- media
Résumé
Les grands ensembles ont d'abord émergé comme des modèles d'achat économiques grâce auxquels les bibliothèques universitaires pouvaient rapidement développer leurs collections. Au fil du temps, la flambée des coûts des ensembles de périodiques a mis à rude épreuve les budgets des bibliothèques, et les bibliothécaires se sont efforcé.e.s de s'éloigner des grands ensembles. Les projets d'annulation sont des processus complexes nécessitant beaucoup de temps et de main-d'œuvre. Des recherches antérieures ont étudié comment les bibliothécaires utilisent des données quantitatives et/ou qualitatives pour prendre des décisions concernant les annulations, mais peu explorent à fond le processus pour comprendre les facteurs subjectifs qui influencent les choix des bibliothécaires. Cette recherche examine les pratiques et les processus décisionnels des bibliothécaires concerné.e.s par l'annulation de grands ensembles au moyen d'entrevues menées dans quatre établissements canadiens de taille moyenne qui ont fait l'objet de projets d'annulation de 2015 à 2020. Les institutions étudiées dans cette recherche ont adopté des pratiques similaires pour décider des ensembles à déconstruire et pour sélectionner leurs équipes. Les différences dans la façon dont les données qualitatives et quantitatives ont été utilisées dans la formation des analyses et les méthodes de communication pour contrer l'opposition ont fortement influencé le succès relatif de chaque bibliothèque. Les bibliothèques semblaient avoir plus de succès si elles pouvaient effectuer des analyses de données nuancées et complexes, impliquer leurs bibliothécaires de liaison dans les consultations des professeur.e.s, bénéficiaient du solide soutien des administratrices.teurs et concluaient le projet avec un plan de communication intégré. Un modèle décrivant les étapes de prise de décision dans le processus de déconstructions des ensembles de périodiques et les influences qui ont un impact sur chaque étape est présenté, suivi de recommandations pour mobiliser chaque facteur d'influence, sur la base des résultats de cette étude.
Mots-clés :
- abonnements scientifiques,
- annulations de grands ensembles,
- bibliothèques universitaires,
- déconstruction,
- édition savante,
- gestion des collections,
- prise de décision
Appendices
Bibliography
- Ambi, Alison, Erin Alcock, Pamela Morgan, and Amanda Tiller-Hackett. 2016. “Using Data to Break Apart Journal Packages.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 11 (4): 57–62. https://doi.org/10.18438/B81K9B.
- Bergstrom, Theodore C., Paul N. Courant, R. Preston McAfee, and Michael A. Williams. 2014. “Evaluating Big Deal Journal Bundles.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (26): 9425–30. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403006111.
- Blecic, Deborah D., Stephen E. Wiberley, Joan B. Fiscella, Sara Bahnmaier-Blaszczak, and Rebecca Lowery. 2013. “Deal or No Deal? Evaluating Big Deals and Their Journals.” College & Research Libraries 74 (2): 178–93. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-300.
- Botero, Cecilia, Steven Carrico, and Michele R. Tennant. 2008. “Using Comparative Online Journal Usage Studies to Assess the Big Deal.” Library Resources & Technical Services 52 (2): 61–68. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.52n2.61.
- Bucknall, Tim, Beth Bernhardt, and Amanda Johnson. 2014. “Using Cost Per Use to Assess Big Deals.” Serials Review 40 (3): 194–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2014.949398.
- Butler, Leigh-Ann, Madelaine Hare, Nina Schönfelder, Eric Schares, Juan Pablo Alperin, and Stefanie Haustein. 2024. “Open Dataset of Annual Article Processing Charges (APCs) of Gold and Hybrid Journals Published by Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, PLOS, Springer-Nature and Wiley 2019-2023.” Version 1.0. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CR1MMV.
- Calvert, Kristin, William Gee, Janet Malliet, and Rachel Fleming. 2013. “Is ILL Enough?: Examining ILL Demand After Journal Cancellations at Three North Carolina Universities.” In Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference, edited by Beth R. Bernhardt, Leah H. Hinds, and Katina P. Strauch. Purdue University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315297.
- Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN). n.d. “CRKN-Elsevier License Renewal.” Canadian Research Knowledge Network. https://www.crkn-rcdr.ca/en/crkn-elsevier-license-renewal.
- Clarke, Victoria, and Virginia Braun. 2017. “Thematic Analysis.” The Journal of Positive Psychology 12 (3): 297–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613.
- Cooper, Danielle, and Oya Y. Rieger. 2021. What’s the Big Deal?: How Researchers are Navigating Changes to Journal Access. Ithaka S+R. https://apo.org.au/node/312896.
- Dawson, Diane. 2015. “A Triangulation Method to Dismantling a Disciplinary ‘Big Deal.’” Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 80. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1641.
- Enoch, Todd, and Karen R. Harker. 2015. “Planning for the Budget-ocalypse: The Evolution of a Serials/ER Cancellation Methodology.” The Serials Librarian 68 (1-4): 282–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1025657.
- Frazier, Kenneth. 2001. “The Librarians’ Dilemma: Contemplating the Costs of the ‘Big Deal.’” D-Lib Magazine 7 (3). https://www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/frazier/03frazier.html.
- Gagnon, Stéphanie. 2017. “Journal Publishers’ Big Deals: Are They Worth It?” Papyrus (institutional repository). Université de Montréal. https://hdl.handle.net/1866/18507.
- Hardy, Beatriz Betancourt, Martha C. Zimmerman, and Laura A. Hanscom. 2016. “Cutting without Cursing: A Successful Cancellation Project.” The Serials Librarian 71 (2): 112–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2016.1196635.
- Hoeve, Casey Daniel. 2019. “Resource Management in a Time of Fiscal Scarcity: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment for Journal Package Cancellations.” The Serials Librarian 75 (1-4): 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2019.1576571.
- Ivanov, Asen O., Samuel Cassady, and Catherine Johnson. 2020. “An Agenda for Studying of Big Deal Cancellation Projects as Information Practice.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du Congrès Annuel ce l’ACSI. https://doi.org/10.29173/cais1162.
- Johnson, Catherine Anne, and Samuel Cassady. 2018. “How Librarians Make Decisions: The Interplay of Subjective and Quantitative Factors in the Cancellation of Big Deals.” Collection and Curation 39 (1): 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-05-2018-0013.
- Johnson, Catherine Anne, and Samuel Cassady. 2024. “Faculty Response to Journal Cancellations.” Collection Management 49 (4): 165–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2024.2422589.
- Jones, Mary Ann, Derek Marshall, and Sharon A. Purtee. 2013. “‘Big Deal’ Deconstruction.” The Serials Librarian 64 (1-4): 137–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2013.760389.
- Jurczyk, Eva, and Pamela Jacobs. 2014. “What’s the Big Deal? Collection Evaluation at the National Level.” Portal 14 (4): 617–31. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2014.0029.
- McLean, Jaclyn, and Ken Ladd. 2021. “The Buyback Dilemma: How We Developed a Principle-Based, Data-Driven Approach to Unbundling Big Deals.” The Serials Librarian 81 (3-4): 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2021.2008582.
- McLean, Jaclyn, Diane Dawson, and Charlene Sorensen. 2021. “Communicating Collections Cancellations to Campus: A Qualitative Study.” College & Research Libraries 82 (1): 19–43. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.1.19.
- Mitchell, Nicole, and Elizabeth R. Lorbeer. 2009. “Building Relevant and Sustainable Collections.” The Serials Librarian 57 (4): 327–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260903203645.
- Mongeon, Philippe, Kyle Siler, Antoine Archambault, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, and Vincent Larivière. 2021. “Collection Development in the Era of Big Deals.” College & Research Libraries 82 (2): 219-36. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.2.219.
- Nabe, Jonathan, and David C. Fowler. 2012. “Leaving the ‘Big Deal’: Consequences and Next Steps.” The Serials Librarian 62 (1-4): 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2012.652524.
- Nash, Jacob L., and Karen R. McElfresh. 2016. “A Journal Cancellation Survey and Resulting Impact on Interlibrary Loan.” Journal of the Medical Library Association 104 (4): 296–301. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.008.
- Rogers, Jenica P., and Kathryn Wesley. 2015. “Reaching New Horizons: Gathering the Resources Librarians Need to Make Hard Decisions.” The Serials Librarian 68 (1-4): 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1016831.
- Scott, David R., and Nicole Eva. 2016. “The Canadian Dollar Versus the Collection: How Canadian Academic Libraries Are Coping.” Partnership 11 (2). https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v11i2.3771.
- Shu, Fei, Philippe Mongeon, Stefanie Haustein, Kyle Siler, Juan Pablo Alperin, and Vincent Larivière. 2018. “Is It Such a Big Deal?: On the Cost of Journal Use in the Digital Era.” College & Research Libraries 79 (6): 785–98. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.6.785.
- Sjoberg, Cindy. 2017. “E-Journals and the Big Deal: A Review of the Literature.” School of Information Student Research Journal 6 (2): Article 3. https://doi.org/10.31979/2575-2499.060203.
- Urquhart, Cathy, Hans Lehmann, and Michael D. Myers. 2010. “Putting the ‘Theory’ Back into Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Grounded Theory Studies in Information Systems.” Information Systems Journal 20 (4): 357–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00328.x.
- Wilson, Jacqueline, and Chan Li. 2012. “Calculating Scholarly Journal Value through Objective Metrics.” California Digital Library, February 13. https://cdlib.org/cdlinfo/2012/02/13/calculating-scholarly-journal-value-through-objective-metrics/.

