How librarians make decisions: the interplay of subjective and quantitative factors in the cancellation of Big Deals
| Pages | 6-14 |
| Date | 04 October 2018 |
| Published date | 04 October 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-05-2018-0013 |
| Author | Catherine Anne Johnson,Samuel Cassady |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Collection building & management |
How librarians make decisions: the interplay of
subjective and quantitative factors in the
cancellation of Big Deals
Catherine Anne Johnson
Department of Information and Media Studies, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada, and
Samuel Cassady
University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to investigate the decision-making process of librarians at the University of Western Ontario who attempted
to cancel the Wiley Big Deal. The aim of the study is to reveal the underlying factors that affected their decision-making process. By understanding
the decision-making process of librarians, it may be possible to devise a system that takes into consideration not only quantitative factors but also
the subjective or qualitative factors that impact librarians’decisions and thus make it easier to cancel these Big Deals.
Design/methodology/approach –The study involved administering an online survey to 25 librarians involved in the cancellation project. Follow-
up interviews were conducted with 13 of these librarians to understand at a deeper and more nuanced level the factors that influenced their
decisions.
Findings –The main finding was that the librarians who participated in the study could be divided into two groups –a data-driven criteria group
and a subjective criteria group –based on their ranking of the factors used to make their cancellation decisions. Most librari ans interviewed used a
mixture of quantitative factors and qualitative factors when making their cancellation decisions. The authors found that those participants who had
greater professional experience and a closer relationship with the faculties in their subject areas had more difficulty in cancelling journals. Very few
librarians relied on quantitative data alone.
Originality/value –This study is one of few that have examined the subjective factors that influence librarians’decisions r egarding cancellation of
Big Deals. It has implications regarding the movement towards centralized collection management and reliance on quan titative data alone when
making collection decisions.
Keywords Academic libraries, Qualitative data, Big Deal, Centralized collection management, Journal cancellation, Quantitative data
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Over the past two decades, large commercial publishers have
succeeded in establishing a strangleholdover the dissemination
of scholarly research (Lariviére et al.,2015). In addition,
scholars are writing more articles and looking for places to
publish them, and publishers have responded with producing
more journals Beverungen et al.,2012;Tenopir and King,
2009). Through mergers and acquisitions over the past 30
years, five major publishing companies have emerged that
produce more than 50 per cent of academic output for both
natural and medical sciences and social sciences and
humanities (Lariviére et al., 2015). For instance, in 1973,
commercial publishers (as opposed to society and professional
publishers) accounted for 20 per cent of all papers published.
By 2013, three commercial publishers accounted for 47 per
cent of all papers publishedin the natural and medical sciences
(Elsevier, Wiley and Springer)(Lariviére et al., 2015). Having a
near monopoly on academic scholarship has made it difficult
both for scholars to ignore the journals they produce and for
libraries to cancelthem.
Publishers have solidified theirhold by stringently protecting
intellectual property rights, introducing ranking metrics that
quantify the value of journals and responding to government
regulations that require research be disseminated in open
access (OA) formats (Beverungen et al., 2012). The academy,
itself, is complicit in this endeavour through its requirement
that faculty members publish frequently and in high-ranking
journals. Furthermore, publishers have succeeded in getting
most of their content for free in what Beverungen et al. (2012,
p. 930) characterize as a double or triple appropriation “where
universities pay for research, writing, reviewing and even
editing of journals, which they have to buy back for their
libraries”. In addition, the marketplace for academic journals
operates much differently than for other goods. Pricing is
inelastic because the users of the goods are largely unaware of
costs, and the goods are not substitutable because journal
articles are unique and protected by intellectual propertyrights
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9326.htm
Collection and Curation
39/1 (2020) 6–14
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 2514-9326]
[DOI 10.1108/CC-05-2018-0013]
Received 4 May 2018
Revised 4 May 2018
Accepted 22 July 2018
6
To continue reading
Request your trial