NASIG 2010 reflections

When I was booking my flights and sending in my registration during the snow storms earlier this year, Palm Springs sounded like a dream. Sunny, warm, dry — all the things that Richmond was not. This would also be my first visit to Southern California, so I may be excused for my ignorance of the reality, and more specifically, the reality in early June. Palm Springs was indeed sunny, but not as dry and far hotter than I expected.

Despite the weather, or perhaps because of the weather, NASIGers came together for one of the best conferences we’ve had in recent years. All of the sessions were held in rooms that emptied out into the same common area, which also held the coffee and snacks during breaks. The place was constantly buzzing with conversations between sessions, and many folks hung back in the rooms, chatting with their neighbors about the session topics. Not many were eager to skip the sessions and the conversations in favor of drinks/books by the pools, particularly when temperatures peaked over 100°F by noon and stayed up there until well after dark.

As always, it was wonderful to spend time with colleagues from all over the country (and elsewhere) that I see once a year, at best. I’ve been attending NASIG since I was a wee serials librarian in 2002, and this conference/organization has been hugely instrumental in my growth as a librarian. Being there again this year felt like a combination of family reunion and summer camp. At one point, I choked up a little over how much I love being with all of them, and how much I was going to miss them until we come together again next year.

I’ve already blogged about the sessions I attended, so I won’t go into those details so much here. However, there were a few things that stood out to me and came up several times in conversations over the weekend.

One of the big things is a general trend towards publishers handling subscriptions directly, and in some cases, refusing to work with subscription agents. This is more prevalent in the electronic journal subscription world than in print, but that distinction is less significant now that so many libraries are moving to online-only subscriptions. I heard several librarians express concern over the potential increase in their workload if we go back to the era of ordering directly from hundreds of publishers rather than from one (or a handful) of subscription agents.

And then there’s the issue of invoicing. Electronic invoices that dump directly into a library acquisition system have been the industry standard with subscription agents for a long time, but few (and I can’t think of any) publishers are set up to deliver invoices to libraries using this method. In fact, my assistant who processes invoices must manually enter each line item of a large invoice of one of our collections of electronic subscriptions every year, since this publisher refuses to invoice through our agent (or will do so in a way that increases our fees to the point that my assistant would rather just do it himself). I’m not talking about mom & pop society publisher — this is one of the major players. If they aren’t doing EDI, then it’s understandable that librarians are concerned about other publishers following suit.

Related to this, JSTOR and UC Press, along with several other society and small press publishers have announced a new partnership that will allow those publishers to distribute their electronic journals on the JSTOR platform, from issue one to the current. JSTOR will handle all the hosting, payments, and library technical support, leaving the publishers to focus on generating the content. Here’s the kicker: JSTOR will also be handling billing for print subscriptions of these titles.

That’s right – JSTOR is taking on the role of subscription agent for a certain subset of publishers. They say, of course, that they will continue to accept orders through existing agents, but if libraries and consortia are offered discounts for going directly to JSTOR, with whom they are already used to working directly for the archive collections, then eventually there will be little incentive to use a traditional subscription agent for titles from these publishers. On the one hand, I’m pleased to see some competition emerging in this aspect of the serials industry, particularly as the number of players has been shrinking in recent years, but on the other hand I worry about the future of traditional agents.

In addition to the big picture topics addressed above, I picked up a few ideas to add to my future projects list:

  • Evaluate the “one-click” rankings for our link resolver and bump publisher sites up on the list. These sources “count” more when I’m doing statistical reports, and right now I’m seeing that our aggregator databases garner more article downloads than from the sources we pay for specifically. If this doesn’t improve the stats, then maybe we need to consider whether or not access via the aggregator is sufficient. Sometimes the publisher site interface is a deterrent for users.
  • Assess the information I currently provide to liaisons regarding our subscriptions and discuss with them what additional data I could incorporate to make the reports more helpful in making collection development decisions. Related to this is my ongoing project of simplifying the export/import process of getting acquisitions data from our ILS and into our ERMS for cost per use reports. Once I’m not having to do that manually, I can use that time/energy to add more value to the reports.
  • Do an inventory of our holdings in our ERMS to make sure that we have turned on everything that should be turned on and nothing that shouldn’t. I plan to start with the publishers that are KBART participants and move on from there (and yes, Jason Price, I will be sure to push for KBART compliance from those who are not already in the program).
  • Begin documenting and sharing workflow, SQL, and anything else that might help other electronic resource librarians who use our ILS or our ERMS, and make myself available as a resource. This stood out to me during the user group meeting for our ERMS, where I and a handful of others were the experts of the group, and by no means do I feel like an expert, but clearly there are quite a few people who could learn from my experience the way I learned from others before me.

I’m probably forgetting something, but I think those are big enough to keep me busy for quite a while.

If you managed to make it this far, thanks for letting me yammer on. To everyone who attended this year and everyone who couldn’t, I hope to see you next year in St. Louis!

9 thoughts on “NASIG 2010 reflections”

  1. Thanks for the thoughtful commentary, Anna, and for blogging several of the sessions that I didn’t get to attend! Excellent information from an excellent conference. It was great to see you again!

  2. Hi, Anna! Love your post! We’ve been going direct with several publishers, and have moved to single-line invoices rather than separate orders. We do the renewals by spreadsheets, so I have that as backup documentation, and then I don’t have to do double work keeping up with title-level orders, and changing publishers on the orders as the titles move around. The link resolver shows which titles I have access to, also. I tried keeping up with the title-level orders for publishers who still billed that way, but it was a hybrid system with some publishers just doing a single-line and no title list (for our consortial packages–we pay our part and have access to a whole list of titles). This year, I noticed that my director kept asking for the info by package–not by title–so why were we breaking our backs to keep the title-level orders? I pull my collection stats from our link resolver, so it just didn’t make sense. Is there a reason that you are keeping title-level orders for your big packages? Are you getting your title counts from your catalog?

    1. We have only three big packages, and I do keep track of the titles in spreadsheets and whatnot. It’s everything else that we get that isn’t in a package that I’m concerned about. And, I do want to be able to assess title-by-title in the packages, particularly those that are negotiated locally and not a part of a consortia. We’re a small university with programs that grow and change over time, so being able to make changes in our subscriptions is essential, and cost/use trends is a good indicator of what is and is not important to our current students/faculty.

  3. Makes sense…Our single-line stuff is either consortial or something where we actually get a full package of a dozen or so titles. Can you use a macro to build the invoices in your system instead of typing them by hand?

  4. I don’t know. Our ILS is Ex Libris Voyager, and it’s my assistant who enters the invoices. The last time I did anything like that was on III Millennium. I’ll ask.

  5. Of course, as you said in the first place, the ideal solution is for publishers to just give you the EDI invoices! But we’ve used Macro Express with Ex Libris Aleph to load invoices before.

  6. Mainly we’re interested in tracking value by title in the event that the package deal goes away or for swapping out lesser used and costly titles for others that are more helpful for our ever-evolving programs.

Leave a Reply