Short-Term Solution with Long-Term Problems
by
Scott Nicholson
January 15, 1996
Copyright 1996 by Scott Nicholson
It is much cheaper to access articles from select periodicals through ILL/CDD than it is to subscribe. CDD services are currently being used to save libraries hundreds of thousands of dollars in their serials budgets. Instead of subscribing to high-cost, low-use journals, some libraries are canceling subscriptions and paying for rapid access on a single-article level. However, several important things are lost when this exchange is made. It may take several weeks to receive a copy of an article, and the copy or fax quality may be very low. The in-house browsing function is lost completely, as is access to advertisements and other non-cited information in the journal.
As fewer libraries subscribe to an article, the copyright cost for single articles will rise appropriately. Libraries are seeing huge savings now, after having one year of article access; but will the savings be there in ten years, when ten years of articles will require per-article purchase? In addition, there will be a dependancy built on a business outside of the library for access. The role of keeping the historical record will be removed from the library's hands. Once libraries are focused on access and not ownership, there is no escape from the dependency on document suppliers.
Are CDD vendors better than ILL suppliers? They are comparable in turnaround time by mail, and they are about one day faster by fax. CDD vendors do not have access to the selection available through ILL, and ILL can provide monographs and other non-periodical works. Cost-wise, when overhead is considered, ILL is actually a little more expensive to the library system than CDD. One problem with ILL is that it depends upon another library's goodwill, while CDD vendors rely on providing good service as their business. However, money paid to CDD vendors leaves the library system, while ILL overhead goes to fund staff positions and collections.
There are several decisions to be made in implementing CDD services with ILL. Should the library mediate the service, or should the service be connected to online holdings to allow unmediated service? Will the library provide access to the tables of contents in order to make up for the browsing feature lost? Should the library set up tiers of service, divided by access time, articles desired, or patron status? Does the library want to go through a vendor that presents a collection of vendors for ease of ordering and billing, or would the library prefer to build their own package of open-collection, closed-collection, and subject-specific vendors? Can the library work with peers to ensure a historical collection is kept and arrange group discounts? These matters should be decided before a library begins heavy implementation of CDD services.
After deciding what type of services are desired, vendor(s) must be selected and tested. After accessing needs and requirements, the library should analyze what services they already perform adequately. Then, by removing what is already performed from what is desired, the library knows what services they can fill with CDD vendors. Information should then be gathered from the vendors, current users, and published literature to decide on a group of possible vendors. Testing should be a two-step process, where vendors are tested against each other to see which perform best for the library. Then a pilot program of implementation should be run for at least six months to see how the selected vendors perform. If the pilot program is successful, the service can then be implemented library-wide. It is important to monitor the CDD vendors, which is easy to do through detailed reports produced as part of the service.
Decisions about CDD vendors are risky at this point, due to limited testing. The author recommends that the library do one of two things, depending on funding. First, ILL needs to be made more businesslike by instituting tiers of service and hiring professional staff. This will allow the standardized use of vendors when needed by patrons, instead of using them as a last resort. A second possibility is to replicate the services of CDD vendors in a small consortium of libraries. Each library would provide rapid delivery of a portion of journals from a previously agreed-upon list of high-cost, low-use journals. The other libraries in the group could then discontinue subscriptions to those journals, allowing the large monetary savings while keeping the overhead costs in the system, but without the risk of rising prices, permanent dependance on the vendors, and a loss of the historical collection. CDD services provide a tempting short-term gain, but there are many long-term problems that come with a dependance on commercial services for a nonprofit organization.
Document delivery is a term with several meanings. It has been used to refer to traditional interlibrary loan services. It's also been used for a campus-wide library service that delivers monographs and periodicals to departments on campus. In addition, some libraries are creating document delivery services as an extension of ILL to the business world, charging for research and information delivered on a cost-recovery basis. However, for this paper, document delivery refers to commercial services which deliver copies of the full text of periodicals, conference reports, technical papers, patents, and other materials to the library or the patrons. This paper examines several aspects of these commercial document delivery (CDD) services - it will compare journal subscription, traditional interlibrary loan(ILL) services, and CDD service, it will present decisions that must be made and models of implementation for CDD services, and it will present criteria for selection and models for pilot programs involving CDD services.
There is a need for dependable and fast ILL/CDD services because users have access to more bibliographic utilities through the library. As the library allows CD-ROM and online access to a wider variety of cited sources than are carried locally, users want access to the works listed in the citations. Thus, the larger and more varied the bibliographic database and reference works, the higher the demand for ILL. The ease and speed of electronic bibliographic sources put the user in a mindset that retrieval of the articles should be as quick and easy as retrieving the citations. "With a coherent CDD policy, most selectors and collection development personnel will find it helpful in providing a value-added service to users" (Coons & McDonald, 1995).
In addition, libraries are faced with smaller serials budgets. As the funding drops, new journals appear, and prices of journals rise, libraries must find an alternative to subscriptions. Right now, it seems that allowing access to the materials without actually owning them is the most popular answer. This is currently done through several services, one of which is ILL/CDD. There is a call for a change of mindset in the libraries in that funding should be used for responding to real needs of users as compared to anticipating the needs of users (Duhon, 1995). This question of "just-in-time" versus "just-in-case" access to information will be discussed later in this paper.
This paper mainly covers commercial document delivery vendors that deliver articles via fax or mail. There are other methods of information access, besides purchasing the periodical or microform. Full-text databases, accessible on-line or by CD-ROM have been around for some time. The Internet - more specifically - the gopher and the WWW are two places where full-text documents can be retrieved. Another delivery method using the Internet and local hardware that OU has access to is Ariel. There are other standards for electronic document delivery as well. Each of these will be briefly examined here, but will not be discussed further, as the scope of this paper is delivery of documents via fax or mail through a commercial vendor.
This may be the answer in the future - the document could be sent over the WWW, and printed directly to a local printer, with no copy saved. This would be similar to Ariel, but operate on an unmediated level without a dedicated terminal. Other possibilities include a program that will delete the file as soon as it is printed, or other technological solutions that only exist in companies' labs or on inventors' desks. This technology is something to watch, but is not currently ready for implementation.
A new product coming from the computing world is called 3DFax. Information on this product can be found at http://www.infoimaging.com. It is the opposite of Ariel - while Ariel uses a computer to send faxed/scanned images, 3DFax uses the fax to send computer files. The fax is a graphical image that is then scanned into a computer and translated into any file. The reader for 3DFax is freeware, and works on a standard PC with any decent scanner. This might be a product to watch for a delivery solution.
Other technologies will undoubtably come and go. Vendors introduce their own standards, and possibly their own hardware or software to work with it. As the current personal computer has a solid standard (the IBM-compatible), libraries should avoid purchasing non-IBM compatible dedicated hardware. At this point, the IBM-compatible machines are powerful enough to run any database or document delivery program. Vendors that wish to sell or lease dedicated hardware are just trying to make more money.
Due to the fluctuating world of Internet and computer technologies, this paper will focus mainly on fax and mail transactions, as both of these transfer mediums are currently available (and working) in most libraries. While full-text databases are used in libraries, it is not predicted that they will be around much longer in their current state. The upcoming technologies, while enjoyable to play with, cannot be yet considered to assist creation of a stable ILL/CDD environment. Heavier implementation of the fax will provide the technological requirements to allow CDD and ILL to make a seamless service for users to get the articles quickly.
There are many ways to compare journal subscriptions, traditional interlibrary loan, and commercial document delivery services. The most common is cost, but there are many implications and hidden ramifications involved with these services. These issues will be examined in two parts. First, the advantages and disadvantages of journal subscriptions as compared to an access service (ILL or CDD) will be discussed. Second, ILL and CDD services will be compared by cost, speed, selection, copyright handling, and automated services.
Many CDD services also provide a table of contents and a current awareness service. A table of contents(TOC) service allows users to browse the table of contents from many journals. For example, OCLC's ContentsFirst, currently available at OU, allows this function. Access to one of these services, either electronic or through distributed paper copies, is essential to replace the browsing currently done in printed journals. One option is to place the printed TOCs where the journals would be kept. A TOC service applied in this manner can compensate for a lack of in-library browsing for patrons preferring print.
An additional service for faculty or graduate students who wish to keep constantly informed on new information in their field is a current awareness service. Current awareness services allow a periodic (usually weekly or bimonthly) search done on all new journals cataloged by a CDD vendor. With assistance from the library in creating a valid and useful search strategy, these services create personalized lists of journal articles that can be e-mailed or distributed on paper. This service can assist in providing a browsing style of access, while making the library a more valuable resource in current awareness than it currently is for the faculty.
The most-researched advantage of CDD services over journal subscriptions is cost. At the University of Cincinnati library, they spent $20,000 on CDD services to replace 350 canceled titles and added access to 10,000 other titles available on the CDD service that were not available in the library. They reduced their annual subscriptions by $180,000 (Kohl, 1995). Louisiana State University canceled $446,000 in journals, and used CDD services to provide two-day access to faculty and graduate students. That guarantee only cost them $25,000 over the next year (Hayes, 1995). Over a period of two years, George Washington University spent $15,000 on CDD to replace $300,000 in subscriptions. Western Illinois University used Carl UnCover to save $177,000 in periodical subscriptions, spending only $350.00 on document delivery (Branche-Brown, 1994).
These savings came about by targeting low-use, high-cost journals and replacing a subscription with a CDD service. The cost of a journal is more than the subscription - there are the processing, shelving, binding, and storage costs to consider as well. However, the journals to cancel must be carefully selected. If the University of Albany at the State University of New York had canceled all of their journal subscriptions and used CDD/ILL instead, it would have cost them nearly three million dollars, as compared to 1.2 million in subscription costs (Gossen & Irving, 1994).
It appears from the research that each library needs to study their own journal use to decide what should be considered for cancellation. Malcom Getz shows in his research that a journal that is used 21 times or fewer in its first year should be replaced with a CDD service (1991). Another study finds that when articles from a title are ordered 10 or more times throughout a year, the cost of access is higher than the cost of ownership (Ferguson & Kehoe, 1993). Yet a third study considers titles with five accesses a year as a low-use title (Gossen & Irving, 1994).
Thus, while there is no consensus on what a low use title is, the research does indicate that low use is much more important than high cost when it comes to selecting a journal to be canceled. In fact, the SUNY study found that the low-use titles have a "lower average subscription cost that the collection in general. This was true across the disciplines." (Gossen & Irving, 1994, p. 46). Budget cuts are forcing libraries to look for other options besides CDD services. However, some libraries are choosing to cancel more subscriptions in order to save more money through CDD. There are some disadvantages to CDD, and not all are fully explored in the research.
Disadvantages of CDD/ILL in Replacing Subscriptions The "just-in-time" solution of access when needed has been adopted from manufacturing companies that only carry the stock needed to fix the problem at hand. However, this solution has several negative ramifications coming from the fact that a manufacturing business is not the same as a library. In Future Libraries: Dreams, Madness, & Reality by Walt Crawford and Michael Gorman, they state two assumptions made about the "just-in-time" model that are true for business that are not true for the library. First, in manufacturing, it is assumed that parts are interchangeable. However, in the libraries, the "part" - the articles- is not interchangeable. A patron generally wants a specific article. The libraries can't substitute an article from another source that is just as good, but cheaper. The second false assumption about "just-in-time" is that the manufacturers are more powerful than those that create the parts. The libraries are not more powerful than the suppliers (1995). Some problems that can occur with a reliance on CDD vendors are low-quality products and service, higher prices, and an undermining of the library's collection.
One of the complaints about a fax-based CDD\ILL service is that the faxes are occasionally unreadable due to the fax technology. Inexpensive fax machines found in small libraries or users' homes are not as good as a photocopy machine. Reproductions difficult to read off of a photocopier are usually impossible to read from a fax. Users will have to be happy with an inferior product (Stockton & Whittaker, 1995). In addition, libraries must give more support to their ILL department if they are going to take on a heavier load of CDD requests. In the past, ILL has been a low-priority service in most libraries. Researchers will lose respect for libraries if journals are canceled and an effective replacement service is not available (Roberts, 1992).
Rising CDD costs are another possible problem. As more libraries cancel subscriptions, the publisher will raise single-article copyright charges to continue making money. As the dependency rises on CDD vendors, so will the prices. "The price per article will only stay semi-reasonable as long as publishers still have large subscription bases - and as long as the libraries have multiple sources for the documents" (Crawford & Gorman, 1995, p. 151).
If journals are canceled without backup plans and careful consideration, the library's research collection would be damaged for the long-term. There must be an agreement that some library will dependably keep a historical record of the low-use journals, as "journals that are considered marginal today may be the most sought after by researchers in the future" (Coons & McDonald, 1995, p. 626). The money going to CDD vendors is not helping the collection at all - as more savings are realized by canceling more journals, the library's main role of the keeper of information will change into a role of guiding patrons to the information resources available outside the library. Barbara Quint, in "Connect time: The online database world from the library perspective," concludes her article with this frightening thought:
Commercial search service or library utility executives may just
be waiting for the call. They probably expect it's only a matter
of time before a dean of a small college or a budget cutting city
manager calls to ask whether their service would negotiate a
fixed-fee combination of database access and document delivery
paid for by what is left of the late library's budget. Don't
say you weren't warned (p. 71).
However, there is more than just money involved in these transactions. The overhead involved in ILL transaction must be considered in this situation. An often-cited ARL/RLG study of ILL costs puts the average cost of an ILL transaction at $18.62 for borrowing and $10.93 for lending (Gossen & Irving, 1994). On the other hand, the overhead for a CDD service in one study (including online charges) was calculated at an average of $1.18 per transaction (Chrzastowski & Anthes, 1995). Thus, the overall cost to an individual library including overhead is very close between ILL and CDD services. However, when you look at the cost of the entire transaction to the "library system," the CDD services are cheaper than ILL (see table below).
| IL | CDD(highest average) | |
| Monetary cost to library | Very low | $23.88 |
| Monetary cost plus overhead cost to library | $18.62 | $25.06 |
| Total costs to library system | $29.55 | $25.06 |
However, as Pat Weaver-Meyers pointed out, when ILL is used, this cost is going to support more than just the company sending the document. These costs support local staff members, which are used for more than just periodical delivery. If some type of exchange program could be set up where balances of lending costs (possibly using the results from the ARL/RLG study) were kept and checks were cut once a year from the net lenders in a system, the money could at least stay in the system instead of going to vendors (Personal communication, December 19, 1995). In the "Decisions" section of this paper, a peer-based model of implementation will be discussed to focus upon this concept.
At OU ILL, the average ILL request for periodical works takes about 15 days from the time the order is placed until the patron picks it up. If the document is sent via fax, these works take an average of five days to process. However, it takes an average of 2.67 days for a patron to be notified and get the article (Pat Weaver-Meyers, Personal Conversation, December 19, 1995). Studies done at other libraries find the average time for the article to arrive at the library is 10 to 13 days (Kelsey & Davenport, 1993 and Kuroman & Durniak, 1994).
CDD delivery times also vary by type of method used and service. By mail, CDD vendors averaged 3-5 days in one study (Chrzastowski & Anthes, 1995) to 13.5 days for a service with an in-house collection and 22.5 days for a service that retrieves articles from other libraries (Kursoman and Durniak, 1994). Due to the scattered nature of these results, OU would need to do a study of the mail times of selected providers to determine if they significantly differ from their current ILL delivery times.
However, using on-line databases and fax delivery, CDD services were very fast. One study placed simultaneous orders through Carl UnCover and traditional ILL. CARL took an average of just under eight hours to fill the requests, while ILL took 5.75 days (Watts, 1994). Other report by Melissa Stockton and Marta Whittaker states that "among commercial vendors with online indexes and fax or electronic delivery the average is usually in the 24 to 48 hour range" (1995, p. 171). In addition, if the articles can be faxed directly to the patron, the time of notification and waiting for the patron to pick up the article is eliminated. Therefore, while mail delivery times have to be examined on a case-by-case basis, fax delivery is, on the average, faster with a CDD vendor than through ILL.
Does the speed difference matter, however? Patrons may appreciate the difference in speed, but patrons have been desensitized to the expectation of receiving documents quickly through current ILL practices. One study found that three to seven days was an acceptable delivery time for faculty (Gossen & Irving, 1994). A study at Columbia University found that a majority of ILL patrons would wait up to a week for their document (Chrzastowski & Anthes, 1995). A third study found that, for faculty, there was not much difference between waiting one day and two weeks for an article. However, for graduate students, the range of acceptable times was between one day and one week (Kinnucan, 1993).
Therefore, according to the research, a time of one week or less would be acceptable for most patrons. This timeframe can be filled by fax, but not by mail by using ILL. For ILL, getting an article within a week is considered a "rush job" and causes extra trouble and stress. CDD services that normally use fax could fill this deadline easily without placing a "rush" status on the order. If journal subscriptions are cut and replaced with CDD services, users have a right to expect rapid delivery for articles which would be in the library, had subscriptions not been cut.
One interesting fact is that the closed-collection vendors have fairly dissimilar holdings. In one study that compared the offerings of Carl UnCover and Faxon Finder, one of the surprising results was that the two services only shared about 30% of the 435 articles searched for in the study (Holt & Schmidt, 1995). In another study, out of 52 articles requested, only four of them were filled by all five sources for articles (UMI, ILL, The Genuine Article, Information on Demand, and The Information Store).
The second type of services are open-collection services. They do not require that documents come from a list. Instead, they search libraries and other collections to find the requested article, working much like ILL. In fact, some CDD services will go to the same libraries that ILL would use. Needless to say, the open-collection vendors and ILL have access to a much more extensive collection, ranging more than a million serials and dating back to the beginning of many of these serials (Wereff, 1994).
Most CDD services with a closed-collection do not have a good historical collection of journals, focusing instead on their currency. For this reason, closed-collection CDD services cannot replace ILL in periodical delivery. However, open-collection CDD services can access the older periodicals stored at other libraries. In order to successfully supplement ILL services with CDD, a library will need access to a suite of general and subject-specific closed-collection services as well as have access to open-collection services that access libraries outside of the normal ILL agreements.
One easy way to have this access is through the third type of service - the multi-collection service. These services offer documents from other CDD services as well as publishers and in-house collections. Their value lies in the fact that all of the resources are in one database connection and they can get a discount for a large volume which can make articles cheaper than if the user went to the original producer. These services can provide a suite of pre-determined selections for a library to save time and hassle of individual accounts.
Most CDD vendors charge the copyright fee on top of their service fee for articles. If a journal is not registered with the CCC, using a CDD vendor will make dealing with copyright much easier and faster in these instances. Paying the copyright fees for each article also ensures that copyright guidelines are met. Currently, OU ILL just writes down orders on a sheet of paper, and uses this to track when to pay copyright (Molly Murphy, Personal communication, January 5, 1996). CDD services would make this procedure much easier.
There are two financial concerns with this, however. First, the library may be paying copyright when they haven't exceeded the "fair use" guidelines. As the first six copies may be requested for free under "fair use," these copyright charges do not need to be paid. The other concern is that different CDD vendors charge different copyright fees. For example, in a study between Carl's UnCover and Faxon Finder, the same article cost $1.25 more in copyright fees in Faxon Finder than it did in UnCover. A second article cost $3.00 in copyright fees from Faxon Finder, but UnCover had a note stating that the publisher forbids delivery of that article (Holt and Schmidt, 1995). As these "copyright fees" are not defined in the price agreements, it is a possibility the vendors could charge extra for the copyright fees without visibly raising their rates in order to make more money. Thus, some type of restrictions on copyright charges should be worked about with a vendor if possible before signing a long-term contract.
The exact cost of the document is known when ordering from some of the CDD vendors. This is not generally the case with ILL, when a cost is not known until the item arrives. This can make a patron consider whether a document is worth the expense. Some patrons don't like the idea of ordering something without an idea what the cost might be, and may therefore avoid using ILL. When the cost is known up front, patrons know what they are ordering, and how much (if any) it will cost them directly.
Other automated features of CDD services make the jobs of ILL staff members easier. When an order is placed, there is no searching for libraries that have the item. As many CDD vendors have on-line ordering, there is no verification of citations needed. There is a concern about users then ordering articles already in the library, which is a valid concern. About ten percent of the time, orders are placed with ILL for articles that are in the local collection. This corresponds with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where the Chemistry library allowed unmediated document delivery and about 8 percent of the orders were for articles in the library (Chrzastowski & Anthes, 1995).
However, at a test study done at Arizona State University with unmediated direct document delivery outside of the library with works delivered to a local fax machine if desired, 76.5 percent of the articles were held locally at ASU. It was hypothesized that patrons used the service as a convenience to get the documents to their office instead of going to the library first (Walters, 1995). Therefore, an unmediated service that allowed delivery to any fax number or address would have to link into the online holdings in order to not be abused. However, unmediated delivery that is ordered and delivered in the library appears to be no more abused than current ILL.
ILL costs slightly more to the library system than CDD services when overhead costs are taken into account. However, the money is going into the system rather than a vendor's pocket. CDD services are faster, pay for copyright costs, and can help automate record-keeping and article ordering. ILL is still necessary, however, for inexpensive access to monographs and older periodical materials. CDD vendors also offer convenient tables of contents and current awareness services. CDD services could be integrated into the traditional ILL services of the library, as they can help make up for journal cancellations, provide new services and can save ILL time for the more time-consuming requests (Walters, 1994).
There are many decisions to be made when integrating CDD services with traditional library services. There are different models in the literature, and one should look for parts from them that complement the individual library environment. Currently at OU, ILL uses CDD services as a last resort. Various CDD vendors have been added onto the list of possible institutions as needed (Molly Murphy, Personal communication, January 5, 1996). There are some decisions that should be made to standardize use of CDD vendors. These decisions are in the areas of mediation, table of contents services, tiered services, multiple vendor use, and peer communication.
Another possibility is an unmediated service. This type of service would allow a user to pass on orders directly to a CDD vendor under an account belonging to the library. Carl UnCover has an option (called SUMO) that will allow the library to link their periodical holdings into the unmediated ordering, to prevent patrons from ordering something in the collection. In addition, SUMO can stop patrons from ordering a periodical above a previously-determined cost. However, setting up a SUMO gateway costs $10,000 per year.
Assuming that our ILL is a good test case for CDD selection, only about 10 percent of the articles ordered will be for items in the library. As there has been no reported yearly cost of CDD services more than $25,000, it would not be financially feasible to invest in SUMO - rather, it would be better to absorb the 10 percent excess ordering cost. Of course, this would have to be monitored carefully. If the users are allowed to send a document anywhere, the rate of held articles ordered would most likely skyrocket, as users would use it as a convenience. With an unmediated service, ILL would function for books, older periodicals, unusual items, and work toward offering a campus-wide delivery service as was discussed a few years ago (Molly Murphy, Personal communication, January 5, 1996).
By offering tables of contents online of journals not held attached to an unmediated service, users could order only the articles not held by the library that they would like. In addition, this would permit automated record-keeping without direct interaction by an ILL librarian. As always, ILL would be there to serve patrons if there was problems or they were uncomfortable with the system. In addition, some patrons may be unhappy with the idea of the library utilizing a CDD service and request that the article be ordered through ILL regardless (Jackson, 1993b).
Another option for a tiered service is collection, rather than service, oriented. The library decides on core works, fringe works, and outside works. The core works will be held in the library if it all possible, and if they must be removed, will be replaced by a rapid CDD service. The fringe works are those to which the libraries believe patrons should have access. For these works, libraries will hold the journal if possible, and provide a TOC/CDD service suite to get articles that requested within a week. The outside works are those the library does not believe they need to support. These items may be ordered through ILL or a CDD service, with the library as mediator, but any charges will be passed onto the patron.
In combination with these tiers, the library should develop a standardized payment plan when payment is expected. Models for payment plans suggest that the library charge for rush service, and guarantee that service (two days or it's free!). Users could be asked to fund part of the CDD by paying a flat fee lower than what is offered by the CDD services directly or by having to pay anything beyond a certain amount. In the latter case, the library could determine it's cost for ILL, and deduct that amount from the vendor charge for CDD. This model would provide a value-added service for the user if one was desired. Another possibility, in order to recover fax costs and charge for the "rush requests," is to charge so much per page if faxed, but charge nothing for mail service.
There are two main classes for vendor selection - discipline and collection. Vendors can be discipline-specific or general. The general vendors need the supplementation from the discipline-specific ones. In addition, collections can be open, closed, or be from multiple sources. Closed-collection vendors are faster, cheaper and have a catalog from which to choose titles, as the vendor has access to a limited number of titles. In an open-collection system, the vendor will look at many information resources until the article requested is found. Many of these vendors base their searches on time instead of a flat fee per article (plus copyright, of course). However, open-collection vendors can find rare or old articles that the closed-collection vendors do not have available. Thus, general open and closed-collection vendors or a multi-collection vendor should be considered in any procedure created along with discipline-specific vendors.
Arizona State University has implemented a model to incorporate multiple vendors that also solves the mediation problem. They have Carl UnCover access tied into their holdings, and patrons can use that with no mediation, placing orders and having the library billed. They are also allowing access to FirstSearch and Eureka through ILL, mediating those services (Walters, 1995). By selecting some services that can be safely left unmediated, users that wish to order documents themselves may do so. The ILL staff is then knowledgeable about the other service and can direct an inquiry to the appropriate vendor or library given the circumstances.
In 1993, Iowa State University did a comparison of two general, closed-collection vendors, two general open-collection vendors, and two discipline specific vendors. After using these services for two months, they concluded that there was need to consider many of the services, and created an "ordering queue" for document acquisition. Their queue was:
-Iowa libraries (university, academic, and public)
-Out-of-state libraries with which there is a reciprocal or "no
charge" agreements . . .
-UMI's Article Clearinghouse
-Out-of-state libraries with which the ISU library has no
reciprocal agreements; other collection-based commercial suppliers (U.S.).
-Information on Demand
-Foreign libraries (Pedersen & Gregory, 1994, p. 270).
It should be noted that Iowa State only looked at CDD vendors on OCLC, and several of the vendors that would have placed higher in the queue dropped their OCLC access between the study and the creation of the procedure. Therefore, this model should be used for its structure, but not its content. Providing such a queue would allow ILL librarians to make more standardized decisions regarding CDD vendor utilization.
In addition, before journals are canceled, firm agreements must be made to ensure a subscription to each journal is preserved (Coons and McDonald, 1995). The library system has an obligation to maintain the historical record of scholarly works. Journals that are high-cost and low-use at OU are most likely the same candidates at other universities. This is another point that needs to be acted on quickly, before heavy cancellation begins. The fewer libraries that carry a journal, the more the publishers will charge for access. Plans made now will save problems in the future.
An ambitious model of resource sharing may be created to avoid the use and expense of CDD vendors, while still maintaining the level of service the CDD vendors give. This model would alleviate the rising cost of journals, while keeping the money in the consortium. First, the consortium (or a smaller group of Oklahoma libraries) decides on a list of high-cost, low-use journal titles targeted for cancellation. The list is divided between the libraries, with libraries that have heavier utilization of these titles taking a larger portion of the list. Each library will agree to keep subscriptions to their portion of the list, keeping them in a restricted area.
When a journal arrives, the table of contents is faxed to each library and is put out where the journal would be in the current periodical room. All requests for those articles from the libraries in the group are given a special status, and faxed out within 24 hours of receipt. As the copies of the journals will be kept near the ILL area, this could be easily accomplished. Local users requesting a copy of the article will be given a copy, and it will be unknown to the user which journals are kept locally and which are at other libraries.
This model will only work if the libraries in the group are committed to giving the same type of service as CDD vendors. By keeping a small closed collection at each library, and the 24-hour commitment, this service level can be met. Cost-wise, each library will have to pay the CCC if they exceed six articles from a title in a given year, but will avoid the problem of paying copyright on each article. In addition, as the busier libraries have to subscribe to more journals, there is no need to worry about a borrower/lender ratio. Records should be kept and examined to make sure libraries are purchasing the proper share of subscriptions for their use of the service.
That model may seem like a lot of work and trouble - but if we want to avoid sending money out of the system, it is needed. The vendors have to charge for those same services - is it worth taking the staff time and resources to keep the money in the system? That is a decision that must be made early in the decision-making process regarding inclusion of CDD vendors.
Summary of Decisions There are several decisions that must be made when selecting CDD vendors. Mediation takes more staff time, but allows better control. A table of contents service should be implemented to continue the browsing feature found in print. Tiered levels of service could be implemented, based on level of service offered, material desired, or status of patron. A suite of vendors should be selected, in order to compensate for weaknesses in collections. Finally, peer libraries should be contacted in order to set up consortium-level contracts, determine historical record responsibilities, or possibly replace CDD services by creating an organized document delivery system.
As OU provides access to more on-line bibliographic utilities, they must also support the user's need for those articles. Currently, OU ILL is not a very high priority service. This will need to change to compensate for the serials crisis. "Document delivery should be developed into a first-class operation - both fast and dependable" (Roberts, 1992, p. 33). The main reason patrons do not use ILL is because "it takes too long," according to a study done at Washington State University and Arizona State University. The survey found that the fact that "it's easier to find another way" to get the article is the second-most common reason for ignoring ILL services. ILL/CDD should be as convenient and fast as the commercial services - the patron "should not be made to feel that requesting an article from a remote location is more trouble than it's worth" (Roberts, 1992, p. 33).
Once the decisions about CDD services have been made and a model of implementation created, the vendors must be chosen that can fill the need. As there is a wide selection of vendors and heavy competition, the library has the advantage when finding a vendor to meet their needs. There is enough competition that libraries don't have to bend their expectations to meet what a vendor offers. The goal of this section is to provide criteria for selection of CDD vendors and present examples and models to assist in creation of a pilot program.
In addition, staff considerations must be taken into account. Will CDD services be more heavily used in ILL? Can the current fax equipment withstand a much higher workload? Are there enough personnel to handle the increased demand for ILL if journal subscriptions are cut? If staff are familiar with a system (such as OCLC), it might make sense to only examine services available there. If staff members don't use a tool currently existing in the library, a new tool similar to that most likely won't be used either.
Equipment-wise, questions must be raised. Does the library have the equipment needed to run the interface to the search engine? Will the library be able to use existing equipment, or will new equipment have to be leased or purchased? Is the technology for accessing a database going to change soon? Ideally, if the library goes with an unmediated service, the service should link into the Information Center computers or the OPAC. These equipment restrictions should be noted at this phase in the process.
Appendix A contains a summary of information sent by suppliers. This selection of vendors focuses on general, as compared to discipline-specific vendors. However, the same format could be used in selecting discipline-specific vendors. The template used for vendor analysis looks at scope of coverage, cost of database access, cost of document retrieval (including copyright clearance), equipment requirements, turnaround time by delivery type, ordering specifications, unmediated service, and billing/reporting techniques.
Appendix B contains brief reports on published comparative research. The first half of Appendix B are pages 128-147 of Document Delivery Services(1995) by Elanor Mitchell and Sheila Walters. After their section, other studies not covered by this book are reported in a similar manner. Little importance should be placed upon studied before 1993, as many vendors began reworking their services at this time. The older vendor realized that, in order to compete, they needed to begin evolving. Thus, older studies should be used as models only.
This information should be complemented by personal communication with those that use the service, either in person or by e-mail, and any other objective examinations of the services. In gathering references, one should "check on quality of documents supplied; percentage of unfilled requests or requests not filled within advertised time frames; customer service; accuracy of supplier's catalog; and percentage of requests requiring follow-up" (Mitchell & Walters, 1995). In addition, peer libraries should be contacted to see about possibilities for group-level contracts, as this may exclude or include vendors for further study.
It is important, when selecting vendors, to choose enough vendors for an adequate test. Open-collection vendors should not be compared with closed-collection vendors, as they provide different types of documents. In addition, discipline-specific and general vendors should not be compared with each other. Thus, a fair comparative test will examine at least six vendors - two open-collection general vendors, two closed-collection general vendors, and two discipline-specific vendors. The other option is to choose one suite of vendors or a multi-collection vendor and run a test to see if those services "fit" in the library, and swapping out vendors from the suite if needed.
Several different examples of pilot programs from other universities are found in the literature. These can be used to develop a test for CDD services. Some of these programs implement several services simultaneously, in order to decide which service best fits the needs of the library. Other test programs examine just one service to see how that service will work with the library Aspects from both types of test programs can be combined in order to make a two-stage test program. The first short stage would compare CDD services to see which ones best fit the needs of OU. The second longer stage would be a pilot implementation program to see how well the selected service works and how the developed implementation model will work with OU's offerings.
The University of Texas at Austin implemented a test which combines aspects of the above two tests. They sent sixty documents through ILL and to one of six (as compared to all six) vendors, and compared the results. While this test is useful for determining if CDD vendors are better than ILL, it is of little use in comparing suppliers. It is much more cost effective than the previous test that sent the request to six different suppliers simultaneously.
Arizona State University set up a test for unmediated services in 1994. They trained faculty in the use of three different systems and let them use what they desired over six months, tracking costs, time, usage, and user satisfaction for the services (Walters, 1995). This is a good comparative study, as it will show ASU which services are used by faculty and the corresponding costs. However, its lack of controls (what was ordered, who ordered from which database) do not permit the results to be externalized.
Thus, there are four models for a comparative study. The model to use depends upon the type of data desired. If OU wants to know what could be used at the campus, and is not concerned about externalizability, the ASU model would be a good start. If ILL is to be compared to CDD vendors (as a group), the UT study is the best. For comparing vendors to each other and to ILL, the Vassar study is a good, but costly, model. The ISU study does not have many controls, and thus is provided only as a model of a poorly designed study.
One of the libraries in a study canceled 40 journal subscriptions and ordered articles needed through a CDD service, and analyzed savings and problems. This method allowed them to see if CDD worked in replacement of journal holdings, but since they did it with a relatively few number of journals, it was possible to purchase backlogs if need be at the end of the year-long study. An interesting side note is that they ended up re-subscribing to five of the titles, as they were not cost effective through document delivery. By only doing a test, the library was able to recover from making a possibly disastrous choice for cancellation.
The final model for testing a single source comes from a comparison of Carl UnCover and ILL. Much like several of the multi-vendor tests, this test sent simultaneous requests to Carl and ILL to see which one worked better for the library. This model is good once a vendor has been chosen, as it eliminates the bias in some of the earlier single-vendor tests.
Thus, as in the multi-vendor tests, the test used depends on what is to be examined. If ILL and one vendor are to be examined, they should be ordered from simultaneously and results examined from that. If funding is not available, one could alternate between ILL and a CDD vendor, but this introduces biases. To examine the effects of journal cancellation, cancel only a small number and see the results after a years time. This allows for both testing the vendor to see if they work well and testing the patrons to see how they adapt to a new system.
After selecting possible vendors, the library should initiate a two-stage pilot program. First, vendors should be pitted against each other and ILL in an experiment. The same document should be sent to the vendors involved and ILL to see how each responds in different circumstances. The top suite of vendors should then be put through a more rigorous program, watching closely for problems. If a vendor in the suite is not performing well, the vendor should be replaced with another one. After at least six months, the data from the pilot program should be analyzed and compared with traditional ILL(not just with articles, but overhead expenses) to see if the needs are being met at a reasonable cost.
Bill Coons and Peter McDonald, in "Implications of commercial document delivery" (1995), sum up the four uses of commercial document delivery as follows. It can be used as a resource for ILL when there is a rush request, when items are at the bindery or missing, and to take care of copyright problems when excess copies have been ordered from the same title. CDD can also be used as a tool for selection - the automated record-keeping can be used to tell when the cost of delivering the articles is higher than the cost of subscription. As the overhead cost of ILL is not considered as part of the cost of articles, this comparison is currently not possible. It can be used instead of new subscriptions, to allow access to new journals that are too expensive or too subject-specific to purchase. Finally, it can be used to replace current subscriptions when cancellations have to be made.
In this paper, considerations in the implementation of CDD services were discussed. Decisions that need to be made were pointed out along with models of implementation. Selection criteria were listed, along with models for a pilot program. By looking at the literature, OU can decide if CDD vendors can offer solutions to current and upcoming problems in periodical access. According to Sheila Walters in 1994 at Arizona State University, "we have found that the right mix of ILL and commercial suppliers has improved turnaround dramatically and has made alternative access feasible and cost-effective."
After being exposed to most of the available literature with very little previous knowledge about document delivery, the author of this paper has some opinions and advice not supported by citations. The author is very pro-technology, so was ready to support this idea wholeheartedly coming into the project. As research was done, the author is no longer as positive about benefits of the CDD services. Few of the studies show these services to be significantly faster, and by spending the money for these services, the funding for overhead here in the library is reduced.
ILL offers more services to the library than CDD can cover. If a moderated service is desired for document delivery, ILL should develop an ordering queue to guide the use of these services as suppliers. By exploring other services and running some experiments, the CDD vendors that would best support ILL's needs and ordering style could be selected. The table of contents services would be nice to provide to faculty in order to support those journals not subscribed. A current awareness service would also be a good service for faculty to encourage awareness of the value of the library.
Another option is to look at an unmediated service with delivery to the patron's fax or phone through CARL's UnCover gateway. It is very apparent from ASU's study that such a service would have to be linked to the holdings, which would cost $10,000. This type of service should be examined if a number of subscriptions are to be canceled - providing faculty with this as a replacement to canceling journals will ease the loss and keep good relations with the faculty.
Standardized tiers of service should be implemented and standardized at Interlibrary Loan. Currently, there are tiers that are applied as needed. Some people are asked to pay - others are not. Some people get their service from a CDD vendor, while others have to wait for fax or mail. By creating at least two levels of service, the selection of vendors and charges would be standardized, and ILL would be prepared to run in a more businesslike manner.
An option to save money and keep the collection is the peer model discussed in the "Decisions" section. By working within a small group, each library could save a good deal of money, while assuring inexpensive access to those articles. However, an additional ILL librarian would be needed to organize and administrate this type of arrangement. It may very well be worth it, however, and could set a precedent for other groups to follow. This is one way to keep the money in the system while having the support that a CDD vendor can give.
There are currently too many risks to cancel subscriptions and replace them with a CDD vendor. The fluctuating variable of copyright costs makes this type of dependency very dangerous for OU's budget. In addition, there has been no research on the results of too many libraries dropping subscriptions of expensive journals. As large as the savings have been at other universities, not enough time has passed to see if this will result in overall savings. Currently, the savings are based off of missing one year of subscriptions to a journal. However, what will the cost of document delivery be after rates have gone up and the university must support five years of subscriptions to hundreds of journals? What if the commercial suppliers stop carrying back issues?
In conclusion, there are two safe ways OU could go at this point, depending on need and funding. The selection of CDD vendors by ILL should be standardized. Tiers of service should be standardized and advertised. If journals have to be cut to save money, agreements should be worked out with a small consortium instead of depending on CDD vendors. These vendors can save money in the short-term, but are not a dependable or cost-effective long-term solution.
These companies (and others) were contacted by telephone and e-mail and asked to send information about their document delivery services with prices. Some companies did not respond, while other companies contacted did not send sufficient information to be covered. This should not be taken as a comprehensive guide. However, this will present a sample of what is out there. The book "Burwell Directory to Information Brokers and Document Delivery firms" is currently on order for OU, and can be used as a comprehensive guide. All information listed (except when cited from another work) came directly from the company's literature.
Two companies that should be included in this guide but are not are DIALOG and OCLC. Dialog is not here because the information mailed was on the Canadian Dialog services. The information requested from AMIGOS for OCLC has not yet arrived or was not delivered to the author.
Under the research results area, a listing of "1/4 turn, 4/4 cost, 3/4 fill" would mean the vendor was first out of four in turanound time, fourth out of four in cost, and third out of four in fill rate. If vendors were compared to ILL, ILL will be removed for the ranking in this reporting.
Phone: (800)944-6415.
Scope of coverage: Closed-collection - Almost 700 current
medical/biotechnical journals, with some
chemistry, biochemistry, and bioengineering.
Cost of database: $22,000 for a viewing subscription/$19,500 for non-viewing.
Cost of retrieval: Only copyright charge - $3.00 to $14.00, with an average of $7.00.
Equipment needed: 486, 16 MB RAM, Win 3.1, 1 Gigabyte HD, HP
Laserjet 4, CD-ROM jukebox (100 or 500 disk
capacity).
Turnaround time: None - documents are stored locally in scanned format.
Ordering method: None.
Unmediated services: Intended for unmediated use.
Reporting: Monthly, a usage bill is printed with copyright costs due.
Comments:
Research results:
Phone: (614) 447-3600.
Scope of coverage: "Twenty-year collection of over 15,000 serial publications, 14,000 non-serials... in chemistry and the chemical aspects of engineering, physics, energy, math, biotechnology, biology, geoscience, the environment, and much more."
Cost of database: No database.
Cost of retrieval: Base: $8 for a patent
$10 for article ordered by STN Accession number
$14 for article ordered by CA Accession or CIN Extract number $18 for article ordered w/bibliographic information
Additional Fees:
$3 copyright fee if there is any royalty charge
$3 cancellation fee
None for postal service
$4 fax fee for 1-20 pages
$8 fax fee for 21-40 pages
$8 for domestic courier
$10 for rush service (1-4 hours)
$20 for rush service (under 1 hour).
Equipment needed: None.
Turnaround time: "Most non-RUSH requests are shipped with 24 hours."
Ordering method: "Mail, phone, telex, fax, TWX, cable, online, or via the Internet".
Unmediated services: None.
Reporting: None specified.
Comments: If publisher doesn't allow copies to be made, original document will be loaned for an additional $3 fee.
Research results: 1985 study by Currie and Olsen (Mitchell & Walters, 1995) -
3/4 cost, 1/4 turn
1987 study by Ardis and Croneis (Mitchell & Walters, 1995) -
3/4 cost, 1/4 turn
1993 study by Pedersen & Gregory (Pedersen & Gregory, 1994) -
4/6 cost, 1/6 turn, 2/6 fill.
Phone: (403) 438-1555.
Scope of coverage: Open-Collection - "Through the university and through the special libraries in the area".
Cost of database: None.
Cost of retrieval: Not specified - developed upon identification of "scope, depth, and frequency".
Equipment needed: None.
Turnaround time: Not specified.
Ordering method: Not specified.
Unmediated services: None.
Reporting: Not specified.
Comments: Good for Canadian information.
Research results: .
Phone: 1-800-668-1222.
Scope of coverage: Closed-collection in science, technology, and medicine in all languages.
Cost of database: Free - access by telnet to cat.cisti.nrc.ca, login: cat, no password.
Cost of retrieval: $7 per 50 pages + copyright if ordering electronically (can order through OCLC Prism), $9 per 50 pages + copyright otherwise. Will loan items for $25. Articles may be received through Ariel, Fax, Courier or FTP for no extra charge
Equipment needed: Ariel if desired.
Turnaround time: Not specified.
Ordering method: OCLC for a discount - fax, e-mail, mail or phone for $3 extra.
Unmediated services: Not available.
Reporting: Detailed monthly statement.
Comments: Also has a TOC service - $4 per title/year, and a current awareness search service for $400-$800 per year. Discounts for high monthly use.
Research results: .
Phone: 1-800-537-7546.
Scope of coverage: Multi-collection, including access to:
From UMI- ABI/INFORM, EiPage One, Newspaper Abstracts, Periodical Abstracts, Research II Edition From BLDSC-Environmental Sciences & Pollution Management, Inside Information, Life Sciences with Bioengineering, Marine Biology
From CIS- US Government Periodicals Index
Cost of database: Not specified, but is a per year cost for unlimited access.
Cost of retrieval: All of the following costs include copyright:
From UMI (except Ei Page One) - Ariel/Mail - $7.75, Fax - $17.75
Ei Page One - Ariel/Mail - $9.50, Fax - $24.50
From CIS - $9.50 regardless of delivery method
From BLDSC - Ariel/Mail - $16.00, Fax - $18.00.
Equipment needed: Internet connection and Eureka software or Z39.50 interface.
Turnaround time: Ariel - 2 days or less, Fax - usually 2 days, Mail - 6-10 days.
Ordering method: Through Eureka (patron-based search service) or OPAC via Z39.50 connection.
Unmediated services: Orders placed by patrons can be sent to ILL first for local filing, then forwarded to CitaDel.
Reporting: Itemized reports.
Comments: No extra copyright costs and wide variety makes this a service to consider.
Research results: .
Phone: (415) 259-5000.
Scope of coverage: Multi-Collection - In-house closed-collection of 30,000 titles, and then will go outside as needed. Also provides access to ADONIS.
Cost of database: None for ADONIS database - there are no other databases.
Cost of retrieval: $13.50 + copyright for In-house collection/Standard Sources. $25.00 + copyright for Extended Sources/Special Sources. $5 extra for fax.
ADONIS - $9.50 if ordered from WWW database + copyright (free fax).
Equipment needed: WWW access for ADONIS.
Turnaround time: 24 hours for In-house collection, not mentioned for other sources.
Ordering method: None specified.
Unmediated services: ADONIS has WWW access.
Reporting: Customized to client.
Comments: Cheaper way to access ADONIS w/o buying ADONIS database. Has a TOC/Current awareness service costing $3.50/year per TOC or weekly search, $10 if it is to be redistributed. Discount for 25+ orders per month.
Research results: .
Phone: (405) 751-6400.
Scope of coverage: Closed-collection -Business media.
Cost of database: $39.00 per month + .20 per minute.
Cost of retrieval: $3.00 base (free download into PC) + $1.00 for fax, + $5.00 for mail.
Equipment needed: Windows PC or online search.
Turnaround time: Immediate for download / Not specified for fax.
Ordering method: Using EyeQ software or online ordering.
Unmediated services: Not available.
Reporting: In Windows, built-in reporting.
Comments: No copyright clearance. Oklahoma City business
Research results: .
Phone: (800) 766-0039.
Scope of coverage: Closed-collection, 12,000+ titles.
Cost of database: CD-ROM - $950/single user, $2,500/multi user
Online - $50/hour or $950/single user, $1200/multi user.
Cost of retrieval: $11 for 20 pages + $2 per additional 10 pages + copyright
by fax, +$3 by mail, +$10-15 by courier.
Equipment needed: Win 3.1 for CD, Internet connection for online.
Turnaround time: Less than 24 hours.
Ordering method: Fax for CD-ROM or Online.
Unmediated services: No added patron services.
Reporting: Not specified.
Comments: TOC service and CA service available - "more complete coverage of individual issues than any other current awareness product . . .including, letters to the editor, news stories, and more".
Research results: .
Phone: (415) 494-8787.
Scope of coverage: Multi-collection - Small closed-collection, open-collection from Stanford, UC, Linda Hall, NLM, and CISTI, and they will go to sources as needed.
Cost of database: Free - http://www.express.com.
Cost of retrieval: For closed-collection, $8.00 + shipping + copyright if 10-50 articles are ordered in a month. Rate structure changes for more or less articles, as well as for the outside collections. Over 10 pages, +.25 per page.
Normal cost for mail/UPS, +$5.50 for fax (each 15 pages)
Equipment needed: WWW access.
Turnaround time: Rush order - (+ $12.00) - 2 days delivery.
Ordering method: WWW, mail, phone, fax, e-mail.
Unmediated services: None.
Reporting: Customized for client.
Comments: TOC service free online "currently at no charge".
Research results: .
Phone: (512)320-8354.
Scope of coverage: Open-collection, from University of Texas, Austin and several state and local libraries.
Cost of database: None.
Cost of retrieval: $15.00 + copyright in excess of $5.00 from UT
$5.00 + cost of document from other sources
+ $10.00 for rush
+$5.00 for fax.
Equipment needed: None.
Turnaround time: "Most items are shipped the next working day".
Ordering method: Not specified.
Unmediated services: None.
Reporting: Not specified.
Comments: .
Research results: .
Phone: (703)281-9312.
Scope of coverage: Multi-collection, specializing in pharmaceutical, biological sciences, and other health-related fields.
Cost of database: None.
Cost of retrieval: $7.75 + $.25 per page + copyright + $1.00 per page for fax
Equipment needed: None.
Turnaround time: Less than 1 week. +5.00 for one to two days. +$12.00 for less than 8 hours.
Ordering method: Phone or fax.
Unmediated services: None.
Reporting: Not specified.
Comments: .
Research results: .
Phone: (800)238-3458.
Scope of coverage: Multi-collection, specializing in pharmaceutical/biomedical, engineering, and patents, but access to other libraries and services.
Cost of database: Viewed through DIALOG.
Cost of retrieval: $12.95 + copyright, +$5.00 for fax/Internet
ABI/INFORM - $8.50 by mail, $13.00 by fax, $16.00 by express mail.
For patents - $5.00 by mail, $12.00 by fax, $16.00 by express mail.
Equipment needed: DIALOG access for database - can e-mail or fax/phone orders.
Turnaround time: 48 - 72 hours. +$14 for 24 hours, +$17 for same day.
Ordering method: DIALOG, fax, phone, e-mail.
Unmediated services: None.
Reporting: None specified.
Comments:
Research results:
Phone: (610)524-5355.
Scope of coverage: Closed-collection - 40,000 journals.
Cost of database: TOC access - $7.50 per title or $4,500 for up to 600 titles.
Cost of retrieval: $10.50 per article (copyright clearance not specified) + $8.50 fax.
Equipment needed: On-line or WWW.
Turnaround time: Not specified.
Ordering method: Only through TOC service.
Unmediated services: Could be done - as title selection can be limited to titles not in library.
Reporting: "To meet your individual requirements, we offer different methods of invoicing."
Comments: TOC service/CA (SwetScan) service - price not specified.
Research results: .
Phone: (800)248-0360.
Scope of coverage: Multi-collection - 15,000 publications.
Cost of database: None.
Cost of retrieval: $2 of copyright included in following charges:
$9.75 for mail/Ariel + $5.00 for fax (.25 per page over 10).
$10.50 for OCLC FastDoc (free fax)
Equipment needed: None.
Turnaround time: 24 hours ($25 for faxed order within 4 hours).
Ordering method: Phone, fax, e-mail, mail, or over many electronic services.
Unmediated services: None.
Reporting: Customized.
Comments: $2 of copyright paid.
Research results: 1990 study by Boyer and Reidelbach (Mitchell & Walters, 1995) -
2/3 cost, 2/3 turn by mail, 3/3 turn by fax
1992 study by Kurosman & Durniak (Kurosman & Durniak, 1994) -
1/4 cost, 2/4 turn, 1/4 fill
1992 study by McFarland (Mitchell & Walters, 1995) -
1/8 cost efficiency
1992 study by Walters (Mitchell & Walters, 1995) -
4/4 cost, 3/4 turn
1993 study by Pedersen & Gregory (Pedersen & Gregory, 1994) -
1/6 cost, 3/6 turn, 1/6 fill
1993 study by Richwine (Mitchell & Walters, 1995) -
1/4 cost, 3/4 turn, 3/4 fill.
Phone: (800)248-0360.
Scope of coverage: Open-collection, not specified where from .
Cost of database: None.
Cost of retrieval: $2 of copyright included:
$14.50 for mail/Ariel + $5.00 for fax (.25 per page over 10).
Equipment needed: None.
Turnaround time: Two to five days ($20 for 24-48 day fax, $30 for same- day fax).
Ordering method: Phone, fax, e-mail, mail,or over many electronic services.
Unmediated services: None.
Reporting: Customized.
Comments: $2 of copyright paid.
Research results: 1992 study by Kurosman & Durniak (Kurosman & Durniak, 1994) -
3/4 cost, 3/4 turn, 2/4 fill
1993 study by Pedersen & Gregory (Pedersen & Gregory, 1994) -
6/6 cost, 5/6 turn, 5/6 fill
1993 study by Richwine (Mitchell & Walters, 1995) -
3/4 cost, 4/4 turn, 1/4 fill.
Phone: (803)758-3030.
Scope of coverage: Closed-collection - 17,000 periodicals from 1989 to present.
Cost of database: None required - $900 for password access, $10,000 for a customized gateway.
Cost of retrieval: $8.50 ($6.50 w/database access) + copyright (Non-Internet order is $10.00 + copyright).
Equipment needed: Internet connection/ None for non-Internet rate.
Turnaround time: Fax within 24 hours.
Ordering method: Internet, Personal UnCover navigator software (optional), mail, fax, phone.
Unmediated services: SUMO gateway ($10,000) will connect w/holdings, and max limits can be set on copyright costs.
Reporting: "Detailed statement which reports on the activity of the account for the last month.
Comments: Only service to allow connection with local holdings for unmediated service.
Research results: 1992 study by Leath (Mitchell & Walters, 1995) -
1/14 turn, 1/14 fill
1992 study by Walters (Mitchell & Walters, 1995) -
2/4 cost, 1/4 turn
1993 study by Richwine (Mitchell & Walters, 1995) -
2/4 cost, 1/4 turn, 4/4 fill.
The next ten pages are from Document Delivery Services: Questions and Answers (1995, Learned Information, Inc.) by Elanor Mitchell and Sheila Walters. This is an excellent review of studies that compared vendors, so it is reproduced intact for your use. After this, other studies not covered by this book are reviewed in a similar format.
Compared: Fill rate, cost, turnaround time, and quality of CDD suppliers and ILL
Type of Library: Academic
Suppliers: The Genuine Article (TGA), UMI Article Clearinghouse (UMI), Information on Demand (IOD), and The Information Store (TIS)
Time Frame: October 1991 through February 1992
Sample: 52 periodical requests
Methodology: All requests were sent to ILL, IOD, and TIS as they are open-collection services. The closed-collection services (UMI and TGA) were only sent the articles listed in their articles.
Method of Shipment: Mail
Average Turnaround: 12 days for TGA, 13 days for ILL, 15 days for UMI, 22 days for TIS,
23 days for IOD
Average Costs: $.56 for ILL (not including overhead costs), $9.75 for UMI, $14.27 for TGA, $18.97 for TIS, and $20.70 for IOD.
Fill Rate: 100% for UMI, 89% for TIS, 87% for IOD, 83% for ILL and TGA.
Other Results: IOD charged for reference work on two orders that they were not able to fill.
Comments: ILL costs do not include library overhead, and thus are not comparable to the CDD server costs.
Compared: The turnaround time between a commercial supplier and traditional ILL
Type of Library: Academic
Suppliers: Carl UnCover
Time Frame: December 1993
Sample: 20 requests from the ILL stream
Methodology: Parallel orders were placed if the CARL cost was under $50.00
Method of Shipment: Unknown, but presumed fax
Average Turnaround: 8 hours for CARL, 5.75 days for ILL
Average Costs: Unknown
Fill Rate: 80% for CARL, 100% for ILL
Other Results:
Comments:
Compared: Journal lists for three electronic table of contents services were compared for LC classification of the journals, percent of titles in major indexes, unique coverage, and validity of coverage
Type of Library: Academic
Suppliers: OCLC's ArticleFirst, Carl UnCover, and Faxon Finder
Time Frame: Late spring/early summer 1993
Sample: All journals listed in the databases at the time of sampling.
Methodology: All of the titles were listed in a database for most of the comparisons. Searches
were done to determine titles also in the major indexes (ABI/Inform, et al.). For the validity test, a random sample was drawn from each service and checked to see if the title was included in the document delivery service.
Method of Shipment: All online
Average Turnaround: N.A.
Average Costs: Not listed
Fill Rate: OCLC's ArticleFirst was missing 25% of its listed articles, which was much higher than CARL's UnCover and Faxon Finder, at 8% and 10%, respectively.
Other Results: Faxon Finder has a very heavy emphasis on science coverage (63% of the titles were from scientific and technical disciplines), and Carl UnCover does a good job on the social sciences. OCLC ArticleFirst covered the business area better than the other two.
Comments: The data from this survey maybe useful in choose TOC services for certain disciplines.
Compared: Fill rate, turnaround time and cost of six services.
Type of Library: Academic
Suppliers: UMI's Article Clearinghouse (UMI), The General Article (TGA), Chemical Abstracts Document Delivery Service (CAD), Engineering Information's Article Express (EI), The Information Store (TIS), and Information on Demand (IOD)
Time Frame: July and August 1993
Sample: 184 requests split up amongst the six services
Methodology: If an item was available from one of the subject specific vendors, it was ordered there. If not, it was checked to see if a closed-collection vendor could fill the request. If the article was in neither, it was send to an open-collection vendor.
Method of Shipment: Ariel (UMI) and mail
Average Turnaround: CADDS and TGA - 9 days, UMI - 11 days, EI - 14 days, TIS - 30 days, and IOD - 31 days
Average Costs: UMI - $8.36, TGA - $13.09, EI - $15.00, CADDS - $19.89, IOD - $26.28 and TIS - $29.95
Fill Rate: UMI - 87%, CADDS - 80%, TGA - 70%, EI - 59%, TIS - 55%, and IOD - 48%
Other Results: This study shows the different between the open-collection and closed-collection general suppliers. Open-collection are most expensive and take more time, but may be able to get articles that the other services can't get.
Comments:
Compared: Four current awareness/TOC services were compared in their mathematics and chemistry holdings were compared for coverage.
Type of Library: Academic
Suppliers: Current Contents on Diskette (CCD), Carl UnCover, Inside Information (II), and Contents1st (C1st)
Time Frame: January 1994 and May 1994
Sample: 50 mathematics journal title and 44 chemistry journals, based off of RLG's lists of journals that make up the world's literature
Methodology: During a 24-hour period, each service was checked to see if they carry the titles on each list. The percentage of carried titles was compared.
Method of Shipment: N.A
Average Turnaround: N.A.
Average Costs: Not reported
Fill Rate: For mathematics: CARL - 92%, C1st - 74%, CCD - 54%, II - 16%
In chemistry: CCD - 93%, II - 84%, CARL - 82%, C1st - 80%
Other Results: In currency, CARL was much more current than the other three services.
Comments:
Compared: Journal article overlap and journal title overlap between two CCD services
Type of Library: Academic
Suppliers: Carl UnCover and Faxon Finder
Time Frame: January 1994
Sample: The two service were searched for all articles that resulted from the same search strategy
Methodology: On the same day, the same search strategy was applied to each service. Seven samples were used in seven different disciplines.
Method of Shipment: Electronic
Average Turnaround: N.A.
Average Costs: Not listed
Fill Rate:The overlap between the services was about 30% for journal articles and about 34% for journal titles.
Other Results: Faxon Finder produced more titles on average than UnCover.
Comments:
Compared: Unmediated commercial document delivery vendors were compared for cost in unlimited faculty use.
Type of Library: Academic
Suppliers: OCLC FirstSearch, Inside Information, UnCover
Time Frame: March - December, 1994
Sample: Documents ordered by 119 faculty through library-supported unmediated services
Methodology: Faculty were allowed to order any articles they wished over this three-month period, and the costs of documents ordered were tracked
Method of Shipment: Ariel or Fax, depending on the service
Average Turnaround: Not reported
Average Costs: CARL - $11.09, Inside Information - $16.50, OCLC - $17.85
Fill Rate: Not reported
Other Results: Seventy percent of articles ordered were available from ASU.
Branche-Brown, L. C. (1994). ALA Annual 1993: Document delivery: Where collection
development and ILL meet: An RADS collection development and evaluation section program. Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 18 (1), 96-97.
Bruwelheide, J. H. (1995). The Copyright Primer for Librarians and Educators (2nd ed.). Chicago: American Library Association and Washington, D.C.:National Education Association.
Chrzastowski, T. E. & Anthes, M. A. (1995). Seeking the 99% chemistry library: Extending the serial collection through the use of decentralized document delivery. Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, 19 (2), 141-152.
Coons, B. & McDonald, P. (1995). Implications of commercial document delivery. College & Research Libraries News, 56 (9), 626-631.
Crawford, W. & Gorman, M. (1995). Future Libraries: Dreams, Madness & Reality. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Duhon, L. (1995). Document delivery: Staffing, technology, and budgeting implications. Serials Librarian 25 (3/4), 319-325.
Everett, D. (1993). Full-text online databases and document delivery in an academic library: Too little, too late? Online, 17 (2), 22-25.
Ferguson, A. W. & Kehoe, K. (1993). Access vs. ownership: What is most cost effective in the sciences. Journal of Library Administration, 19 (2), 89-101.
Fuseler, E. A. (1994). Providing access to journals - Just in time or just in case. College and Research Libraries News, (55), 130-132, 148.
Getz, M. (1991-1992). Document Delivery. Bottom Line, 5 (4), 40-44.
Goodyear, M. L & Dodd, J. (1994). From the library of record to the library as gateway: An analysis of three electronic table-of-contents services. Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, 18 (3), 253-261.
Gossen, E. A. & Irving, S. (1994). Ownership versus access and low-use periodical titles. Library Resources & Technical Services, 39 (1), 43-52.
Hayes, J. R. (1995, December 18). The Internet's first victim? Forbes, 156, 200-201.
Hewison, N. S, Killion, V. J. & Ward, S. M. (1995). Commercial document delivery: The academic library's perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 21 (), 133-143.
Holt, J. & Schmidt, K. A. (1995). Carl UnCover2 or Faxon Finder? A comparison of articles and journals in Carl UnCover2 and Faxon Finder. Library Resources & Technical Services, 39 (3), 221-228.
Jackson, M. E. (1993). Document delivery over the Internet. Online 17 (2), 14-21.
Jackson, M. E. (1993). Integrating ILL with document delivery: Five models. Wilson Library Bulletin 68 (1), 76-78.
Jackson, M. E. & Croneis, K. (1994). Flyer 204: Uses of Document Delivery Services.
Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
Jaguszewski, J. M. & Kempf, J. L. (1995). Four current awareness databases: Coverage and currency compared. Database, 18 (1), 34-44.
Kelsey, A. L. & Davenport, D. M. (1993). Information Express: The use of commercial document delivery in the County College of Morris LRC. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19 (5), 310-312.
Kinnucan, M. T. (1993). Demand for document delivery and interlibrary loan in academic
settings. Library and Information Science Research, 15 , 355-374.
Kohl, D. F. (1995). Revealing UnCover: Simple, easy, article delivery. Online, 19 (3), 52-60.
Kurosman, K. & Durniak, B. A. (1994). Document delivery: A comparison of commercial document suppliers and interlibrary loan services. College and Research Libraries, 55 (2), 129-139.
Leach, R. G. & Tribble, J. E. (1993). Electronic document delivery: New options for libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 18 (6), 359-364.
Lewis, M. (1993). Document delivery vendors: Benefits and choices. Serials Librarian, 23 (3-4), 217-224.
Mitchell, E. & Walters, S. (1995). Document Delivery Services: Issues and Answers. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
Pedersen, W. & Gregory, D. (1994). Interlibrary loan and commercial document supply: Finding the right fit. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 20 (5-6), 263-272.
Quint, B. (1994). Connect time: The online database world from the library perspective - The document delivery business. Wilson Library Bulletin, 69 (1), 70-71.
Roberts, E. P. (1992). ILL/document delivery as an alternative to local ownership of seldom-used scientific journals. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 18 (1), 30-34.
Stockton, M. & Whittaker, M. (1995). The future of document delivery: A vendor's
perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 21 (1-2), 169-181.
Walters, S. (1994). Commercial document delivery: Vendor selection criteria. Computers in Libraries, 14 (9), 14-16.
Walters, S. (1995). User behavior in a non-mediated document delivery environment: The direct doc pilot project at Arizona State. Computers in Libraries, 15 (9), 22-26.
Watts, J. (1994, March). Carl UnCover. ILL-L: Interlibrary Loan Discussion Group [Listserv]. Available E-mail: ILL-L@UVMVM.BITNET.
Werff, J. V. D. (1994). Which document delivery service best serves your patron: UnCover2 or ILL? Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply 5 (1), 23-31.