This article was downloaded by: [University of Washington Libraries]
On: 12 July 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 906873028]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Reference Librarian
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306953
The Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources
Lesley S. J. Farmera
a
Department of Advanced Studies in Education and Counseling, California State University, Long
Beach, CA
To cite this Article Farmer, Lesley S. J.(2009) 'The Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources', The Reference Librarian, 50: 2,
117 — 136
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02763870902755957
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763870902755957
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The Reference Librarian, 50:117–136, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0276-3877 print/1541-1117 online
DOI: 10.1080/02763870902755957
The Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources
1541-1117
0276-3877
WREF
The
Reference Librarian,
Librarian Vol. 50, No. 2, February 2009: pp. 1–31
LifeS. Cycle
L.
J. Farmer
of Digital Reference Sources
LESLEY S. J. FARMER
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
Department of Advanced Studies in Education and Counseling,
California State University, Long Beach, CA
Academic libraries increasingly complement print-based reference
collections with digitally-based reference for financial and educational reasons. However, library collection policies have sometimes
lagged behind the technology curve. Too often, reference collection
management practices have reflected a responsive attitude rather
than a responsible, strategic stance. Many costs are associated
with this service, and intellectual and psychological considerations make these resources a complex set of issues. This article
examines the life cycle of digital reference sources by focusing on
subscription databases: assessment, selection, acquisition, Web
presentation and maintenance, archiving and preservation, and
de-selection. It offers factors to consider because academic
librarians must make decisions about these increasingly dynamic
collections.
KEYWORDS digital reference sources, database, academic
libraries, collection development
“Projects should plan for the life-cycle management of digital resources,
including the initial assessment of resources, selection of materials and
digital rights management; the technical questions of digitizing all
formats; and the long-term issues of sustainability, user assessment,
digital asset management and preservation.” (National Initiative for a
Networked Cultural Heritage 1999, introduction)
Address correspondence to Lesley S. J. Farmer, California State University, Long Beach,
Department of Advanced Studies in Education and Counseling, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard,
Long Beach, CA 90840-2201. E-mail: [email protected]
117
118
L. S. J. Farmer
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
INTRODUCTION
Increasingly, academic libraries are migrating from print-based to digitallybased reference collections. Publishers are offering more electronic products,
often at more attractive prices than for their print editions. Librarians realize
the benefits of remote access and the possibilities of multiple simultaneous
use. Concurrently, clientele (particularly millennial students) are demanding
convenient online reference tools.
Nevertheless, library collection policies have sometimes lagged behind
the technology curve. Too often, reference collection management practices have reflected a reactive attitude rather than a responsible, strategic
stance. Just as individuals may focus on buying a car from a dealer who
offers a great price but forget to think about whether that dealer will service the car well later, so too can academic librarians forget about maintenance and de-selection issues. The actual picture of electronic reference
resources is not as simple as plugging in a computer and clicking on the
Internet connection. Many costs are associated with this service, and intellectual and psychological considerations make these resources a complex
set of issues.
This article examines the life cycle of digital reference sources by
focusing on subscription databases and offers factors to consider because
academic librarians must make decisions about these increasingly dynamic
collections.
OVERVIEW OF ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN LIBRARIES
Traditional reference collections usually focused on print reference sources
and access tools, occasionally incorporating serials, such as the monthly
Current Biography and Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature, and binder
services, such as Morningstar, to provide timely updates. With the advent of
microfiche and CD-ROMs, the line between reference access tools and reference sources started to blur, along with the separation of reference and the
general collection. EBSCO’s index product line reflected the merging of a
searchable index and the ultimate source itself. Currently, the digital reference collection typically consists of web sites (e.g., http://www.lii.org and
http://www.refdesk.com), e-document reference monographs (e.g., http://
www.free-e-books.net/reference.html) and ABC-CLIO’s e-book line and
databases, which can refer to several types of reference sources from inhouse customized databases of local resources to article aggregators. As
early as 2002, nearly half of the undergraduates surveyed used electronic
scholarly sources almost exclusively (Friedlander 2002). By that same time,
some academic libraries were spending half of their materials budget on
electronic resources (Bailey et al., 2003).
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources
119
Technology has the potential to help all individuals gain physical
access to reference materials. Thousands of reference resources are available
in at least two formats: print and electronic. Cost and space enter into the
decision, but accessibility is another factor as well. Particularly as distance
education has become a mainstay of many academic institutions, electronic
reference collections help address equity access issues. The Digital Accessible
Information System Consortium (2005, 1) has developed international open
standards for digital resources with the intent that “all published information,
at time of release to the general population, be available in an accessible,
highly functional, feature rich format and at no greater cost, to persons with
print disabilities.” The consortium also provides open-source tools to help
publishers and librarians produce and convert material for inclusive use.
The question of the viability of digital reference collections is moot at
this point. Indeed, one might consider the validity of print reference collections to be a more salient issue. What has changed in the last decade?
Greater availability of materials, rising replacement costs, increasing user
demand, improved technology, more sophisticated student experiences,
and the changing nature of education itself. The single issue of educational
equity, addressing needs of individuals with special needs as well as distance
learners, requires that reference materials be made accessible for an ever
broader population. For example, the American Psychological Association
stopped publishing its 80-year-old print version of Psychological Abstracts in
2006, largely due to the increased cost of printing and the steady migration
of subscribers to its digital form, PsycInfo.
Nevertheless, electronic reference collections have their downside:
connectivity and other infrastructure issues, privacy and security dynamics,
access and dissemination rights, and vendor problems (e.g., uneven service or
company buy-outs). More fundamentally, libraries are left with no documents
at all in lean budget times when online subscriptions must be cut; at least
with print items, the older materials can still be accessed. In that respect,
electronic reference collection development might be more accurately
labeled reference access development, particularly because few permanent
options are offered by vendors. Ownership, when copyright does not make
it a closed system, becomes trading rights.
OVERVIEW OF ELECTRONIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
For more than a decade, academic librarians have been trying to develop
systematic practices relative to electronic resource management, from selection
to maintenance. Probably the most significant effort has been led by the
Digital Library Federation’s Electronic Resources Management Initiative. Tim
Jewell’s seminal 2001 report Selection and Presentation of Commercially
Available Electronic Resources: Issues and Practices clearly laid out the
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
120
L. S. J. Farmer
issues. Keeping in mind the importance of affordability, Jewell asserted that
librarians need to base their collection decisions on their values and goal
priorities. He emphasized the need for coordination and distributed responsibilities. Furthermore, understanding the complexity of electronic resource
management, Jewell pointed out the need for standard policies and procedures, efficient workflow, and forms to expedite order handling. Jewell
noted that most integrated library systems could not handle electronic
resource presentation and that local systems were trying to build tools to fill
the gap. In response, he encouraged collaborative efforts to develop technological systems to present electronic resources in a cost-effective and
standardized way. On an industry scale, Jewell urged open standards to link
indexing databases to e-journal collections.
Seeing the need for coordinated efforts, Jewell and Adam Chandler
developed a Web hub to foster communication about local efforts, which
led to the establishment of the Electronic Resources Management Initiative.
In 2004, that body developed a report with the goal of developing “common
specifications and tools for managing the license agreements, related
administrative information, and internal processes associated with collections of licensed electronic resources” (Jewell et al. 2004, 28). It should be
noted that this group comprised academic librarians and electronic resource
vendors to optimize efforts. As a result of this initiative, the Electronic
Resources Management Initiative developed drafts of six deliverables:
functional requirements of an electronic resource management system, a
best-practices workshop diagram, an entity relationship diagram for electronic
resource management to show how data elements relate, a data element
dictionary, an electronic resource management system data structure to
promote standardization, and an investigation into XML use.
Since the start of the Electronic Resources Management Initiative and
other professional discussion, several publications have synthesized best
practices and raised further issues. Library Technology Reports has published two issues focused on e-journal management; Watson (2003) dealt
with sources for e-journals, their acquisition, access to e-journals, and
management issues and Geller (2006) noted issues of staffing and workflow, and updated the Electronic Resources Management Initiative’s
efforts. Gregory’s 2006 revised edition of Selecting and Management
Electronic Resources offers how-to-do-it tips on acquisition and management
policies and processes. Haworth Press has dealt with electronic resource
management in several volumes. Editor Thomas Leonhardt (2006)
included articles on acquisitions and copyright, specifically selection, fair
use of electronic reserves, electronic data interchange, and vendors. In
2007, Su edited a special issue of The Acquisitions Librarian that
addressed several institutional issues: staff reluctance, budgeting, e-journal
delivery, indexing quality, the feasibility of going e-only, copyright law,
and preservation.
Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources
121
THE LIFE CYCLE OF ELECTRONIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
In dealing with electronic resource management, the concept of electronic
resource life cycle has been noted. The concept is not new; in 1996, Robek
et al. explained how records management involved a systemic control from
creation or acquisition to maintenance and eventual disposition. The main
distinctions with electronic resource management include license details,
data configuration work, and other technical issues (Jewell et al. 2004).The
typical life cycle for electronic resource management contains these steps, as
outlined by Jewell (2001) and Ex Libris (2008):
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
Pre-planning: Organizational issues
1. Selection policies and strategic plans
2. Institutional finance and organization
Acquisitions:
3. Product discovery and trials
4. Internal procedures for initial evaluation and purchases (workflow,
tracking, and communication)
Licensing:
5. Agreements with vendors and other institutions
6. Processes and policies for license handling
7. Communication with staff and users about permissions and use
restrictions
Web Presentation:
8. Making holdings visible and accessible to users, including customizable
features
9. Linking abstracting and indexing database citations to holdings
Usage:
10. User support: communication, instruction, problem-solving
11. Usage information: cost-per-use metrics, etc.
Maintenance:
12. Information retrieval by library staff for authentification, proxy server
setup, supported protocols
122
L. S. J. Farmer
13. Administration of resource properties, troubleshooting downtime
incidents/malfunction, dealing with contract breaches
Preservation and Archiving
14. Preservation techniques and strategies
15. Archiving procedures
16. Risk management
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
Review:
17. Review and renewal processes
18. Disposition decisions.
As a concrete example, suppose that the faculty and students at the fictional
ABC University request that the library get more resources discussing
globalization issues. At the pre-planning stage, the library staff reviews its
selection policies in light of supporting the university’s mission. As they
become aware of the institution’s growing interest in internationalizing the
curriculum, the ABC librarians decide to strategically acquire more resources
in that area because they have few international databases. Getting access to
current articles via subscription databases is given a high priority, particularly
because global developments change constantly. Concurrently, a greater
proportion of students are distance learners, so the librarians determine that
a Web-based solution would make sense.
Checking the library’s budget, the librarians proceed to the next step:
acquisitions. In this scenario, the ABC library belongs to a state-wide electronic resources review and purchasing consortium. Through professional
affiliations and good contacts with publishers, the members keep current
about new and changing databases. Through this consortium, the ABC
librarians can work with the consortium director to discover new relevant
products and test them. The consortium has been alerted that Congressional Quarterly has expanded its product line to include CQ Global
Researcher. After creating a request for proposal and contacting the relevant publishers, the consortium director sets up a month-long trial period
to allow the ABC library and other consortium libraries to determine the
cost-benefit of this database, in compliance with existing selection criteria
and policies.
Based on their examination, 10 consortium members decide to subscribe
to CQ Global Researcher. At that point, the licensing stage of the cycle
begins. The consortium director reaches a licensing agreement with the
vendor and the interested campuses; with the collective approach, a discounted subscription price can be achieved, which benefits all parties. The
license handling follows established processes for other Congressional
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources
123
Quarterly product lines, so information about user rights and restrictions
comes as no surprise to the library and campus community.
Similarly, the Web presentation stage is also straightforward. Installation
requirements have already been met because of pre-existing subscriptions to
CQ Researcher. On the other hand, the library hired a new database technician,
so she has to consult existing library documentation and contact her peers
at other consortium institutions to make sure that expected customizable
features are included and that linkages between databases using SFX, an
OpenURL application, function correctly. The technician sees a memo about
Web accessibility, and e-mails the ABC librarian in charge of electronic
resources to make sure that the database complies with the new Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations; the librarian reassures the technician
that ADA compliance is one of the criteria for database selection.
At the usage stage, the ABC librarians, both the electronic resource
coordinator and the relevant subject librarians, announce the availability of
CQ Global Researcher to the campus community. They demonstrate the
product at the Library Advisory Committee meeting to optimize dissemination
of information and create an online PowerPoint presentation that can be
linked to online course platforms. The electronic resources librarian also track
usage statistics to make sure that the subscription is worth its access cost.
CQ Global Researcher enters the maintenance stage because a reference librarian reports that the database went down for several hours. The
database technician contacts Congressional Quarterly and finds out that its
server was being upgraded and experienced a minor glitch. The technician
logs the incident and sends an e-mail to alert the librarians and letting them
that the problem has been resolved. If a product has a lengthy log of issues,
the technician will contact the electronic resources librarian, who will in turn
check with the rest of the consortium to determine the source of problems.
Cost, usage, and maintenance issues enter the review stage equation
when the ABC librarians, and possibly other consortium members, analyze
all of the electronic database subscriptions each year. Is the cost per use
reasonable? Does CQ Global Researcher provide value-added service as
evidenced by usage and feedback from the campus community? Are other
consortium members interested in acquiring CQ Global Researcher, which
might result in lower per-site subscription costs?
Fortunately, Congressional Quarterly is a solid, long-standing publisher.
Nevertheless, the ABC Library and its consortium members should think
about the preservation and archiving stage of the electronic resource cycle.
Fortunately, ABC University is part of a larger university system, which has a
Risk Management office and established procedures. Their emergency
response service includes a section about salvaging and restoring electronic
documents. The licensing agreement also has provisions for disasters, a
“boilerplate” section that is included in every consortium agreement. Nevertheless, ABC University practices those emergency procedures, and the
124
L. S. J. Farmer
librarians realize that they need to teach new hirees, especially the database
technician, what to do in a crisis. As for preservation, the current budget
precludes such discussion. Most ABC librarians know about LOCKSS (Lots
of Copies Keep Stuff Safe), but the system has not joined that alliance. It’s one
more issue to think about. From this concrete example, general practices can
be considered as detailed below.
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
ASSESSMENT OF RESOURCES
In the case of academic libraries, curricular needs usually constitute the core
criterion in assessing digital reference collections because libraries need to
support their institutions’ missions. As such, assessment should be done collaboratively with the rest of the academic community to identify reference
needs and resource gaps. Curriculum development usually involves identifying relevant resources, although reference materials are seldom considered.
Ideally, the involvement of academic subject librarians should be required
to optimize access to significant reference resources. Thus, assessment of
resources should constitute a part of campus-wide strategic planning.
This task, however, is two-edged because many teaching faculty do not
have a broad knowledge of electronic resources. In some cases, faculty will
need to be trained in their use (and usefulness) by the librarian to optimize
the expenditure. In other cases, faculty may remember university collections
and suggest older databases such as Public Affairs Information Service,
which is now available only in digital format and has changed publishing
hands from OCLC to Cambridge Scientific Abstracts/ProQuest. Similarly,
Chemical Abstracts has become subsumed by the electronic database
SciFinder.
Students should also participate in this assessment because they constitute
the vast majority of potential users and may have prior experience using
electronic reference sources. Academic librarians also have to consider the
language ability of their clientele; thus, multimedia sites are attractive
because students can access the information using visual and sound cues
alongside text. Fortunately, most vendors allow librarians to preview their
products by using a time-sensitive guest password; academic librarians can
then publicize the potential electronic resource and have the academic
community assess its value.
Of course, librarians need to assess their current reference collections,
noting the impact of different formats. Librarians also have to weigh full-text
databases against citation databases; most librarians opt for full text because
the two-step process of finding the citation and then locating the periodical
can frustrate their users. Additionally, space constraints also makes online
periodical databases an attractive solution; most academic libraries subscribe to few print periodicals except for general news titles (e.g., Newsweek
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources
125
and Wall Street Journal) and high-interest browsing titles (e.g., Sports Illustrated
and Chronicle of Higher Education), and even those titles are more likely to
be accessed online than in print anymore. Of course, such a decision may
backfire if funding is scarce and online subscriptions have to be curtailed;
the library is then left with a dearth of periodicals, either in terms of ownership or access. Libraries have nothing to show for their years of access fees,
particularly if vendor agreements prohibit librarians from downloading databases or do not guarantee permanent access.
This selection issue is exacerbated by the increasingly stringent royalty
parameters and the increasing cost of subscriptions, although these are
somewhat mitigated by the equally strong rise in Open Source initiatives
and the Creative Commons whereby periodical publishers have decided to
make their publications accessible to academia in support of research
(e.g., LibWorm). Nevertheless, because academic library budgets may fluctuate, only the highest-use and non-duplicative resources are likely to be
selected. Academic librarians look for products that span subject areas and
formats, such as Academic Search Elite and ScienceDirect, particularly when
subscription fees are based on total student population rather than the number
of students in a specific program. The molecular gastronomy professor who
asks for a Russian database for his student population of ten may need to
rely on interlibrary services.
For that reason, academic librarians also need to assess the availability
of digital reference sources at other campuses, either within their system or
with libraries with which they have well-established interlibrary agreements.
Just as reference service may be two-tiered, with highly specialized queries
being referred to particular reference experts, so too might highly specialized
digital references such as non-Western language subject matter be collected
by one designated institution with the proviso that comparable resource
sharing would be made available. Just as with joint development of print
reference collections and resource sharing, so too should electronic reference
collection assessment transcend the academic walls.
Regardless of format, reference collection development depends on
users’ information needs. However, it is evident that equipment and connectivity are required to access electronic resources and that licensing costs
need to be considered when selecting digital resources. These technologybased issue raise a dramatic tension: do infrastructure demands drive the
collection or do collection needs drive the infrastructure development? For
instance, with federal Web accessibility mandates, should librarians choose
products that have fewer value-added features over high-quality vendor
products because the latter has not met federal standards? A simple example
is ERIC, which was established as a federal government service; vendors
such as EBSCO and ProQuest offer costly access to ERIC documents, advertising their added services beyond government baseline options. Therefore,
one of the first tasks when assessing which electronic reference sources to
126
L. S. J. Farmer
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
collect is to identify the technological infrastructure required to support the
electronic resources and services. Unfortunately, small independent publishers
may become victims in this consideration because they might not have the
capacity to keep current with changing technological demands. Some of the
parameters include:
• Terminal/workstation requirements: processing speed, RAM and ROM
storage, drivers, video and sound capacity, input/output ports, and
peripherals;
• Operating systems for dedicated single workstations and networked
terminals;
• Administrative software: security, firewalls, and authentification and
authorization;
• Network equipment: servers, routers, hubs, cables, and switchers;
• Power demands: outlets, surge protectors, and power surges;
• Internet connectivity issues: cabling, fiber optics, dish, WiFi, bandwidth,
and e-rate.
Academics sometimes must settle for older hardware and slower Internet
connections if they have no additional funding to complement the digital
resources. Libraries might not have ongoing technical help, particularly in
terms of networking interfaces between vendors, so products need to be
easy to access or install. Moreover, the library staff needs to determine
which of these factors are under the library’s program of service, which need
to comply with other institutional requirements (e.g., academic computing),
and which are the responsibility of other governing bodies (e.g., universitywide technology system). In some cases, informative communication is the
only procedure needed, but in other cases a separate body must make the
final decision (e.g., system budgeting).
SELECTION PROCESSES AND POLICIES
Regardless of the size of the reference collection, selecting a possible reference resource requires considering several criteria beyond those associated
with general selection. For example, academic collections usually strive for
a variety and balance of perspectives; their reference materials have to meet
a higher standard of objectivity. Some reference resource selection criteria
are format-neutral.
• Scope. Is the scope well-defined and well-addressed? Is the information
current? Does it fulfill a need within the existing reference collection?
• Arrangement. What is the sequence of information? What are the features
of its indexing and other points of access?
Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources
127
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
• Ease of use. Is the writing clear? Do headlines and layout features facilitate
finding the information needed? Do charts, tables, and diagrams clarify
information? Can the potential audience use the resource independently?
• Purpose. Is the purpose clear and does the author fulfill the intended purpose?
• Audience. Does it contribute to the library’s and institution’s mission?
Does it address the needs of the academic community?
• Authority. What are the author’s qualifications and publisher’s reputation?
How objective is the content? (Katz 2001).
Of course, cost and availability also affect selection decisions.
In considering electronic reference resources, format is critical. Even
the most cost-effective item is worthless if the equipment and connectivity
for using it are prohibitively available. On the other hand, even free digital
reference resources should be evaluated at the same level of rigor as costly
items. At this point, the Internet has become the de facto standard for digital
resource dissemination; it provides easy access and immediate timeliness.
Beyond the content criteria, additional physical criteria should be considered
(Farmer and Sluss 2007):
• Interface. How easily can the user find the information needed? What
navigation tools are available? Is searching—and meta-searching—intuitive
and universally accessible? To what depth can the user search for information (e.g., chapter, topic, paragraph, or chart)? Is a HELP function readily
available? Does the source employ an open URL standard? To what extent
does the user have to “bend” to technical formats as opposed to the technology being crafted to meet user needs?
• Readability. Are text and images easy to view? Are additional plug-ins
necessary? Is content accessible for individuals with special needs? Can
viewing options be changed? Can information be accessed by individuals
with special needs in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act?
This factor is often at the bottom of reference librarians’ list because they
can usually overcome visual obstacles as they work with their constituents.
• File Transferability. To what extent can content be downloaded, printed,
saved, or sent?
• Technical Requirements. What type of system requirements (e.g., operating
system, platform, speed, RAM, video, and sound) and connectivity are
needed to mount the resource? Can the resource be networked? (Many
institutions will not consider non-Web-based reference products). What
impact will multiple simultaneous user access have on performance? What
are the details of the licensing agreements (e.g., number of systems,
access parameters, service, and subscription fees)?
• Licensing Agreements. Farb and Riggio (2004) list basic elements of most contracts: scope, completeness of content, duration, warranties, indemnification,
access, confidentiality, sharing, archiving, disability compliance, and usage
128
L. S. J. Farmer
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
statistics. Increasingly, libraries are considering “leasing with an option to
buy” licenses as a way to insure access through back file ownership;
licensing a database with no right to the content beyond the date of the
license is no longer attractive.
Technology not only constitutes a set of formats to consider for acquisition or
access, but also provides a rich source of reviews. Librarians can also look at
other collections and ask their colleagues for advice more easily now because
of the Internet and standard protocols that facilitate transfer of information.
The Library of Congress maintains a bibliography of listservs that review electronic resources (http://www.loc.gov/acq/colldev/handbook.html). In 2006,
the Reference and User Services Association of the American Library Association developed a set of guidelines for reviewing all types of reference materials
and included details specific to electronic formats.
Nevertheless, few academic libraries have selection policies that explicitly address digital reference sources. Typically, they apply the same criteria
for all formats; on the other hand, a few libraries develop format-specific
guidelines. Academic institutions are more likely to have campus-wide policies about baseline hardware, operating systems, software, and Internet connectivity. Yale Library maintains a useful bibliography of electronic collection
development policies (http://www.library.yale.edu/∼okerson/ecd.html). The
Librarians’ Index to the Internet Selection Policy (http://lii.org/search/file/
pubcriteria) exemplifies criteria for choosing Web resources. In some cases,
academic libraries have established checklists of specific criteria to consider
when selecting electronic subscription databases; California State University,
Long Beach’s form is a good example of a criteria checklist (Appendix 1).
ACQUISITIONS ISSUES
As with assessment and selection, the academic library’s acquisition of digital
reference resources exists within university parameters of mission, technology
assets, budgetary practices, and decision-making procedures and policies.
Online subscriptions are particularly complex endeavors because of
intellectual rights issues, technical requirements, and leasing agreements. In
most cases, online database vendors license their products, which can seriously
limit the resources’ use, particularly in comparison with Fair Use laws under
copyright regulations. In their booklet on licensing, Brennan et al. (2007)
mention several questions to consider when negotiating an electronic information delivery agreement:
• What does the vendor own: the data itself or the database compilation/index?
• Where is the database located: in the vendor’s server or is it downloaded
to a campus site? Who is in charge of servicing the database location?
Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources
129
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
• Who can access the resources: the academic community, the campus only,
or distance learners as well; library visitors; other libraries via interlibrary
services; the public? To what degree is the library accountable for supervising access?
• What file transfer activities are permitted: downloading, printing, saving,
archiving, and access via a course management system?
• Who manages the digital rights?
• What claims to profit might a vendor make if access to their product
results in financial gain?
• How does the vendor and their product interface with Open Source
initiatives?
In addition, the library must check with their institution’s technical branch
about connectivity to the vendor, interface issues (particularly between
databases), networking protocols, authentification and authorization procedures, security assurances, technical issues impacted by the number of
simultaneous users, and service agreements.
Academic systems, regional consortia, and states also enter into the
acquisitions equation. The California State University (the nation’s largest
post-secondary public educational system) leverages its student population
and financial coffers to entice database producers to provide access to their
products to test their usage. Then, the most highly valued products are chosen
as part of a system-wide resource “package.” Indeed, statewide electronic
databases for school and public libraries are commonplace.
On the other hand, database aggregators often clump together various
titles–some high-demand and others less well known but costly–in a configuration that resembles a mutual fund. Therefore, librarians have to carefully examine possible overlap of coverage across vendors as well as
analyze the specific features and services within each vendor’s product
line. Many libraries choose one vendor as their base product, purchasing
the service based on the search engine and the access to desired full texts.
Additional subscriptions with other vendors might pay for the searching
protocol alone without paying for the full-text material, depending instead
on trans-database linking software, such as SFX, to provide access to the
cited article.
Theoretically, technology can help the ordering process. For instance,
the creation of digital “wish lists” can be repurposed into purchase orders.
Increasingly, as digital orders progress through campus and vendor check
points, electronic reviews and signatures can make for seamless tracking if
all of the stakeholders have compatible programs and can agree on the
logistics and legalities of such transactions. MARC records can also be incorporated into this process, with the feature of downloading them into the
library management system on arrival of the document. At this point, technology is less of an issue than business agreements.
130
L. S. J. Farmer
This convenience comes with a price. Some professionals have a hard
time trusting vendors to select, deselect, and manage on behalf of academic
librarians. Academic catalogers are likely to assert that outsourcing has
resulted in declining cataloging standards (Ayers 2003; Steinhagen et al.
2007). The fact that the Library of Congress would no longer support their
name authority file also concerned academic librarians (Donlan, 2008).
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT: PRESENTATION
AND MAINTENANCE
Acquiring digital reference sources does not guarantee their optimum use.
The electronic resources that are accessed have to be organized and managed for effective retrieval and use. Although this article does not detail
intellectual access, physical access in its broadest definition is discussed
here as part of the resource life cycle.
Ideally, most library users would prefer a one-stop access point, similar
to the Google model. Instead, most academic libraries have a list of access
tools: an OPAC to access information containers (e.g., books, videos, and
journal titles), a directory of subscription databases, perhaps a metasite for
relevant Websites, a university repository of in-house learning objects, and
so forth. Increasingly, though, libraries are incorporating frontloaded
“shells” that serve as a single point of entrance to access the desired source,
be it physical or virtual.
The National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage (University
of Glasgow 2002) details specific technical considerations associated with
digital assessment management:
• Benchmark workflow procedures and documentation from purchase
order through installation and troubleshooting;
• Unique file names and consistent use of directories and other file management packaging;
• Consistent metatagging practices surrounding content description, administration (i.e., policies about access rights and preservation), and structure
(i.e., relationship between assets);
• Interface procedures such as searching capabilities between assets;
• Equitable access procedures;
• Policy tracking and enforcement.
Digital asset management solutions abound at this point. For example,
OCLC procured DiMeMa (Digital Media Management), which developed
Contentdm, a set of software tools to store and manage library assets. Ex
Libris supports Verde. However, as with the resources themselves, such
commercial products require thorough evaluation and sometimes a hefty
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources
131
price tag. The underlying question remains: does the technology drive collection decisions or do user needs and library mission control the process?
Especially in today’s Web 2.0 world, digital asset management has to
address interactivity options and social networking features, such as technology RRS feeds, comment/messaging options, incorporation of faculty
repositories, enterprise mash-ups, and user-customizable folksonomy
“shells.” Although some of these features are low-cost plug-ins, their management and incorporation into the library’s digital collection system can
involve sophisticated technical support, which is usually not inexpensive.
Furthermore, such customizations need to be well documented and maintained. Sometimes less is better.
One thorny management issue is digital rights: complying with intellectual
property regulations. Increasingly, digital rights management technologies
are being employed to control content use. Indeed, some librarians are
concerned that licensing agreements may supersede copyright law relative to
acceptable use (Jewell et al. 2004). Although automated systems conveniently
take care of authentification issues and facilitate fair royalties compensation,
they can also jeopardize privacy rights and leak into discriminatory profiling
practices. Typically, these systems favor the rights of copyright holders
rather than the spirit of fair use that is expected in educational settings
(Agnew & Martin 2003).
Academic librarians must also plan ahead in case of possible disasters,
either natural or intentional. Electronic assets are surprisingly vulnerable to
security breaches, electrical problems, demagnetization, water, heat, and
even solar “flares” that can knock out services. The first steps are to stabilize
the disaster’s effects, assess the damage, and start recovery efforts.
ARCHIVING AND DE-SELECTION
With physical items, there was an unstated commitment (barring certain collection rules) to maintain the item for posterity once acquired, even in the
smallest of libraries. This commitment might define the database as solid as
a book on a shelf. More frequent reconsideration is likely to occur if electronic resource access is leased; if the academic community does not use
the resource within the licensing timeframe that resource might not be
renewed. On the other hand, libraries may wish to collect specific electronic
references indefinitely. In this case, they should enter vendor negotiations
with an eye to long-term leasing and ownership options. Increasingly,
systems are pushing for lease-to-buy agreements. This alternative is particularly
attractive to large academic libraries that want to maintain full back runs of
periodicals for their researchers.
Academic libraries may be more vulnerable in terms of reference collections and their access because of technology. Keeping files for years can
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
132
L. S. J. Farmer
be problematic as systems crash to upgrade their software and hardware
over time. Indeed, the library world may be entering a second Dark Age as
new versions of applications and operating systems might not be backwards
compatible; files may be unreadable in the future. In some cases, software
programs can emulate the older products and “read” the older files, but this
approach holds little interest to industry programmers who do not see large
profits arising from this effort. Libraries may have to revert to printing out
database files, which is a daunting task and opposite from the direction of
many libraries that are working hard to preserve irreplaceable documents
by digitizing them.
In any case, the mission must be absolutely defined; not everything will
be (or should or can be) preserved by every organization choosing to provide access at some juncture. There must be last copy provisions and agreements, and last copy must include electronic formats. As with other decisions
in digital reference collection management, cooperation among academic
institutions may be the best solution because they determine the most logical
locations to purchase the rights to download and own content. Besser (2007)
discusses two collaborative projects and notes that collaborators need to
have shared goals and visions while respecting different perspectives.
The LOCKSS project, an open source initiative of several universities, is
an attempt to facilitate this archival process. The LOCKSS free software
(LOCKSS Box) runs on desktop stations and systematically collects targeted
e-journal content (which the library has rights to access) and provides peer-topeer access with the library’s community and other LOCKSS members via Web
caching. The content is compared with other LOCKSS sites (i.e., audited) to
insure the integrity of the content and enables the site to correct possible
degradations or fragmentation; to the end user, the content and layout look
just like the original. However, for the process to be implemented, the publishers must give additional permission for the library to collect and preserve
those accessible items, use the items in compliance with original licensing
terms, and provide copies of the items to other authorized collections for
purposes of auditing and repairs. Some publishers might worry that the subscription materials would be disseminated beyond the original intent of the
licensing agreement, but auditing is done by other subscribers and the benefits
of preserving copies of the content for perpetual access at low cost usually
outweigh the action’s negative consequences. Additionally, the related nonprofit organization CLOCKSS picks up where LOCKSS ends. When no publisher has current responsibility or provides electronic access to identified
content, the CLOCKSS Board (comprised of librarians and publishers) can
decide to make the archived items freely available (LOCKSS 2008).
As with many other library functions, electronic resource management
deals with the systematic control of resources throughout their life cycle within
the context of the library and its institutional affiliation. Although the resources
themselves are electronic, the underlying management issues remain human.
Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources
133
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
REFERENCES
Agnew, Grace, and Mairead Martin. 2003 Digital rights management: Why libraries
should be major players. In The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac,
48th edition, ed. Dave Bogart, 267–278. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Association of Research Libraries. 2003. Collections and access for the 21st-century
scholar: Changing roles of research libraries. ARL: A bimonthly report on
research library issues and actions from ARL, CNI, and SPARC 225. http://
www.arl.org/resources/pubs/br/index.shtml/225/index.html (accessed June 7,
2008).
Ayers, Sheila. 2003. The outsourcing of cataloging: The effect on libraries. Current
Studies in Librarianship 27: 17–28.
Bailey, Charles W., Jr., Karen Coombs, Jill Emery, Anne Mitchell, Chris Morris, Spencer
Simons, et al. 2006. Institutional repositories. SPEC Kit 292. Washington, DC:
Association of Research Libraries.
Besser, Howard. 2007. Collaboration for electronic preservation. Library Trends 56:
216–229.
Brennan, Patricia, Karen Hersey, and Georgia Harper. 2007. Licensing: Strategic &
practical considerations for signing electronic information delivery agreements.
Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. http://www.arl.org/sc/
licensing/licbooklet.shtml (accessed June 7, 2008).
Digital Accessible Information System Consortium. 2005. DAISY/NISO standard.
Zurich, Switzerland: Digital Accessible Information System Consortium. http://
www.daisy.org/z3986/ (accessed June 7, 2008).
Donlan, Rebecca. 2008. An unfortunate event for series, or LC outsourced you back.
The Reference Librarian 47: 95–58.
Ex Libris. Verde helps you manage the electronic resource life cycle. Ex Libris. Des
Plaines, IL: Ex Libris. http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/?catid={5B185FFC-DE42-4CA596CB-616019C38A1E}#{59F52439-017A-4184-A68A-A877B711BF7D} (accessed June
7, 2008).
Farb, Sharon, and Anglea Riggio. 2004. Media or message? A New look at standards,
structures and schemata for managing electronic resources. Library Hi Tech 22:
144–152.
Farmer, Lesley, and Sara Sluss. 2007. Technology impact on reference resources. In the
human side of reference and information services in academic libraries: Adding
value in the digital world, ed. Lesley Farmer, 33–48. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Friedlander, Amy. 2002. Dimensions and use of the scholarly information environment: Introduction to a data set assembled by the Digital Library Federation
and Onsell, Inc. Washington, DC: Digital Library Federation and Council on
Library and Information Resources.
Geller, Marilyn. 2006. Managing electronic resources: Staffing, services and systems.
Library Technology Reports 42.
Gregory, Vicki. 2006. Selecting and managing electronic resources, 2nd Ed. New York:
Neal-Schuman.
Jewell, Timothy. 2001. Selection and presentation of commercially available electronic
resources: Issues and practices. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
134
L. S. J. Farmer
Jewell, Timothy, Ivy Anderson, Adam Chandler, Sharon E. Farb, Kimberly Parker,
Angela Riggio, et al. 2004. Electronic resource management: The report of the
DLF Initiative. Washington, DC: Digital Library Federation.
Katz, William. 2001. Introduction to reference work, 8th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Leonhardt, Thomas, ed. 2006. Handbook of electronic and digital acquisitions.
Binghamton, NY: Haworth Information Press.
LOCKSS. 2008. Lots of copies keep stuff safe. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
http://lockss.stanford.edu (accessed June 7, 2008).
National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage. 1999. Core principles and
evaluation criteria. Washington, DC: National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage. http://www.ninch.org/programs/practice/criteria.html (accessed
June 7, 2008).
Reference and User Services Association. 2006. Elements for basic reviews: A guide
for writers and readers of reviews of works in all mediums and genres.
Chicago: American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/protools/
referenceguide/ElementsforReviews.pdf (accessed June 7, 2008).
Robek, M. F., G. F. Brown, and D. O Stephens. 1996. Information and records management, 4th Ed. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Steinhagen, Elizabeth, Mary Ellen Hanson, and Sharon Moynahan. 2007. Quo vadis,
cataloging? Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 44: 271–280.
Su, Di, ed. 2007. Collection development issues in the online environment. Binghamton,
NY: Haworth Information Press.
University of Glasgow Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute, &
The National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage. 2002. NINCH guide
to good practice in the digital representation and management of cultural heritage
materials. Washington, DC: National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage.
http://www.nyu.edu/its/humanities/ninchguide/index.html.
Watson, Paula. 2003. E-journal management: Acquisition and control. Library
Technology Reports 39.
Appendix 1
Checklist of Criteria for Selecting Electronic Products New Database
Form (California State University, Long Beach)
Web Team Checklist:
____added to Proxy config file and/or _____password page added to password server
____verified that database works remotely
____librarians, info programs, and webgroup notified of availability
____school community update prepared
____completed form distributed to
____Serials Accountant
____Electronic Resource Manager
____Acquisitions Coordinator
____if product replaces something, pre-existing product has been edited off of appropriate listings
____completion date __________________________
135
Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources
Product Sponsor:
Date: _______________________
Sponsor’s Name: ________________________
Title: __________________________________________________________
Content:
____Full text ____PDF/Adobe
____Citation/Abstract
____Some full text
Database Information (for “about” boxes):
Description (content):
Coverage (years):
How frequently updated:
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
Number of simultaneous users:
Database is a consortium-licensed product:
Yes ____
No ____
Database is a consortium Electronic Core Collection product: Yes ____ No ____
Recommendation for Subject/Courses Pages:
Product URL: ____________________________________________________________
Launch URL: ____________________________________________________________
(Only necessary to include if you prefer to launch the database from other than its start page.
You will need to verify with the vendor that you can use this URL.)
Database Instruction Guide: (if you are NOT developing a local instruction guide, please
provide here the URL for the vendor’s help / instruction page.) Note: this needs to be a static
or persistent URL. ________________________________
Authentication Method:
____by IP Address
____by Password
____by both IP and Password
When speaking with your vendor re: IP restrictions, please provide them with the
following IP domain: 100.100.*.* This will restrict access to any computer on campus or
via the proxy.
User IDs or Passwords (if used): ______________________________________________
Does this product replace a Web product to which we already subscribe?
Yes __ No __
Name of product to be replaced: _________________________________________
When can old product be removed? ________________________________________
Database has an administrative module that can be manipulated locally to make changes
in the interface, searching, logoff location, etc. or can be used to gather usage statistics.
Yes ____
No ____
If the answer is YES, please provide logon procedures (URL, username/password, etc):
Note: If the following four questions are not addressed on the vendor’s technical
support Web page, then copy and paste these questions into an email and send to
technical support.
136
L. S. J. Farmer
1. Which browser versions are supported? (indicate version numbers)
Internet Explorer: ____________________
Netscape: _______________________
Firefox:_____________________________
Safari: __________________________
Opera: _____________________________
Is there a preferred
browser: ____________________________
2. Is the database compliant with Section 508 and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act?
(Note: if the database is produced outside of the U.S., contact the database coordinator for
alternative applicable language.)
3. Can vendor supply a link to a statement regarding the above?
Downloaded By: [University of Washington Libraries] At: 20:33 12 July 2010
If vendor says the database is not compliant or does not have a link to a statement
please ask when they anticipate compliance or when they anticipate having a Web
based statement.
4. Must additional software be installed in order for this database to work successfully?
Yes ____
No ____
5. Other comments:
If yes, please explain: