Borrowing trouble? The impact of a systematic review service on interlibrary loan borrowing in an academic health sciences library.

BACKGROUND: With the mandate to review all available literature in the study's inclusion parameters, systematic review projects are likely to require full-text access to a significant number of articles that are not available in a library's collection, thereby necessitating ordering content via interlibrary loan (ILL). The aim of this study is to understand what effect a systematic review service has on the copyright royalty fees accompanying ILL requests at an academic health sciences library. CASE PRESENTATION: The library created a custom report using ILLiad data to look specifically at 2018 ILL borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews. This subset of borrowing activity was then analyzed to determine its impact on the library's copyright royalty expenditures for the year. In 2018, copyright eligible borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews represented only approximately 5% of total filled requests that involved copyright eligible borrowing. However, these systematic review requests directly or indirectly caused approximately 10% of all the Spencer S. Eccles Library copyright royalty expenditures for 2018 requests. CONCLUSION: Based on the sample data set, the library's copyright royalty expenditures did increase, but the overall financial impact was modest.

Pay-per-view in interlibrary loan: a case study.

QUESTION: Can purchasing articles from publishers be a cost-effective method of interlibrary loan (ILL) for libraries owing significant copyright royalties? SETTING: The University of Nebraska Medical Center's McGoogan Library of Medicine provides the case study. METHOD: Completed ILL requests that required copyright payment were identified for the first quarter of 2009. The cost of purchasing these articles from publishers was obtained from the publishers' websites and compared to the full ILL cost. A pilot period of purchasing articles from the publisher was then conducted. RESULTS: The first-quarter sample data showed that approximately $500.00 could have been saved if the articles were purchased from the publisher. The pilot period and continued purchasing practice have resulted in significant savings for the library. CONCLUSION: Purchasing articles directly from the publisher is a cost-effective method for libraries burdened with high copyright royalty payments.

Restrictions impeding web-based courses: a survey of publishers' variation in authorising access to high quality on-line literature.

BACKGROUND: Web-based delivery of educational programmes is becoming increasingly popular and is expected to expand, especially in medicine. The successful implementation of these programmes is reliant on their ability to provide access to web based materials, including high quality published work. Publishers' responses to requests to access health literature in the context of developing an electronic Master's degree course are described. METHODS: Two different permission requests were submitted to publishers. The first was to store an electronic version of a journal article, to which we subscribe, on a secure password protected server. The second was to reproduce extracts of published material on password protected web pages and CD Rom. RESULTS: Eight of 16 publishers were willing to grant permission to store electronic versions of articles without levying charges additional to the subscription. Twenty of 35 publishers gave permission to reproduce extracts of published work at no fee. Publishers' responses were highly variable to the requests for access to published material. This may be influenced by vague terminology within the 'fair dealing' provision in the copyright legislation, which seems to leave it open to individual interpretation. Considerable resource costs were incurred by the exercise. Time expended included those incurred by us: research to identify informed representatives within the publishing organisation, request 'chase-ups' and alternative examples being sought if publishers were uncooperative; and the publisher when dealing with numerous permission requests. Financial costs were also incurred by both parties through additional staffing and paperwork generated by the permission process, the latter including those purely borne by educators due to the necessary provision of photocopy 'course packs' when no suitably alternative material could be found if publishers were uncooperative. Finally we discuss the resultant bias in material towards readily available electronic resources as a result of publisher's uncooperative stance and encourage initiatives that aim to improve open electronic access. CONCLUSIONS: The permission request process has been expensive and has resulted in reduced access for students to the relevant literature. Variations in the responses from publishers suggest that for educational purposes common policies could be agreed and unnecessary restrictions removed in the future.