Effective Access to the Periodical Literature: A National Program

Library Investment Index – Why is it Important?

In 2007, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Joint Task Force on Library Support for E-Science issued its report outlining five goals to guide research libraries' burgeoning endeavors in offering e-science services and initiatives [1]. Since 2007 and the ARL report, the library scholarly literature, including recent communications from ARL e-science task force member James Mullins and task force liaison Neil Rambo, has contained a number of discussions on roles for librarians and libraries pursuing e-science initiatives [2–,6]. The ARL report included strategies and actions for libraries to take to prepare and position themselves to support this emerging process of scholarly communication. The report's third outcome states that librarians should seek to become “knowledgeable and skilled research library professionals with the capacity to contribute to e-science and to shape new roles and models of service.” Although the scholarly literature discussing e-science collaboration is growing [7–,10], few articles exist that have actually addressed how and where current and future health sciences and science and technology librarians should turn to develop the specific e-science capacity prescribed in the ARL report. In the summer of 2009, the Lamar Soutter Library at the University of Massachusetts Medical School applied for and was awarded funding from the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, New England Region (NN/LM NER), to begin the construction of an e-science educational web portal specifically for librarians wanting to develop this capacity. The motivation for the portal came from feedback and conversations with librarians attending a regional e-science symposium and subsequent science boot camp, jointly sponsored by the Boston Library Consortium (BLC), the University of Massachusetts Libraries, and the NN/LM NER.

Collection development in 19 libraries of the association of research libraries

For centuries, libraries, archives and museums from across Europe have been the custodians of our rich and diverse cultural heritage. They have preserved and provided access to the testimonies of knowledge, beauty and imagination, such as sculptures, paintings, music and literature. The new information technologies have created unbelievable opportunities to make this common heritage more accessible for all. Recently, the European Commission commissioned a ‘Comité des Sages’ to make recommendations on ways and means to make Europe's cultural heritage and creativity available on the Internet and to preserve it for future generations. In the United States the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) endorsed a number of principle recommendations to its members regarding the digitisation of cultural heritage. Both the Comité des Sages and the ARL emphasize the added value of digitisation. The Comité underlines that the digitised material can in itself be a driver of innovation and can be at the basis of new services in sectors such as tourism and learning (Comité des Sages 2011) and the ARL stresses the added value for researchers (ARL Principles July 2010). For over a century, libraries have participated in successful resource sharing cooperatives that have made content widely accessible. According to both the ARL and the Comité, the same spirit should govern commercial digitisation activities. In the best of all possible worlds, there would in our view be some level of free access to all content, with only special value-added services restricted to a subscription model. A landmark in the discussion about Open Access to information is the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Referring to this Declaration, people often put emphasis on recent research publications. But the following is also one of the objectives of the Declaration: “encouraging the holders of cultural heritage to support open access by providing their resources on the Internet” (Berlin Declaration 2003). Therefore, in the spirit of the Berlin Declaration, the ARL encourages its members’ libraries to grant all non-commercial users “a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship”. And: “If fees are to be assessed for the use of digitised public domain works, those fees should only apply to commercial uses” (ARL Principles July 2010). In our view, cultural heritage institutions should make public domain material digitised with public funding as widely available as possible for access and reuse. The public sector has the primary responsibility to fund digitisation. The involvement of private partners, however, is encouraged by ARL as well as the Comité des Sages. Private funding for digitisation is a complement to the necessary public investment, especially in times of economic crisis, but should not be seen as a substitute for public funding. As we can see from these reports there are a number of arguments in favour of digitisation and also of providing maximum accessibility to the digitised cultural heritage. In this paper we will investigate the legal aspects of digitisation of cultural heritage, especially public domain material. On the basis of these we will make an inventory of policy considerations regarding reuse. Furthermore, we will describe the conclusions the National Library of the Netherlands (hereafter: KB) has formulated and the arguments that support these. In this context we will review public-private partnerships and also the policy of the KB. We will conclude with recommendations for cultural heritage institutions concerning a reuse policy for digitised public domain material.

Academic and research libraries are joining together to identify and better prepare the next generation of library directors. The Research Library Leadership Fellows (RLLF) Program takes a new approach to succession planning by engaging a select group of sponsoring libraries, approximately 20 emergent leaders, and the membership of the Association Research Libraries working collaboratively over a 2-year period. This approach assumes a well-developed set of management and leadership skills on the part of the fellow. The program focuses instead on deepening the fellow's understanding of core strategic challenges facing senior library leaders in a wide variety of campus settings. The RLLF embraces 3 5-day, on-campus institutes, 1–2 site visits to sponsoring libraries, and participation in the semiannual Association of Research Libraries (ARL) membership meetings. The program also provides network-building among the fellows, Web-based sessions on key issues, and access to ARL member–library directors as colleagues and potential mentors. To date, more than 60 librarians from ARL member libraries have participated in the program. This article describes the context for the development of the program, its operation, the experiences of the first 3 cohorts, and suggestions for the future of succession planning in research libraries.

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Statistics Revision Task Force has released its final report. ARL charged the Statistics Revision Task Force to review the ARL Statistics survey and recommend ways to improve its structure and content so the data collected through this instrument is more useful to ARL member institutions. Task force members met on a regular basis beginning in spring 2022 to review the ARL Statistics survey and similar past work to revise it, engage current and former members of the ARL Research and Analytics Committee, and analyze the results of that engagement. Centering their work on ARL values, the task force generated several findings and lessons learned, which are discussed further in the report.

Delivering Research Management Services: Fundamentals of Good Practice. Edited by Graham Pryor, Sarah Jones, and Angus Whyte. London: Facet, 2014. 242 p. $99.95 softcover (ISBN 978-1-85604-933-7). Delivering Research Management Services proposes to build awareness of the need for a research data management (RDM) service infrastructure and explain how to set up such a service (including technological and human resources as well as securing institutional support). It accomplishes this through five chapters authored individually by the three editors, all currently or formerly affiliated with the United Kingdom's (UK) Digital Curation Centre (DCC). It discusses three case studies from institutions that have successfully launched RDM services in the United States, UK, and Australia; and two case studies from national programs in the UK. book provides in-depth information about high-level considerations for RDM services; it does not provide instruction in best practices for managing data. An earlier publication by the same lead editor, Managing Research Data, may prove more useful for those seeking best practices information. (1) Since this book demonstrates the value in planning ahead through advocacy and capacity-building before tackling the preservation and provision of access to research data, it may be a good first read. authors have extensive knowledge of and experience on this subject, yet write clearly enough for novices to comprehend. readers need to have a high tolerance for acronyms, since every agency, service, and tool seems to have one. Each chapter provides enough context to stand on its own, but this reviewer would have preferred that the book had been more tightly edited to facilitate cohesion across chapters. For instance, the authors recommend that Case Study 5 (chapter 10) be read in conjunction with chapter 5, begging the question of why Case Study 5 was not positioned as Case Study 1 (chapter 6). Such sequencing would have naturally achieved the authors' suggestion. book lacks a concluding chapter summing up the best practices, but it is left to readers to draw their own conclusions based on their institutional settings. Indeed, institutions in the UK seem to have an advantage in terms of governmental funding and shared infrastructure. In contrast, US institutions must either step up advocacy and coordination efforts at a national level or find smaller-scale solutions to the challenge of research data management. Examples of US universities' current and emerging practices relating to RDM services can be found in the Association of Research Libraries' SPEC Kit 334: Research Management Services. (2) We can learn much from our UK counterparts and their advancements. Many of the institutions cited in this book developed RDM services incrementally, starting with pilot projects and repurposing existing resources while advocating for the allocation of additional resources. Several authors advised including the costs and risks of doing nothing in that advocacy. In chapter 5, The Range and Components of RDM Infrastructure and Services, Sarah Jones describes DUDs, or Data centers Under Desks, created by research groups attempting to do their own data management at low cost. She notes, However, while the upfront costs may be only a fraction of those quoted by central services, the risk of data loss and security breaches are significantly higher, potentially leading to far greater costs in the long run (98). …

Proper performance measurement is an important issue in library operational management. A data envelopment analysis (DEA) model is applied to evaluate the relative operational efficiency of 25 U.S. private research-university library members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Operations of each library decision-making unit are considered as a production process using four resource input and four service output variables. The model results are analyzed and compared with the efficient group and a peer group by using a t-test. The model provides decision-makers with more accurate information to implement better library services with appropriate resource allocation.

Objective – To investigate whether libraries achieve strategic credibility by assessing if strategic planning goals match the achievements described in annual reports.
 
 Design – Content analysis of annual reports and strategic plans from a sample of Association of Research Libraries (ARL).
 
 Setting – Academic libraries in Canada and the United States of America. 
 
 Subjects – A random sample of 12 Canadian and 16 American academic libraries. All libraries were members of ARL.
 
 Methods – The researcher contacted the directors of 28 ARL libraries and asked for copies of their strategic plans and annual reports. She also visited the websites of libraries to obtain the reports. The contents of the strategic plans and annual reports were analyzed, and trends in the Canadian and American strategic plans were identified.
 
 Main Results – This study found that only 39% of ARL libraries produce annual reports, making it difficult to assess if libraries have strategic credibility, as their strategic plans cannot be assessed against annual reports. The strategic plans gathered in this study were analyzed and emerging themes were identified. These included physical library space (renovations, expansions or new buildings); offsite storage; assessment (both of the libraries’ services, and of information literacy training); development activities such as fundraising and marketing; and personnel issues. Cultural differences also were found in the strategic plans, with American libraries being more focused on trends such as digitization and institutional repositories, and Canadian libraries’ plans being more focused on users’ needs. Trends in annual reports were not reported due to the small number of annual reports in the sample.
 
 
 Conclusion – This study gives a snapshot of the trends in strategic plans of ARL members. It shows that many ARL members do not produce an annual report, and that it is therefore difficult to assess if their strategic plans are implemented successfully. The article hypothesizes that the communication of achievements may now be part of development and marketing efforts, rather than traditional annual reports.

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Research Library Impact Framework (RLIF) pilot initiative, established in 2019, has released its final report, Building a Community of Assessment. The report details the research projects, findings, and lessons learned conducted under the pilot phase of this framework. It also includes information about the framework itself as a means to explore and learn about research library impacts. Finally, the report identifies next steps and potential considerations for any future implementation. The RLIF provides a structure to examine library services, operations, impact, and alignment with institutional mission and goals across four critical areas: Research and Scholarly Life Cycle; Teaching, Learning, and Student Success; Collections; and Physical Space. The full framework includes 185 potential research questions across these critical areas. However, the framework is also meant to be flexible and modular, allowing for modifications and adjustments based on salient issues facing research libraries. In this way, the framework serves as a tool to organize and prioritize research efforts.

PurposeThis study aims to evaluate 125 research libraries in North America to identify whether they incorporate reference and social networking tools in their library's website.Design/methodology/approachA content analysis of 125 library websites is conducted to determine whether libraries who are members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) incorporate and promote reference and social networking tools in their website. For the purpose of this study, a list of reference and social networking tools was chosen and each library's website was visited to determine first, which reference and social networking tools from this list appear on their library's homepage and, second, which tools appear elsewhere on the library's website.FindingsThe results show that even though most of these reference and social networking tools are incorporated into their library's websites, their presence is lower on their library's homepage.Practical implicationsAcademic and research libraries should incorporate reference and social networking tools on their library's homepage to make these services more visible and more easily accessible to their users.Originality/valueThis study demonstrates the importance of the right placement for reference and social networking tools on ARL websites.

A Review of:
 Engel, Debra, and Sarah Robbins. "Telephone Interviewing Practices within Academic Libraries." Journal of Academic Librarianship 35.2 (2009): 143-51.
 
 Objective – To investigate the use of telephone interviews in academic libraries and identify best practices when conducting telephone interviews.
 
 Design – Survey and open-ended questions.
 
 Setting – Academic libraries in the United States.
 
 Subjects – Academic institutional members of the Association of Research Libraries.
 
 Methods – A fifteen-item survey (Appendix A, 150) concerning telephone interviewing practice was sent to 112 institutional members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). The survey contained multiple choice-type questions as well as open-ended questions.
 
 Main Results – The response rate was 66% (74 of 112 research libraries; 56 public institutions and 17 private). Of the respondents, 90% used telephone interviews to screen applicants for professional positions (ranging from occasionally to always) and only 10% never used telephone interviews. The main reason for holding telephone interviews was to “screen candidates in order to narrow the pool of applicants who will be invited for in-person interviews” (146). Other reasons given included minimizing expenses involved in interviewing out-of-town candidates (39% respondents), shortening the length of time to complete the search process (27%) and meeting library or campus hiring requirements (3%).
 
 On average, the majority of libraries (51%) hired between 2-4 professional positions each year. For each open professional position, the number of candidates telephone-interviewed varied from less than 3 to 9 depending on library and position.
 
 Interviews typically lasted between 16 and 45 minutes (77% respondents) with all the search committee members (staff involved in the recruitment process) being present (75%) and taking turns to ask questions to the candidates (90%). Questions were most often the same for all candidates applying for a particular position (91%) and candidates were nearly always allowed in return to ask questions of the committee (96%).
 
 In answer to the open-ended question, “In your opinion, what best creates a collegial and effective environment for conducting telephone interviews?”, the dominating responses included: all search committee members being present and participating actively, using a script and taking notes, introducing all interview participants, and giving candidates adequate notification and documentation.
 
 The majority of respondents “would not change anything about their institution’s current (telephone interview) practice” (147). Some thought that “training and/or a need for consistency in procedure for all interviews conducted” (147) would be relevant changes in practice. 
 
 The results of the survey were compared to the findings in the library, personnel management and human resources literature.
 
 Conclusion – From the survey and responses to open-ended questions, a number of best practices when conducting telephone interviews emerged (148–150):
 1. Properly train the search committee (e.g., in knowing about the position, organization and protocols for conducting interviews properly)
 2. Involve the search committee throughout the recruitment process
 3. Help the interviewee be prepared (e.g., by sending institutional information packages)
 4. Maintain and use suitable technology (e.g., by choosing suitable conferencing facilities with the interviewee situation in mind)
 5. Put the candidate at ease (e.g., by explaining who will be present, how long the interview will last and how many questions there will be)
 6. Provide introductions (e.g., both in the beginning of the interview and even before individual questions)
 7. Listen and take notes during the interview
 8. Discuss the interviews immediately afterwards
 
 Engel and Robbins suggest that further research could include looking into job candidate and search committee experiences of the telephone interviewing procedure.

Cronenwett, Philip N., Kevin Osborn, and Samuel Allen Streit. Celebrating Research: Rare and Special Collections from the Membership of the Association of Research Libraries . Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 2007. 312p. $135 ($115 ARL member libraries) (ISBN 159407769X). LC 2008-295721.

Brief of Minutes, Association of Research Libraries, July 6--7, 1951, Chicago; Report of the Committee on the Use of Manuscripts by Visiting Sholars Set up by the Association of Research Libraries

Using multiple means of data collection, this study identifies the attributes that present and future directors of the academic libraries in the Association of Research Libraries need to possess. Present-day directors must possess a wide variety of attributes and are less likely to remain in the same position for as many years as their predecessors did. With the aging population of academic librarians, matching the right individual with the right institution is likely to be increasingly difficult in the future.