Sort of following on from my last post, I thought I might try and write a post on 'Access to Research'. Since it found out it existed 3/4 years ago I've thought it was a brilliant idea, but one that seems strangely invisible to many. My observations are that no one seems to have heard of it outside of the public library sector, and even those within the public library sector seem uncertain of it. Rocking up to my local public library in Hungerford to check it out about several years back I was told by the Library Assistant (not volunteer, at least I don't think so) that yes they had it and it could be accessed on the computers over there but please don't ask any questions as she didn't know anything about it. Working in selectively accessible government libraries I have had cause to direct many a retired person wanting access to academic literature to it, though many seem put off by the fact that you actually have to go to the library. And well, as my anecdotal experience is not so hot, I've come to wonder how successful has it actually been?
Access to Research, if you've not used it or hear of it, is a public library discovery service for academic research literature. They use ProQuest Summon and you can search the contents here http://www.accesstoresearch.org.uk/search although not access the full text as that can only be done from participating public library premises. The coverage is good - 11400 titles, - all the journals indexed are listed here: http://eg9wt9kh6b.search.serialssolutions.com/. So it's a very valuable resource, but has it been well received? The literature was sparse, tumbleweed sparse, but I found a bit of information.
The Shared Intelligence report (2015) review of the pilot which ran until December 2015 (according to the report, although the A2R website says it ran from 2014-2016) was positive, although noted that stakeholders 'were anxious to see take-up increase'. From Jan to July 2016 there were 34,276 to the Summon database and 170,771 searches - there was no statistic for downloads although the 'majority' of searches (55.1%) took place within participating Library IP ranges. Users were primarily using it for research or personal interest and were generally older - I would guess retired - and educated. Training of staff was low (28%)
Griffin's 2016 article 'describes' rather than analyses the service. According to Griffin A2R was part of the move towards Open Access and is considered an interim solution as suggested by the Finch report (2012). He states that 'neither the libraries nor the public are charged for access to this content', and Summon was provided for free by ProQuest - non of which I was aware of. I had assumed this was costing someone a fortune but clearly not. Also might explain why it isn't massively advertised - how much free use to publishers want to provide? They manage this partly by having embargo periods of 6 months or so on key titles. The set up may also explain the lack of download statistics, as access is via a proxy and publishers (of which 6 are involved) membership is flexible. From my experience the full download picture from subscriptions and databases can complicated, and often the most straightforward figures come from the publishers rather than the discovery service, so perhaps the publishers aren't being asked to provide that data and perhaps there's no reason why they should.
Apart from those two references, it was very difficult to find anything further. An interesting titbit in Chelin (2015), an article about public and academic library cooperation, noted the launch of A2R and stated 'It could be argued that this might serve to dampen demand to access the resources of the local university library, but conversely, it might also provide taste of the kind of resources that access to the university library can only fully satisfy'. The library I work for, while not academic, looks at A2R as a potential solution for retired individuals who would like access, so this statement which makes A2R sound more like a tempter free month to Netflix than a solution to the requests from the public for access to closed collections I definitely one to ponder.
The 2016 Public libraries report, which seems to be the most recent one available, states only that 93% of public libraries are signed up and that the project will continue after the pilot.
And, well that's all I could find. If there's anything else out there i'd be interested to read it I really would.
What can I conclude then? Before I undertook this exercise, my perspective was this was a great concept being thwarted by publishers who were trying to make it as little used as possible, so wary were they of this undermining their university subs. My reading of the -very limited - literature suggests I may have been a bit (shocker) cynical and there is something genuinely positive about what publishers are trying to achieve here. I do find it odd that there aren't easily accessible annual statistics on usage but it is used and usage did go up through the pilot. Are the available statistics good for the whole UK? I don't know. Downloads would have been a better measure. How many of those searches were Librarians? I think it's quite probable that the reason A2R has limited research and exposure is due to a number of factors, and some of these are directly from the Shared Intelligence report:
1. Public library staff aren't trained to use it and don't feel confident using it
2. Public library staff have other things to worry about, like their jobs
2. It is too confusing for some, particularly the fact that it can be accessed from home but full text can't be
3. It is 'interim' - the focus for researchers tends to be on Open Access as that is the future. This is not.
4. SciHub has completely stolen it's thunder. Do you go to your public library for potential full text access, or do you go to SciHub for all the access? Depends on your perspectives around the illegality of SciHub, but many people either don't have qualms or don't really understand using it is illegal. But then again, are retired people knowledgeable about SciHub?
I still think this is a great service and public libraries should be shouting about it from the roof tops, but I get that it might not be their top priority. Still, projects like this give me hope for the future of publisher and library relationships.
References
Chelin, J A (2015) Open doors: library cross-sector co-operation in Bristol, UK, Interlending and Document Supply, 43(2), pp.110-118. DOI: 10.1108/ILDS-02-2015-0006
Department for Culture, Media & Sport (2017) Report under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 for 2016: A Report presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 17 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-report-to-parliament-on-public-library-activities-during-2016 [Accessed 24 September 2018].
Griffin, J (2016) "Access to Research": how UK public libraries are offering access to over 15 million academic articles for free, Interlending and Document Supply, 44(2), pp.37-43. DOI: 10.1108/ILDS-03-2016-0012
Shared Intelligence (2015) Access to Research: a report to the Publishers Licensing Society and the Society of Chief Librarians. October 2015. Available at: http://goscl.com/wp-content/uploads/Access-to-Research-final-report-Oct-2015.pdf [Accessed 24 September 2018].
Access to Research, if you've not used it or hear of it, is a public library discovery service for academic research literature. They use ProQuest Summon and you can search the contents here http://www.accesstoresearch.org.uk/search although not access the full text as that can only be done from participating public library premises. The coverage is good - 11400 titles, - all the journals indexed are listed here: http://eg9wt9kh6b.search.serialssolutions.com/. So it's a very valuable resource, but has it been well received? The literature was sparse, tumbleweed sparse, but I found a bit of information.
The Shared Intelligence report (2015) review of the pilot which ran until December 2015 (according to the report, although the A2R website says it ran from 2014-2016) was positive, although noted that stakeholders 'were anxious to see take-up increase'. From Jan to July 2016 there were 34,276 to the Summon database and 170,771 searches - there was no statistic for downloads although the 'majority' of searches (55.1%) took place within participating Library IP ranges. Users were primarily using it for research or personal interest and were generally older - I would guess retired - and educated. Training of staff was low (28%)
Griffin's 2016 article 'describes' rather than analyses the service. According to Griffin A2R was part of the move towards Open Access and is considered an interim solution as suggested by the Finch report (2012). He states that 'neither the libraries nor the public are charged for access to this content', and Summon was provided for free by ProQuest - non of which I was aware of. I had assumed this was costing someone a fortune but clearly not. Also might explain why it isn't massively advertised - how much free use to publishers want to provide? They manage this partly by having embargo periods of 6 months or so on key titles. The set up may also explain the lack of download statistics, as access is via a proxy and publishers (of which 6 are involved) membership is flexible. From my experience the full download picture from subscriptions and databases can complicated, and often the most straightforward figures come from the publishers rather than the discovery service, so perhaps the publishers aren't being asked to provide that data and perhaps there's no reason why they should.
Apart from those two references, it was very difficult to find anything further. An interesting titbit in Chelin (2015), an article about public and academic library cooperation, noted the launch of A2R and stated 'It could be argued that this might serve to dampen demand to access the resources of the local university library, but conversely, it might also provide taste of the kind of resources that access to the university library can only fully satisfy'. The library I work for, while not academic, looks at A2R as a potential solution for retired individuals who would like access, so this statement which makes A2R sound more like a tempter free month to Netflix than a solution to the requests from the public for access to closed collections I definitely one to ponder.
The 2016 Public libraries report, which seems to be the most recent one available, states only that 93% of public libraries are signed up and that the project will continue after the pilot.
And, well that's all I could find. If there's anything else out there i'd be interested to read it I really would.
What can I conclude then? Before I undertook this exercise, my perspective was this was a great concept being thwarted by publishers who were trying to make it as little used as possible, so wary were they of this undermining their university subs. My reading of the -very limited - literature suggests I may have been a bit (shocker) cynical and there is something genuinely positive about what publishers are trying to achieve here. I do find it odd that there aren't easily accessible annual statistics on usage but it is used and usage did go up through the pilot. Are the available statistics good for the whole UK? I don't know. Downloads would have been a better measure. How many of those searches were Librarians? I think it's quite probable that the reason A2R has limited research and exposure is due to a number of factors, and some of these are directly from the Shared Intelligence report:
1. Public library staff aren't trained to use it and don't feel confident using it
2. Public library staff have other things to worry about, like their jobs
2. It is too confusing for some, particularly the fact that it can be accessed from home but full text can't be
3. It is 'interim' - the focus for researchers tends to be on Open Access as that is the future. This is not.
4. SciHub has completely stolen it's thunder. Do you go to your public library for potential full text access, or do you go to SciHub for all the access? Depends on your perspectives around the illegality of SciHub, but many people either don't have qualms or don't really understand using it is illegal. But then again, are retired people knowledgeable about SciHub?
I still think this is a great service and public libraries should be shouting about it from the roof tops, but I get that it might not be their top priority. Still, projects like this give me hope for the future of publisher and library relationships.
References
Chelin, J A (2015) Open doors: library cross-sector co-operation in Bristol, UK, Interlending and Document Supply, 43(2), pp.110-118. DOI: 10.1108/ILDS-02-2015-0006
Department for Culture, Media & Sport (2017) Report under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 for 2016: A Report presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 17 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-report-to-parliament-on-public-library-activities-during-2016 [Accessed 24 September 2018].
Griffin, J (2016) "Access to Research": how UK public libraries are offering access to over 15 million academic articles for free, Interlending and Document Supply, 44(2), pp.37-43. DOI: 10.1108/ILDS-03-2016-0012
Shared Intelligence (2015) Access to Research: a report to the Publishers Licensing Society and the Society of Chief Librarians. October 2015. Available at: http://goscl.com/wp-content/uploads/Access-to-Research-final-report-Oct-2015.pdf [Accessed 24 September 2018].
Comments
Post a Comment