Apple announced today the release of iBooks 2 which is supposed to revolutionize the etextbook market.
The area of ebooks is very tumultuous in general but then add specialty books like medical texts, volume usage (libraries buy one book for many to use), license agreements, platforms, and easy discoverability and accessibility and it becomes a giant quagmire. Additionally, I think major medical publishers have been v-e-r-y slow to get into the ebook market. Oh yeah they had ebooks for a while, but those were produced similar to ejournals. They were available online and accessible usually by desk top or laptop. The Kindle started the movement but the iPad just turn things on its ear.
Many of the ebooks medical libraries have bought are from established publishers like the AccessMedicine books through McGraw Hill, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins books through Ovid, or multiple different publisher titles through Rittenhouse or STATRef. The one problem is that while most of these books are online, they are really only accessible via regular computer. The vast majority have not been formatted for the iPad or other platforms. (Interesting since Apple just announced they are partnering with McGraw Hill to make textbooks on the iPad, but it seems like they haven’t really done that with the Access textbooks.) Now for some books not being optimized isn’t a big deal because they display alright using the iPad browser. However even if they display correctly the publishers’ sites make it MISERABLE to access the book. This was a major problem BEFORE mobile readers. Librarians world wide for years bemoaned the difficulty their users had at finding and accessing their ebook packages. The silos that publishers host their ebooks makes it difficult for library users to access titles. The problem hasn’t changed now that we have tablets, it has just gotten worse.
The one saving grace prior to tablets was that many accepted that ebooks were accessible by traditional computers. But when smartphones came out people starting accessing the web using their phones. They were beginning to access online resources via the phone when they weren’t near a computer. Instead of walking down the hall they whipped out their phone. The iPad just continued to ween people off traditional computers. Instead of using smartphones doctors were using iPads and they were using them so much at work that the traditional lab coat got a make over to include an iPad size pocket. People not walking to a computer to access the web, they have the web with them and they want their online texts.
In the past when I would talk to various publishers and library vendors about accessing their texts via mobile device (pre iPad and Kindle) they would smile and gently say that nobody wants to read a book on a phone. Well I disagreed. What do you think Unbound Medicine or Skyscape did? They made texts (and other medical programs) available for handheld devices. Originally they did that with PDAs now they have transitioned to smartphones. Heck they have some of the major publishers, McGraw Hill, Elsevier, LWW, etc. on their site all ready to be used on a smartphone or the iPad (they don’t have Kindle or Nook stuff). Yet the publishers, while trying to push their own silo suite of online books, have been slow to adapt to technology and user demands. The writing was on the wall folks.
Medical librarians are left trying to figure things out. We have the silos of ebooks that were difficult to find and access prior to mobile devices and now we are getting more users asking us for ebooks. What do we say or do? Do we tell them we have ebooks…sort of? Yeah you can access it online but no it isn’t optimized for the tablet or smartphone so it may or may not be readable. We have quickly moved from ebooks as simply online books on the computer to a portable information resource that can be accessed anywhere without lugging around a computer.Share on Facebook
A long time ago in galaxy (not so) far, far away, there was a list that would identify essential texts for medical libraries. This list was called the Brandon-Hill list and it was a very fine list used by many medical librarians through out the land. But in 2003 there was a disturbance in the force, the list would not go on, it ceased to exist. However, Doody’s Core Titles emerged, filling the void of Brandon-Hill.
James Shedlock wrote an interesting article, “Coping without Brando-Hill is Easy; Replace it with Doody’s Core Titles” describing briefly the history and creation of Doody’s Core Titles (DCT) and the reasons why librarians really should stop looking at the old and super out of date Brandon-Hill list and begin to use products like DCT to assist them with their purchasing.
Now I realize this article is in Doody’s and is written by somebody on the board and is blogged about by a board member (me) as well. So to give you some other perspectives about Doody’s I am also including links to several reviews on DCT so librarians can make an informed decision. Because, clinging to the old Brandon-Hill list is not an option. As James mentioned, “Though the old Brandon-Hill list was free, it was dated and now no longer exists; it is gone and is not coming back.” It is time to move on.
Doody’s Core Titles in the Health Sciences (DCT)
Karen S. Fischer
J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 July; 93(3): 409.
Mark A Spasser
Biomedical Digital Libraries 2005, 2:5 (29 June 2005)
Categories: Journals and Books Tags:
Our budgets are shrinking. Libraries are cutting things they once never dreamed of cutting. The sacred library cows are being sacrificed. As this is happening there is much vitriol directed at the for profit publishers, the Elseviers, LWWs, and Springers of the publishing world. After all, they are making a huge profit at the expense of the libraries. All they care about is money not about the common good of providing access to medical knowledge.
Therefore it was interesting to read T. Scott Plutchak’s post “The Economics of Open Access,” where he states open access publishers are achieving just as high of profit margin as some of the for profits. “PLoS achieved a 20% margin in 2010, and if the trends continue, could conceivably surpass Elsevier’s margin for 2011. Springer claims “double-digit” profits from BioMed Central.” So it is OK for PLoS to have that profit margin, but not Elsevier? Librarians don’t fool yourself, that money comes from somewhere. Is it really better that the author has to pay $1000-$2000 to publish the article instead of the library paying for the journal? Well it isn’t in our budget so who cares if it is out somebody else’s budget, right? But as Scott says, “If publishers add no value, as the anonymous Deutsche Bank analyst proclaims, isn’t PLoS just as immoral as Elsevier? Shouldn’t we be just as outraged?”
Scott lists several points questioning various issues on the OA debate.
- If you believe that publishers add no value, then you can’t support PLoS any more than you support Elsevier.
- If you believe that commercial publishers are the bane, then you should be as opposed to BioMed Central as you are to Elsevier.
- If you believe that “excess profits” (somewhat of an odd concept, since profits are excessive only when they’re not your own) are the problem, then you need to recognize that OA is not the solution and be as wary of the successful gold & hybrid publishers as you are of the others.
- If you believe that the most important thing is more and more access, then you should applaud the experiments of the commercial publishers every bit as much as you applaud the others.
We librarians scream and yell about the inequities of the for profit publishers but as Scott points OA is not the panacea that many think it is. I guess it is OK to make a huge profit if you aren’t a “for profit” company. I have a news flash, non-profits aren’t exactly trying to break even, they are trying to make as big of a profit as “for profit” companies. Non-profit is just a tax designation, non-profits still make profits (some more than others). As Forbes says “When we hear ‘nonprofit,’ most of us imagine an organization filled with the ultimate do-gooders: those angelic advocates who are willing to sacrifice their own financial gain to serve a noble cause.” Yet many of wealthiest non-profit companies make more than many for profit companies and the CEO’s, professors, and winning coaches of these non-profits are called the non-profit millionaires. Take a look at the compensation of the wealthiest non-profits from Forbes.
I am not saying that the pricing for journals and other library resources aren’t out of whack with that of our budgets, they are. But to put it into a good (non-profit) vs. evil (for profit) scenario doesn’t solve the problem. If we believe David Crotty’s post in the Scholarly Kitchen (where Scott got his PLoS 20% profit information), the “good guys” are making just as much profit as the “bad guys.” They both are for profit.Share on Facebook
It seems a lot is being discussed about e-books and e-readers lately. Sigh… e-books what a tangle web you weave.
I think Mark Funk said it best in the recent 2011 Medical eBook Publishing Trends Webcast, ebooks are at the beginning stages of their evolution, somewhat similar to what ejournals were like when they started. There are differences between ebooks and ejournals but in general ebooks are in their infancy. Just like with human infants there is a lot of rapid growth, communication isn’t always clear, and stress and confusion can always pop up.
There was brief discussion on MEDLIB-l about the worry/feeling the publishers are cutting libraries out of the process of lending ebooks. This seems to have stemmed from Amazon.com recent announcementthat it allows you to rent ebooks from them for a fee. Sony (Reader) and Barnes and Noble (Nook) allow people with their ereaders to borrow books, but they have partnered through public libraries. From what I can tell Amazon.com currently doesn’t allow people to borrow ebooks through libraries. However an article from The New York Times from April 20, 2011, mentions that Amazon will allow Kindle users to borrow books from libraries later this year. I don’t know if Amazon is still planning to do that.
However, I am still unmoved by the goings on with Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Sony and their ereaders. Why? Because their readers are really just one trick ponies, you read books on it. Yes you can get the web on B&N’s Nook color, but who (besides my husband) is looking at the Nook color as a cheap alternative to an iPad? The Nook color has apps. (It has Angry Birds what other apps are needed!?) What I see are more and more doctors carrying iPads. Specifically because the iPad is multi functional device. You can load Kindle and Nook apps on your iPad to read Amazon and B&N ebooks. There are a lot of great medical apps available for the iPad and depending on the hospital IT department, the EMR can be accessible through the iPad. Hospital IT departments are resistant enough to change, I think I have a better chance of winning the lottery than the likelihood that a lot of hospital IT departments will allow Nooks to access the EMR.
Because of the iPad and a few simple reader apps, the ereader wars between Amazon, B&N, and Sony are just background noise to me. I also don’t think much about the idea of checking out ebooks. Perhaps it is because we have a site license for almost all of our ebooks, we don’t have many ebooks that you “check out” for a period of time. So it is difficult for me to think of “checking out” ebooks. In my mind you just hop on the Intranet and click on the link to the book and read it. Perhaps if I was a public librarian dealing more with NetLibrary my mind would be thinking more in the manner of checking out an ebook.
People on Medlib-l mentioned the frustration they were having with the bundling of titles and how it makes the prices of said bundles cost prohibitive causing them to go buy the print of the book. Well that just stinks for anyone in that situation, kind of counter productive to the whole electronic movement. However, bundling isn’t new, it happened with journals and it is probably no surprise that it is happening with books. I can understand the pros and cons to bundling from both the publisher and the librarian perspective. Bundling can be very good if done well by the publisher. Nobody benefits from bad bundling. Hopefully as ebooks grow in demand and in popularity, more of the titles in the bundles will be more relevant to the purchasing librarians.
What seems to be a more pressing issue is lack of medical books available electronically, the inconsistencies between ebooks and the printed books, and digital rights/licensing.
I think more and more titles will eventually become ebooks. We had the same problem with ejournals. We got new carpeting in the library so we had to empty everything out of our desks and file cabinets so they could move furniture to put the carpet down. My co-worker ran across a 1999 memo exclaiming that we had over 100 journals available online. We have access to more than 100 times that amount. In time we will probably say the same of ebooks.
I recently got an email from somebody telling me that since their ebooks were web based they work very well on the iPad and other tablet devices. I got one word for you, Flash. Guess what is not on the iPad? Flash….AHHHH (Sorry still hearing Freddy Mercury singing the Flash Gordon theme song, damn you Blackberry for making sure I can’t forget your commerical.) Even though some of the texts on their site say download to handheld, McGraw Hill’s Access books don’t seem to work for iPads. We had a doctor try and access a McGraw Hill book on one of their Access sites and it didn’t work. When we called their help desk (even though this book is readable on the web with computers) we were told it wasn’t available and wouldn’t work on the iPad. I know that many things in McGraw Hill’s Access sites use Flash, I don’t know if this was a factor with their books. Optimizing ebooks so that more than just people on desktops or laptops can use them needs to be a priority of publishers.
One of the biggest pet peeves I have with both ejournals and ebooks are the inconsistencies between print and electronic. Maybe it is just me but it appears that ejournals are getting better with dealing with the inconsistencies, although the damn epub ahead of print still causes me to pull out my hair. Of course maybe I just expect the unexpected a big more with ejournals and I am more savvy to their inconsistencies and don’t see them as inconsistencies anymore. However, ebooks are still messy. There are some books that have more information in the ebook than the print. There are some publishers like Elsevier who sell printed books but only allow access to the online book and extra material through StudentConsult which isn’t for libraires. I know there were several times where we bought a printed book and whole chapters were missing and we were told it was available online but we couldn’t access the online because it was on StudentConsult or it was tied to an individual code. That is maddening.
Of course that leads me to the digital rights and licensing. Academic librarians must deal with issue of ebooks and Blakboard and course reserves. All librarians must deal with ILL issues and ebooks. We are so used to copying a page or chapter for ILL or sending a whole book to another library, but with ebooks ILL becomes a mess. Basically, you can’t ILL a whole book which I understand. But a library should be able to ILL some pages or chapters to the ebook. Just look at the example where the necessary chapter of a library books is available online but the library doesn’t have online access. The student or researcher needs that information but is it available through ILL? Depends on the publisher. That is just a basic (but big) example of how digital rights and licensing is maddening to librarians, patrons, and normal people. There is a lot of work to be done in this area. Unfortunately I think this might take a fairly long time to shake out, because only recently are journal publishers beginning to really work in ILL agreements into electronic journal license agreements.
Are ebooks perfect? Oh far from it, but ejournals aren’t perfect either yet look how far we have come with them. Perhaps when ten years from now when we will trip across another memo about our ebooks and sit back and laugh at how far we have come.Share on Facebook
I stumbed across an interesting post from the MARquee which described a Small Projects Award which studied the use of e-readers and nursing students. Nursing informatics students sampled e-readers to see if they could be used effectively as tools to reduce the cosst of nursing textbooks and their utilization in classroom setting. What was interesting was their was a surprising unanticipated benefit of using e-readers, notes and highlights of texts could be shared via Twitter and Facebook. It turns out sharing this information made for “highly interactive sharing of readings. The social networking tools provided an added value above text cost savings for those considering using e-readers.”
Huh… I never would have thought of that. I don’t have an e-reader, and while I have heard people talking about sharing notes on ebooks it has been mostly in theory. At conferences people (mostly ebook vendors) talk about how you can take notes and then share these notes. I think this is the first time I have actually read where it has happened in the real world with real students. I would like to read more of about this type of thing, when reading a book becomes social.Share on Facebook
Yesterday I viewed the 2011 Medical eBook Publishing Trends Webcast hosted by Ovid and it was very interesting. If you missed it the webcast will be available to watch in the archives in a few days. (As of 7/12/2011 the archive of the webcast is http://event.on24.com/r.htm?e=314699&s=1&k=5EFAD6B3E1DBFBB4865CD1939032BF8B)
Here are just some of the things I could piece together from my furious scribbling notes and memory:
While the media and Amazon have really raised awareness about ebooks, ereaders aren’t as much of an influence in the medical and medical library world. However, that doesn’t mean our users don’t want ebooks. On the contrary, people are showing use their preferences are moving more and more to the electronic environment.
Mark Funk mentioned that digitization has happened in waves within the library. The first wave was abstracts and indexes going online. The second wave was reference tools. The third wave is/was ejournals. The fourth wave is ebooks. He describes that this fourth wave is harder to implement than the electronic journals wave. This primarily due to the differences in the delivered product. A book is much larger, costlier, and complicated to put online than the regular STM journal article. Unlike ejournal articles ebooks have authors that must be paid, require more editing, have more illustrating, and have individual sales, all of which make the cost of publishing an ebook more expensive than a journal article.
Mark stated (and please if I my notes are wrong and misquoting Mark please let me know), “Unlike ejournals most STM book publishers don’t want their items downloaded, printed, or put on multiple devices.” This is different from ejournal articles and that those differences help make surfing the fourth wave a little more difficult than the third wave.
Deb Blecic then described the various options for selection of ebooks and multiple methods for purchasing them. Both publishers and aggregators are in the business of ebooks and each group has different options. Both have package offerings but aggregators have offerings that might be from different publishers and therefore may have more variety. However, digital rights tend to be better through publishers.
Not only are there different ways to select ebooks, there are different ways to “buy” them. Depending on the publisher or aggregator libraries can rent or purchase outright. In the past buying a book was a one time purchase, now with ebooks “purchasing” books becomes yearly online subscription somewhat similar to ejournals and databases.
Deb listed a few things that librarians would like as ebooks move forward. These are:
- The ability to search full text ALL of the library’s ebooks together (regardless of publisher, aggregator or platform)
- No missing content. Still there are ebooks that are missing pictures and other content. (Personally, I have seen this operate in the other direction too. I see a lot print books that are missing information where images, videos, and whole chapters are sometimes online online. I see this most often with Elsevier books and the frustrating Expert Consult).
- Reasonable purchase models
- DRM that maximizes the value to patrons and allows for use on mobile devices
- Guaranteed perpetual access for purchased e-books (An interesting comment was made at the end of the webcast that during depositions and legal matters healthcare providers must show that they were providing what was considered the standard of care at that time. If they what that information is in a ebook textbook. Tha online edition may be well be long gone by the time of the legal event to be used as proof. So there needs to be some consideration for preservation.)
- ILL and preservation options, perhaps Portico or LOCKSS.
Liz Lorbeer talked about the implementation of a Patron Driven Acquisition (PDA) pilot program at Lister Hill Library. PDA can be unmediated and mediated. It appears that Liz created a sort of mixture of a unmediated and mediated PDA program. She preselected a batch of nursing titles and books that were $175 or less could be selected and purchased by patrons. If a patron selects a book that is more expensive than $175 then that generates a purchase request to be sent to the librarian for consideration.
Liz mentioned Patron Driven Acquisition is another component of collection development NOT a replacement of the subject. This statement really resonated with me. Librarians have always solicited opinions from their patrons, this is just a streamlined electronic version of that process. Librarians worried about patrons going wild, selecting books to purchase all willy nilly can do a lot to prevent the possible spending spree by preselecting possible books to purchase and set a price limit.
I was speaking to a colleague yesterday after they webcast and she told me that she learned at the NOTSL Spring 2011 meeting on patron driven acquisition that 40% of the circulating collection of academic libraries doesn’t circulate. Wow what a large number and a huge waste of money. It was so shocking that it caused my colleage to run the numbers at our library to find out how much of our circulation collection didn’t circulate. Wouldn’t you want a collection your people use? Patron driven acquisition helps with that.
Jennie Stewart spoke about ebooks from the publisher’s perspective. Publishers are faced with trying to deal with users demands that ebooks do everything that print does and more so, including portability. According to her not all books are prime to be ebooks. Publishers have to look whether the book should be an ebook, what platform, and what type of user (individual, institutional, or both).
While understood what Jennie was saying, it was hard for me to grasp the concept that not all books can/should be ebooks (perhaps somebody has a good example) and why you would not make all books available to individuals also available to institutions. Those to concepts are difficult for me to process because I am not in the publishing world.
Finally Dan Doody presented a snapshot of of ebooks in libraries. He had several interesting statistics about the ebooks available and librarian vendor choices.
In 2010, 1326 of the 2213 books were available electronically. Of the books available electronically 36% had a 2009 copyright, 32% had a 2010 copyright and 23% had a 2011 copyright. Dan said he expected these numbers to increase because as embargo periods end more books with 2010 and 2011 copyrights will become available.
I have to admit embargo periods on ebooks was a bit of a surprise to me. I am so used to them for journal articles I had never thought that publishers were waiting to make their books available electronically after a period of time.
Overall, the webcast was very good. There was a lot of information and they moved very quickly through it, so I know I am missing information. If you attended it and you want to add to my notes here, correct an error please feel free to comment. I look forward to when the webcast is available on the archive and I can fill in the holes in my notes.Share on Facebook
Ovid is hosting a free webcast on medical ebook publishing trends Tuesday June 28, 2011 12:00pm EST.
Former President of MLA, Medical Librarian at Weill Cornell Medical College, Mark Funk will be moderating a “lively conversation” with panelists about the rapid emergence of medical ebook publishing.
The panelists are:
- Liz Lorbeer
Associate Director for Content Management at the Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham
- Deb Blecic
Bibliographer for the Life and Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
- Jennie Stewart
Director of Marketing for the (global) Health Sciences Business Unit of Wiley Blackwell
- Dan Doody
President, Doody’s Review Services
The panelists will be discussing the state of medical e-book publishing, trends driving collection development in 2011, views from the publish side of things, and trends for 2012.
If you are interested, it’s FREE so go here to register to attend it.
I am looking forward to the webinar, ebooks are squirrely look guys right now and I am interested in seeing what makes them tick, how to get a handle on them, and what experts think will be the future for them.Share on Facebook
Wednesday’s post on medinfo alerted me to this interesting article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “As the Web Goes Mobile, Colleges Fail to Keep Up.” The article states that more and more college students access the web using the mobile devices. From the graph in the article, in 2010 43% of college students use mobile devices daily to access the Internet compared to 10.2% in 2008. That is a huge jump in mobile web usage. Yet according to the article many colleges “treat their mobile web sites as low-stakes experiments.”
Of course right away my mind is thinking, “If colleges are treating the mobile web as a low stake experiment, what are the libraries doing?” Depending on the library’s relationship with the college, it may beholden to the college IT department or it may have its own IT department. That relationship will help drive a lot of the mobile web direction. However, what is also driving the libraries’ mobile web direction are the library resource vendors. How many ILS systems have GOOD mobile web platforms? In the days of shrinking budgets (state and institutional) how affordable is it to add these ILS companies’ mobile platform to the library’s system? How can a library justify that extra cost when it is faced with a flat or shrinking budget and may have to cut journals, books, hours, staff, etc?
How many databases and online books are available/optimized for mobile devices? Let’s ignore the Nook and Kindle like devices, students ARE NOT using them as mobile devices. They aren’t carrying them around all the time like they are their smart phones. They are going to use their smart phones to order Chipotle, text a friend about meeting up or an upcoming test, then they are using it to do research (usually on Google) to find a title/resource and read it. So how many online medical text books are smart phone optimized? Not many.
Libraries are beholden to not only their institution’s response to the mobile web but also to their own profession’s resource vendors’ response. I remember talking to one rather high ranking sales rep for a major medical database/journal/online book provider. I asked him if his company had created an mobile optimized version of their search database and whether there were plans to gradually optimize their many online books and journals. He said that quite frankly that he couldn’t see why anybody would want to search that way or read an article or book chapter that way. He didn’t see as important. That was about a year ago. I was gracious and said that I don’t think that way of searching and reading is for everyone but I see it as a large growth area and I know we would eventually get people asking about it.
Well guess what Mr. Sales rep, the college students of today are my residents and staff physicians of tomorrow. They are also the current users of your products in college libraries NOW. Their mobile web usage has jumped tremendously and you along with the libraries are missing out. If my users don’t usage statistics on your resources drop below a certain line, guess what we drop your resources. If people aren’t accessing your resources that I subscribe to because they aren’t mobile friendly and they are using the mobile devices, your usage statistics will drop. How far? Is it below that magic dropping line? I don’t know but usage won’t grow, and you and I both want usage to grow.
Just to be fair, NLM’s PubMed smart phone app isn’t burning up the 3G networks either. Just today, Wouter Stomp MD and Nick Genes MD, PhD who reviewed the 6 of best PubMed apps for iPhone and iPad for iMedicalApps.com said, “Although Pubmed has a mobile version of its website, it looks outdated and is not the easiest to use.” So just because a library or vendor creates an app or mobile interface doesn’t mean that rest easy. They need to find out how users use it and what other competitors or libraries are doing to improve their product.
Are we starting to feel that we are missing the users? I don’t know, I would guess it depends on your users and your library technology. But I don’t think this mobile web access is a passing fad. I think librarians, libraries, and library resource providers are behind the curve on this.Share on Facebook
Recently I have been writing a series of posts on ebooks. The blog posts didn’t start out as a series. It all started from an update post about our video from the MLA webinar where I added a few things that we wanted to say on the video but didn’t due to time constraints and where I answered a few questions from the #mlaebooks Twitter discussion. Then I followed it up with another post on ebooks for small libraries because I realized I accidentally missed a question from the Twitter discussion and it was easier to blog the answer than to write a really long comment. By then my brain was thinking ebooks and the next two posts Ebooks: The Library Catalog and Federated Searching Part 1 and Ebooks: The Library Catalog and Federated Searching Part 2 looked at some of the things I think we (librarians) need to help manage our ebooks and make them more findable for patrons.
It seems the MLA webinar has definitely inspired some discussion about ebooks, because I am starting to notice a little more chatter regarding promoting ebook usage among library patrons.
Promoting is very important and I think there is no one size fits all method to promote your library’s ebook collection. Some librarians report their patrons respond well to emailed alerts, others report their patrons get so much email that anything sent to a large group is often deleted. Some librarians have good results with brown bag lunch and learns, while others can’t get anybody to attend even if they fed them. Promotion methods vary and all I can say is that we should all be sharing our ideas, what worked, what didn’t, and possible reasons for success or failure. The larger the idea pool, the more ideas others can draw upon.
Usage statistics are a key way to determine whether your promotion efforts are working and people are using your ebooks. I have a few things to say about ebook usage statistics that librarians just entering the ebook fray should think about.
Don’t compare your ebook usage stats with your ejournal usage stats. We are familiar with ejournals and we use their usage statistics to help guide our collection development decisions. So naturally we would do the same with books and in a way it is hard (maybe I just find it hard) to not look at the overall ebook usage and compare it to overall ejournal usage. That is like comparing apples to oranges. They may be fruit but they are not the same. Ejournals publish new articles weekly, monthly or quarterly. Ebooks do not have nearly that type of publishing pattern. Most books are published every few years. Traditional books that have new updates added to the ebook version are updated as frequently but not usually as often as ejournal gets new articles. Content is constantly changing within an ejournal. New information is added many many times through out the year. This is not the same with ebooks. For example, you have people who subscribe to the TOC of journals to see if there is an article they may want. I don’t know of the same type of interest in the TOC’s for ebooks.
So not only does the constantly changing content in ejournals drive more people to their sites, but it is a lot easier to find journal articles than it is to find book chapters. Let’s face it MEDLINE is way more robust at finding information on a topic than LocatorPlus. That is because MEDLINE has articles that are indexed individually. Unfortunatley there is no MEDLINE for books. The best we can do is have the TOC for books. While that is helpful, that is not giving books and book chapters the same methods of findability as journal articles have.
Those two things alone are most likely going to drive your ejournal usage higher than that of your ebooks.
Personally I would look at your ebooks by title and begin to break down how much your ebook costs you per download or chapter view. If you have a ebook that costs you $500 for a single user license and it was accessed five times that year, it cost you $100 per use. The goal is to get the cost per use down as low as possible. It is up to you determine what appropriate cost per use is. If it is an ebook that you happen to have in print then look at your circulation statistics. Look how often the book was checked out and compare it to an ebook’s cost per use . This may prove to be helpful. If it is reference book, look at how often you are reshelving the book instead of circ stats.
The usage of ebook packages are little more difficult to evaluate. For example MDConsult has multiple books and you really can’t cherry pick among the books. If you can get usage statistics per title that is great. But instead of being frustrated about the books that don’t get usage in that package look at the ones that get the most usage. Their usuage has to be better than if they were available ala carte because they are carrying the cost of the under utilized books. Not every book in your package is going to be a home run. The key is making sure that you have more books in your package carrying the usage burden than those that are in the package but may be out of scope for your institution.
The last thing to remember, acceptance, adoption, and usage of ebooks will take time. It took time with ejournals, but I think we sometimes tend to forget that. We assume our users are already savvy to online literature because they are using ejournals, ebooks are different. They may be literature but they are different and it takes time for people and things to become common place.Share on Facebook
After participating and watching the MLA ebooks webinar two things became very apparent to me.
- Patrons do not use the catalog
- We need a federated ebook search system
If I tried to address both of these issues it would be a very long post, so today I will discuss the catalog and tomorrow I will discuss federated searching.
Patrons do not use the catalog:
We aren’t the only library to notice this problem. When most of your library’s information content is in the catalog and when patrons aren’t using the catalog, they aren’t finding the information. I blame librarians and ILS companies.
Why do I blame librarians? We are on the front lines, we should be seeing how our patrons are searching (or aren’t searching) and adjust accordingly. Yet we really don’t completely do that. If we did then we wouldn’t be cataloging in MeSH! I like MeSH, I really do, I think it is the best way for me to search for literature in database like Medline. But really only librarians are the ones who speak MeSH. The general population does not. MeSH is the Esperanto of the medical library where only a select few of learned individuals know and use the language yet the vast majority of the population doesn’t.
Honestly, I only really use MeSH when I search literature databases which contain millions of articles on various subjects. When it comes to searching the catalog I usually search using keywords, like most of the library patrons. So why are we even bothering adding MeSH terms to the catalog itself? Most of my keywords (and I am a librarian) and certainly most of the patron keywords aren’t MeSH, they are at best general subject terms.
Earlier this week Julie Stielstra posted on Medlib-l a question about alternative cataloging systems. She described how a public library began to catalog their nonfiction differently by using “plain language” subject headings with author lables. For example: SPORTS BASEBALL Bouton or COOKING FRENCH Child. She wondered if her patrons wouldn’t be better served if she cataloged items like this as well. Her example was NURSING PEDIATRIC Wong 2010 and I kind of agree with her that it is much more intuitive than WY 159 W559e 2010.
Perhaps we need to really investigate why we insist on using MeSH when clearly our patrons don’t want to use it. Teaching them to use MeSH for Medline searches is at best a challenge, getting them to use MeSH to search a library catalog is sisyphean.
For those who are ready to strip me of my librarian stripes, you can still have your MeSH cake and eat it too. Go ahead keep the MeSH in the record but start adding some general terms that make sense to patrons. I would love to say, let the patrons add the terms, but that won’t fix the problem. Patrons don’t use our catalog, and by doing that we would be relying on the few that do search it to take it upon themselves to do the tagging of the collection. Librarians should start tagging the collection themselves so that there is at least a skeleton set of terms for people to work with and build upon. Giving them a blank canvas and telling them to paint a master piece is not fair to them. We have to get them started with paint by numbers first.
Why do I blame ILS companies?
Because librarians can only do so much. Most of medical librarians are not programmers nor have the time to create a robost ILS that is required these days. Therefore we need ILS companies to do that. However, ILS companies are still designing systems with librarians as their primary users not the patrons. The librarians are not the primary users. We are the primary users of the back end but not the system. It seems ILS companies don’t know how to design a system that marries the back end necessities to a patron centered front end.
Patrons want an Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble like system, and quite franklyI have not seen an ILS out there that provides that experience. Some systems are trying to do better, for example Innovative Interfaces just released a news statment about their AirPAC product for smartphones and its use in libraries. Those kind of enhancements are helpful but the over all experience of ILS products is still pretty dismal.
Here are examples of different libraries or library system’s catalog records for Hurst’s the Heart. (Names of libraries have been removed.)
- Example 1 from a group of small hospital libraries.
- Example 2 from an academic medical library.
- Example 3 from an large library system.
Which one is better for the patron?
Example 1 is just a mess of words with no break for the eye and a bunch of gobblty gook that the patron doesn’t care about. The call number is in the upper left hand corner like a card from a card catalog. In fact the whole record is pretty much organized like a card from a card catalog. Get rid of this design/organizational and display method. Most patrons these days have never used a card catalog so they don’t “get it.” Hell we have librarians now who never used a card catalog. It is just more of a mess for them to look at and they have to hunt for pertinent information.
Example 2 is better visually but is still kind of a jumble of words (especially in the TOC). Other things that are odd to a patron, do you really need that many words to describe format and does that all make sense to a patron? Notes does not mean the same thing to patrons as it does librarians, do we need to show that? I don’t know, I was always told in library school that people like to know if it has an index, bibliographic references, or illustrations but I have rarely had patrons ask me this when I am looking for a book for them. They want to know if we have it and if so where can they find it.
Example 3 is the best of the bunch, but it too could use some improvement. I love the picture of the book in the right, that is helpful to see. (I realize the other examples were to the online book and may not have had images, but why can’t they if they are the online version of a printed book?) The two biggest things that the patron cares about, does my library have this and how do I get it are up top just below the title information. I am not a big fan of adding links to Google Books if the book isn’t free or available through there. I think “Limited Preview at Google Books” is not helpful to the patron (How limited? One time only? Can I print? Just the first chapter or TOC? etc.) This is a large consortia of libraries so the call number which is unique to each library is not listed at the top, but patrons can click on the link to the libraries that have it to see the call number. (I’m not sure that this is intuitive but I am also not sure how else you would do that within a large group catalog.) Finally the TOCs are arranged in a readable manner with links to the authors of the chapters. That is very helpful. Only at the bottom of the screen is the librarian cataloging information, patrons are rarely interested in it and it should be that far down.
I realize that some of the examples not only reflect on the ILS but also the library or libraries that set up their catalogs, but do you see any that are as easy as Barnes and Nobel or Amazon.com? If so I would love to take screen shots and list them here as good examples. I would also like to know how their usage is and what those librarians report about patrons using the catalog.Share on Facebook