Memorandum / University Library
Our ref: / AUT/26/03 / Telephone: / (08) 9380 1406
Your ref: / Facsimile: / (08) 9380 1012
Email: /

15 April 2003

DLI COORDINATION GROUP

Managing Australian Electronic Reserves

Introduction

Methodology

Results

Analysis

1. Environmental factors

2. Material offered via the electronic reserve

3. Receive

4. Verify

5. Copyright

6. Acquire

7. Digitise

8. Mount

9. Metadata

10. Liaise

11. Manage

Concluding remarks

Appendix 1: Location of Tasks in the eReserve Process, by Institution

Appendix 2: Feedback received from Australian libraries

Australian National University

Deakin University

Edith Cowan University

Flinders University of South Australia

La Trobe University

Monash University

Murdoch University

Queensland University of Technology

The University of Adelaide

University of New South Wales

The University of Newcastle

University of Queensland

University of South Australia

University of Western Sydney

Victoria University of Technology

C:\DOCUME~1\u9508250\LOCALS~1\Temp\Managing_eReserves2003.docPage 1 of 30

Last saved by Brian Poleykett on Thursday, 17 April 2003 9:26:00 AM

Last printed Tuesday, 15 April 2003

Introduction

In January 2003, all Council of Australian University Librarians were invited to participate in an information sharing exchange on the operation and management of their electronic reserve. Each CAUL respondent supplied a contact person. In total, 25 libraries responded.

The libraries were asked to supply as much information as possible to answer the following three questions:

  1. What content was offered via their “electronic reserve”? For example, were journal articles, book chapters, and other print-based materials scanned? Were University-authored lecture notes and tutorial solutions digitised? Did they include links to full text materials available on the Web?
  2. What process did the library use to add each item to their “electronic reserve”? How many staff, and at what level, were involved at each stage of the process?
  3. What changes or adjustments have been made to this process over time, if any? What was the impetus or rationale behind these changes?

After analysing the information received to this initial request, two follow-up questions were asked:

  1. Who managed the issue of Copyright compliance in their process?
  2. What was the approximate number of items processed each year by the procedure outlined in Answer 2?

Methodology

The volume and diversity of information received made analysing and summarising the data difficult.

The Team constructed an idealised electronic reserve workflow consisting of nine steps: receipt of the citation, verification that the citation is correct, consideration of the copyright compliance issues, acquiring the document, digitising the document, mounting it online, and creating and entering the metadata which describes the document. Along the way it may be required for staff to liaise with academics. Finally, the entire process may require coordination, or some degree of oversight. The Team identified each task after considering whether the work could be performed by different people or groups. Other institutions may have co-located one task with another. Hence, the process may differ slightly between each institution.

Results

All but one of the institutions that responded was considered to be a “distributed” library, consisting of more than one campus or branch. The only exception was the University of New South Wales Library. This was deemed unsurprising in the post-Dawkins higher education sector.

The Review Team decided against distinguishing libraries based purely on their management of physical reserves. Some libraries manage both print and digital reserves in a unified process. Others separate the two, based on historical and/or environmental factors. The Team believed classifying libraries into either category would only increase the complexity of the data, without assisting the Library Executive to select an operational model for this Library. The decision whether print and electronic reserves are co-managed would depend on local factors.

Whether a library carried out the tasks in its electronic reserve process in a distributed or centralised manner was thought to me more relevant. The data was summarised into the table shown in Appendix 1: Location of Tasks in the eReserve Process, by Institution. More detailed feedback is provided in Appendix 2: Feedback received from Australian libraries.

Analysis

1. Environmental factors

Summary
  • The majority of respondents have been operating some form of online “reserve” for more than a year.
  • 2 libraries (Edith Cowan and Murdoch) are in the very early stages of commencing their electronic reserve operations.
  • 2 libraries (La Trobe and UQ) are just emerging from the “trial” phase of development, with only a small volume of digitised works and procedures which are still subject to change.

2. Material offered via the electronic reserve

Summary
  • 15 libraries (100%) include scanned images of journal articles and book chapters.
  • 3 libraries (20%; Deakin, QUT, and UNSW) use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology to convert the scanned image file to a text based file.
  • At least 10 libraries (67%; ANU, Deakin, Edith Cowan, Flinders, La Trobe, Murdoch, UNSW, Newcastle, UQ, and UWS) link to articles available via full-text services.
  • One library (UofSA) has ceased offering links to full-text as academic staff complained the online version did not adequately correspond to the print.
  • 10 libraries (67%; Deakin, Flinders, La Trobe, Murdoch, QUT, UNSW, Newcastle, UofSA, UWS, and Victoria) include University-authored lecture notes and tutorial solutions. Those that do not prefer the lecturer host the material on their Department web site, or within their MLE.
  • 3 libraries (20%; Deakin, La Trobe, and Murdoch) offer audio-visual materials, usually digital recordings of lecturers. La Trobe digitises and hosts digital lecturer recordings in-house. Murdoch provides links to lectures digitised by another University unit.

3. Receive

The first stage of the electronic reserve process involves the receipt of a citation request, and/or the document itself.

Summary
  • 9 libraries (60%; ANU, Flinders, Monash, Murdoch, Newcastle, UQ, UofSA, UWS, and Victoria) receive citation requests in their branch libraries.
  • 6 libraries (40%; Deakin, Edith Cowan, La Trobe, QUT, Adelaide, and UNSW) have centralised the receipt of citations and documents, usually building an online form to capture the request
Staffing

The level of staff required for this task varies greatly, from level 2 to level 5 positions, usually dependant on the degree of liaison required with academic staff.

Commentary

Those libraries that distribute receipt of the citation do so to maintain the contact between academic staff and their local library. The decision to distribute or centralise may also be influenced by the location of later tasks, especially stage two - verification of the citation. It could be considered best practice to offer as many receipt points as possible (both distributed and centralised).

4. Verify

The citation information as entered by the requestor is verified as complete and accurate. If photocopied or digitised documents are submitted they need to be examined to ensure they meet quality guidelines. URLs to resources on the World Wide Web need to be tested.

Summary
  • 7 libraries (47%; ANU, Flinders, Murdoch, Newcastle, UofSA, UWS, and Victoria) distribute verification of the citation to their branch libraries.
  • 8 libraries (53%; Deakin, Edith Cowan, La Trobe, Monash, QUT, Adelaide, UNSW, and UQ) have centralised this task.
Staffing
  • 2 libraries (13%; Flinders, Adelaide) use HEO 2 and 3 staff.
  • 6 libraries use level 3 staff. Deakin, Edith Cowan, Monash, and UQ (4; 27%) employ HEW 3. ANU (1; 7%) use ANU 3, while La Trobe (1; 7%) use HEO 3.
  • 2 libraries (13%; QUT and Victoria) employ HEW 3 to 4 staff.
Commentary

The staff member performing these tasks needs detailed information technology and bibliographic knowledge. The linking process can be complex, requiring a detailed knowledge of the library’s subscriptions to full text Web services and how to create stable links to specific online documents. The staff member may also need to decide whether to digitise a paper copy of a work or hyperlink to it, if it is available in full text via the Web.

5. Copyright

A decision must be made whether copying a document and/or communicating it online will result in the lecturer or institution exceeding the statutory limits allowed by the Copyright Act (1968) and Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000.

Summary
  • 9 libraries (60%; Deakin, Edith Cowan, La Trobe, Monash, QUT, Adelaide, UNSW, UQ, and Victoria) have chosen to centralise Copyright compliance checking.
  • 5 libraries (34%; Flinders, Murdoch, Newcastle, UofSA, and UWS) have implemented a hybrid model where routine copyright issues can be dealt with by staff in the branch libraries. Complex issues are forwarded to central staff with more experience in Copyright law.
  • 1 library (ANU) deals with all queries using an “expert” in each branch.
Staffing
  • 5 libraries (33%) identified the level of staff involved in the Copyright checking task.
  • 2 of the 5 libraries have implemented the hybrid distributed/centralised model. 1 library (Flinders) employs HEO 2 staff to perform the initial check, whilst the other (Newcastle) uses HEW 4.
  • 3 of the 5 libraries use centralised staff to check for Copyright compliance. 1 library (Newcastle) uses HEW 4 staff, 1 library (Deakin) uses HEW 5, while 1 library (Edith Cowan) uses a HEW 7 position.
  • 6 libraries (40%; Deakin, Monash, Murdoch, QUT, UQ, and UWS) have an identified Copyright Coordinator or Officer to manage copyright and provide advice for Library-related services.
  • 4 of these positions (Monash, Murdoch, UQ, and UWS) are partly or wholey funded by the University, but located within the Library.
  • 8 Universities (Monash, Murdoch, QUT, Adelaide, UNSW, UQ, UofSA and UWS) have legislated that the only place materials copied under the provisions of the Act may be communicated online is via the Library’s electronic reserve system.
Commentary

There is considerable variation between Australian institutions in how they handle this task.

A case was frequently made for the involvement of higher level staff in this task, not only because of the complex nature of Australian Copyright law, but also because liaison with academics could be required if a document failed the copyright compliance check. Lower level staff sometimes lacked the confidence to inform academics that their document could not be mounted online. Mediation may also be required between two or more academic staff wanting parts from the same book online at similar times.

Centralising copyright management allows a detailed understanding of the Law to be accumulated, and ensures consistency is applied across the entire electronic reserve collection.

Centralising the communication of materials copied under the provisions of the Copyright Act to the Library’s systems was often stated as arising from a desire to simplify copyright management across the University. There was only one repository of digital materials, which made monitoring and reporting to CAL simpler.

6. Acquire

Documents are obtained from the Library’s collection. Documents may also be obtained from another library’s collection (inter-library loan or document delivery). Items are usually photocopied before being digitised in the next task.

Summary
  • 12 libraries possessed branch libraries and therefore collected materials in a distributed manner.
  • 1 library (UNSW) did not have branch libraries and therefore possessed a centralised collection.
  • 2 libraries (Edith Cowan and UofSA) rely on the academic staff member to obtain the document themselves; i.e. they only accept electronic reserve items which have already been photocopied or digitised.
Staffing

This task is most often performed by staff at levels HEO 2 - 3 or HEW 2 - 3.

7. Digitise

Physical items are converted into a suitable electronic format; electronic items are converted from one form to another.

Summary
  • 7 libraries (47%; ANU, Murdoch, QUT, Newcastle, UofSA, UWS, and Victoria University) chose to digitise the item “at source”, in the branch library which housed the collection from which the item came.
  • 6 libraries (40%; Flinders, La Trobe, Monash, Adelaide, UNSW, and UQ) digitise their material in a centralised unit which specialises in this task.
  • Deakin Library has implemented a hybrid model where some materials are digitised at source, and some are passed to a central unit for digitisation.
  • Edith Cowan Library offers no digitisation service at present.
  • 2 libraries (Edith Cowan, Flinders) have indicated that their preferred model would be to decentralise their digitisation service.
Commentary

The decision whether to centralise or decentralise the digitisation staff does not appear to be determined by the number of items processed annually.

Institution / Digitisation / Items processed in 2002
UNSW / Centralised / ≈ 9,000
QUT / Distributed / ≈ 7,000
Newcastle / Distributed / ≈ 5,000
Monash / Centralised / 4,931 †
Victoria / Distributed / 3,573
Deakin / Distributed/Centralised / ≈ 2,000 
La Trobe / Centralised / 100

† January - November 2001.
 Excludes some eReserve items such as Lecture Notes and tutorial solutions etc.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the libraries which distribute digitisation to their branches have done so because of a desire to manage both physical and electronic reserves within the same process. Of the seven, only QUT appear not to manage their physical reserves within the same process as their electronic reserves. Digitising material at its source may also result in a faster service without the need to physically ship items between locations.

Libraries which favour a central digitisation unit may have chosen to maximise the experience and skills of a small number of specialised staff. Volumes could be too low to justify the purchase of more equipment and the training of more staff. Alternatively, some Libraries market their digitisation centre as a resource for University staff to use.

8. Mount

This involves the transfer of the digital file from a holding area to a location within the electronic reserve system where it is accessible to clients.

Summary

  • 6 libraries (ANU, Flinders, Murdoch, Newcastle, UWS, and Victoria) mount the digital material using branch library staff.
  • 7 libraries (Deakin, Edith Cowan, La Trobe, Monash, QUT, Adelaide, UNSW, UQ, and UofSA) use centralised staff.

Commentary

The design of the local system usually decides who mounts the file, and which groups of staff could or should have access to the web server or document management system.

Although the section which digitises the file in the first place may perform the task, it is usually carried out by the section which performs the next task: creating and entering the metadata which describes the document.

9. Metadata

Metadata which describes the electronic document is created and entered into the electronic readings or copyright management database. The system may facilitate client access to the resource, and/or facilitate copyright management and reporting.

Summary

  • 14 libraries offer their electronic reading lists via the Library ILMS. The breakdown by ILMS is as follows:

INNOPAC by III / 8
Voyager by Endeavour / 5
ALEPH by Ex Libris / 1
  • 1 library (QUT) has developed an in-house database-driven system called the Course Materials Database.

Staffing

  • 5 libraries (ANU, Murdoch, Newcastle, UWS, and Victoria) use branch library staff to create and enter metadata into their electronic reserve database.
  • 7 libraries (Deakin, Edith Cowan, La Trobe, Adelaide, UNSW, UQ, UofSA) use centralised staff for this task.
  • 4 of these libraries (Deakin, Edith Cowan, La Trobe, and UofSA) require the metadata be created by “technical services” staff, or at least staff members trained as Library technicians.
  • 3 libraries (Flinders, Monash and QUT) use a hybrid model, with some metadata being added in the branch libraries, and either reviewed or completed by central staff.

Commentary

The type of database used - home grown or vendor supplied ILMS - appears to be irrelevant to the issue of who creates and enters the metadata into said system. There are two concerns influencing the type and level of staff who perform this task:

  1. Accuracy of the metadata.
  2. Consistency between related metadata.

Accuracy in the creation of the metadata is obviously a concern since the bibliographic record should accurately reflect the digital object it is describing.

Consistency between related metadata is very important. Consistently indexed headings allow related records to be grouped together, making it easy for students to access them.

The requirements dictated by the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act place great emphasis on both concerns. Inaccurate data can hinder compliance with the Act if documents are incorrectly cited, leading to the erroneous assumption that a document has not previously been copied. In order to provide accurate and consistent Electronic Usage Reports to CAL a library needs to accurately and consistently cite the documents copied under the provisions of the Act.

Staff responsible for the creation of this metadata must be familiar with bibliographic description. Traditionally, many libraries have trained their circulation staff in basic bibliographic techniques in order for them to create “physical reserve” records, perhaps facilitated by the creation of record templates and guidelines. Some libraries have chosen to superimpose electronic reserve record creation over this process. It could be argued that the main function of physical reserve records is to facilitate location of the photocopied material on the reserve shelves. There is less emphasis placed on the data itself, and the adherence to bibliographic standards, and more emphasis placed on getting the academic’s request processed as quickly as possible. Other libraries prefer that metadata creation is handled within their cataloguing section. Again, there is no clear indication as to which model works more effectively.

10. Liaise

Academic staff are consulted. Interaction occurs at many points in the processing workflow, as well as in the decision about retention for the next year.

Summary

  • 2 libraries (ANU and UNSW) indicated that liaison between library and academic staff is an important part of the electronic reserve process.

Staffing

  • 1 library (UNSW) increased the level of staff involved in this task from HEW 3 to HEW 4.
  • 1 library (UQ) uses HEW 5/6 staff for this task.
  • 1 library (Deakin) uses a team of HEW 3, 5, and 6 level staff to review all records at year’s end and liaise with academic staff.
  • 1 library (Flinders) reports that they prefer this task is handled by their Lending Services Supervisors (HEO 6) or Liaison Librarians (HEO 7).

11. Manage

Operational, and in some cases strategic, overview of the electronic reserve process.