RBMS Metrics and Assessment Task Force

RBMS Metrics Task Force, Subgroup 4Reproduction Services / 1 of 6

RBMS Metrics and Assessment Task Force

Subgroup 4: Use & Users, Web Stats, Circulation, Gate Counts, and Community Impact

Report Section Draft – Christian Dupont (01/20/13)

REPRODUCTION SERVICES

Covering numbers of reproduction requests by type, counts of permissions to use personal digital cameras and images taken, usage of library-provided copiers/scanners, etc.

Measuring Operational Activities, Efficiencies, etc.

1. Describe the activity or process to be measured.

Researchers who make use of special collections and archival materials in their work sometimes need to request reproductions of those materials for publication purposes or, more often, for their own convenience in consulting them away from repository’s supervised reading room.

Depending on the repository’s policies, researchers who consult rare and archival materials in a reading room may request or otherwise be permitted by policy to use their personal digital cameras to photograph materials for later consultation. Some repositories lend cameras or have scanning equipment available for self-service use by researchers for this purpose. Most repositories that provide such services stipulate that images obtained by these means not be used for publication purposes, or at least not without the express and written permission of the repository. In many cases researchers are required to sign a statement acknowledging that they understand and agree to this stipulation along with policies concerning how the equipment is to be used (e.g., no flash, no tripods, etc.) and a statement that releases the repository from any liability should the researcher violate any copyrights or otherwise misuse the images.

In order provide researchers with publication-quality images and permission to publish them, most repositories provide some type of fee-based digitization service. At academic institutions, fees may be waived or reduced for affiliated faculty and students, but the process is generally the same: the researcher places an order with the repository to have specified materials reproduced and the repository fulfills the order by delivering digital files or hardcopy prints. Researchers may place such orders in person while otherwise consulting the materials in a reading room, or they may request them by contacting the repository outside of such a visit through a remote reference service.

While the above and following sections refer to photographs or digital scans or images as the paradigm for this type of reproduction service, such services may also include the reproduction of moving image or audio recordings or any other type of media.

To guide repositories in formulating appropriate policies and procedures for providing reproduction services in ways that balance researcher demands for access with concerns for the preservation of the materials and respect for copyright, OCLC Research has recently published two reports: Scan and Deliver: Managing User-initiated Digitization in Special Collections and Archives[1] and Capture and Release: Digital Cameras in the Reading Room.[2]

The specific activities that can be tracked in the area reproduction services, whether as a service provided by the repository or through provisions for self-service by researchers themselves, include:

• completion of permission forms by researchers to use personal digital cameras in the reading room
• usage of personal digital cameras by researchers in the reading room
• usage of camera or scanning equipment provided by the repository by researchers for self-service reproductions
• reproduction services provided by the repository to onsite researchers
• reproduction services provided by the repository to offsite researchers
• collection of fees for reproduction services or permission to publish reproductions

Special collections and archives in academic libraries sometimes receive or fulfill reproduction orders through an interlibrary loan department or central document delivery service. Possible metrics for assessing such activities are considered in a separate report. This report focuses on reproduction services that are wholly provided or managed by special collections and archival repositories.

1. Identify existing metrics (i.e., measures or counts), noting any references to international, national, or community standards, guidelines, or definitions.

There do not appear to be any common international, national, or community-of-practice-based metrics for defining or counting the activities associated with repository-provided or self-service reproduction services in special collections and archives.

Furthermore it does not appear that staff and researcher interactions around such services should be counted as “reference transactions,” at least according to the definition supplied in the instructions for the 2011-2012 ARL Statistical Survey, which reads:

An information contact that involves the knowledge, use, recommendations, interpretation, or instruction in the use [or creation of] one or more information sources by a member of the library staff. The term includes information and referral service.[3]

Since the fulfillment of reproduction order does not involve the use or creation of information sources to fulfill an informational needed, it seems that researcher requests for reproductions should not be counted as reference transactions, expect, perhaps, in those cases in which staff assist researchers in identifying collection materials for reproduction.

1. Comment on:
2. the adequacy and the inadequacy of existing metrics, especially those that reference international, national, or community standards, guidelines, or definitions;

The lack of metrics for defining and measuring reproduction services provided by special collections and archives means that activities pertaining to those services cannot be adequately assessed in any comparative way beyond the level of the individual repository. The lack of metrics also limits the ability of repositories to gauge the efficiency and quality of their services by comparison to other similar repositories.

1. methods commonly used to collect data required by the metric; and

Repositories that permit researchers to use their own digital cameras in the reading room or provide equipment to support self-service digitization typically have researchers sign statements that release the repository from liability for an infringing use that they might make of reproductions thus obtained. These statements are filed and may be used to provide a count of researchers who avail themselves of the privilege. Although not a recommended practice, some repositories also request researchers to provide them with a list or a count of the images they capture, which can serve as an additional and more detailed statistic.

Researchers who would like the repository to make reproductions for them must generally complete a reproduction order form that includes details about the items they would like to have reproduced along with their contact and relevant payment information. Such forms are provided in either paper or electronic form, or both. Some repositories also create separate invoices or use external payment systems to receive payments, both of which can provide additional data that might be tallied for statistical purposes.

Researchers who would like to publish reproductions are generally required to request written permission from the repository to do so, although in recent years, some repositories have been dropping such requirements, particularly for materials that are considered to be in the public domain. Repositories that document publication permission requests often count the number of such requests received and granted and maintain it as a local statistic. Some repositories also request that researchers notify them when their publications appears and in some cases provide a complimentary copy. Repositories that track actual publication appearances of reproductions from their collections often count the number of such appearances and maintain it as a local statistic.

1. the priority that RBMS should place on developing a better metric and related definitions and guidelines for use.

Developing common metrics for evaluating reproduction services is probably not as important as useful or impactful as developing metrics for other aspects of special collections and archival public services, especially visitor and circulation counts, and is potentially more difficult due to the variety of reproduction services offered and the means of delivering them. Nevertheless, a broad and basic set of definitions might be formulated to enable repositories to compare their overall levels of activity. Effectively quantifying the volume of services delivered might also serve as an indicator of frequency and intensity of use that can be correlated with materials usage in the reading room. In addition, the development of best practices and benchmarks might be articulated to help repositories evaluate the efficiency and quality of their reproduction services.

Assessing Value and Impact for Users

While there may be some benefit to developing standardized definitions and common metrics for reproduction services to support comparative levels of activity across repositories, the main advantage would likely be at the local level. While permitting researchers to use personal digital cameras in the reading room has little impact on library staff, providing digitization and other reproduction services involves investments in equipment infrastructure and labor. Especially since the revenues from such services do not generally cover costs, repositories have an interest in providing the services in as efficient a manner as possible in order to minimize their impact on other services the repository provides. Developing systems of data gathering and metrics can help repositories control costs, but such systems do not necessarily need to be scalable to applicable across different repositories in order to be effective. At a minimum, a repository can measure the revenues it receives against its labor and equipment investments to determine whether it is meeting locally acceptable benchmarks (since many repositories are not required to strictly recoup the cost of its reproduction services let alone other research support services, operating at a “loss” may be quite acceptable and in keeping with institutional mission and expectations).

In addition to monitoring cost efficiencies, repositories may also have an interest in evaluating the quality of the services it provides in order to maximize researcher satisfaction and institutional reputation. Quantitative metrics such as turnaround or delivery time and order accuracy may provide useful indicators of service quality. In addition, qualitative metrics such as surveying researcher satisfaction may provide additional measures for assessing the value that researchers except and derive from reproduction services and may help repositories determine appropriate benchmarks for turnaround or delivery times as well as cost.

Tracking publication usage of reproductions may provide an indicator of institutional impact insofar as institutions value the use of their special collections and archives in ways that benefit the scholarly communities and the public good. While some repositories may continue to collection information about publications that feature reproductions of their materials through a permissions process, data about publication usage may be collected by other means, such as asking researchers to voluntarily notify institutions of any publication use they may make of their collections, or having repository staff conduct internet and database searches for citations of their collections. This latter method can be aided by requesting that researchers employ standard conventions for naming the repository when citing its materials and providing sample citations. To the extent that researchers follow such conventions, repositories can set up automated internet and database searches to look for them and collect statistics and other information about publication uses of their materials which may in turn help them articulate the value they are providing to scholarly communities.

[1] Available from:

[2] Available from:

[3] ARL Statistics Questionnaire, 2011-12. Instructions for Completing the Questionnaire (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2012), 6. Available from