Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

NISO Standards update: KBart and Demand Driven Acquisitions Best Practices


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

NISO Standards update: KBart and Demand Driven Acquisitions Best Practices

  1. 1. KBart Knowledge Bases & Related tools & DDA Demand-driven acquisition NISO Best Practice Updates Jason Price, PhD Interim Library Director / Consultant Claremont Colleges / SCELC
  2. 2. X KBART K X KNOWLEDGE BASES AND RELATED TOOLS: A NISO/UKSG RECOMMENDED PRACTICE Jason Price, PhD Claremont Colleges/SCELC KBART Working Group Member SSP San Francisco 6/5/2013 ?
  3. 3. Vitals – Who – Publishers, Aggregators, KB vendors, Libraries – What – a universally acceptable holdings data format – Where – throughout the supply chain & at the UKSG info hub – When – Now • Phase 1 Report – Jan 2010 • Phase 2 Report – Summer 2013 – Why – Better access through accurate holdings data
  4. 4. What is KBART? • A NISO recommended practice • “A set of practical recommendations for the timely exchange of accurate metadata between content providers and knowledge base developers” • a universally acceptable holdings list format – Expresses title level coverage by date & volume/issue • A single solution for sharing holdings data across the scholarly content supply chain
  5. 5. Where does KBART apply?
  6. 6. Why KBART? • Maintenance of accurate package content coverage data – Supports openUrl Link Resolvers – Supports ejournal & ebook MARC record delivery services – Enables automated updating by KB providers • Addresses common holding list inadequacies – Re-use of ISSNs – Embargo period ambiguities – Inconsistent date/enumeration formats
  7. 7. Benefit to publishers • OpenUrl Fails about 30% of the time – Trainor and Price. 2010. Digging into the Data: Exposing the causes of openURL failure. Library Technology Reports 46(7):15-26 see • If roughly 50% of traffic comes from Google scholar and other KB dependent library search tools, then as much as a 15% increase in traffic could be gained with accurate, easily transferable metadata • Satisfied customers – survey results in Phase II report
  8. 8. A simple metadata exchange format…
  9. 9. The Registry -- a growing contact and metadata content clearinghouse Registry shortcut:
  10. 10. What do publishers need to do to adopt the KBART best practices? 1. Review the requirements that are accessible via 2. Format ejournal and ebook content availability data to meet the requirements. 3. Self check their datasheet(s) on the KBART website to ensure that they conform to the recommended practice and make any necessary corrections 4. Ensure that they have a process in place for regular data exchange as outlined in section 5.2 of the KBART report. 5. Register their organization on the KBART registry website, providing a link to download the newly KBART formatted dataset(s)
  11. 11. Phase II will… • Be out this summer • Replace the phase I BP with additions that accomodate: – Ebooks (more effectively) • Editor, Volume, Edition, Date published* – Series including Conference proceedings • Publication type (serial or monograph), Parent publication & Preceding title ID – Consortia Files • To identify how widely holdings files apply – Open access metadata • New Access type field – Fee Based or OA or Hybrid OA • Require re-submission of Phase II sample files for Phase I endorsers
  12. 12. Obstacles • Data quality – Easily verified • Structure & syntax – Harder to verify • Separating frontfile from backfile • Transferred, split, ceased titles • Adoption by a few major journal publishers • The challenge of generic lists
  13. 13. Developing NISO Recommended Practices for Demand-Driven Acquisition of Monographs Society for Scholarly Publishing – San Francisco June 5, 2013 Jason Price, PhD, Claremont Colleges Library / SCELC Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver
  14. 14. Definitions EBASS 25 Youtube Video Outstanding 10 minute intro to all things PDA Patron-Driven Acquisition (PDA)  Acquisition of library materials based on direct or indirect patron input, including faculty requests and analysis of collection usage Demand-Driven Acquisition (DDA)  Acquisition of library materials based on patron selection at the point of need.  From possible use to immediate need
  15. 15. Why Do We Need DDA Best Practices? Libraries:  Management of the “consideration pool” – the titles available for purchase or lease  Rules for:  Adding titles  Keeping un-owned titles available  Removing titles  Managing records
  16. 16. Goals  Develop a flexible (but consistent!) model for DDA that works for publishers, vendors, aggregators, and libraries.  Support creation of DDA plans that  Meet local budget and collection needs  Support cross-aggregator implementation  Account for how DDA impacts all functional areas of the library  Allow for consortial participation  Complete by Dec 2013
  17. 17. Recommendations for access models Developing consistent models for  Free discovery (browse)  Temporary lease  Purchase
  18. 18. Recommendations for tech issues Managing and populating the consideration pool  Profiling for inclusion/removal  Managing order process, queuing for acquisitions, cataloging Loading/updating/removing records Managing multiple formats (p&e)
  19. 19. Recommendations for metrics Developing tools and strategies to measure use  To compare across aggregators  To analyze local and consortial differences  To enable accurate predictions of expected spending and future usage  To provide analyses of referral sources
  20. 20. Other recommendations Implementation at the local and consortial levels Providing long-term access to unowned ebook content Managing authenticated access Connections to print on demand
  21. 21. Obstacles  For DDA  “Inside the box” print-based expectations for ebooks  e.g. ILL, auto-purchase approval plans  Access vs Ownership dilemma  Perceived unpredictability  For aggregators: simultaneous use restrictions  For publishers: course adopted book income  Variety of platforms & models from aggregators (e.g. EBL/Ebrary, Ebsco, MyILibrary) to Publishers  Insufficency of COUNTER ebook statistics for DDA analysis  “meaningful use”
  22. 22. Next Steps Survey(s)  NISO DDA email list, other stakeholders Focus groups Phone interviews  Of thought leaders, early adopters
  23. 23. Implications for Publishers  Of DDA generally  Unpredictability  Greater emphasis on discovery  Of this initiative  Need to make e-books available for the long term  Even if not purchased  Need to develop models that work across aggregators  Need to Improve metrics (which helps with unpredictability)  Evidence-based Selection  Call to action: Watch this space