Executive Summary
Many academic and research libraries are in the midst of what may ultimately be a major transition for various parts of their collections—a shift from print to electronic format. Libraries that had long subscribed only to print versions of journals are, in increasing numbers, licensing electronic versions to replace the print. What effects will this transition have on library operations and on nonsubscription expenditures? To answer this question, we collected new data on staff activities and costs from 11 U.S. academic libraries. We then performed a life-cycle analysis to study the longer-term cost implications of the transition.
Library collections and operations stand to change significantly as a result of the transition. At all but the largest academic libraries, collection sizes in the electronic format are significantly larger than they ever were for print. Notably different activities are required to manage and maintain an electronic collection. Staff-compensation profiles for the formats vary as well.
Our life-cycle analysis divided the costs for print and electronic formats as they exist today into one-time (often first-year) and annually recurring costs. For the average title in each format, we added 25 years' worth of recurring costs to the one-time costs. This yielded the average nonsubscription cost for a given title over an estimated total life span. While this time period was arbitrary, it was essential that a sufficiently long period be used to highlight the long-term implications of the format choice.
Our findings suggest that nonsubscription costs are lower, on a per-title basis, in electronic than in print format. The per-title effect is more pronounced at smaller libraries, mainly because they license relatively large collections of electronic titles in comparison to the size of their print collections. Relative to collection size, however, the cost benefits of the electronic format exist across the board.
We modeled the effects of the per-title cost differentials under a variety of assumptions in order to determine their likely implications on individual libraries. While many of the cost implications will depend on local conditions, initiatives, and management practices, the likely outcome of the transition for many libraries will be reduced nonsubscription costs for periodicals. In the long run, some libraries may benefit significantly, although there are important short-term management challenges to be considered. The potential savings are not, however, on the scale that some enthusiasts have imagined.
Moreover, any dollar-for-dollar comparison of the two formats is complicated by several shifts in system-wide costs. Some costs that are borne by libraries or publishers for the print format may be borne by the other party in the electronic format. The cost of day-to-day storage of the information resource is one example: Publishers, rather than libraries, generally provide for the server storage of electronic periodicals. In addition, some costs that are borne by libraries for the print format, most notably the cost of archiving, have not yet been taken on by either party for the electronic format. There is as yet no archiving solution for electronic periodicals, so it is not possible to calculate the costs or determine how they will be borne. Given the complexity of the problem and unanswered questions such as these, the objective of this study was to offer a set of conclusions that will help inform the transition rather than to provide the final word on system-wide cost shifts.
Although much remains uncertain, we can state with confidence that the failure to resolve the issue of responsibility for archiving has hindered the transition to electronic journals. If archiving is to be achieved, it must be paid for. While it is unclear whether libraries alone will be able to fund archiving, the cost advantages that this study finds may constitute the most likely source of library funding for this purpose and may therefore present an opportunity for the library community to shape the archiving solutions that eventually emerge. If these cost advantages can be realized by individual libraries and used to stimulate the implementation of archiving solutions, they might expedite electronic access to appropriate resources and the accompanying advantages to scholarship—even if, net of archiving, the format transition were to be cost-neutral.