When e-books began to gain prominence in the 1990s, some librarians remained firmly entrenched in the print world; others hastened into the digital world, never looking back and hoping that any perceived negative baggage associated with print would not pertain to the e-book. However, after twenty years, librarians are discovering that the challenges once thought to be associated exclusively with the print monograph are, in fact, applicable to the e-book: availability of funds and escalating costs, equitable distribution of titles among subject areas, use statistics, and preservation. Though budgeting funds and addressing curricular and patron needs remain high priorities, e-book use appears to have captivated the interest of librarians, as evidenced in the literature. Patron use continues to be one of the most concrete factors that prove the value of library resources. The collection of e-book use data and their subsequent analysis are important for librarians worldwide. If a greater percentage of acquisitions funds are shifting to the e-book format, then librarians need to be able to prove that this investment is worthwhile. Libraries facing monetary issues are forced to consider and implement serious reductions in staff, open hours, and resources. As library support and services, especially resources, become more virtual, funds still need to be allocated to purchase and maintain the virtual environment. Librarians in all types of libraries need to justify the expense of e-books. Producing use data for both e-books and print is of paramount importance in this climate.
Preservation of and perpetual access to e-books are interconnected issues of great importance to librarians. They already face difficult questions about superseded e-books, such as the fate of last year’s directory or the final location of an authoritative encyclopedia’s first edition when the second edition arrives. Currently, librarians have no guidelines or standards to consult about what file format will be supported in the future for both storage and access. Moreover, as companies consolidate, what becomes of the content and interfaces librarians and end users rely upon? Guaranteeing that safeguards are in place to access and preserve electronic content is paramount, particularly in the academic library setting, where e-books may need to be kept accessible indefinitely. As the e-book format continues to rise in importance in all libraries, librarians and other interested parties need to address the preservation of e-books just as they have with print.
Understanding what constitutes the relevant use of the data remains challenging. Since e-book delivery varies, via either an e-book reader or the Web, e-book data vary. For the e-book reader, does a use mean a checkout of the piece of equipment, or does each accessed file on the device constitute a use? One reader may have numerous e-book files, so is the circulation use one or is it five (representing the number of e-books on the reader)? As for the e-book delivered via the Web, which is more common at the academic level, several use variables are possible such as clicking on the file, downloading the file, searching the file, or time spent viewing the file.
E-book delivery via the Web remains the primary model studied in the literature, possibly because this method offers more challenges than its handheld alternate. As more patrons become comfortable with and accustomed to accessing resources on the Internet, the increase in this form of delivery will force librarians to address analyzing use statistics. Typically, a library’s ILS is able to generate use statistics. This use data parallel their print counterpart. More accurate and detailed reporting of e-book use is generated by the vendor that supplied the e-book, which most librarians prefer, but this presents difficulties in that each vendor generates unique use reports; even a basic data point such as use is subject to each vendor’s interpretation. Given these issues, the establishment of a standardization body was inevitable.
As more librarians realized that consistency in e-book use statistics was a priority and vendors responded to their customers’ needs, several initiatives were set in place. Project COUNTER (Counting Online Use of Networked Electronic Resources), launched in March 2002, is an international initiative serving librarians, publishers, and intermediaries. This collaboration sets the standards that facilitate the recording and reporting of online use statistics in a consistent, credible, and compatible way. This not-for-profit organization, based in the United Kingdom, has sponsored numerous research projects that will shed light on use-related research and services. Complete reports on these projects are accessible on COUNTER’s website (www.projectcounter.org). COUNTER’s future objectives as listed on its homepage may reap even more rewards, such as improving the reliability of the core COUNTER data, increasing the number of COUNTER-compliant vendors, and working with other industry organizations to provide practical value data (based on COUNTER codes) to librarians and vendors.
COUNTER’s early success was built on the earlier work of the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC). Established in 1997 as an informal, self-organizing group of 150 library consortia worldwide, ICOLC primarily serves its members by facilitating discussion of issues of common interest. By the late 1990s, ICOLC guidelines for statistical measures were compiled, providing vendors with a practical framework in which to deliver use statistics to consortium administrators who needed this information (Cox 2007). ICOLC identified key elements of use reports such as numbers of sessions, searches, menu selections, full-content units accessed, and turnaways. Some publishers became ICOLC compliant, but the fact that ICOLC guidelines were not mandatory allowed personal interpretation by individual vendors. Nevertheless, COUNTER has taken the lead in providing reliable, standardized, electronic statistics.
A second initiative is the Standardized Use Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI, www.niso.org/workrooms/sushi) protocol, which consolidates vendor use data (Cox 2007). SUSHI is in fact an initiative of the National Information Standards Organization (NISO), which was founded in 1939 and continues to identify, develop, maintain, and publish technical standards for both traditional and new technologies. According to its online documentation, SUSHI protocol defines an automated request and response model for the harvesting of electronic resource use data utilizing a web services framework. It is intended to replace the time-consuming user-mediated collection of use data reports.
The benefits of COUNTER are many, but for most collection development librarians the two most important benefits are the standardization of use data from vendors and data reports. Easy-to-read and easy-to-understand reports help the librarian with collection questions. COUNTER provides the following data:
As with the use data for print titles supplied by the ILS, COUNTER reports provide the collection development librarian with the necessary information for making decisions, such as whether purchased items are being used, what areas need additional titles, and which titles are not being used. Beyond these basic data points, current database technology can generate data from electronic resources previously unavailable from print resources; for example, unique data available from COUNTER include tracking which sections have been accessed. For an e-book, this means which chapters have been viewed, and for the e-reference work which specific entries have been viewed. Knowing what topics are being viewed in reference works can point the collection development librarian in the direction of needed resources. Additional information that can be easily gleaned from this data is which vendor is providing the most-used titles. If collection development librarians want this comparable information from the print resources, they must continually generate ILS lists and export the data into spreadsheets. When funds are tight, the librarian who has cost-per-use data at hand can easily justify maintaining and expanding these electronic resources and the vendors who provide the titles most used by patrons, and can thus plan purchasing accordingly.
As NISO and COUNTER further their collaborative efforts in the delivery of standardized use statistics to librarians and vendors, recent years have seen the need to identify even more quantitative e-book use data. One such endeavor is under way in the United Kingdom by the Joint Information Systems Committee, better known as JISC. The JISC National E-books Observatory Project was set up to perform what its name suggests: to observe the impact and behaviors of those using e-books and to find innovative methods to encourage e-book production. Just as in the United States, JISC knew that since the demand for providing textbooks in the electronic format was growing, all interested individuals wanted the facts, namely, what the impact would be on print sales and how much should be charged for providing e-textbooks.
One additional use element now available from electronic resources is deep-log analysis (DLA). Grigson (2009) has identified the need for DLA, which produces a better understanding of e-book use based on a more detailed set of quantitative data. DLA produces raw data detailing how users navigate through e-books. Pairing this data with user characteristics as well as institutional profiles and patterns produces an accurate accounting of e-book use. Results from JISC’s groundbreaking 2007/8 DLA study will undoubtedly be used to set the standards for future study. Once this study is fully analyzed and its findings understood, librarians will have a better understanding of how users use e-books. Both Cox’s (2007) detailed account of DLA in his discussion of CIBER and the JISC National E-books Observatory Project website (www.jiscebooksproject.org) provide additional current information, well worth reading.
The standardization of e-book use statistics in recent years illustrates the power of librarians and their ability to be the driving factors in obtaining what is needed in order to be responsive to their patrons and responsible for their resources. Once librarians have the use statistics for e-books, the next step traditionally involves analyzing the data.
Early and recent studies reveal what and how e-books are being used, often in comparison to print resources. Christianson and Aucoin (2005) discovered in their subject analysis that certain LC classification ranges showed definite preference in format. For example, items in the LC classification range B for Philosophy were clearly used predominantly in print, whereas the LC classification range Z (Bibliography. Library Science. Information Resources [General]) items showed more use in the e-book format. Recently, Slater (2009) finds similar results: print appears to be the preferred format for humanities subject areas, and the e-book format is preferred for the sciences.
Regardless of the numerous stellar studies, how e-books are used and to what extent patrons are reading and understanding the content remain as puzzling as how to extract this same information regarding patrons reading the print book. A patron checks out a print book, but is there a guarantee that she read the entire book? Did she just flip through a couple of pages, glancing at a few images or text sections before returning the item? Most librarians would be content that the library resource is in the hands of a patron, because this represents a successful decision in acquisitions. Should this attitude be transferred to e-book use? As long as the e-book is accessed, does this not also represent a successful decision? Currently, with dwindling funds for all library resources, used or circulated items validate collection development decisions. However, possibly because of the relative newness of e-books, or the increasing ability to identify and analyze electronic data, librarians have spent a considerable amount of research regarding the patron use of the e-book.
Littman and Connaway (2004) found that patrons use e-books differently than print books; for example, e-books were used for quick reference and print books were used for intensive reading. The more recent study of Noorhidawati and Gibb (2008) presents one of the most thorough analyses of student perception and reaction to the e-book. The three primary purposes identified for using e-books are listed in order of popularity, number one being the most popular: (1) finding relevant content, which involves searching e-book content for relatively moderate relevant sections of information; (2) fact finding, which involves using the e-book to find a specific piece of information; and (3) extended reading, which involves reading larger sections such as chapters as well as the e-book in its entirety. Noorhidawati and Gibb’s research is compelling and should encourage others to replicate this study at their own libraries as a means to justify current e-book collections and future purchases.
Several studies reveal the e-book features that make this format more attractive to a user, including 24/7 accessibility, multiple-user ability (provided this platform is available and purchased), capability to print selections, ability to search within the document, and availability of out-of-print titles. At the same time, the e-book format is not without concerns for the reader. Several recent studies address the patron’s attitude toward using e-books, especially Gregory (2008) and Noorhidawati and Gibb (2008). The latter reported that 94 percent of respondents preferred to use a printed book for extended reading and that many respondents indicated that reading on-screen for extended periods was uncomfortable. The former provides a more balanced interpretation of the attitudes found among the undergraduates at the author’s institute. Gregory utilized firsthand observations and interactions of the librarians as well as a survey for her study. She noted a reluctance to use e-books found in the catalog and negative comments that culminated with a patron proclaiming to the librarian, “But I want a real book.” Gregory also found that 66 percent of students surveyed preferred to use a physical book. It will be interesting to see if her findings are substantiated in further research regarding students’ attitudes of print and electronic resources.
E-books cannot be lost on the way to school, torn by the dog, or accidentally dropped in a tubful of water by a mischievous younger sibling. All the same, e-books, whether those with little to no use or those with outdated content, cannot occupy valuable server space ad perpetuum. Damaged print resources are traditionally withdrawn, and low-use items are often retired to remote storage facilities, if available. In some situations, patrons can visit the off-site facility and have access to the resources, or they can request that items be returned to the home library for checkout. This is not, however, the case with electronic resources. How can individual libraries preserve their digital collections? Will electronic content always be accessible? Considering the time, expense, and necessary technological support, most libraries have to look outside their own walls to address the needs for the preservation of electronic resources.
Librarians employ Plato’s often-quoted text, “Necessity is the mother of invention,” and do what they naturally do best—build networking structures and entities. Preserving electronic resources has been addressed for some time. LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe, www.clockss.org), established in the early 2000s and based at Stanford University Libraries, is an open-source software program that provides librarians with an easy and inexpensive means of preserving local copies of authorized content. Another initiative established about the same time for the preservation of scholarly literature is Portico (www.portico.org), the electronic-archiving initiative created by JSTOR. Responding to the needs of libraries and publishers and knowing that the complexity of preserving core electronic scholarly literature required optimal collaboration, the Portico project staff designed the technology necessary to accomplish its archival services. As of summer 2009, almost five hundred libraries and over six thousand e-book titles are associated with Portico.
Librarians and publishers have taken electronic preservation one step further—the creation of a geographically distributed dark archive for the preservation of academic publications. CLOCKSS (Controlled LOCKSS) has been established to ensure that the digital collections of today are available for future generations. In a dark archive, access to the resources is either extremely limited or totally restricted, which guarantees that the resources are safe. Beginning in October 2008, CLOCKSS has been building itself into the premier archive for web-based scholarly resources on a global level. The involvement of individuals who are making electronic preservation a priority, namely, librarians and publishers, should guarantee its success. As the primary governing agents, librarians and publishers are in the best positions to set policies, standards, and practices as well as to maintain the mission of CLOCKSS. Features such as low contribution fees for libraries and publishers, storage at multiple global locations, and open-access content available at no cost ensure safeguarding of the digital content.
As librarians and publishers continue their collaborative efforts in addressing issues regarding the preservation of electronic resources, potential obstacles such as the various e-book platforms, funding, and technological needs will diminish. Libraries have been successful in developing the means to preserve print resources. The current status of the early successful digital preservation initiatives points toward a promising tomorrow. When librarians and publishers collaborate, everyone reaps the benefits.
As librarians and vendors create innovative ways to use e-books, the e-book’s significance in library collections will continue to grow. The expansion of the textbook into e-book format and the improvement of handheld devices will continue to encourage use among patrons. As patrons become familiar and more comfortable with the e-book format, use statistics will naturally increase. Use data will remain a vital part of the collection development librarian’s arsenal when determining which, if any, content to purchase in e-book format. “The important thing is, when you have access to the usage data, use it! Vendors who monitor the amount of traffic in their administrative modules report that only 40 to 70 percent of libraries are actually viewing the data. Make sure you track your e-book data by assigning someone in your library to check it on a regular basis” (Polanka 2009). The COUNTER, SUSHI, and ICOLC standards will assist librarians in comparing use data among vendors. How one uses the data, whether to develop collections, to justify costs, or to track virtual library users, will vary by library and purpose. Whatever the need, as the e-book grows, the need to analyze e-book use will become more critical. Librarians would do well to take Cox’s sentiment to heart: “Making sense of e-book use data is a complex process and demands persistence and flexibility on the part of librarians” (2007, 209).
Use data are useless, however, without a guarantee of perpetual access to content. Just as e-journal publishers have done, e-book publishers will need to develop plans for the preservation of e-book content for years to come. The existing CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, and Portico programs are options, but librarians and publishers must continue to work together to ensure that e-books can mesh with such systems. Innovation will prevail and, as a result, the formats and interfaces of e-books will change. The decisions made today will affect access to e-books in the future, so publishers and librarians must plan accordingly to preserve e-book content in the best possible format.
Christianson, Marilyn, and Marsha Aucoin. 2005. “Electronic or Print Books: Which Are Used?” Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 29 (1): 71–81.
Cox, John. 2004. “E-books: Challenges and Opportunities.” D-Lib Magazine 10 (10): 1.
———. 2007. “Making Sense of E-book Usage Data.” Acquisitions Librarian 19 (3/4): 193–212.
Gregory, Cynthia L. 2008. “‘But I Want a Real Book’: An Investigation of Undergraduates’ Usage and Attitudes toward Electronic Books.” Reference and User Services Quarterly 47 (3): 266–273.
Grigson, Anna. 2009. “Evaluating Business Models for E-books through Usage Data Analysis: A Case Study from the University of Westminster.” Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship 21 (1): 62–74.
Littman, Justin, and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. 2004. “A Circulation Analysis of Print Books and E-books in an Academic Research Library.” Library Resources and Technical Services 48 (4): 256–262.
Noorhidawati, A., and Forbes Gibb. 2008. “How Students Use E-books: Reading or Referring?” Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science 13 (2): 1–14.
Polanka, Sue. 2009. “Off the Shelf: E-book Usage Data.” Booklist 105 (15): 75.
Slater, Robert. 2009. “E-books or Print Books, ‘Big Deals’ or Local Selections: What Gets More Use?” Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 33 (1): 31–41.