Posts Tagged ‘e-books’
E-book readers in a mobile friendly library
Alison Brock, Open University, talked about a joint project with Cranfield University to look at how e-book readers could be used in a library setting. OU have a “digi-lab” of technology such as ebook readers, even a Wii console, to help tutors explore ways of using new technology in teaching.
The aim of the project was to explore student working practice of using e-books. There was a total of 12 participants using a mixture of Sony e-readers and iPod Touch (Kindles weren't available in Europe at the time of project). Students covered a mix of levels and subjects and were given the ebook reader to use for 3 months. The project team conducted a pre-pilot survey and start-up workshops on how to download books etc. A Ning forum was also set up, for blogging, news about the project, and technical help, and end of project surveys and interviews were also held.
Less than half the participants had used e-books at all before the project, and those who had used them had only done so on PC/laptops. Participants hoped e-books would help save paper, be more portable and lightweight than books and help them find things more easily.
Sony reader strengths were that is was:
- Good for sequential, narrative reading
- Lightweight, portable
- Easy on the eyes
Weaknesses:
- Slowness of navigation
- A bit “clicky and clunky”
- Only does one thing, e-books only
The verdict on the iPod was that it's:
- A “nice gadget”, it does other things
- Portable, pocket sized
- Page turning easy on touch screen
- Coloured pages aided reading
Weaknesses:
- Tricky to get content on
- Screen size just a bit small
- Reliant on wifi
The post pilot survey found that most participants had used the reader for more than just study, including listening to music and audio books, reading fiction and games. However, overall they found that the devices were limited in their functionality. The students said it was tricky to get content onto the devices, and use for study was difficult even for tech-savvy users: they were lukewarm about idea of borrowing e-readers from the library. Most would not consider buying the model they'd used. The main barriers (particularly for study purposes) were formatting issues (eg PDFs, diagrams, images), navigation, not being able to annotate or highlight text, and the fact they found the devices tiring to use.
The OU also found that library subscribed e-books were only licensed for PC use, not for downloading onto e-book readers. They even found that it could be impossible for libraries to buy suitable downloadable copies: in one situation, the student had to buy the book themselves and claim back the cost as the library couldn't buy it even with credit card due to the licensing issues.
Participants also complained that it was difficult to locate suitable e-book content to use, as it's available across so many places.
With text-based, sequential reading, they did see the advantages of portablility, and felt they could work more on the move and print less. The iPod was more popular than the Sony reader, but most still preferred the idea of a laptop which could do multiple things.
Conclusions of the project:
- Ebook readers are designed for reading fiction not academic texts (may change with arrival of iPad etc)
- They will only play a part in how people study, not replace textbooks altogether
- Potential for loan out of pre-loaded e-book readers? Potentially, but there have been issues in US about Kindle and conflicting advice on whether loaning pre-loaded readers infringes terms of service
- Potential role for libraries in facilitating and guiding students to e-book content, and also negotiating better licence agreements for commercial e-book content
Students' wish list for an ideal ebook reader would be
- Screen A4-A5 size
- Touch screen
- Ability to highlight/make notes
- Internet access
- Easier to transfer content quickly direct to device
- Lower retail price
They thought the OU could help by:
- Loaning out e-book readers with course materials and readings pre-loaded
- Offering help with finding appropriate e-book content
- Having better systems for transferring existing course materials onto reader eg OU courses being turned into ePub format
So, is 2010 the year of the e-book?
Similar e-reader projects have been run at Penn State University Library, North West Missouri State University, Princeton University, and the Darden School of Business, University of Virginia. However there's still some big issues. There's the more general question about how e-textbooks will be made available in terms of licensing and pricing (mobile e-readers haven't even been part of the discussion yet). Most manufacturers and content providers are still working on the one-reader, one-book model, aimed at individuals not libraries. Technology still being developed, and still dependent on proprietary formats.
Posted in 
Tags:
Anti-acquisitions librarians in the era of economic downsizing
Jill Emery started the perspective of the University of Texas Libraries with the comment that 'anti-acquisitions' isn't necessarily about cuts, it can be about core collection development, which is much more positive message. What's essential to the library service to keep in-house?
Jill posed a model of collection development based on four levels:
- Core collections: essential, won't be cut (including some big deals ,when tied to consortia access)
- Librarian selected content: small funds mostly based on endowment accounts and linked to specific subject areas
- Patron selected content: mostly in the area of e-books at present, although also encompassing some rush print orders coming from the ILL request system
- Print-on-demand content: as POD expands, this may become more of an option for supplying out of print content
Texas have also been developing “disapproval” plans, telling vendors actively what they don't want to buy, which is leading to a more granular selection of approval plan stock, and they are considering separating out approval plans and e-notifications (slip plans).
Book acquisitions are the target for a group of big US universities, who want patron driven purchasing of both print and electronic books. E-book vendors are on the whole nearly there, but it's further behind for print, although the fact that print is still coming out before the e-version in many cases means there still needs to be the option.
For patron driven acquisitions, there needs to be set thresholds for purchase and cost, and it also needs interoperable vendor systems and LMS (something which is improving). Texas' experience does show that brief MARC records are OK: they find that users manage to find books and reserve them before they've come in, even just from basic title and author information.
Texas held a pilot project on patron driven article access, but felt that the level of customization wasn't good enough to go further, eg in terms of branding and making sure it was clear access was provided by the university. Other US libraries have moved further in this direction.
Print on demand is “lurking in the background”: their campus bookshop has brought an Expresso book machine, primarily for textbooks, but it opens up new options. Texas are finding that even new books coming in on approval plans are starting to be print on demand copies.
Dana Walker from University of Georgia Libraries was unfortunately unable to attend the conference in person to present Georgia's work on journal management.
University of Georgia faced a significant budget shortfall in 2008, so were forced to re-negotiate some deals and bring in selective pay per view. They also looked closely at usage statistics data, cost per use, cancellation restrictions, ISI impact factors and aggregator availability for all subscriptions (a task complicated by the difficulties in matching ISSNs between usage data and subscription data, so they ended up with a “family” of ISSNs for each journal).
After the initial work, Georgia decided that they needed to create a web based application, more dynamic than spreadsheets, if it was to be used for on-going decision making. They created their own “journal list” bringing together data from multiple sources using WinPerl which allowed them to, eg, connect orders with cost data and usage data, jump to entries in OPAC and e-journals A-Z, produce alerts if journal is non-cancellable, link to ISI impact factors etc. Their next step was to add licence information. The Georgia “Journal list” is effectively a home-grown ERMS, but based around collection development needs, and making decisions about renewals and cancellations, rather than a focus solely on lifecycle management. Interestingly the university had previously purchased a commercial ERM, as part of a consortial deal, but never implemented it due to the time costs of populating it with data [!].
Developing new models for OA monographs
Monograph sales have been declining since the '70s, says Eelco Ferwerda, Amsterdam University Press / OAPEN. One impact of this is that there are fewer outlets for authors, which can make it harder for some to get started in publishing. Open access monographs will benefit all stakeholders; increasing authors' visibilities and impact; enabling researchers to search and make connections across platforms.
In most cases, OA monograph presses' business models cannot sustain them alone - they are subsidised e.g. by grants or institutional support. Business models include value added services and separate editions (one of which can be charged for). The OAPEN project is developing an OA publication model to improve accessibility and impact, create an OA library, engage stakeholders in the publication process, develop common funding models and standards, and build a platform that can shared with other presses. The project is broadly aimed at academic publishers in the humanities and social sciences, and hopes to create a network around a changing business model - the network already includes publishers of all shapes and sizes, old and new, commercial and NFP. "There is a lot of interest in the idea."
OAPEN's publication model will be a hybrid model - a free web version but also paid-for versions e.g. for specific ebook platforms. Authors will retain copyright, and the monograph's long-term availability will be assured both by the platform that is being developed and by an arrangement with the Dutch National Library. The model requires payment of publication fees - by research funders or institutions. "The library is already spending money on books, making choices between print and e-books, and thinking about open access models. Greco and Wharton suggest that libraries should use their existing acquisition budgets to fund open access publishing instead of buying books." Institutions should pay for OA to ensure effective dissemination and unrestricted access, to advance the spread of knowledge, and to ensure publication of peer-reviewed research results - because not all manuscripts that pass peer review are published, for economic reasons - which is a barrier to entry for young researchers.
OA books are a collaboration between publishers and funders. But how do you calculate the costs, particularly if you are creating a separate, paid-for print version? Ferwerda argues for only including basic marketing as part of the free e-book costs [will authors benefit sufficiently from / be happy with this lower level of service? In my experience many expect / hope that publishers will run glossy publicity campaigns for their books!]
Key OAPEN recommendations include HE institutes establishing dedicated budgets to which researchers can apply for publication funds. Next steps include a pilot to get funders on board; conversations are underway with organisations including JISC. Interested parties can join the OAPEN network - oapen.org.
In most cases, OA monograph presses' business models cannot sustain them alone - they are subsidised e.g. by grants or institutional support. Business models include value added services and separate editions (one of which can be charged for). The OAPEN project is developing an OA publication model to improve accessibility and impact, create an OA library, engage stakeholders in the publication process, develop common funding models and standards, and build a platform that can shared with other presses. The project is broadly aimed at academic publishers in the humanities and social sciences, and hopes to create a network around a changing business model - the network already includes publishers of all shapes and sizes, old and new, commercial and NFP. "There is a lot of interest in the idea."
OAPEN's publication model will be a hybrid model - a free web version but also paid-for versions e.g. for specific ebook platforms. Authors will retain copyright, and the monograph's long-term availability will be assured both by the platform that is being developed and by an arrangement with the Dutch National Library. The model requires payment of publication fees - by research funders or institutions. "The library is already spending money on books, making choices between print and e-books, and thinking about open access models. Greco and Wharton suggest that libraries should use their existing acquisition budgets to fund open access publishing instead of buying books." Institutions should pay for OA to ensure effective dissemination and unrestricted access, to advance the spread of knowledge, and to ensure publication of peer-reviewed research results - because not all manuscripts that pass peer review are published, for economic reasons - which is a barrier to entry for young researchers.
OA books are a collaboration between publishers and funders. But how do you calculate the costs, particularly if you are creating a separate, paid-for print version? Ferwerda argues for only including basic marketing as part of the free e-book costs [will authors benefit sufficiently from / be happy with this lower level of service? In my experience many expect / hope that publishers will run glossy publicity campaigns for their books!]
Key OAPEN recommendations include HE institutes establishing dedicated budgets to which researchers can apply for publication funds. Next steps include a pilot to get funders on board; conversations are underway with organisations including JISC. Interested parties can join the OAPEN network - oapen.org.