Letter to the Editor
Compiled in collaboration with the IFLA Office for International Lending
Letter to the Editor
Keywords: Interlending, Library services, Costs, Electronic publishing
(The following is a letter sent by Mary E. Jackson, Senior Program Officer for Access Services, Association of Research Libraries, USA, in response to the article by Lars Bjornshauge, which appeared in Interlending & Document Supply, Volume 27 Number 1.)
The title of Lars Bjornshauge's Opinion paper, "From interlending and document delivery to co-operative collections and document access", implies and suggests that the traditional interlibrary loan service should give way to a new model, one in which electronic publishing of scholarly journals replaces traditional interlibrary loan. While I agree with many of his comments and assertions, several of his conclusions can be debated.
Lars asserts that interlending and document delivery is a "second best service". Yes, the user might wish that everything he or she needs would be available in their own library, but I wonder if they realistically expect that everything would be available. Many users are well aware of the budgetary constraints under which most libraries operate, and they are realistic in concluding that not all materials can or will be locally available.
He continues his logic with a statement that ILL is not becoming more user friendly in the eyes of the user. Can he provide data to support that claim? The link between the OCLC's FirstSearch databases and their ILL system, the Web-based request forms available in many North American libraries, and the unmediated, library-paid document ordering from UnCover and other commercial document suppliers are just a few examples of "user friendly" services. The Association of Research Libraries' (ARL) ILL/DD Performance Measures Study found that 94 percent of users in research libraries were satisfied with the timeliness of service. Although the study polled only current users of the service, I suggest that the pessimistic picture painted by Lars may not apply universally.
Lars notes that the belief that information should be free to users has influenced libraries, to the point that they do not charge for ILL. Again, the ARL ILL study found that over 90 percent of the research libraries and just under two-thirds of the college libraries in the study charge to lend books or supply photocopies. At least in the USA and Canada, many lenders have broken the link between free-to-users and free ILL. ILL is not free.
I am in complete agreement with Lars' assertion that libraries spend too much valuable staff time searching for "free" suppliers, but our views part company when he suggests that items can be obtained quickly from a commercial supplier for a modest fee. I am not aware of any commercial supplier that charges a "modest" fee, if modest is defined as less than the average lending fee of libraries (approximately US$7.50). I hope that libraries would search for a supplier (library or commercial) that fills requests quickly(faster than the average turnaround time of that library's lending libraries),and at a fee that might merely recover costs. A number of studies have shown that the "best trading partner" is able to fill more requests, fill them faster, and fill them at a lower cost than the commercial suppliers.
Lars asserts that the solution lies in consortial licensing of electronic resources. Many consortia in the USA and Canada have licensed a wide variety of large electronic collections, either supplied by a single publisher or titles from multiple publishers aggregated by third-party vendors. A number of libraries with access to these massive electronic resources have not recorded decreases in their ILL borrowing. Users may find these electronic resources easy to use and very convenient, but they still submit ILL requests. I am eager to see data that show that electronic databases can decrease ILL borrowing or photocopy requests. In making his argument, Lars states that there will be a modest increase in payments to publishers but the balance should still be in favour of the library. Some would argue that a 110 percent payment for electronic and paper (with a requirement to maintain the paper copy) is not a modest increase and does not tilt the balance in favour of the library.
The "altar of free interlibrary co-operation" is currently supported by the United States Copyright Law for print materials. We know that ILL is not free; it would have been a better characterisation if it were the altar of "no-charge"ILL. Having said that, many American librarians are reluctant to give up the ability to use electronic resources to fill ILL requests, not because the publisher charges are unacceptable, but because they may wake up one day and realise that the larger model has been changed to one in which libraries would be required to charge local users whenever they checked out books or made copies from journals.
Research libraries have assumed the mandate to collect scholarly materials for current and future scholars. Many of the current licenses do not permit libraries to have perpetual rights to electronic resources and, as a result,many libraries are unwilling to eliminate the print versions from their collections. In addition, research libraries are already investing a significant percentage of their materials budgets in electronic resources, perhaps reducing purchases of print materials rather than reducing staff costs. Lars suggests that increased user access to information instantly will quickly reduce the demand for ILL/DD staff. ARL has tracked the rise in expenditures for electronic information by member libraries, but also reports that ILL borrowing has increased, not decreased, in its member libraries. We have yet to see the drop that Lars predicts.
Finally, Lars asserts that, if libraries are to take advantage of the opportunities offered by developments in electronic publishing, they must change. He defines two scenarios for the future of interlibrary loan. The first is structured around consortial purchase of scientific information, which he assumes will eliminate the need for the requesting and supply of current material. The second scenario suggests that publishers will develop information delivery services that will be better, cheaper, and faster than traditional ILL. Not all ILL borrowing requests are for scientific information, and not all of the borrowing is for photocopies; half of the borrowing by research libraries is for books and other returnables. Libraries might turn to a commercial publisher's service if it is faster and less expensive than the best of their library trading partners. I remain sceptical of whether that is realistic or even possible.
Lars made many provocative comments and assertions in his paper. Having read it, I concluded that he may have, in disguise, issued a call for ILL operations to become more cost-effective, more timely in their service, and more responsive to user needs. If Lars really intended to draw that conclusion, our opinions are really much closer than I first imagined.
Mary E. Jackson
