Australian Library Collections Task Force

Access to Scientific Journals in Australian Libraries

This report provides the results of a survey conducted by Professor Neville Fletcher of the Australian Library Collections Task Force, to provide insights into researchers' use of and access to scientific serials. Because of the rapidly changing nature of the serial publishing scene, the survey results have been augmented with the results from focus groups held in several universities to explore the impact of electronic serials.

Printed copies of the report are available upon request from Sandra Henderson, Coordination Support Branch, National Library (shenders@nla.gov.au)

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank several people, without whose help this Report could not have been compiled. Adrian Gibbs from the Research School of Biological Sciences at the Australian National University provided essential input in the field of Molecular Biology, and helped to contact researchers in this area throughout Australia. Paula Williams, Kristen Ritchie and Sandra Henderson of the National Library carried out all the detailed analysis of the survey returns as well as assisting with the initial survey design, and Cliff Law provided helpful advice. Finally, I am grateful to Ross Coleman (Sydney University), Anne Horn and Gulcin Cribb (University of Queensland) and Kerryn Amery (Charles Sturt University) who organised focus groups to examine some matters raised by the surveys. Any errors or omissions are, of course, my responsibility.

Neville Fletcher
Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering
Australian National University
Member, Australian Library Collections Task Force

Note

The major part of this Report was compiled in mid-2000, though receipt of some detailed information delayed its completion. During that time, and in the few succeeding months, the Australian library scene has changed significantly in relation to electronic access to scientific journals. Many libraries have cancelled print subscriptions in favour of electronic access to a larger suite of journals from the same publisher. Views on these changes remain mixed within the science community and the situation is changing from month to month. The report therefore includes reference to the views expressed by researchers who participated in focus groups run by the National Library after the completion of the surveys. These sessions were conducted to elicit up-to-date information about users’ perspectives on the use of electronic resources.

Back to the top

Executive Summary

This Report surveys the state of Australian library journal subscriptions in Physics and in Molecular Biology, as representing a long-established science and a new science respectively. Data on researchers’ perceptions of the adequacy of the collection in their own institution and their pattern of use of collections in other places was also analysed. Brief attention was given in the survey to the developments of electronic journal access, which has been separately followed up in focus groups with Physicists.

57 researchers identified 245 journals regarded as essential in one or more branches of Physics, the corresponding figures for Molecular Biology being 111 titles identified by 19 respondents. The holdings of university and government libraries of a representative sample of these journals indicated Australian subscriptions to almost all titles, with median holdings of 7 subscriptions in Physics and 19 for Molecular Biology. Holdings are generally concentrated in the “G8” research universities. Some 15% of Physics journals and 10% of Molecular Biology journals can be regarded as “endangered” in print form because of low subscription numbers in the face of recent cancellations averaging 7% of all subscriptions per year. More recently there have been very substantial cancellations in some universities in favour of large electronic journal sets such as ScienceDirect from Elsevier, and a recent survey by the Resource Sharing Division of the National Library found that 15 libraries had access to this particular set of journals. Not all of these will have cancelled the print journals, but it is probable a number have done so.

Subjective assessment by researchers of the adequacy of library holdings suggests that Australia has only 5 to 10 “research level” collections in most branches of Physics. The survey data is inadequate to establish similar figures reliably for Molecular Biology, but the data suggests a similar conclusion. Such a level is scarcely adequate to maintain existing levels of research involvement.

Researchers in both fields stress the inadequacy of present inter-library loan procedures, particularly in relation to speed of response. Physics researchers typically make much less use of inter-library loan or visits to other libraries than do researchers in Molecular Biology, though the extent of reliance upon their own institutional library is similar in both cases.

Electronic access to standard journals is useful, but at the time of the survey was regarded with reserve because of its considerable expense and significant uncertainty about continuity of access and archival reliability. More recent user consultations through the focus groups show this is changing, and some physicists admitted reading no print journals. The majority of the focus group participants found most if not all the information needed for their research needs was available online. The surveyed researchers have mixed feelings about new electronic-only journals, and despite relying heavily on electronic journals for their scientific reading, focus groups participants in general do not submit articles to journals that are electronic-only.

All researchers urge the need for an Australia-wide consortium approach to journal acquisition, embracing both maintenance of hard-copy collections and introduction of access to electronic versions of standard journals. Collaborative arrangements for the equivalent of inter-library loan of electronic reprints is also required. Although it was apparent the participants in both the survey and the focus groups were not aware of all the complexities of the interlibrary loan process, including the copyright and licensing issues, there is a strong feeling that the solution to problems with the system lies in national cooperative approaches.

Back to the top

Introduction

This report has been produced by Neville Fletcher of the Australian Library Collections Task Force. The Task Force was established by the National Library of Australia in 1998, to identify and respond to issues impacting on the Australian research library system. Its membership consists of representatives from different sectors of the Australian library system together with representatives from the research communities nominated by the four Australian Academies. This combination of users and library professionals has ensured that the group has focused on understanding issues affecting the library system from the perspective of researchers.

In 1999 the Task Force undertook a national user survey of issues impacting on access to monographs by researchers in the two sample disciplines of English and Psychology. The report of the survey Looking for Books: A report on access to research monographs by academics and higher degree students at Australian university libraries (1999)(http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/alctf/cantrell.html) found that there was a wide range of issues affecting the quality of access to monographs; and in many cases the quality of collections available was perceived by respondents to be below that required to support ongoing scholarship in their areas of particular interest.

Some additional research on topics covered in Looking for Books, conducted by other members of the Task Force, and some comment on the report can be found in a Task Force paper at http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/alctf/meeting6/item3a.html. This paper reports the results of several focus groups, an analysis of theses citations, and author interviews. The conclusion drawn was that “while there is not a crisis in provision of and availability of scholarly monographs in Australia, there may be well be a crisis of discovery, and much can be done to improve access and to make it more equitable across institutions”, and a number of suggestions were made.

In undertaking that survey the Task Force was aware that both the questions asked and the disciplines sampled meant that the research would not identify key issues affecting researchers in the science disciplines. In discussing the outcomes of the survey, the Task Force concluded that it was necessary to undertake a further survey that specifically identified issues affecting Australian science researchers.

The Task Force was aware that very significant changes are occurring in the level and type of access provided to science journals by Australian research libraries. In broad terms the key drivers of change have been:

  • The rapidly increasing cost of science journal subscriptions and the consequent widespread cancellation by Australian research libraries of subscriptions to print copies of journals.
  • The catastrophic decline in value of the Australian currency, particularly against the American dollar.
  • The availability of full-text content of many major journals electronically and the move by Australian research libraries towards licensed access to many of these resources;
  • The development of free Internet pre-print archives in specific subject areas, such as the Los Alamos e-print repository in Physics;

In addition, there are more general developments that, while not at present greatly affecting scientific publishing, may perhaps do so in the future. Examples are:

  • The development of subject gateways providing access to quality Internet resources, and creating a range of other subject information in particular subject areas;
  • The development of groups such as the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) with the express aim of underwriting the launch of new titles to compete with existing expensive titles.

In the light of these major developments, the Task Force sought to gather information on the impact of these changes from the perspective of active researchers in scientific fields. The two disciplines of Physics and Molecular Biology were chosen so that the survey included a sample of users from both a long-established and a relatively new science discipline. These were also the areas of research of the two scientific members of the Task Force (Neville Fletcher and Adrian Gibbs).

Back to the top

Survey Procedures

The first part of the survey sought to gather information about the range and number of journals to which access was regarded as essential by researchers in sub-fields of the two disciplines. A further list was compiled for those journals to which access was regarded as desirable, though not essential. With such a list established, the Australian National Bibliographic Database (NBD) was examined for a randomly chosen subset of essential journals to determine (a) the total number of current print and electronic subscriptions recorded on the NBD; and (b) the distribution of current journal holdings between various research libraries. The resulting lists of journals appear as Appendices I (Physics) and II (Molecular Biology)

The researchers were then asked to evaluate the journal collection of their own institution in the sub-field of the subject with which they were concerned and, in particular, to identify whether or not it was a “research level” collection (Level 4 in the Conspectus classification.) No Australian university library claims to have a “comprehensive” collection (Conspectus Level 5) in any major branch of science. For interest, these views of the researchers were compared with the classification given to the collections by their Librarians, as listed in the Australian Libraries Gateway (URL http://www.nla.gov.au/libraries/).

The second part of the survey gathered information on library use by the researchers, and in particular asked questions about:

  • The respondent’s assessment of the quality of access provided by his/her library;
  • The impact of any cancellation of print subscriptions on the research of respondents;
  • The impact of the replacement of print with electronic access where applicable;
  • The level of use of inter-library loan and document delivery;
  • The level of use and type of indexes and other tools used to locate journal articles;
  • The level of use of non-library based services to meet information needs.

Respondents were also asked to comment on any other relevant matters. An example of the survey forms used (Physics) are included as Appendix III of this report, and summarised results from second parts of each survey appear as Appendices IV (Physics) and V (Molecular Biology).

The Physics survey was conducted first, because it was known that there was considerable interest from the academic community. The first part of this survey involved identification by researchers in Physics of journals considered essential and desirable in their fields of research, and multiple copies of the survey forms were sent out to a representative group of the larger Physics departments (ANU, RMIT, University of Tasmania, University of Melbourne, the University of New South Wales and Sydney University) in December 1999 . There was personal follow-up by e-mail to ensure a good return, and 57 responses to this initial survey were received, covering 320 journal titles. On the basis of these returns it was possible to carry out the analysis of library holdings using the NBD.

The second part of the Physics survey, which sought the opinions of individual researchers, was distributed in February 2000. The form and accompanying letter were slight modifications of the questionnaire used in the investigation for Looking for Books. A total of 667 survey forms was distributed to the 33 universities and other institutions known to have Physics departments, and from these 172 returns were received from 27 universities and other institutions, a return rate of 26%. While this fraction is a little disappointing, it is due in part to having sent, in some cases, more forms to smaller departments than there were researchers to complete them. Further, as one Department head put it, “There is a conscious (and unified effort) by several vice chancellors to label the physical sciences as ‘old’ science and to publicly denigrate the discipline. In such a climate the loss of Physics journals is not our most significant problem. Our very existence is!”

Because the Physics survey did not indicate the need for any significant changes in approach (and because changes in the actual survey documents would have been most undesirable anyway), essentially the same letter and sets of survey documents were sent out to each of the 29 universities having Departments of Biochemistry or Molecular Biology, and to relevant Cooperative Research Centres. The only difference in procedure was that the “essential journals” questionnaire was sent out at the same time. The total number of survey forms distributed was 470, and from these 83 replies were received to the general survey, a return rate of 18%, and 19 replies to the core journals survey. The smaller rate of return is probably due to the rather scattered nature of the organisation of the discipline.

Copies of the letters and forms distributed for these two surveys are available for perusal at the web-site URL http://www.nla.gov.au/initatives/alctf as are the summarised results from the surveys. This site also gives access to the full text of the present report and to that of the earlier report Looking for Books.

Back to the top

Focus groups

To gather more recent information about views on electronic resources, focus groups have been held with academics in three universities. Libraries were asked to assist in the organisation of the focus groups and National Library staff have facilitated most of the sessions. Attendees were provided with a list of issues for discussion, but are encouraged to offer comments on any aspect of library services.

Reports of the focus groups are available online in the meeting papers for the Australian Library Collections Task Force (meetings 6 and 7, http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/alctf/meetings.html), and relevant comments have been incorporated into this report where appropriate. Only two of the groups involved physicists (University of Queensland and Sydney University) and none involved molecular biologists, but the general comments are relevant.

Back to the top

Publication Costs and Traditions

As in most scholarly and research disciplines, there are two classes of publishers: the Scientific Societies, which operate overall on a non-profit basis (though journal publication may sometimes subsidise other activities of the Societies) and commercial publishers (which aim to make a significant profit). Recent surveys by the University of Wisconsin-Madison (URL: http://math.library.wisc.edu/JVP/) have shown that, for Physics journals, the cost per 1000 printed characters averages US$5.74 for non-profit “Society” journals and US$14.54 for “commercial” journals, giving an average for the 93 journals surveyed of US$10.24, there being approximately equal numbers of the two journal types in the sample. Comparable figures are not available for Biochemistry or Molecular Biology, but for Neuroscience, which might be expected to be similar, the figures are US$2.44 and US$15.54 respectively for society and commercial journals, though, since commercial journals dominate this field, the average is US$13.84 which is significantly higher than for Physics. Interestingly, the figures cited for Economics are not very much different.

In Physics, while there are many commercial journals, publication is dominated by the long-established and essentially international scientific societies. The American Institute of Physics (AIP), for example, publishes some 25% of the world’s total Physics research literature in its 65 journals, and the British Institute of Physics (IoP) is another major publisher.

Many of these journals run to around 10,000 double-column pages per year so that, though the per-1000-character costs are relatively modest, the total subscription cost is quite large. Many of these journals are available in hard-copy, CD-ROM and on-line versions, but the subscription cost is comparable in each case. Commercial publishers such as Elsevier and Academic Press also publish a large number of important Physics journals, some of which are comparable in size to the AIP journals but have a much larger subscription price. Many of these are available on-line, and subscriptions arrangements vary. Australian journals make a very small contribution to the world output and, because Physics is a universal discipline, are not particularly important to Australian researchers.

While a few notable Physics journals are published in languages other than English, the vast majority of the literature is in English. The AIP translates most of the major Russian-language journals into English so that their publication is essentially simultaneous with the Russian version, while Chinese and Japanese societies produce English versions of their most prestigious journals for international recognition. .

Publication traditions in Molecular Biology are a little different, perhaps because it is a subject without the long history of Physics. The commercial potential of discoveries in this area, and the rapid pace of change, also have their effects. Speed of publication is therefore important and weekly journals such as Nature and Science are considered vital in keeping informed of developments. Other journals are typically published on a monthly basis. While non-profit Society journals are important, as in Physics, commercial publishers such as Academic Press and Elsevier play a much more influential part in the field. As in Physics, English language journals are completely dominant on the Australian scene.

Back to the top

Core Journals in Physics

For the purposes of the survey, Physics was broken into 11 sub-fields based upon the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) but modified to make Atomic and Molecular Physics, which is particularly popular in Australia, a separate sub-field. In some of the tables, the two sub-fields devoted to condensed-matter physics (1. structural and mechanical properties, and 2. electrical, magnetic and optical properties) were combined, since there is great overlap in journal coverage between the two fields, and the whole area is under-represented in Australian universities anyway. Details of numbers of journals held to be essential or desirable in each sub-field are given in Table 1 below

TABLE 1. Journal distribution between sub-fields of Physics

Sub-field of physics Essential1,2 Desirable1,2
Astronomy and astrophysics 34 32
Atomic and molecular physics 45 10
Classical physics (acoustics) 11 10
Classical physics (electromagnetism) 11 0
Condensed-matter physics 126 73
Geophysics (ionosphere, space, etc) 11 8
Nuclear and particle physics 47 18
Optics 45 16
Plasma physics 16 6
Theoretical physics (other) 51 38
Cross-disciplinary physics 23 8
Total for Physics3 245 67

Notes:

1 Included in these numbers are general science journals such as Nature and Science.

2 Where a journal (such as Physical Review) is issued in a number of independent parts, these have been counted as separate journals.

3 The total is considerably smaller than the sum of the individual sub-field totals, because of the level of overlap of titles between sub-fields


The essential journal numbers range from 11 in several sub-fields to 126 in the combined sub-field of Condensed-Matter Physics (which is very wide and important on an international basis), making a total of 245 essential journals for the whole subject. A further 67 journals were identified as desirable in one field or another. There are, of course, many journals that span several sub-fields and many such as Science and Nature that are almost scientific news magazines and so of interest and great importance in many rapidly advancing areas.

Figure 1 shows the extent to which essential journals in physics are “general,” like Physical Review Letters, rather than being directed at a particular field, like Journal of the American Optical Society. Some of the overlap is also due to the fact that physics is a coherent discipline, and advances in a given field are often relevant to research in many other fields.

From this Figure it is clear, however, that, despite significant overlap between some neighbouring sub-fields, nearly 60% of the journals listed are deemed essential in only one sub-field of physics. When desirable journals are included, the overlap becomes somewhat larger, but does not greatly influence the conclusions to be drawn.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Overlap of Physics journals between fields.

Back to the top

Core Journals in Molecular Biology

As with Physics, the field of Molecular Biology was divided into 12 sub-fields for ease of analysis. The listing of numbers of essential and desirable journals is given in Table 2.

Two journals are considered essential in each of the subfields of Molecular Biology. These are Nature and Science, which are general science journals. The only other journal considered essential in most fields is Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). In Molecular Biology, perhaps more than in any other discipline of science, it is very common for researchers to publish, as rapidly as possible, small incremental advances in the field because of the potential commercial application of the work. The fact that the two journals regarded as most necessary are weekly publications, and PNAS is a fortnightly journal, is significant.

Figure 2 shows the overlap of essential journals between subfields. More than 70% of the journal titles nominated are considered essential in only one sub-field, due at least in part to the dominance across the discipline of the general science titles discussed above.

TABLE 2. Journal distribution between sub-fields of Molecular Biology

Sub-field Essential1 Desirable1
Theoretical molecular biology 8 9
Biochemistry of nucleic acids & proteins 50 2
Genomics 39 5
Proteonomics 10 4
Protein interactions, enzymes, immunology 10 4
Membranes 12 3
Cell metabolism, organelles 15 4
Cell structure and development 17 12
Molecular neurobiology2 ? ?
Organismal and population studies2 ? ?
Molecular applications 15 26
Bioinformatics2 ? ?
Total for Molecular Biology3 111 50

Notes:

1Included in these numbers are general science journals such as “Nature” and “Science”, which are particularly important in the biological sciences.

2 No information on journals in this sub-field was received from the survey returns.

3These totals include allowance for overlap.


Figure 2

Figure 2. Overlap of Molecular Biology journals between fields.

Back to the top

Australian Library Holdings

Figure 3 shows the distribution of print subscription numbers for a random selection of 85 “essential” Physics journals. Note that the median library subscription level is only seven copies for each title throughout Australia. It is reasonable to expect that the complete list of 245 essential journals would show a similar distribution. The journal with 28 library subscriptions is Australian Journal of Physics, though this is considered essential in only a few fields. The print journals (14, or 15% of the sample) with three or fewer subscriptions might be regarded as “endangered”, in the sense that uncoordinated cancellation of subscriptions might easily reduce the number of Australian print holdings to zero. This becomes an issue in the context of Interlibrary Loans, since many libraries supply copies from print subscription titles, but do not supply from electronic titles. This may be because of licensing restrictions, or library policy. In Focus Group discussions it was also pointed out that walk-in users from other universities are sometimes not permitted to access electronic journals, but are able to use print journals.

Figure 3

FIGURE 3. Frequency of multiple print holdings of a random sample of 85 essential Physics journals and 61 essential Molecular Biology journals in Australian libraries. (Nature and Science, both with over 50 print subscriptions, are not included in the graphs.) The median subscription level in Physics is 7 and in Molecular Biology 19. Journals held in three or fewer libraries (15% of the total in Physics and 10% in Molecular Biology) might reasonably be termed “endangered”.

The NBD also gives information on the number of cancellations of journal subscriptions. In physics, over the three years to the beginning of 2000, a total of 154 subscriptions to print versions of essential physics journals were cancelled. This should be measured against the total print subscription total of 717, and represents a 21% loss in holdings. According to the NBD, only 9 of these print subscriptions were replaced by electronic subscriptions. However, although the National Library is encouraging the addition of electronic holdings, it is known that many libraries do not record their holdings of electronic journals on the NBD, and the data is therefore incomplete. It is known, for example, that more than ten university libraries now subscribe to at least a subset of the Elsevier ScienceDirect journal set, but only about one third of those libraries reflect those holdings on Kinetica.

The distribution of numbers of print subscriptions to a random sample of 67 journals in Molecular Biology is also shown in Figure 3, which is plotted to the same vertical and horizontal scales as is the corresponding figure for physics. The difference in these two distributions is worthy of comment. The median subscription level for physics journals is 7, while for molecular biology it is 19. The fraction of “endangered” journals is also lower for molecular biology at 10%, compared with the figure of 15% for physics.

In Molecular Biology, as in Physics, the holdings of specific titles are scattered across the institutions surveyed. Nature and Science are each held in over 50 libraries nationwide, and are widely subscribed to on a personal basis (a number of overseas studies indicate that 10-50% of science academics subscribe to these titles). For a representative sample of 67 titles from the 111 essential titles, 30 were held in at least twenty libraries in Australia, and 7 were held in three or fewer libraries.

Back to the top

Location of Major Research Collections

Most major libraries have their current print serials holdings listed on the National Bibliographic Database (NBD), so that it was relatively straightforward to choose a random sample of journals from each discipline and then to determine for each institution the fraction of those journals to which it held current print subscriptions.

Figures 4 and 5 show the results of this exercise in the University sector, for 94 essential Physics journals and 67 essential Molecular Biology journals. The results have been stratified into groups comprising (a) the long established “Group of Eight” (G8) research universities (Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Queensland, UWA, UNSW, Monash, ANU), (b) the former Institutes of Technology, now known as the “Technology Universities” (QUT, UTS, RMIT, VUT, USA, Swinburne, Curtin), (c) the group of “Other Older Universities”, meaning those that were in existence prior to about 1980, and (d) the “Other New Universities” established by the Government in the mid-1980s by re-classifying other tertiary institutions such as Teachers’ Colleges and Agricultural Colleges.

In the case of Physics, the distribution of essential journals in the libraries of Government research laboratories such as CSIRO and also in the national and State libraries was also investigated, with the results shown in Figure 6. Government laboratories have specialised requirements in the more applied branches of physics, and therefore do not attempt to carry large collections in the more basic branches of the subject. This is reflected in the modest fraction of total essential physics journals in the collections of these institutions. The National Library has an overseas collection policy that concentrates in areas other than the basic sciences, while State Libraries similarly aim to hold only general interest collections in the basic sciences.

A similar survey was not carried out in Molecular Biology, but it is to be expected that, being another basic science, the results would not be very different from those for Physics. The exception to this statement is in the case of CSIRO holdings, since CSIRO has a major interest in Molecular Biology, and could be expected to have extensive holdings of journals in that area.

Figure 4

FIGURE 4. Percentages of the sample of 94 essential Physics journals held as print subscriptions by individual libraries in Australian universities. The percentages of total essential Physics journals held are expected to be similar.

Figure 5

FIGURE 5. Percentages of the sample of 67 essential Molecular Biology journals held as print subscriptions by individual libraries in Australian universities. The percentages of total essential Molecular Biology journals held are expected to be similar.

Conclusions and comparisons

On the basis of the data collected, it is interesting to draw some general conclusions and to make some comparisons between total Australian holdings in Physics and in Molecular Biology.

The first conclusion is that the bulk of Australian print holdings in pure sciences such as those surveyed reside in the libraries of the Group of Eight (G8) research universities. The Technology Universities, with one exception in Molecular Biology, have only modest collections in these sciences, largely because individually they tend to concentrate on a small range of applied topics rather than the pure sciences, and do not require regular access to more basic material or to material in other areas. The other older established universities generally have more modest collections, as is apparent from Fig.5, while the new universities all have only small collections. The Focus Group discussions revealed that new areas of research and teaching in universities tend to be supported by electronic resources rather than new acquisitions of printed materials. No university library can claim to approach a comprehensive collection in the field as a whole, though several may have major collections in particular sub-fields of the subject.

Figure 6

FIGURE 6. Percentage of sample of essential physics journals held in Government laboratories and in National and State Libraries.

The physics survey, which also investigated Government Laboratories and Government Libraries, shows that these cannot be regarded as major repositories of hard-copy holdings in the subject as a whole, though again they may have excellent collections in particular sub-fields of practical interest. The situation in Molecular Biology is expected to be similar, except for more extensive CSIRO collections.

It is interesting to compare the state of national holdings in Physics with that in Molecular Biology. Inspection of Figures 4 and 5 shows that percentage holdings in Molecular Biology are significantly higher than in Physics in all sectors of the University system. The average percentage holding in Physics in G8 Universities is 54% of titles searched, compared with 71% in Molecular Biology. For the Technology Universities the figures are 10% and 18%; for the Older Universities 21% and 34%; and for the New Universities 5% and 11% respectively. The actual figures should be treated with caution, since not all universities responded. Since those that did not respond are known to have little or no involvement in the subject, their library holdings of journals can be expected to be very low, further depressing some of these figures. It is not to be expected, however, that this would affect the validity of the comparison between the two discipline areas.

Back to the top

Subjective Assessment of Serial Collections

Respondents were asked to rate adequacy of the library collection of their own institution in their particular sub-field In several cases respondents within the same sub-field within a single institution gave widely differing opinions as to the adequacy of the collection, reflecting differing individual research needs within sub-fields. Nevertheless, there are cases where most respondents from particular institutions gave similar opinions, allowing some conclusions to be reached. Not unexpectedly, the full range of sub-fields was not commented on in every institution.

Overall, 76% of Physics respondents indicated that they believe the library collection in their institution is adequate to support research in at least some sub-fields of the subject. The corresponding figure for Molecular Biology is 71%. Neither the precise values of these numbers nor the small difference between them is significant, because both depend a great deal upon the distribution of responses between institutions. Perhaps more significant is the negative fact that about one-quarter of respondents in both fields believe that the journal collection in their institutional library is no longer adequate to support advanced research in their discipline area.

Physics

The identification of research-level collections is to a large extent subjective. A particular researcher may work in a limited part of one sub-field or may have interests that necessarily involve several sub-fields. Nevertheless, even such a subjective evaluation is useful, particularly when taken in conjunction with an objective survey of holdings of essential research journals.

In Physics, 76% of respondents indicated that they believe the collection in their library is sufficient to support research in their field of interest, but that there are not research-level collections in all branches of the subject. Table 3 summarises the responses of researchers.

From the figures in the table, it seems clear that in essentially all branches of Physics there are five or more research-level collections in Australia. Too much should not be read into this however, since even the sub-fields are quite broad and there may be quite large areas of the subject in which little or no research is done in the country, and therefore deficiencies are not apparent. Despite this caveat, the overall situation does not look desperate.

At a more detailed level, however, it is clear that a number of institutions that once had thriving Physics departments (for example New England and Newcastle Universities) now do not have a research-level journal collection in any field of Physics. This reflects to a large extent the attrition of staff and student numbers in Physics in these universities. If teaching and research efforts in Physics at an institution decline for whatever reason (and this appears to be happening at a number of Australian universities) it is inevitable that library resources in that subject area will also receive less funding.

TABLE 3. Location of journal collections of “research level” in particular sub-fields of Physics (Researchers’ views)

Table 3

Molecular Biology

71% of respondents regarded their organisation’s collection as able to meet the needs of postgraduates and advanced researchers in their own sub-discipline area. For nine institutions no research level collections were recorded, although in at least some of these only a single response was received, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the general state of the collections. Table 4 is therefore presented with a major caveat.

Unfortunately the data in Table 4 are sparse, because of the large number of subdivisions of the subject and the relatively small number of responses, so that it cannot really be taken at face value. It is very likely that major universities such as Melbourne, New South Wales, and Sydney have research-level collections in many more fields of the subject than are indicated in the table. The same is true of CSIRO. Indeed, all that can be asserted is that there are research level collections in essentially all of the branches of the subject, spread across the country. The table is included because of the positive, rather than negative, data that it contains — the absence of an entry for a sub-field does not necessarily imply an absence of a research collection.

TABLE 4. Location of journal collections of “research level” in particular sub-fields of Molecular Biology (Researchers’ views). Note data limitations.

Table 4

Australian Libraries Gateway

It is informative to compare the information given in Tables 3 and 4 with that available through the Australian Libraries Gateway (ALG) web site. In the case of Physics, the only library to claim a Research Level collection in any branch of Physics is Melbourne University. Even Sydney University claims nothing more than an Intermediate level collection in any branch of the subject. These data are so much at variance with the informed assessments of researchers in the field that no reliance can be placed upon Gateway information of this type. Librarians perhaps use rather different criteria in assessing the level of a collection from those used by researchers concerned with their own particular interests, and as previously stated, researchers’ interests frequently focus on a very narrow area within a sub field.

Back to the top

Comments on General Questions

Common difficulties in accessing journal articles

Respondents were asked about factors that impeded their access to required journal articles. The majority of respondents in both disciplines had experienced problems — 88% of the researchers indicated they had had some difficulties. Just over half had found some essential journals were not available in their library, and three researchers indicated that one or more journals they needed were not available in Australia.

16% of physics researchers reported no problems. Of the remainder, the most common difficulties were journals not held locally, journals cancelled, and the slowness of the interlibrary loans system.

Only 4% of the biologists had not experienced difficulties. Apart from the problems mentioned above for the physicists, the slow arrival of print journals was also mentioned in a number of the responses. Six of the researchers also mentioned the frustration of finding journals unavailable because they were being bound, and six CSIRO respondents mention delays in accessing journals because they are circulated upon arrival. These are all matters internal to the institution concerned. In focus group sessions the almost immediate availability of electronic journals after publication was often mentioned as one of the greatest advantages of online access. The other difficulties mentioned here are also overcome with electronic subscriptions.

Of relevance to the question of access to journal articles, it was interesting that at the only regional university visited in the focus group sessions (Charles Sturt University), the inadequacy of the University’s own journal collections, and the expense of interlibrary loan, had led staff in both disciplines covered in the focus groups (agriculture and health sciences) to undertake regular trips to metropolitan university libraries for the express purpose of retrieving and copying journal articles on a large scale.

Impact of cancellations

As noted in relation to the NBD data for Physics, subscriptions to print versions of journals deemed by researchers to be essential to their work have been cut at an annual rate of about 7% over the three years 1997-99. The situation in Molecular Biology is less clear, though researchers also complain of cuts in journal holdings. Continued reduction in university library budgets and demand for publications in new areas mean that these reductions are likely to continue. While in each university the cuts have been made principally to journals that are not in the prime research field of researchers in that university, they are beginning to have a significant effect on research.

It is significant that only 31% of those responding in the two science disciplines believe journal cancellations have not had an impact on their work, and in 4% of cases the lack of impact is because the collections were historically inadequate. Concerns which are common to both groups include the added time needed to locate journals, the added expense of additional personal subscriptions, the effects on activities such as grant applications, and increased spending on interlibrary loan.

Physics

Almost two thirds of respondents (62%) indicated that cancellation of journals had a significant impact on their research work, and 11% of the remainder were concerned about the future impact of cancellations. Cancellations had resulted in delays in accessing information for 13% of researchers and 7% thought they were more likely to miss important information as journals were cancelled.

Comments included:

“Cancellation of many journals (print) has undermined my ability to keep up with the literature” (ANU);

“There is a danger of decline in scholarship standards, as it is tempting to ignore references that are difficult to obtain” (ANSTO).

Molecular Biology

43% of the respondents had not yet noticed an impact on their work from serial cancellations, but 25% reported that some key journals were no longer available in their library. The most significant impacts of cancellations for the biologists were an increased use of interlibrary loan and a time delay in accessing information.

Impact of electronic journals

There were mixed feelings expressed about the move towards electronic journal subscriptions, although the focus groups, held more recently than the survey, show a more positive attitude to electronic journals. A number of focus group participants in Physics admitted to almost 100% reliance on electronic sources of information. There was general acceptance of the improved currency and convenience of electronic journals, but the loss of the opportunity to browse journal issues was a common complaint. A number of the researchers expressed concern about access to electronic journals into the future, particularly if subscriptions are cancelled, and focus group participants showed an appreciation of the issues surrounding archiving of electronic resources. Technical difficulties such as password problems and concurrent user limitations were mentioned by a few respondents to the survey, and focus group participants mentioned the problem of offsite access (which the universities appear to be addressing as a matter of urgency). In the case of Charles Sturt University, electronic resources provide staff with more confidence that the considerable number of distance education students are able to access library resources, as appropriate authorisation and access arrangements are put in place.

Unfortunately for the purposes of this survey, some libraries are not entering details of their electronic subscriptions on the NBD. The available NBD data suggests, however, that, while a few of the journals for which print subscriptions have been cancelled have been replaced by electronic subscriptions, this has not always been done. The reason is that electronic subscriptions, when available, are sometimes only marginally less expensive than print subscriptions. There are exceptions, and some “new” universities have been able to obtain electronic access to a large range of society or commercial journals from particular publishers at very reasonable cost because this cost is often based on their current total print subscription to that publisher’s products. At the other end of the scale, the cost of a comparable electronic subscription package for a university with extensive print subscriptions can be very large.

Kinetica is undertaking activities aimed at increasing the number of electronic holdings recorded on the NBD, and convened an expert advisory group to provide assistance on this issue. The records for a major journal set, ScienceDirect, were loaded during 2000, and libraries are encouraged to add their holdings to this set of records. The records for other major journal sets will be pursued.

Physics

The change to electronic journals was seen as a positive move by 64% of respondents. Among the advantages identified were easier access to information (11%), improved convenience (11%), faster access (9%) and better searching (8%), but despite these advantages, only 8% of survey respondents preferred electronic to print. Among the disadvantages associated with electronic journals, the most common were the difficulties of browsing (10% of respondents), cost, a lack of access, and possible loss of access to back issues if subscriptions were cancelled. The reluctance of some researchers to embrace electronic journals seems to be a transitional phase. It has been clear in the focus groups conducted a year and more after the survey that there is wider acceptance, and in some cases reliance on, electronic resources.

It is significant to note that some Society publishers of major Physics journals (such as the American Institute of Physics, AIP) are happy to enter into negotiations with Australian university libraries on a consortium basis to provide electronic access to their publications. The American Physical Society (a major member of the AIP) is prepared to enter into such a consortium deal to allow electronic access to all its journals for all Australian university libraries provided the total subscription to these journals from Australia is no less than 90% of its present value. It would be worthwhile approaching other major Physics publishers, such as the British Institute of Physics (IoP) for similar deals. Some commercial also appear willing to offer consortium deals to their complete range of journals.

Molecular Biology

The move to electronic journals was seen as a positive one by only 38% of the respondents. Among the commonly reported benefits were easier access, faster access, convenience, and improved searching. The drawbacks noted by users included password problems, inadequate computer equipment, an inability to browse and the difficulty of knowing what journals are available. The poor quality of reproductions from electronic journals is mentioned by a number of researchers, several of whom say they have to locate a hard copy version of an article to get good copies of images for cell structure and similar detailed graphics. However, some focus group participants in the life sciences at Charles Sturt University found the quality of images from online sources was considerably better than that in photocopies from print sources.

Indexes and abstracts

Traditional online databases are still the preferred starting point for many of the respondents, with Current Contents the most popular tool across both disciplines. 49% of all respondents use Current Contents regularly. Most respondents cited several secondary sources, and only 1% claimed to never use an indexing service. The free availability of some major services on the Web is seen as a very positive development. In particular, the Los Alamos e-print Archives service is popular with physicists, and PubMed, the search engine for MEDLINE, is very popular with the molecular biologists.

Physics

Many varieties of indexes and abstracts were used by respondents. Current Contents (42%) was by far the most popular tool, with INSPEC, UnCover Reveal and the Astrophysics Data Service (ADS) also used by over 10% of respondents.

Molecular Biology

Current Contents and MEDLINE (including PubMed) are both used by a majority of the respondents (62% in each case).

Frequency and usefulness of interlibrary loans and visits

The molecular biologists were much more likely than the physicists to use interlibrary loan services regularly. 48% of biologists but only 20% of physicists use interlibrary loan at least ten times per year. The biologists were also more likely to be unhappy about the slowness of interlibrary loan services, and to want electronic delivery of requested articles. Researchers in both fields cite delays of several weeks in obtaining items on interlibrary loan. The desirability of developing a national digital reprint delivery service was mentioned by researchers in both disciplines.

A high proportion (78%)of physicists never visited other libraries to obtain journal articles, but biologists were quite likely to go to other libraries to access journals. 15% of the biologists indicated that they visit other libraries at least 10 times each year, whereas only 4% of physicists reported a comparable frequency of visits to other libraries.

The focus groups run at Charles Sturt University revealed an acceptance of the need for personal visits to other libraries to acquire needed articles and avoid the high costs of interlibrary loan, and two survey respondents from Newcastle University indicated they also undertake regular trips to Sydney for this reason.

Figure 7

FIGURE 7. Distribution of activity in inter-library loans and inter-library visits for the purpose of obtaining access to Physics journals.

Physics

The response of physicists to questions about use of interlibrary loan is summarised in Figure 7. Some 16% of respondents indicated they never used interlibrary loan to access materials not available in their own libraries, but 20% indicated that they used ILL at least 10 times annually, with over half these being researchers who regard their own institution’s collections as research level collections. Almost a quarter of the researchers making 10 or more ILL requests were in the Geophysics (Atmospheric, Ionospheric and Space Physics) field.

Molecular Biology

The distribution of survey replies for Molecular Biology is shown in Figure 8. About 50% of respondents reported use of ILL on 10 or more occasions each year, while only 3% made no use of interlibrary loan. The major problem identified by ILL users was the slowness of the ILL system, which was mentioned by 21% of the respondents. Cost was identified by six respondents as a barrier to use of ILL. Several respondents in this discipline have concerns over the often poor quality of copies, especially of images within articles.

Figure 8

FIGURE 8. Distribution of activity in inter-library loans and inter-library visits for the purpose of obtaining access to Molecular Biology journals.

Non-library sources of journal articles

Although many non-library sources are used to acquire journal articles, in both Physics and Molecular Biology, the three principal sources were personal subscriptions, colleagues’ subscriptions, and web-based information services.

Extent of reliance on library and non-library sources

Over 60% of all respondents to the surveys indicated that their Institutional library was their major source of journal articles. Only 30 respondents in total relied more heavily on non-library sources than on library sources. The survey results are shown in Figure 9, and are very similar for Physics and Molecular Biology.

Figure 9

FIGURE 9. Extent of reliance by Physics and Molecular Biology researchers on library resources in their own institution.

Suggestions for improving access to journals

A high proportion of respondents (41%) did not answer this question. For those prepared to offer suggestions, access to electronic journals figured prominently. The concept of a centralised electronic journal repository, offering on-line access to journal searching and rapid article delivery, was mentioned by respondents in both disciplines. A number of Australian universities are taking advantage of favourable pricing negotiated by CAUL's Electronic Information Resources Committee (CEIRC) for access to electronic resources. Individual university libraries, however, make subscription decisions based on their understanding of the needs of their users, so no two universities offer the same range of electronic journals to their users.

Discussion and Conclusions

Themajor common points to arise from the survey are as follows.

Collections support local research

Most researchers believe their local collections are research-level in their own research field. The use of personal subscriptions to important journals is very common.

Not only are researchers relying more on their own subscriptions to a few key journals, but three respondents indicated that research group funds are being used to subscribe to journals. Focus group discussions indicate that researchers are reluctant to make suggestions for new print journals, because they are aware of their libraries’ budget constraints.

Concern about Interlibrary Loans

Slowness of the interlibrary loans system was mentioned by many of the respondents, but cost is not nearly so much of an issue as it was in the Looking for Books survey of monograph users in Psychology and English. The Focus groups revealed that it was an issue for users at Charles Sturt University, who do not have the on-campus or nearby library resources which metropolitan university library users can take advantage of. Speed of delivery was particularly an issue for those requiring articles to assist in refereeing and review processes, or at critical periods in the research process.

High level of reliance on library

The library is very important to the science researcher. The high cost of many science journal titles, and the frequently mentioned benefits of browsing through a variety of journal titles and issues play a part here. The focus groups also showed that the library is also serving as an important source of information about electronic resources and related technical problems.

Traditional indexes are heavily used

There is a high reliance on indexes and abstracts, particularly Current Contents. The difficulties of browsing electronic versions of journals, and declining local journal collections makes such alerting services even more important than in the past.

Support for consortial arrangements to improve access

A number of respondents in both disciplines believe cooperative purchasing of access to journals is the solution to the current difficulties of local cancellations and budgetary constraints. It is not apparent to many researchers that some collaborative efforts are already under way through CAUL, Kinetica and other bodies. Some consortium arrangements are already in place with commercial publishers, though generally the consortium consists of only a sub-set of the Australian universities. Similar arrangements have been negotiated by CSIRO for all its laboratories. In many cases the access arrangements limit the extent to which materials can be supplied to other libraries.

Concern about long-term access to e-journals

There are mixed reactions to the move to electronic journals. While the users are generally happy about improved speed and convenience, they are concerned about the costs, access problems, reproduction quality, and the difficulty of “browsing” electronic journals. One focus group participant expressed a view that “browsing is a becoming a luxury we can’t afford”. The issue of access into the future is recognised, both in terms of lapsed subscriptions, and the possibility of files becoming unreadable as technology advances. One Physics focus group also expressed concern about a future scenario where the major journal archives are held by commercial companies, rather than by libraries.

Respondents are concerned about access to electronic journals if subscriptions are cancelled, and the long-term availability of the journals. (These concerns are not restricted to the sciences and are the subject of much debate in the library and publishing sector. Some projects are in place to try to ensure long-term availability (eg JSTOR) but the extent to which these are successful will not be known for some years.)

General conclusions

The conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from the survey are as follows:

  1. Australia as a whole still possesses good collections of primary research journals in hard-copy print form in most areas of Physics and Molecular Biology. There is, however, increasing difficulty in gaining local access to the more specialised journals.
  2. The current pattern of progressive cancellation of journal subscriptions is a matter of great concern.
  3. There is a significant number of journals that are deemed essential to one branch or other of the subject and to which Australian libraries have very few subscriptions. It is highly desirable that remaining subscriptions are not cancelled without consultation and perhaps cooperative action, particularly if an electronic version of the title is not available.
  4. While electronic access to journals may be the long-term future trend, there some concern about whether it is an adequate substitute for hard copy. Indeed, there are wide concerns about archival access and related problems, particularly if on-line subscriptions are terminated. The access issues extend to availability of electronic journals to walk-in users.
  5. Interlibrary loan is reasonably widely used but is not seen as generally satisfactory, particularly because of the long time delays often experienced. The non-availability of electronic journals for interlibrary loan purposes, whether through licensing restrictions or library policies, is of concern.
  6. There is general satisfaction with the present arrangements for journal publication. In Physics, particularly, a large proportion of current journal publication is in the hands of non-profit scientific societies.

Electronic journals

The survey gave only passing attention to developments in electronic journal publishing. This omission is not meant to underestimate the importance of these developments in “hard science” journal publishing. The following summary points should be made.

While it is clear that journals distributed by electronic means, rather than as hard copy, are bound to become increasingly important, and scientists are making increasing use of electronic journals, there are legitimate concerns about the long term stability of the online editions. While current papers in physics and biology are certainly of prime interest, major papers from past decades remain important for the new insights that they may provide, and not just for their historical interest.

The major scientific journal publishers, both non-profit and commercial, are generally adopting an enlightened approach by the introduction of electronic access to their standard and long-established journals. Some have also established electronic “Appendix journals” in which files of more detailed data may be lodged, and referred to in articles published in the primary journal.

Major concerns about continued archival availability, particularly in the event of subscription cancellation, have been referred to above. There are also technical concerns about standardisation and continued readability of particular formats.

While a conversion to electronic format should involve cost savings both to the publisher and also to libraries, the hopes for these should not be over-enthusiastic. It is important that key elements of the publishing process, including good editing and peer review, carry over into the electronic versions of journals. It is also desirable that Australia takes a national view and negotiate with publishers the best possible terms for multi-site access (if possible, universal access) and reprint provision through interlibrary loan procedures. It might be of financial advantage if these subscription arrangements could be flexible, rather than necessarily involving all journals from the publisher concerned, as is often the case at present.

Recommendations

  1. Recognising that scientific journals are the principal medium for scientific publication, that archived issues remain important for very many years, and that archival arrangements for electronic materials are as yet uncertain, cooperative arrangements should be instituted to ensure that at least one print copy of each essential journal is lodged in at least one major Australian library.
  2. Particular and immediate attention should be given to essential journals for which the current number of Australian subscriptions is small and declining. If possible , collaborative arrangements should be put in place to maintain at least one print subscription to each journal.
  3. Noting the present distribution of research collections in the various branches of each subject, a policy should be adopted to enhance major collections in each subject area, rather than simply to make the more general journals more widely available.
  4. Noting the growth of electronic access to major international journals in parallel with print access, steps should be taken on an Australia-wide consortium basis to negotiate favourable access terms for all Australian research libraries to electronic versions of the journals relevant to their field of research.
  5. Where general consortium access cannot be negotiated, steps should be taken to ensure the widest possible access to limited-subscription electronic journals by electronic inter-library loan or other means. Subscription licences should be negotiated with this in mind (and in many cases this is already being done).
  6. Despite wide electronic access, and because of uncertainty about long-term archival access, at least one print version of each essential journal should be acquired by the Australian research library system. The majority of the journals are already held in Australia, so the additional cost of ensuring every title is held will not be large. Of 85 Physics titles checked, only 2 were not held, so it is likely that of the 245 identified “essential” titles, only 6 are not held in Australia at this time.
  7. Because inter-library loan is now, and will continue to be, vitally important for access to publications, urgent steps should be taken to improve its speed and efficiency. Transmission of documents in scanned digital form to the requester’s desktop should be comprehensively implemented.
  8. Noting that Government policy has encouraged competition rather than collaboration in the University sector, it is recognised that significant specific government funding will probably be required in order to put such collaborative arrangements in place. Such funding should be sought as a matter of urgency and supported by all universities.

Appendix I

Journals considered essential in at least one sub field of Physics

These titles were considered essential by at least one respondent to the survey. Availability of the titles in a number of commonly held e-journal sets has been mapped in this table. Some of the titles may be available in other sets or individually from publishers. Nature, for example, named in both the Physics and Molecular Biology responses, is available direct from the publishers in electronic form.

In some cases respondents did not give enough detail of exact title to be identified (eg, Acta Crystallographica, rather than a specific title within that series) These non-specific titles are omitted from this listing.

  Science
-Direct
EBSCO SWETS OCLC American Institute of Physics American Physical Society Institute of Physics Other
Acoustics Australia                
Acta Crystall-
ographica A
  X X          
Acta Crystall-
ographica B
  X X          
Acta Crystall-
ographica D
  X X          
Acustica                
Advances in Physics   X X X        
American Journal of Physics   X X   X      
Annalen der Physik   X           Wiley
Annals of Physics   X X X       IDEAL
Annual
Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics
  X            
Annual
Review of Nuclear Particle Science
  X            
Applied Acoustics X X X          
Applied
Optics
  X            
Applied Physics A   X X         Springer
Applied Physics B   X X         Springer
Applied Physics
Letters
  X X   X      
Applied Surface Science X X X          
Astronomical Journal   X            
Astronomy and Astrophysics X X X         Springer
Astronomy and Astrophysics Abstracts                
Astroparticle Physics X X X          
Astrophysical Journal   X            
Astrophysical Journal
Letters
               
Astrophysical Journal Supplement   X            
Astrophysics and Space Science   X X X        
Atmospheric Environment X X X          
Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables   X X X       IDEAL
Biochemical
and Biophysical Research Comm-
unications
  X X X       IDEAL
Biochemistry                
Biochimica et Biophysica
Acta
X   X          
Biophysical Journal   X            
Canadian Journal of Physics   X X X        
Carbon X X X          
Catgut Acoustical Society                
Cell X X            
Chaos   X X   X      
Chemical Physics X X X          
Chemical Physics Letters X X X          
Classical and Quantum Gravity   X X       X  
Clean Air and Environmental Quality                
Comb. Theory Model   X X       X  
Comments on Condensed Matter
Physics
               
Computer Physics Comm-
unication
X X X          
Computing in Science and Engineering   X     X      
Contemporary Physics   X X X        
Contributions
in Plasma Physics
  X           Wiley
Current
Opinion in Structural Biology
X X X          
Diamond and Related Materials X X X          
Electronics Letters   X            
Electronics                
Embo Journal   X X X        
European Biophysics Journal with Biophysics Letters   X X         Springer
European Journal of Physics   X X       X  
European Physical
Journal A
  X X         Springer
European Physical
Journal B
  X X         Springer
European Physical
Journal C
  X X         Springer
Europhysics Journal A                
Europhysics Letters   X X       ->  
Febs Letters X X X          
Fizika                
Foundations
of Physics Letters
  X X X        
Geophysical Research Letters                
Hyperfine Interactions   X X X        
Icarus   X X X       IDEAL
IEEE Electron Device
Letters
  X            
IEEE Journal
of Quantum Electronics
  X            
IEEE Journal
of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics
  X            
IEEE
Photonics Technology Letters
  X            
IEEE Transactions
on Electron Devices
  X            
International Journal of Bifurcation
and Chaos in Applied Sciences and Engineering
X X X          
International Journal of Modern
Physics A
X X X          
International Journal of Modern
Physics B
X X X          
International Journal of Modern
Physics C
X X X          
International Journal of Theoretical Physics   X X X        
Inverse Problems   X X       X  
Japanese Journal of Applied
Physics
  X            
Japanese Journal of Applied
Physics
Letters
               
Japanese Journal of Applied
Science
               
JETP Letters   X X   X      
Journal of Aerosol
Science
X X X          
Journal of Applied Crystall-
ography
  X X          
Journal of Applied
Optics
               
Journal of Applied
Physics
  X X   X      
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics X X            
Journal of Atmospheric Science                
Journal of Biological Chemistry   X            
Journal of Chemical Physics   X X   X      
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science   X X X        
Journal of Crystal
Growth
X X X          
Journal of Electron Microscopy                
Journal of Electronic Materials X X            
Journal of Experimental and
Theoretical Physics
  X X   X      
Journal of Geophysical Research                
Journal of Geophysical Research A                
Journal of Lightwave Technology   X            
Journal of Luminescence X X X          
Journal of Magnetism
and Magnetic Materials
X X X          
Journal of Materials Research   X            
Journal of Mathematical Physics   X X   X      
Journal of Modern
Optics
  X X X        
Journal of Molecular Biology   X X X        
Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy   X X X       IDEAL
Journal of Non-crystalline Solids X X            
Journal of Nonlinear Science   X X         Springer
Journal of Optics A   X X       X  
Journal of Optics B   X X       X  
Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference
Data
  X X   X      
Journal of Physics A   X X       X  
Journal of Physics and Chemistry
of Solids
X X X          
Journal of Physics B   X X       X  
Journal of Physics C   X X       X  
Journal of Physics D   X X       X  
Journal of Physics E   X X       X  
Journal of Physics G   X X       X  
Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter   X         X  
Journal of Plasma Physics   X X X        
Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer X X X          
Journal of Sound and Vibration   X X X       IDEAL
Journal of Statistical Physics   X X X        
Journal of Synchroton Radiation   X X          
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America   X X   X      
Journal of the Electro-
chemical Society
  X     X      
Journal of the European Physical
Society A
               
Journal of the European Physical
Society B
               
Journal of the Optical
Society of America A
  X            
Journal of the Optical
Society of America B
  X            
Journal of the Physical
Society of
Japan
               
Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology         X      
Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology A   X     X      
Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology B   X     X      
Journal of
X-ray Science and
Technology
  X X         IDEAL
Langmuir   X X          
Materials Science and Engineering B X X X          
Materials Science and Engineering Reports X X X          
Materials Science
Reports
               
Measurement Science and Technology   X X       X  
Microscopy
and
Microanalysis
  X X         Springer
Modern
Physics
Letters
X X X          
Molecular Cell   X X          
Molecular Physics   X X X        
Monthly Notices of
the Royal Astronomical Society
  X X X       Blackwell Science
Nano-
technology
  X X          
Nature                
Nature Structural Biology                
New Scientist                
NIM
Research
Digest
               
Nonlinearity   X X       X  
Nuclear Data Sheets   X X X       IDEAL
Nuclear Instruments
and Methods
in Physics Research A
X X            
Nuclear Instruments
and Methods
in Physics Research B
X X            
Nuclear
Physics A
X X X          
Nuclear
Physics B
X X X          
Nuovo
Cimento
               
Optical Engineering   X     X      
Optics and Laser technology X X X          
Optics Comm-
unications
X X X          
Optics Letters   X            
Optik   X X          
PCCP                
Philosophical Magazine A   X X X        
Philosophical Magazine B   X X X        
Philosophical Magazine Letters   X X X        
Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London A
               
Physica A X X X          
Physica B X X X          
Physica C X X X          
Physica D X X X          
Physica E X X X          
Physica
Scripta
  X X          
Physica Status Solidi A   X           Wiley
Physical
Review A
  X X   X X    
Physical
Review B
  X X   X X    
Physical
Review C
  X X   X X    
Physical
Review D
  X X   X X    
Physical
Review E
  X X   X X    
Physical
Review
Letters
  X X   X X    
Physics Letters A X X X          
Physics Letters B X X X          
Physics Letters C                
Physics of Fluids   X X   X      
Physics of Particles and Nuclei   X X   X      
Physics of Plasmas   X X   X      
Physics
Reports
X X X          
Physics Today                
Physics World   X            
Physics, Uspekhi   X            
Physics: Technical Physics                
Planetary
Space Science
X X X          
Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion   X X       X  
Plasma Physics Reports   X X   X      
Proceedings Astronomical Society of Australia                
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (US)                
Proceedings of the Physical Society A                
Proceedings of the Physical Society B                
Proceedings of the Physical Society D                
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A     X          
Progress in Optics                
Progress in Theoretical Physics                
Protein Science   X X          
Proteins, Structure, Function and Genetics   X           Wiley
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia                
Publications of the Astronomical Society of
Japan
  X            
Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific   X            
Pure and Applied Optics   X            
Radiation Physics and Chemistry X X X          
Reports on Progress in Physics   X X       X  
Review of Scientific Instruments   X X   X      
Reviews of Modern
Physics
  X X   X X    
Science                
Semiconductor Science and Technology   X X       X  
Sensors and Actuators X X X          
Solar Physics   X X X        
Solid State Comm-
unications
X X X          
Soviet Astronomy                
Space Science Reviews   X   X        
Structure   X X          
Superlattices & Micro-
structures
  X X X       IDEAL
Surface Coatings Technology X X X          
Surface
Science
X X X          
Thin Solid
Films
X X X          
Trends in Biochemical Science
(TIBS)
X X X          
Ultra-
microscopy
X X X          
Ultrasonics X X X          
Ultrastructure                
X-ray Spectrometry   X           Wiley
Zeitschrift fur Kristall-
ographie
               
Zeitschrift fur Physik A   X           Springer

Back to the top

Appendix II

Journals considered essential in at least one sub field of Molecular Biology

Journal title Science Direct EBSCO SWETS OCLC Other
American Journal of Botany   X      
Animal Genetics   X X X OVID, Blackwell Science
Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology   X      
Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology   X      
Antimicrobial Agents And Chemotherapy   X      
Australian Journal of Botany   X X X  
Australian Systematic Botany   X X X  
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications   X X X IDEAL
Biochemical Journal   X X    
Biochemistry   X      
Biophysical Journal   X      
Biotechniques          
Biotechnology          
Blood   X      
Cell X X      
Cell Motility and Cytoskeleton   X     Wiley
Cladistics   X X X IDEAL
Clinical Microbiology Reviews   X      
Current Biology X X      
Current Genetics   X     Springer
Current Microbiology   X X   Springer
Current Opinion in Biotechnology X X X    
Current Opinion in Cell Biology X X X    
Current Opinion in Microbiology X X X    
Current Opinion In Neurobiology X X X    
Current Opinion in Plant Biology X X X    
Current Opinion in Structural Biology X X X    
Development   X X X  
Drug Resistance Updates   X X X IDEAL
Embo Journal   X X X  
European Journal of Biochemistry   X X X  
FASEB journal   X      
FEBS Letters X X X    
FEMS Microbiology Letters X X X    
FEMS Microbiology Reviews X X X    
Gene X X X    
Genes and Development   X      
Genes and Function   X      
Genetica   X X X  
Genetics   X      
Genomics   X X X IDEAL
Hereditas          
Heredity   X X X Blackwell Synergy
Infection and Immunity   X      
International Journal of Biochemistry and Biophysics (Biochimica et biophysica acta) X   X    
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy   X X X  
Journal of Bacteriology   X      
Journal of Biochemistry          
Journal of Biological Chemistry   X      
Journal of Cell Science   X X    
Journal of Genetic Virology         Springer
Journal of Heredity   X X X  
Journal of Medical Microbiology   X      
Journal of Molecular Biology   X X X  
Journal of Molecular Ecology   X X X Springer
Journal of Molecular Evolution         Springer
Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology         Horizon Press
Journal of Virological Methods X X X    
Journal of Virology   X      
Mammalian Genome   X X X Springer
Methods in Enzymology         IDEAL
Microbiological Reviews         ceased
Microbiology   X X X  
Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology X X X    
Molecular and Cellular Biology   X     Amercian Society for Microbiology
Molecular and Cellular Probes   X      
Molecular and General Genetics (MGG)         Springer
Molecular Biology and Evolution   X      
Molecular Cell X X      
Molecular Ecology   X X X Blackwell Synergy
Molecular Membrane Biology   X X X  
Molecular Microbiology   X X X Blackwell Synergy
Molecular Plant Microbe Interactions   X      
Nature         Nature
Nature Biotechnology         Nature
Nature Cell Biology         Nature
Nature Genetics         Nature
Nature Medicine         Nature
Nucleic Acids Research (NAR)   X X X  
Oncogene   X   X  
PCR Methods and Applications         ceased
Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology   X X X IDEAL
Phytopathology   X      
Plant and Soil   X X    
Plant Breeding   X X X Blackwell Synergy
Plant Cell   X      
Plant Disease   X      
Plant Disease Reporter         ceased
Plant Journal   X   X Blackwell Synergy ; OVID
Plant Microbe Interactions          
Plant Molecular Biology   X X X  
Plant Molecular Biology Reporter   X X    
Plant Physiology   X      
Planta   X X   Springer
Plasmid   X X X IDEAL
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS)   X     National Academy of Sciences
Review of Plant Pathology   National Academy of Sciences      
Science         AAAS
Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology   X X X IDEAL
Systematic Botany       X  
Theoretical and Applied Genetics     X   Springer
Trends in Biochemical Sciences (TIBS) X X X    
Trends in Biotechnology X X X    
Trends in Ecology and Evolution X X X    
Trends In Genetics (TIGS) X X X    
Trends in Microbiology X X X    
Trends in Plant Science X X X    
Virology   X X X IDEAL
Virology Abstracts         SilverPlatter

Back to the top

Appendix III

Survey forms.

The forms reproduced here are the Physics questionnaires. The forms for Molecular Biology were a similar format, with a different list of subfields presented.

(Survey. Part 1)

A. Essential and desirable journals.

SUB-FIELD OF PHYSICS:…………………………………

SUBMITTED BY:……………………………………………

INSTITUTION:………………………………………………

How do you rate your Physics library journal collection in this area of physics? (Please tick one box)

[ ] research level [ ] undergraduate level only [ ] general interest level

How has your Library collection of physics journals changed over the past 3 years? About how many journal subscriptions have been cancelled? Any other comments?

.............................………………………………………………

Journal Title Essential? Desirable? In Library? Electronic Access? Personal Access?
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           

(Note: space was provided for up to 26 journal titles to be entered)

(Survey. Part 2)

Access to Physics journals by Australian researchers

1. Your academic position: [Higher degree researcher, lecturer, senior lecturer, associate professor, professor, other]

2. Your university:

3. Your name: (Optional)

4. Please indicate your primary area of research within your discipline:

[ ] Nuclear and particle physics
[ ] Condensed matter physics (structural, thermal, mechanical)
[ ] Condensed matter physics (electrical, magnetic, optical)
[ ] Plasma physics and electrical discharges
[ ] Astronomy and astrophysics
[ ] Optics
[ ] Geophysics (atmospheric, ionospheric, space physics)
[ ] Cross-disciplinary physics (medical, biological, environmental, etc)
[ ] Classical physics (electromagnetics, thermodynamics, acoustics, fluid dynamics, etc)
[ ] Atomic and molecular physics
[ ] Theoretical physics not included under the other headings
[ ] Another area (please describe):

5. How would you categorise the serial collection of your own university library in relation to the research field you have identified above?

[ ] A general interest collection only, appropriate for the general public
[ ] A collection meeting the needs of undergraduates in the field
[ ] A collection meeting the needs of postgraduates in the field
[ ] A collection meeting the needs of advanced researchers in the field
[ ] A comprehensive collection (almost everything published)

6. Please provide brief responses to as many of the following questions as you are able:

(a) Please describe any common difficulties you have in accessing journal articles to support your research.

(b) To what extent has the cancellation of print copies of journals in your library impacted upon your work? If possible, please provide examples.

(c) In many libraries print copies of journals are being replaced or supplemented with electronic access to journals. Can you comment on the impact of this on your work?

(d) What tools do you use in your library or external to your library to discover journal articles which may be of use to your work?

(e) How frequently and in what quantity do you use inter-library loan or document delivery services provided by your library to access the articles you need?

[ ] 20+ times per year
[ ] 10 20 times per year
[ ] 6 10 times per year
[ ] 2 5 times per year
[ ] 1 2 times per year
[ ] Never

(f) What suggestions would you make for improving these inter library loan or document delivery services?

(g) What non-library sources do you use to get the articles you need (eg. colleagues, own subscription, purchase of individual articles, non-library web based services)

(h) To what extent do you rely on these non-library sources to access the articles you need?

[ ] All library
[ ] Mostly library
[ ] 50% library and 50% non library
[ ] Mostly non library
[ ] Non library

(i) If the use of non-library sources of journal articles involve costs, how are these paid for?

(j) Are there any other suggestions or comments you would like to make regarding improving access to journal articles?

Back to the top

Appendix IV

Summary of results - general survey - Physics

A total of 172 responses were received from researchers in 27 organisations.

Q1. Academic or research position:

Lecturer 7
Senior Lecturer 28
Associate Professor 20
Professor 29
Research Fellow 26
Senior Research Fellow 8
Research Scientist 6
Senior/Principal Research Scientist 18
Researcher 3
Senior Researcher 2
Research Staff 5
Postgraduate Student 17
Reader 1
Professional Officer 1
Technical Manager 1

Q2. Institution

Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) 5
Australian National University 38
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) 13
CSIRO 14
Curtin University of Technology 3
Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) 1
Flinders University 6
James Cook University 4
La Trobe University 4
Macquarie University 2
Monash University 1
Murdoch University 5
Northern Territory University 1
Queensland University of Technology 4
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology 1
University of Melbourne 14
University of Newcastle 8
University of New England 2
University of New South Wales 13
University of South Australia 3
University of Southern Queensland 2
University of Sydney 11
University of Tasmania 4
University of Western Australia 3
University of Western Sydney 3
University of Wollongong 2
Victoria University of Technology 2

Q3. Name 129 (75%) of respondents identified themselves by name.

Q4. Primary area of research

Sub field of Physics No. %
Nuclear and particle physics 19 11
Condensed matter physics (structural, thermal, mechanical) 28 16.3
Condensed matter physics (electrical, magnetic, optical) 34 19.8
Plasma physics and electrical discharges 21 12.2
Astronomy and astrophysics 20 11.6
Optics 22 12.8
Geophysics (atmospheric, ionospheric, space physics) 10 5.8
Cross-disciplinary physics (medical, biological, environmental, etc) 36 20.9
Classical physics (electromagnetics, thermodynamics, acoustics, fluid dynamics) 8 4.7
Atomic and molecular physics 15 8.7
Theoretical physics not included under the other headings 5 2.9
Other. Areas of research indicated under 'Other' included: Applied physics, Atmospheric sciences, Surface physics, Synchrotron radiation, Medical physics, Hyperfine interactions and Metrology 21 5.2 .

Note: A number of respondents identified more than one primary area of research.

Q5. Assessment of serial collection of own library

Researcher assessment of collection strength No. %
A general interest collection only, appropriate for the general public 2 1.2
A collection meeting the needs of undergraduates in the field 17 9.9
A collection meeting the needs of advanced course work in the field 22 12.8
A collection meeting the needs of post-graduates and advanced researchers in the field 117 68
A comprehensive collection (almost everything published) 14 8.1

One respondent commented: "A collection that used to meet the needs of research before most journals were discontinued."

Note: Some respondents selected more than one level.

Four respondents (2.3%) gave no reply to this question.

Q6 (a ) Common difficulties in accessing journal articles

Researcher comments No. %
Journal/s not held in own library 55 32
No difficulties experienced 28 16.3
Cancellations 26 15.1
Delays/slow ILL 20 11.6
Limited access to online journals 12 7
Journal/s kept in another library on campus 9 5.2
Slow arrival of print journals 9 5.2
Access difficulties/difficult to find journals 8 4.6
Missing issues/incomplete journal collections 9 5.2
Difficult to obtain obscure/unpopular journals 6 3.5
New journals not subscribed to 5 2.9
Older journals archived/stored in stacks (difficult to obtain quickly) 4 2.3
ILL costly 3 1.7
Short library opening hours 2 1.2
Lack of funds for monographs 2 1.2
Time consuming to fill out paper-based ILL forms (should be electronic) 2 1.2
Librarian rearranges shelves too often 1 0.6
Item required borrowed by others 1 0.6
Lack of funding for ILL 1 0.6
Inability to browse when items not held by library 1 0.6

Notes: Some respondents identified more than one problem.

Fifteen respondents (8.7%) gave no reply to this question.

One respondent (0.6%) indicated the question was not applicable.

Q6 (b) Impact of cancellation of print and electronic copies of journals on work

Researcher comment on impact of cancellations No. %
Minimal/not significant impact 54 31.4%
Time delay in accessing information 23 13.4%
No impact 21 12.2%
No problems yet but concerned for the future 19 11%
Electronic access has helped where print journals have been cancelled 14 8.1%
Increasingly miss information important to research 12 7%
More difficult to find relevant information 13 7.6%
Need to visit other libraries more often 9 5.2%
Difficult to stay up to date 8 4.7%
Delays work 7 4%
Little impact because the collection was already inadequate 7 4%
Significant impact 7 4%
Difficult to prepare quality research/grant applications 6 3.5%
Amount spent on ILL has increased 4 2.3%
Increasing reliance on colleagues 4 2.3%
Increase in personal expense (subscriptions) 2 1.2%
Fewer new books available in library 2 1.2%
Reluctance to use ILL due to cost 2 1.2%
Limits scope of research undertaken 1 0.6%
Impacted on teaching 1 0.6%

Note Most respondents identified more than one issue.

Q6 (c) Impact of electronic journals on work

Researcher comment on electronic journals No. %
Generally positive about change to electronic journals 66 38.4
Minor 20 11.6
Easier/improved access 19 11
More convenient 18 10.5
Faster access to journals 16 9.3
None 15 8.7
Easier/better searching 13 7.6
Prefer electronic 13 7.6
Supports supplementation of print with electronic (not replacement) 11 6.4
More difficult to scan/browse 11 6.4
Lack of access to electronic journals is a problem 9 5.2
Saves time 8 4.7
High cost of electronic versions 7 4.1
Future difficulties if old issues not accessible after the cancellation of an electronic subscription 7 4.1
Less benefit from serendipity (browsing) 7 4.1
Availability of electronic journals limited to journals also held in print 5 2.9
Electronic access is an adequate replacement for print journals 5 2.9
Harder to access 4 2.3
Costs involved in downloading articles 3 1.7
More time consuming 3 1.7
Computer equipment available not adequate 2 1.2
Poor quality printed reproductions 2 1.2
System delays a problem 2 1.2
Increases work for researcher 1 0.6
Increases stress 1 0.6

Note: Most respondents identified more than one issue.

Four respondents (4.1%) gave no reply to this question.

Q6 (d) Indexes and abstracts used

The main tools used for finding journal articles were:

Tool identified No. %
Current Contents 73 42.4
INSPEC 29 16.9
UnCover 19 11
ADS (Astrophysics Data Service) 17 9.9
Los Alamos eprint archives (LANL) 13 7.5
Publisher Table of contents 13 7.5
SCI (Science Citation Index) 11 6.4
FirstSearch 8 4.6
SciFinder 8 4.6
ASTRO-PH 7 4.1
Web of Science 7 4.1
WWW 7 4.1
None used 4 2.3
Rarely used 3 1.2

44 other indexes, abstract services, databases, current awareness bulletins and professional societies were listed as sources of journal information including: EI Compendex, Chemical Abstracts Service, SLAC SPIRES Hep Database, Physics Abstracts, Science Direct, Medline and the Optical Society of America.

Notes: Many respondents identified more than one index/abstract.

Seven respondents (4.1%) gave no reply to this question.

Two respondents (1.2%) indicated the question was not applicable.

Q6 (e) Frequency of inter-library loans each year

Times per year ILL service is used NO. %
20+ times 20 11.6
10-20 15 8.7
6-10 24 14
2-5 39 22.7
1-2 46 26.7
Never 28 16.3

Q6 (f) Suggestions for improving inter-library loan services

R Researcher suggestions for improvement to ILL services No. %
Make it quicker 22 12.8
Satisfied with current service 19 11
Electronic delivery (scanned articles) 14 8.1
Make it cheaper 9 5.2
Use combined library purchasing/agreements to increase access to electronic journals 7 4.1
Use electronic ILL requests 6 3.5
More electronic journals 5 2.9
Make it web-based 4 2.3
Better quality copies/reproductions 4 2.3
READS should be extended 2 1.2
Provide (fax/email) directly to requestor 1 0.6
More predictability for time of arrival 1 0.6
Establish a central science library 1 0.6
Electronic journals available from all libraries 1 0.6
More money to staff libraries 1 0.6

Note: Some respondents identified more than one issue.

Sixty respondents (34.9%) gave no reply to this question.

Six respondents (3.5%) indicated the question was not applicable.

Q6 (g) Non-library sources used to obtain journal articles

Source of journals No. %
Colleagues 55 32
Own subscriptions 54 31.2
Web information services 42 24.4
Electronic journals/databases 31 18
Preprints 8 4.7
Visits to other libraries 7 4.1
Overseas colleagues/collaborators 7 4.1
Reprint requests 7 4.1
Purchase of individual articles 6 3.5
Conferences 5 2.9
Authors/researchers home pages 5 2.9
Email 'news' services 4 2.3
Department/group 3 1.7
References 2 1.2
Professional societies 2 1.2
Publisher web pages 2 1.2
Group database 1 0.6
Publisher bulletins 1 0.6

Note: Some respondents identified more than one issue.

Twelve (7%) respondents gave no reply to this question.

Seven (4.1%) respondents indicated the question was not applicable.

Q6 (h) Reliance on library and non-library sources to access journals

Source of journals No. %
All library 32 18.6
Mostly library 84 48.8
50 library and 50 non-library 38 22.1
Mostly non-library 15 8.7
All non-library 2 1.2

Note: One respondent (0.6%) gave no reply to this question.

Q6 (i) Payment for non-library sources of journal articles

Source of funding for journal articles (non-library) No. %
Institution (eg. faculty, department etc) 19 11
Personal funds 30 17.4
Research/grant funds 25 14.5
Library 1 0.6

Note: Some respondents identified more than one source.

76 respondents (44.2%) gave no reply to this question.

16 respondents (9.3%) indicated the question was not applicable.

14 respondents (8.1%) provided replies unrelated to the question.

Q6 (j ) Number of visits to external libraries to obtain journal articles

No. of visits No. %
20+ 3 1.7
10-20 4 2.3
6-10 5 2.9
2-5 7 4.1
1-2 19 11
Never 134 77.9

Q6 (k) Suggestions for improving access to journals from the Australian research library system

Maintain electronic access and book collections.

Access to more electronic journals.

Increase staff numbers for libraries.

Increase cooperation between libraries - particularly for serials collections.

Keep the costs of document delivery and electronic access to a minimum.

Better resource allocation/funding for universities.

More funding for libraries.

Joint university consortium for access to electronic journals/databases (refuse to negotiate on a university basis).

Satisfied with current system.

Electronic delivery of articles requested by ILL.

Establish a "one-stop" web site for comprehensive journal/abstracts searching.

Facilitate individual access to electronic article retrieval on a cost/article basis.

Encourage better quality information in journals.

"Get a system like ours" (ANSTO library in Sydney).

Establish a central Australian server upon which all journals published electronically are available to Australian researchers.

Higher quality scanning of articles.

More mirror sites.

More academic staff involved in cancellation/subscription decisions.

National Library should play a leading role in coordinating journal collections in Australian Universities.

Publish in non-profit society journals with electronic access and boycott expensive private journals.

Make journal articles available more quickly (4-5 days).

Negotiate a national site licence agreement for access to electronic journals.

Increase subscriptions to electronic versions and make them available to all universities.

State based coordination of journal subscriptions.

Access to a national catalogue to easily locate journals.

Streamline ILL.

Interlink all Australian research libraries - use READS as a model.

Ensure electronic access to journals is guaranteed (in perpetuity) after cancellation.

Jointly operated state science library in major capital cities.

Ensure equal access to information - should not be a two-tier university system.

Do not get rid of branch (Physics) libraries.

None = 12 = 7%

Note: Some respondents provided more than one suggestion.

8 respondents (39.5%) gave no reply to this question.

One respondent (0.6%) indicated the question was not applicable.

Back to the top

Appendix V

Summary of results - General survey - Molecular Biology

A total of 84 responses were received from researchers in 27 organisations.

Q1. Academic or research position:

Lecturer 11 13.1
Senior Lecturer 13 15.5
Associate Professor 14 16.7
Professor 6 7.1
Research Fellow 8 9.5
Senior/Principal Research Fellow 4 4.8
Research Scientist 3 3.6
Senior/Principal Research Scientist 8 9.5
Senior Researcher 2 2.4
Research Staff 4 4.8
Postgraduate Student 10 11.9
Reader 1 1.2

Q2. Organisation

Organisation No.
Australian National University 2
Australian Red Cross Blood Service 1
CSIRO 11
Charles Sturt University 3
Curtin University of Technology 2
Deakin University 1
Flinders University 7
James Cook University 1
La Trobe University 2
Monash University 7
Queensland Institute of Medical Research 1
Queensland University of Technology 2
Primary Industries & Resources South Australia 1
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology 2
University of Adelaide 2
University of Melbourne 1
University of Newcastle 2
University of New England 2
University of New South Wales 4
University of Queensland 11
University of Sydney 10
University of Tasmania 1
University of Technology, Sydney 1
University of Western Australia 2
University of Western Sydney 1
University of Wollongong 3
Victoria University of Technology 1

Q3. Name 53 (%) of respondents identified themselves.

Q4. Primary area of research

Sub-field of molecular biology No. %
Theoretical molecular biology 3 3.6
Biochemistry of nucleic acids and proteins 22 26.2
Genomics (gene structure gene expression and function) 22 26.2
Proteomics (protein structure and function) 12 14.3
Protein interactions, ligands, enzymology, immunology 13 15.5
Membranes: structure and function 1 1.2
Cell metabolism and interactions, organelles 7 8.3
Cell structure and development 4 4.8
Molecular neurobiology 1 1.2
Organismal and population studies, evolution, epidemiology 5 6
Molecular applications (biotechnology, diagnostics, others) 17 20.2
Bioinformatics (software development, databases, data analysis) 5 6
Other. Areas of research indicated under 'Other' included: molecular toxicology, protein structure determination, pharmacology, toxicology, nutritional biochemistry, microbial molecular biology, mutations, genetic diseases, conservation genetics and molecular ecology. 12 14.3

Note: A number of respondents identified more than one primary area of research.

Q5. Assessment of serial collection of own library

Researcher assessment of collection strength No. %
A general interest collection only, appropriate for the general public 5 6
A collection meeting the needs of undergraduates in the field 14 16.7
A collection meeting the needs of advanced course work in the field 11 13.1
A collection meeting the needs of post-graduates and advanced researchers in the field 54 64.3
A comprehensive collection (almost everything published) 6 7.1

Note: Some respondents selected more than one level.

Q6 (a ) Common difficulties in accessing journal articles

Researcher comment No. %
Journal/s not held in own library 42 50
Delays/slow ILL 12 14.3
Slow arrival of print journals 11 13.1
Journal/s kept in another library on campus 9 10.7
Difficulties with electronic access 7 8.3
Journals unavailable due to binding 6 7.1
Difficulty finding journals when circulating around organisation 5 6
Limited access to online journals 4 4.8
No difficulties experienced 3 3.6
Journals not available in Australia 3 3.6
ILL costly 3 3.6
Difficulties with ILL process 2 2.4
Difficulties undertaking scholarly review because material is disjointed 1 1.2
Need to get references from other libraries 1 1.2
Quality of document delivery reproduction is poor 1 1.2
Library arranges journals by DDC order, not alphabetical order 1 1.2
Missing issues/incomplete journal collections 1 1.2
Lack of money to subscribe to electronic journals 1 1.2
New journals not subscribed to 1 1.2

Note: Some respondents identified more than one problem.

Six respondents 7.1%) gave no reply to this question.

Q6 (b) Impact of cancellation of print and electronic copies of journals on work

Researcher comment No. %
Minimal/not significant impact 36 42.9
Key journals not available in local library 21 25
Increased need for ILL/DD 13 15.5
Time delay accessing information (especially a problem for grant writing, grant reviewing, refereeing papers and discipline panels) 12 14.3
Significant impact 8 9.5
No problems yet but concerned for the future 6 7.1
Cancellation/lapsing of electronic journal subscriptions a problem 5 6
Electronic access has helped where print journals have been cancelled 4 4.8
Little impact because the collection was already inadequate 4 4.8
Limited access to online journals 3 3.6
Need for comprehensive electronic access 3 3.6
Increase in personal subscriptions 3 3.6
Increased inconvenience and frustration 2 2.4
Need to visit other libraries more often 2 2.4
Lack of training and advertising of availability of electronic journals 1 1.2
Increased need to contact authors directly to obtain articles 1 1.2
Only one copy held can cause access problems 1 1.2
Document delivery effective in overcoming problems of cancellations 1 1.2
Expanded journal coverage as print journals replaced by larger number of electronic journals 1 1.2
More difficult to find relevant information 1 1.2
Difficulties with electronic access 1 1.2
Increased time spent submitting ILL requests 1 1.2

Note: Most respondents identified more than one issue.

Six respondents (7.1%) gave no reply to this question.

Two respondents (%) indicated the question was not applicable.

Q6 (c ) Impact of electronic journals on work

Researcher comment No. %
Generally positive about change to electronic journals 54 64.3
Easier/improved access 16 19
Faster access to journals 14 16.7
More convenient 12 14.3
Minor/None 10 28.9
Cancellation/slow renewal of electronic journal subscriptions a problem 6 7.1
Electronic access is an adequate replacement for print journals 5 6
Easier/better searching 5 6
Poor quality reproductions 5 6
Password problems (too many passwords) 5 6
Computer equipment available not adequate 5 6
Expanded journal coverage 4 4.8
High cost of electronic versions (multiple licences) 4 4.8
More difficult to scan/browse 3 3.6
Download time/ system delays a problem 3 3.6
Increased efficiency 3 3.6
Access difficulties 3 3.6
Future difficulties if old issues not accessible after the cancellation of an electronic subscription 3 3.6
Lack of access to electronic journals is a problem 3 3.6
More time consuming 2 2.4
Availability of electronic journals limited to journals also held in print (ie. if print version is cancelled so is electronic version) 2 2.4
None - journals still not available 1 1.2
Difficult to know what journals are available 1 1.2
Costs involved in downloading articles 1 1.2
Increased students reliance on abstracts for assignments 1 1.2
Can't access via networks 1 1.2
Multiple users can access journals simultaneously 1 1.2
Increases inconvenience 1 1.2

Note: Most respondents identified more than one issue.

Three respondents (3.6%) gave no reply to this question.

Q6 (d) Indexes and abstracts used

The main tools used for finding journal articles were:

Tool used by researcher No. %
Current Contents 52 61.9
Medline 26 31
PubMed 18 21.4
Publisher Table of contents 14 16.7
OVID 7 8.3
Biological Abstracts 7 8.3
CAB Abstracts 7 8.3
Web of Science 5 6
None used 1 1.2

18 other indexes, abstract services and databases were listed as sources of journal information including: Chemical Abstracts Service, Science Direct, Science Citation Index, UnCover Reveal, First Search, Agricola, and SciFinder Scholar.

Notes: Many respondents identified more than one index/abstract.

Two respondents (2.4%) gave no reply to this question.

Q6e Frequency of inter-library loans each year

No. of times ILL is used each year No. %
20+ 24 28.6
10-20 16 19
6-10 14 16.7
2-5 11 32.9
1-2 15 17.9
Never 3 3.6

Note: One respondents (1.2%) gave no reply to this question.

Q6 (f) Suggestions for improving inter-library loan services

Researcher suggestions for improvement to ILL services No. %
Make it quicker ("2 weeks is too slow") 18 21.4
Electronic/email delivery (scanned articles) 12 14.3
None 10 11.9
Satisfied with current service 8 9.5
Use electronic ILL requests 6 7.1
More electronic journals 6 7.1
Make it cheaper 5 5.6
Better quality copies/reproductions 4 4.8
Fast track service is good 3 3.6
Use colleagues in preference to ILL 2 2.4
More information on delivery time and availability should be provided to requestor 2 2.4
Cost of ILL means it is cheaper to travel to capital cities to find information 1 1.2
Service has improved 1 1.2
If library has no subscription to a journal then provide a link to a website for loans 1 1.2
Requests could be sent directly to supplying library (not via local library) 1 1.2
Electronic transfers from a central source that has subscriptions to online journals 1 1.2

Notes: Some respondents identified more than one issue.

Twenty-four respondents (28.6%) gave no reply to this question.

Q6 (g) Non-library sources used to obtain journal articles

Source of non-library journal articles No. %
Own subscriptions 47 56
Colleagues 36 42.9
Web information services 27 32.1
Free online journals 9 10.7
Department/Lab subscription 9 10.7
Visits to other libraries 4 4.8
PubMed 3 3.6
Reprint requests directly to author 3 3.6
Purchase of individual articles 3 3.6

Notes: Some respondents identified more than one issue.

Four (4.8%) respondents gave no reply to this question.

Two (1.2%) respondents indicated the question was not applicable.

Q6 (h) Reliance on library and non-library sources to access journals

Source of journals No. %
All library 6 7.1
Mostly library 46 54.8
50 library and 50 non-library 17 20.2
Mostly non-library 12 14.3
All non-library 1 1.2

Note: Two respondents (2.4%) gave no reply to this question.

Q6 (i) Payment for non-library sources of journal articles

Source of funding for journal articles (non-library) No. %
Personal funds 24 28.6
Research/grant funds 23 27.4
Institution (eg. faculty, department etc) 11 13.1

Notes: Some respondents identified more than one source.

Twenty-one respondents (25%) gave no reply to this question.

Eleven respondents (13.1%) indicated the question was not applicable.

Q6 (j ) Number of visits to external libraries to obtain journal articles

No. of visits No. %
20+ 5 6
10-20 7 8.3
6-10 5 6
2-5 8 9.5
1-2 25 30
Never 32 38.1

Note: Two respondents (2.4%) gave no reply to this question.

Q6 (k) Suggestions for improving access to journals from the Australian research library system

Australia-wide joint/shared subscriptions to journals.

Universal access (all researchers to all journals) to electronic journals through a single interface available on the desktop.

Access to more electronic journals on the web.

National site licence for high use abstracts.

Centralised Australian facility accessible through the web which mediates electronic online access to all important journals.

Make any process faster and cheaper.

Make sure copy quality is decent.

The university libraries should be more proactive to serve the real needs of end users who, after all, constitute the real 'point' of the library systems.

Clearer identification of specialised libraries (one of each type in each major city).

Single comprehensive print library.

Journal availability should be better advertised.

More information about the system should be made available to users.

Develop an Australian academic version of 'PubMed Central' to be accessible online.

Need to control costs of access to electronic journals.

Be careful about relying too much on electronic access.

Desperately need same day access to all journal articles (print or electronic) for Australia to remain competitive.

More funds to subscribe to new titles.

Expand the current document delivery system to include electronic copies of manuscripts.

Keep up the good work being done by document delivery services.

Lack of library resources is clearly impacting on our productivity and competitiveness as a nation of science researchers.

A national ILL service which is efficient, cheap and of high quality is essential given inevitable budget restraint.

Note: Some respondents provided more than one suggestion.

Thirty-six respondents (42.9%) gave no reply to this question.

Back to the top