Interlending and document supply a review of the recent literature 59
Identifieur interne : 000036 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000035; suivant : 000037Interlending and document supply a review of the recent literature 59
Auteurs : Mike McgrathSource :
- Interlending & Document Supply [ 0264-1615 ] ; 2007-06-05.
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this article is to provide a review of the most recent literature concerning document supply and related matters. Designmethodologyapproach The article covers the reading of over 150 journals as well as monographs, reports and websites. Findings That the fundamental debate on the direction of scholarly publishing continues intensely and that opposition is growing to DRM constraints. Electronic books remain a small minority market but the mass digitisation of books is proceeding apace. Open access continues to grow but with widely differing views on its impact the publishers start to fight back. Originalityvalue The paper represents a useful source of information for librarians and others interested in document supply and related matters.
Url:
DOI: 10.1108/02641610710754114
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Interlending and document supply a review of the recent literature 59</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Mcgrath, Mike" sort="Mcgrath, Mike" uniqKey="Mcgrath M" first="Mike" last="Mcgrath">Mike Mcgrath</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Editor, Interlending & Document Supply, Leeds, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87</idno><date when="2007" year="2007">2007</date><idno type="doi">10.1108/02641610710754114</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000036</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Interlending and document supply a review of the recent literature 59</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Mcgrath, Mike" sort="Mcgrath, Mike" uniqKey="Mcgrath M" first="Mike" last="Mcgrath">Mike Mcgrath</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Editor, Interlending & Document Supply, Leeds, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Interlending & Document Supply</title><idno type="ISSN">0264-1615</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2007-06-05">2007-06-05</date><biblScope unit="volume">35</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="102">102</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="114">114</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0264-1615</idno></series><idno type="istex">62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/02641610710754114</idno><idno type="filenameID">1220350208</idno><idno type="original-pdf">1220350208.pdf</idno><idno type="href">02641610710754114.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0264-1615</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Purpose The purpose of this article is to provide a review of the most recent literature concerning document supply and related matters. Designmethodologyapproach The article covers the reading of over 150 journals as well as monographs, reports and websites. Findings That the fundamental debate on the direction of scholarly publishing continues intensely and that opposition is growing to DRM constraints. Electronic books remain a small minority market but the mass digitisation of books is proceeding apace. Open access continues to grow but with widely differing views on its impact the publishers start to fight back. Originalityvalue The paper represents a useful source of information for librarians and others interested in document supply and related matters.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Mike McGrath</name><affiliations><json:string>Editor, Interlending & Document Supply, Leeds, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Interlending</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Resource sharing</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Copyright law</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Electronic books</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>review-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Purpose The purpose of this article is to provide a review of the most recent literature concerning document supply and related matters. Designmethodologyapproach The article covers the reading of over 150 journals as well as monographs, reports and websites. Findings That the fundamental debate on the direction of scholarly publishing continues intensely and that opposition is growing to DRM constraints. Electronic books remain a small minority market but the mass digitisation of books is proceeding apace. Open access continues to grow but with widely differing views on its impact the publishers start to fight back. Originalityvalue The paper represents a useful source of information for librarians and others interested in document supply and related matters.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.38</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>609 x 788 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>4</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>770</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>12318</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>72947</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>13</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>115</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Interlending and document supply a review of the recent literature 59</title><genre><json:string>review-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>35</volume><publisherId><json:string>ilds</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>114</last><first>102</first></pages><issn><json:string>0264-1615</json:string></issn><issue>2</issue><subject><json:item><value>Library & information science</value></json:item><json:item><value>Collection building & management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Library & information services</value></json:item><json:item><value>Consortia</value></json:item><json:item><value>Stock revision</value></json:item><json:item><value>Document delivery</value></json:item><json:item><value>Lending</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Interlending & Document Supply</title><doi><json:string>10.1108/ilds</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2007</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1108/02641610710754114</json:string></doi><id>62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87</id><score>0.45918593</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Interlending and document supply a review of the recent literature 59</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><availability><p>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</p></availability><date>2007</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Interlending and document supply a review of the recent literature 59</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Mike</forename><surname>McGrath</surname></persName><affiliation>Editor, Interlending & Document Supply, Leeds, UK</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Interlending & Document Supply</title><idno type="pISSN">0264-1615</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/ilds</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2007-06-05"></date><biblScope unit="volume">35</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="102">102</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="114">114</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/02641610710754114</idno><idno type="filenameID">1220350208</idno><idno type="original-pdf">1220350208.pdf</idno><idno type="href">02641610710754114.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2007</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Purpose The purpose of this article is to provide a review of the most recent literature concerning document supply and related matters. Designmethodologyapproach The article covers the reading of over 150 journals as well as monographs, reports and websites. Findings That the fundamental debate on the direction of scholarly publishing continues intensely and that opposition is growing to DRM constraints. Electronic books remain a small minority market but the mass digitisation of books is proceeding apace. Open access continues to grow but with widely differing views on its impact the publishers start to fight back. Originalityvalue The paper represents a useful source of information for librarians and others interested in document supply and related matters.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>Interlending</term></item><item><term>Resource sharing</term></item><item><term>Copyright law</term></item><item><term>Electronic books</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-LISC</label><item><term>Library & information science</term></item><label>cat-CBM</label><item><term>Collection building & management</term></item><label>cat-LISE</label><item><term>Library & information services</term></item><label>cat-CONS</label><item><term>Consortia</term></item><label>cat-SREV</label><item><term>Stock revision</term></item><label>cat-DOCD</label><item><term>Document delivery</term></item><label>cat-LDG</label><item><term>Lending</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2007-06-05">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="review-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">ilds</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/ilds</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Interlending & Document Supply</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0264-1615</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/02641610710754114</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">1220350208.pdf</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="filename">1220350208</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">review-article</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">General review</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LISC</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library & information science</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-CBM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Collection building & management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-CONS</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Consortia</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-SREV</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Stock revision</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LISE</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library & information services</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-DOCD</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Document delivery</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LDG</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Lending</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Interlending and document supply: a review of the recent literature: 59</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Mike</given-names> <surname>McGrath</surname></string-name><aff>Editor, <italic>Interlending & Document Supply</italic>, Leeds, UK</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>05</day><month>06</month><year>2007</year></pub-date><volume>35</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>102</fpage><lpage>114</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2007</copyright-year><license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="02641610710754114.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Purpose</title><x> – </x><p>The purpose of this article is to provide a review of the most recent literature concerning document supply and related matters.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Design/methodology/approach</title><x> – </x><p>The article covers the reading of over 150 journals as well as monographs, reports and websites.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Findings</title><x> – </x><p>That the fundamental debate on the direction of scholarly publishing continues intensely and that opposition is growing to DRM constraints. Electronic books remain a small minority market but the mass digitisation of books is proceeding apace. Open access continues to grow but with widely differing views on its impact – the publishers start to fight back.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Originality/value</title><x> – </x><p>The paper represents a useful source of information for librarians and others interested in document supply and related matters.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Interlending</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Resource sharing</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Copyright law</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Electronic books</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name><meta-value>included</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta></front><body><sec><title>Introduction</title><p>It is impossible to keep up with the flood of literature in the normal length of this review so here is another bumper one including much material held over from the previous issue. Material is grouped under what I hope are useful headings so that it is not necessary to read the whole review – unless you are a prodigious polymath!</p></sec><sec><title>Pricing</title><p>Pricing is a key criterion in making judgements about subscription or document supply. Librarians are unanimous in their view that prices for journals are too high. The University of California spends about US$64 million a year on materials and the 11 senior librarians commissioned a study “to evaluate options to reduce and control prices for online scholarly journal packages” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b77">University of California Libraries' Collection Development Committee, 2007</xref>). They looked at the relative cost index – a measure that compares “the price‐per‐citation and price‐per‐article (of commercially published journals MM) relative to the same measures for non‐profit journals in the same discipline”. The intention would be to use this for negotiating a new base price for commercially published journals ranging from a discount of 30 to 80 per cent. Annual price increases would be determined by movements in the consumer price index. The authors “anticipate that this approach to annual price increases will require extensive discussion with publishers”. Proposed discounts of up to 80 per cent on the base price suggest that this will count as the understatement of 2007. To these two factors are added “contribution credits” for space and editorial support “in the order of $500 per bundled title per year”. It is an interesting model but suffers from being too abstract – commercial publishers are in the business of maximising profits not conducting “rational” debates on the “real” cost of journals. However definitely worth a look for all those involved in budget management and the experience of UC in using this model will be interesting to see. The importance of this sort of work is underlined by the latest serials prices increases from SWETS that, shows price increases of 9 per cent for medical journals purchased in the USA and 8 per cent in the UK which is well over twice the rate of inflation. Freely available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://informationservices.swets.com/web/show/id=52169">http://informationservices.swets.com/web/show/id=52169</ext-link></p></sec><sec><title>Publishers</title><p>Commercial publishers continue the process of mergers and takeovers. Technology facilitates substantial cost savings – which do not necessarily translate into price cuts – often quite the reverse. Mergers create and often consolidate monopolistic subject categories allowing monopolistic pricing. The latest and most significant for some time is the buy out for £572 million of venerable UK publishers Blackwells by New York's John Wiley. It has met with protests amongst which a letter gives some interesting figures and references well worth following up by those concerned with the pricing implications of the buy out. For example:<disp-quote><p>A recent study found that of the six largest commercial publishers, John Wiley & Sons had the highest average cost per article, while Blackwell Publishing had the lowest (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b54">Information Access Alliance, 2006</xref>).</p></disp-quote>Blackwells of course publishes many journals on behalf of learned societies which brings the average price down – nonetheless a dramatic difference. The total portfolio will be about 1,200 titles rivalling Elsevier in size and creating, what by any definition, is a monopoly in many subject areas. A good summary of the merger also appears in that excellent current affairs newsletter (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b74"><italic>Scholarly Communication Report</italic>, 2006</xref>).</p><p>CrossRef stays in the news. An article from two librarians goes into some detail on the technical characteristics – “By providing a single depository of unique article identifiers (in this case, DOIs), CrossRef created a backbone for linking among scholarly publications” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b43">Grogg and Ashmore, 2006</xref>). At the time of their writing, May 2006, 1,635 publishers and societies participated, which has grown to 2,330 in February 2007, 14,421 journals were covered (15,521 in November 2006) and over 20 million DOI's registered (24 million by December 2006). With annual percentage growth in double figures in every indicator CrossRef looks set for a rosy future.</p></sec><sec><title>Digitisation</title><p>The current scale of digitisation has consequences for all areas of librarianship – as well as providing access to vast amounts of previously hard to find material for the reader. A substantial proportion of out of copyright books will be available in the next five years. Cheap print on demand like the already operational Espresso Book machine will transform access for researchers. In‐copyright books are more problematic. The legal conflict in the US between Google.Inc and the publishers has still not come to court – which is not surprising given the high stakes being played for and the outcome being less than certain. I stand by my view that an out of court settlement will be reached – there's money to be made for both parties out of mass digitisation – publishers would be foolish not to let Google do the work and then take a sufficient slice of the revenues so as not to damage their bottom line; after all few books sell many after the first couple of years or so and copyright lasts for 70 years plus. Indeed only a few of the million books a year published sell many at all. However do not hold your breath for an early outcome. The British Library continues to suffer from a decline in document supply – its main revenue earner. Some might say that it is shooting itself in the foot by launching “a new service that offers a ‘one stop’ shop for publishers who wish to digitise archival material from their journal collections” (British Library Press Release, 2006 at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.bl.uk">www.bl.uk</ext-link>). Both Elsevier and Sage took advantage of the BL collections in this way and the new service reflects the success of that work. However short term revenue for the BL can only lead to longer term decline as the retrospective digitisation of back files continues apace. Of course from a broader perspective it is very exciting that researchers will have easy access to vastly greater amounts of relevant material – as long as they work in an institution that can afford the hefty price. The UK National Archives are immensely popular with the general public searching for genealogical information. “Six million people visited the archives electronically last year.” However digitising the vast amount of material, much of it handwritten, is phenomenally expensive and the archives have struck agreements with the private sector to make material available easily online – at a price. Two articles give details <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b33">Dudman (2006)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b24">Cross (2006)</xref>. The latter is also freely available at the excellent Guardian web site archive at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://society.guardian.co.uk/e-public/story/0,1871669,00.html">http://society.guardian.co.uk/e‐public/story/0,1871669,00.html</ext-link> (which includes an important correction to the article MM). The author of this review signed up for a free test and within a few minutes found that his great great grandfather was born in 1821 and was one of 50 farm labourers staying at a farm in Chalfont St Giles in 1842; hardly history making but a very human insight into the way in which agriculture has changed in the last 150 years (The UK National Archives is at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk">www.nationalarchives.gov.uk</ext-link>).</p><p>The mass digitisation of books by Google came under the spotlight at a symposium organised by the University of Michigan Library and the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS). A report covers issues for publishers and librarians including copyright, business models, ownership and standards. No conclusions but some useful insights from some key players in the arena (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b45">Hahn, 2006</xref>). Worth mentioning is that the types of works involved in the “Google Five” project comprise “about 15 per cent that are out of copyright, in the public domain. For the 85 per cent that are in copyright, about 20 per cent are in print … and about 65 per cent are out of print and available via used booksellers, libraries, document delivery and print on demand. It is this last group – those that are still under copyright but not in print – that will be most impacted”. In addition a 24‐page report is freely available at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.nclis.gov">www.nclis.gov</ext-link></p></sec><sec><title>Document supply</title><p>Donald Urquhart created the UK infrastructure that led to the British Library Document Supply Centre. In this process he made a number of discoveries of profound importance for the development of document supply not the least of which was that supralibrary demand for journal articles was heavily concentrated on a few journals. The context of this and other findings is described and explored in the first of a two‐part article (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b13">Bensman, 2007</xref>). Essential reading for those who wish to understanding how document supply developed as an important service offered by libraries. This first part deals with the context in which radical statistical discoveries were made that led to the creation of a successful national interlending system in the UK. Important developments taking place in the UK higher education sector, particularly in the use of serials and document supply, are described in a readable and authoritative article (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b10">Baker and Evans, 2007</xref>).</p><p>Published material on document supply as such is rare these days outside of the two specialist journals – ILDS and JILDDER. However a piece in the journal for UK librarians – <italic>Update</italic> – discusses the impact of online access to journals – particularly the freely available. The authors make the point, perhaps obvious to all regular readers of this review that “pay‐per‐view, document delivery and open access are all having an impact on the business models of journals and on the readership of articles” In support of the last point the authors refer to the experience of the <italic>Journal of Information Science</italic> and also identify the impact of the web on citations – a short but useful piece (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b26">Dale and Goulding, 2006</xref>). The drawbacks of big deals generally but in Belgium particularly are eloquently described and the ISI impact factor methodology criticised (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b47">Hellriegel and Van Wonterghem, 2007</xref>). They describe the proposal to purchase only one printed copy of a journal in Belgium to be made available for document supply as well as a range of additional responses. A whole issue of the <italic>Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve</italic> is devoted to the subject of electronic reserves with all but one of the contributions from the USA. It is suggested that the librarian contribution to “the campus community” is perhaps hidden or limited by using the term electronic reserve; what is actually meant is access in a much more flexible way to material than the old concept of printed material held in a special reserve in order to maximise accessibility (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b30">Dawes, 2006</xref>). Most of the 14 articles deal with the practicalities of managing and using reserve collections but a number make specific reference to electronic document delivery – and one “which allows faculty to have articles delivered directly to the desktop” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32">Doan and Ferry, 2006</xref>), and another which describes in detail the pitfalls of making “interlibrary loan” easily available via the ILLiad system (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b41">Gladstone and Kenausis, 2006</xref>). “What goes around comes around”; a recent example of this old banality comes from The British Library which has long been the central hub for document supply in the UK; as part of that role it has accepted into stock material that other institutions no longer want and which the BL does not already hold. Thus a very comprehensive collection of older material has been acquired over the last 50 years. High volume document supply has declined for reasons that have been discussed in the pages of this review over the past few years and has affected the BL greatly given its position as the largest document supplier in the world. One of the ways in which the BL is repositioning itself is to emphasise this feature of providing access to older material and accepting more material from institutions that are faced with space problems. A study was commissioned, the remit of which was “to assess the current shortage of research library storage, the options for the most efficient and cost effective nationwide solution and to make recommendations”. Five options were identified and evaluated and a recommendation to pursue option 4 – a British Library based scheme. This recommendation has now been accepted and a task force set up tasked to report in May 2006. The report and the conference that took the issue forward are respectively published and reported in (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b38">Fielden <italic>et al.</italic>, 2005</xref>).</p><p>The report is also freely available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.curl.ac.uk/about/documents/CURL_BLStorageReportFinal-endSept2005.pdf">www.curl.ac.uk/about/documents/CURL_BLStorageReportFinal‐endSept2005.pdf</ext-link></p><p>A university library that plays an important role in document supply in the UK is the London School of Economics and recent developments are described by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b69">Paine (2007</xref>).</p><p>Much useful data on document supply appears in the 2004‐2005 ARL Statistics that cover 123 member libraries. The data is particularly interesting because the US appears to buck the trend of the global decline in document supply, caused by a combination of factors including “big deals”, retrospective conversion of serial files and open access. “Interlibrary borrowing has grown constantly since 1991, by an average of 1,096 transactions per year” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b8">Association of Research Libraries, 2006</xref>). Or more precisely – the median value for borrowing has risen from 10,397 to 25,729 (Table 1) an increase of 147 per cent (Graph 1). However the figures show that demand plateaued between 2004 and 2005 and one suspects that next year's figures will show a decline reflecting the situation in most other countries. The top lender was the University of Minnesota at a hefty 180,504 items (no distinction is made between loans and copies). Staying on statistics we have the hefty annual statistics from LISU that also carries a trend analysis from 1995 to 2005 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Creaser <italic>et al.</italic>, 2006</xref>), in a print version but also freely available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/lisu/downloads/als06.pdf">www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/lisu/downloads/als06.pdf</ext-link>. The statistics show that document supply in public libraries England (overwhelmingly for loans of books) experienced a modest upturn in 2005 to 111,000 after a long period of decline from a peak in 1996 of 136,000 (Table 2.23); but Scotland continued its decline to a mere 8,000 from a peak of 14,000 in 1996. This decline is hardly surprising given the widespread ignorance of the service, the poor delivery time and relatively high costs in many areas. This author recently requested two books published in the 1950s from his local library and found that it was cheaper to buy them on Abebooks! However a study has been commissioned from the Museums Libraries Archives Council that will investigate the possibility of creating a user driven inter library loan system for England; however financing both the set up and the running of the service will be crucial and the drying up of funds for the excellent People's Network does not bode well for this ambitious project. Turning to academic libraries we find a continuing and significant decline in document supply down to 772,000 from a peak in 1996 of 1,426,000 (Table 3.21); the reasons for this decline have been well rehearsed in previous issues of this journal. Given that the vast majority of document supply in the UK is conducted via the British Library, it is not surprising that its volume of business has declined enormously and continues to do so with no doubt worrying impact on its unit costs. The BL no longer publishes detailed figures – indeed any figures – for document supply but the relentless decline in revenue is a good indication – down from £61 million in 1996 to £24 million in 2005, The Grant in Aid (i.e. government funding) has also dropped from £163 million in 1995 to £88 million in 2005 which tells volumes about this government's priorities – cuts for libraries but billions for renewing nuclear weapons (Table 4.3) (all figures adjusted to 2005 values) – an invaluable reference tool for all UK librarians.</p><p>Pay‐per‐view services are described (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b36">Fadel, 2006</xref>), including LEXISNEXIS and DIALOG in some detail. Prices and ease of use for these services vary enormously so this article is a useful place to start if end user connection is for you. The author concludes that “it certainly seems attractive to traditional online information companies in their continuing quest to gain end users as customers and not lose them to the web search engines”. The equipment needed for a document supply system is discussed in a two‐part article (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b50">Hill, 2006a</xref>). The first part covers the network, scanners, colour printers and multifunctional machines and burners. The second part (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b51">Hill, 2006b</xref>), deals with the “softer” issues such as installation, use, maintenance and troubleshooting. Useful for American ILL librarians and others interested in international developments in this field. Another article from the US has wider implications; it describes an exciting new project to focus document supply services on the user and the innovation of a GET‐IT button for end users based on the notion that the service should now be “Find and get” rather than “discover, locate, request and deliver”. Readers are urged to participate in the initiative (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b82">Wanner <italic>et al.</italic>, 2007</xref>). Staying with the US, the gestation of RapidILL is described, as are its benefits to libraries. Its flexibility is underlined:<disp-quote><p>The goal of Rapid is to reduce the steps and cost of DS transactions, while allowing libraries to maintain their own policies for transmission of the article between libraries, and to make the article available to their user in a manner that is appropriate for their software and policy needs (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b31">Delaney, 2007</xref>).</p></disp-quote>A very useful article identifies “many free resources (that) can assist you in your quest to find and obtain pertinent articles (obtaining them is not necessarily free)” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b58">Kirby and Spitzberg, 2006</xref>). It adumbrates lists of aggregators, search engines, sites for locating journals with online content and selected document delivery services – an excellent overview. A new business information service at the British Library is described by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b60">Marfleet (2006)</xref>. She notes that:<disp-quote><p>Despite concerns within the information profession that the role of the information professional will gradually be eroded and replaced by Google and other search engines, we are increasingly finding that people are looking for help in navigating around the myriad different information sources and in locating very specific information, particularly as it relates to sector information and intellectual property.</p></disp-quote>An interesting discussion of purchasing items rather than ILL notes that at four US universities, “just‐in‐time acquisitions not only provide a higher level of service to those making the initial request, but that it often costs less than traditional ILL and contributes valuable, high – circulating items to their collections”. The author concludes that “ILL has the potential to take on a more active role in collection development” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b64">Mortimore, 2006</xref>). A large survey of 344 Loansome Doc libraries and 318 end users suffers a little from being based on 2002 data. However good response rates have generated useful insights including the conclusion that most librarians were not overwhelmed when Loansome Doc was introduced. There was little problem with end users but less than half publicised the service. “The single improvement of Loansome Doc most often suggested by end users was electronic delivery of articles” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b68">Paden and Congleton, 2006</xref>). OCLC's ILLiad is customised at the Norris Medical Library at the University of Southern California and an intuitive interface built for end users which has been a great success (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b35">Ewing, 2006</xref>).</p><p>Finally in this section the current situation in Italy is described and a number of useful web sites are given for practitioners wanting to access Italian or Italian held material (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b78">Vaglio, 2007</xref>). Korea is far more advanced with information technology than many realise. “Korea is the second most internet connected country in the world” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b84">Choi, 2007</xref>). The author describes the current complex situation in Korea with numerous providers and strong government input and places document supply in the wider context of information provision for researchers.</p></sec><sec><title>E‐books</title><p>Access to cheaply produced printed books from electronic stores has moved closer. This may also provide a fillip for the e‐book industry as such which languishes partly because of readability problems. A new machine that is estimated to sell at between $50‐100k is being used at the World Bank and the Library of Alexandria in Egypt and by the time you read this at the New York Public Library. “The Espresso Book machine reportedly can produce 15‐20 library quality paperback books … without any human intervention” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b46">Hane, 2007</xref>). At these prices and production flow the price per book to the end users should be very attractive, especially for hard to find material. It will be interesting to see cost comparisons with ILL when it becomes operational at the NY Public Library. The languishing of the e‐book industry is underlined in a new report from the UK Booksellers Association freely available at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.booksellers.org.uk/doc/">www.booksellers.org.uk/doc/</ext-link> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b28">Daniels, 2006</xref>). “…up to now e‐book sales worldwide have represented less than 1 per cent of p‐book sales”. However the authors identifies some optimistic trends – the phenomenal rise of the music down load business, the mass digitisation of p‐books driven by the search engines need to generate accessible content and new e‐book readers “will” appear – to which one may add the Espresso machine. The author makes a number of suggestions for booksellers but life is going to continue to be tough for the “bricks and mortar” operators. A good but lengthy report at 122 pages. The Espresso machine illustrates the way in which the real world refuses to obey our categories – is an Espresso output an e‐book output or simply print on demand? Another illustration comes from Rice University which “has developed a model which combines free e‐books with charged‐for print‐on‐demand” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4">Armstrong, 2006</xref>). This article provides a summary of the pros and cons of e‐books and makes the important point that “all this provision (of e‐books and readers) and use is taking place with no user studies and minimal market research”. However a UK wide study has been agreed – “The SuperBook Project (will) be the first large‐scale national user study of e‐book use by academic staff and students in HE/FE institutions in the UK.” And will use the deep log analysis developed by the CIBER team at UCL. The preliminary study will be a case study of usage in the UCL library and will be completed by September 2007 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Armstrong <italic>et al.</italic>, 2006</xref>). A key driver for the development of e‐books is one rarely mentioned – the poor sales for scholarly monographs aimed as they are at a specialist market and drowned in the flood of new titles. “… in 1969 Princeton hardback publications sold, on average, 1,660 copies in five years; by 1984 that average had declined to 1,003. Most current estimates of the sales of scholarly monographs are below 500 per title”, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b27">Dalton, 2006</xref>). It would be interesting to see a really up to date study that would show the effect of Amazon and the so‐called long tail. The same article adduces the decline in the scholarly monograph to “cooperative acquisition programs, massive growth in inter‐library loan activity, and cheap photocopying … ” Learned publishing gives space to the CEO of Springer to promote its e book offering. Comprising 10,000 e‐books, “Springer does not place restrictions on how many users access a single book at one time, how many times it is downloaded or printed, or whether members of the university community access them from outside the university from registered IP addresses”. All fine and dandy and a welcome rolling back of restrictive DRM. However no doubt these benefits are factored into the price charged (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b44">Haank, 2007</xref>).</p></sec><sec><title>End‐user studies</title><p>It often amazes me how little market research is done on end user behaviour – who are the reason, after all, why we all have a job. Often service providers – whether commercial or public – seem to think that if they create a service then that is good enough – it is not. CIBER and similar groups are doing good work but there remains much to be done given the rapidly changing environment. A substantial study (113 pages) commissioned by the Research Information Network (RIN) throws light on the current “means that researchers use to discover and locate the wide variety of information resources that might be relevant to their work” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b72">Rightscom, 2006</xref>). Based on a telephone survey of 450 research‐related personnel in UK universities it comes to some interesting conclusions. The main frustration from a generally satisfied group “is not with the research discovery services themselves but with the problem of subsequently accessing identified sources and materials” (section 4.2.9); an issue here surely for document supply librarians to pursue. Similarly, in these days of Google hegemony, it is good to see that “the most heavily used resource discovery sources are general search engines (but also) internal library portals and catalogues, and specialist search engines” – and the report adds “there are relatively few examples of individuals relying on one or two sources to deal with all their research enquiries” (section 4.2). Other findings show the importance of the “long tail” and the relative lack of importance of monographs cited by only 32 per cent as a key resource. The European Library (TEL) has been referred to in previous numbers of this review and here it is looked at from the perspective of the user by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">Cousins (2006)</xref>. About 750,000 of the 15 million records accessible via TEL are “digitised items. The total represents about 85 per cent of the digital content available from these libraries.” Thus for most items the user still has to visit the library or use document supply to obtain required material. However as she points out TEL is still a remarkable step forward in accessibility. The problems of having to use a portal approach are identified as well as those of multilingualism. It will be interesting to see how access will be transformed by the greatly increased rate of digitisation particularly in the UK, France and The Netherlands national libraries. ILDS will be carrying a more up to date article on TEL in the next issue (35.3). Well‐conducted user surveys are less frequent (or less frequently published) than one would wish. One example however is based on a PhD thesis and was conducted at Florida State University with a sample of 214 undergraduates in education, psychology and information science (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b56">Kim, 2006</xref>). A total of 28 per cent of the respondents were male and 72 per cent female. Some useful information was extracted from the survey, for example, “almost 50 per cent of the respondents indicated having used the subject specific databases less than four times per year”; given that 74 per cent of the sample were seniors this is rather depressing for those responsible for investing large sums of money in electronic databases. The importance of providing easy to use remote access is underlined by the 61 per cent of the sample who accessed databases from home. Some sensible suggestions are made and well worth a read by all those concerned with providing access to electronic databases. “The devil is in the detail” is certainly applicable to measuring and comparing usage statistics of electronic journals. The potentially misleading double counting of articles browsed in html and then printed in pdf is addressed in “a study of journal usage from six COUNTER compliant publishers at 32 research institutions in the US, the UK and Sweden” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29">Davis and Price, 2006</xref>). The authors note on the basis of the conclusions from the study that “unbiased usage comparisons across publishers … may not be possible”. Developments are so rapid in this area that the problem identified may not now be as important as it was in 2004 when the study was carried out. However well worth a look by all who need to understand the limitations of statistical analysis of journal usage. An excellent and well structured study of Dutch users gives some useful insights across disciplines although again, the survey was carried out in 2003/2004 and the world has moved on a lot since then (given the pace of developments there is a strong argument for depositing pre‐prints in institutional repositories and making these easily accessible to users. Perhaps publishers will then speed up their production processes!). This article gives an overview of “user studies performed in the last few years” and then describes the Dutch study of 300 faculty members in nine universities across all disciplines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b80">Voorbij and Ongering, 2006</xref>). The extent of the transformation in access to journals is underlined by the “75 per cent of both scientists and social scientists (who) indicated that they have moderate or large experience with electronic journals compared to less than 40 per cent of the humanities researchers so reporting”. Some headline conclusions were: “the popularity of electronic journals is due to their accessibility and functionality, hardly (at all) to enrichment of the contents”; “the improved accessibility of journals causes an increase in overload”, “electronic journals may lead to less reading of editorials, book reviews and other non article items” and a particularly interesting conclusion which affects the whole research process fundamentally – “in all disciplines, following citations and searching bibliographic databases … were considered more important than browsing new journal issues, searching full text databases such as Science Direct and HighWire, and using alerting services” What price serendipity now? A substantial and readable article. Another article from the CIBER study of journal usage at OhioLINK concentrates on user behaviour (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b67">Nicholas <italic>et al.</italic>, 2006</xref>). In their literature review they note that “there is a general consensus that browsing seems to be the favoured method when using electronic journals” – in contrast to the Dutch study immediately above. Perhaps a lesson here is again underlined of the need for careful reading of research studies before coming to conclusions that have a practical impact on users' working environment. In this particular apparent conflict the date of the last reference is to work analysing data from as early as 1996‐1998. It is difficult to believe that user behaviour has not changed significantly under the impact of the dramatic changes of the last few years; however the current work reported in the article is from 2004. Amongst the many interesting conclusions were: “the tendency was for users employing the search engine to view older material … ” (there is an error in dates “articles published in the seven year period from 1988 to 2004”, should read 1988 to 1994). “Nearly two thirds of search sessions saw the search engine being used … ”. The authors conclude that “It might have been expected that there would be differences in the outcomes resulting from searching and browsing but perhaps not how large the difference would be … . Those people using the search engine … were more likely to view more journals, but not just more journals – they also viewed more articles and abstracts too.” This is another useful study from CIBER with more to come from Carol Tenopir's survey conducted during 2005/2006 at the University of Tennessee. Another American user study via interviews with 100 graduate students at Carnegie Mellon University covered all departments and disciplines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b40">George <italic>et al.</italic>, 2006</xref>). It is described in a lengthy article and concludes “that people, especially academic staff, play a central role” in the information seeking behaviour. There have been conflicting studies published on the role of other people in influencing and contributing to the user's research methods – perhaps it is difficult to generalise from studies based on a single university given the widely differing cultures across universities – and internationally. Two further conclusions – “students rely heavily on the internet as well as the libraries' online resources for information” which is not controversial, although “still using the physical library for hard copy materials such as books, journals and papers” might be a little!</p></sec><sec><title>Usage</title><p>A current hot topic is the value of journal use data compared to citation data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b34">Duy and Vaughan, 2006</xref>). The results of studies that evaluate the correlation between citation against actual use are mixed and these are identified. A study carried out at Concordia, a major Canadian University, aimed “to investigate whether citation data are a valid measure of journal use by examining the relationship among various measures of a journal's value”. Print and electronic journal usage data was gathered and two types of journal citation data were as used. They conclude that “there is no relationship between the journal impact factor and electronic journal usage” and that “findings from the current study call into question using impact factors for local library decisions on journal collections”. An important study that repays a close reading with many other interesting observations and conclusions. One of the weaknesses of all such studies is that little is known about the actual “use” of the articles measured as “used”. This weakness is addressed in another article by using “a method (that) is designed to measure the amount of reading of specific journal articles and entire journals … ” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b57">King <italic>et al.</italic>, 2006</xref>). They note some of the drawbacks of conventional usage studies – for example the ignoring of print copy reading when measuring electronic usage. They state controversially and baldly that “the advent of electronic publishing and ability to observe server counts of hits and downloads has essentially demolished the myth that articles and journals are not well read”. Earlier numbers of this review have noted a number of studies that do not bear this statement out – the OhioLINK study by CIBER and the Newcastle University study by Jill Taylor‐Roe to name but two show that indeed a significant number of journals are not accessed at all or very little. The assertion certainly is not substantiated in the article which evaluates readership of only one journal – <italic>Pediatrics</italic> – which is indeed high; but not surprising for such a prestigious journal. The authors are of course right that simply measuring hits is not an adequate measure of total usage – personal copies, redistribution of downloads etc. However in this author's view the jury is still out.</p><p>Most of the literature focuses on searching for material; retrieving the actual document tends to be ignored. An illustration is an article which refers to “obtaining” articles but actually means “identifying” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b79">Vakkari and Talja, 2006</xref>). The study was relatively large – 900 respondents to a “nationwide web survey of the end users of FinELib, the Finnish National Electronic Library”; FinELib offers access to “about 19,500 full text online journals and 115 reference databases, dictionaries and reference works”. Academic libraries purchase their own collection from this supply of resources”. Given that the sample was self‐selected it is nonetheless broadly representative by discipline and institution. “Keyword searching in journal databases (63 per cent) and reference databases (53 per cent) were the two most important methods of accessing electronic journal articles, followed by browsing core journals (39 per cent), chaining (following one specific reference to an article, MM) 29 per cent and colleagues (14 per cent)”. A lengthy (25 pages) article that also has useful links to selected literature on researcher methods. The OhioLINK study has been responsible for numerous article spin offs. This one deals with the decline in article usage compared to its age. It also is lengthy and fascinating. The basic decay curve is familiar to most librarians involved with journal usage and perhaps particularly to people like me who worked at BLDSC and pored over usage statistics <italic>ad infinitum</italic>. However as the authors point out the interest lies in the detail. “… an increase in the usage of older material is occurring as the result of increased visibility/accessibility of older material in the digital environment.” This conclusion is demonstrated most clearly by the fact that “about 8 per cent of search engine users made a visit to an old article (an article of between 9 and 16 years old) compared to 2 per cent of those who approached via subject or alphabetical lists” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b53">Huntingdon <italic>et al.</italic>, 2006</xref>). A must read article and one looks forward to a repeat study in a couple of year when the use of search engines and the loading of digitised backruns will have increased dramatically.</p></sec><sec><title>Access – search engines, databases and portals</title><p>Acronyms! Their profusion illustrates the complexity of the modern world. I used to observe (especially after making an error at work) that the BL was too complex to manage rationally – human beings evolved to bash animals and procreate – not juggle 20 balls and drop none of them. The UK excels in acronyms – although beaten by the USA, that land of free enterprise, in its bureaucracy of corporate name bodies – a fact known probably only to hard pressed cataloguers. The UK manages it by regularly changing the names of bodies – probably a New Labour thing – so having got used to the Research Discovery Network (RDN) it changes its name to Intute; which I suppose will avoid confusion with the Resource Information Network (RIN). But I digress. The role of the RIN is spelt out in its strategic plan for 2005‐2008, “the key role of the new organisation is to give the strategic leadership required to establish a national framework for research information provision, and to generate effective and sustainable arrangements for meeting the information needs of the professional research community” – phew. All six key aims have some impact on document supply but two in particular have a particular bearing on document supply interests – aim 4 “to coordinate action to improve the arrangements for researchers to find information sources relevant to their work and how they may gain access to them.” And aim 5 “to lead the development of a programme to sustain and enhance management and development of the aggregate UK collection of published hard copy research resources”. One old war horse appears to be given new life – as one strand in aim 5 is “to ensure that an accessible monograph inter lending service can be sustained for the future”. The plan is freely available at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.rin.ac.uk/?q=strategic-plan">www.rin.ac.uk/?q=strategic‐plan</ext-link></p><p>The RDN facilitates access to subject gateways – currently 80 and has “over seventy partner universities and institutions in the UK” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b52">Hiom, 2006</xref>). In the first of a two articles the author describes the history of the development of the RDN beginning with the eLib programme in 1996 and leading to a situation where it “now contains over 120,000 records of useful sites and resources, each one chosen by a subject specialist and regularly checked to make sure they are still up to date … ”. The service was relaunched as Intute in July 2006 and the story is brought up to date in a second article in the following issue (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b83">Williams, 2006</xref>). She describes some of the innovations intended and the institutional repositories Search service is one to watch – as she writes:<disp-quote><p>Content deposited in institutional repositories is growing, however there is no comprehensive and easy way to search and retrieve the content … , UKOLN, SHERPA and Intute have been commissioned by JISC (see what I mean about acronyms?) to develop a repository search infrastructure.</p></disp-quote>Should be interesting. Staying with Ariadne we have an article that describes the development of search engines with a brief look into the future that also contains some useful links (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Bradley, 2006</xref>). Access to print copies of journals is an important issue, particularly in the UK at present where universities are planning to send back runs of older material to the BLDSC for long‐term storage (the British Library is currently building a large print archival store at Boston Spa for its own vast stock of back runs that will hold millions of items but no access by staff – all processes will be carried out by machinery in a low oxygen environment). But of course all research libraries have space issues and the pressure to get rid of print runs will only grow. The issue is addressed in an article that describes how “six models are developed to analyse the cost options the University of California faces in providing access to academic journals. The driving force in this analysis is a movement by publishers to deliver the content of their journals via the internet … The question is how the university should manage the print archive”. Detailed costings are given and make fascinating reading. “The proposed scenario was one in which the system wide administration continues to provide electronic access, but none of the libraries receive a printed copy of the journal. Instead, one printed copy is sent directly from the publisher to a storage facility” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b20">Cooper, 2006</xref>). Essential reading for all librarians struggling with serial access issues.</p><p>The full text of most academic articles is not accessible via free generic search engines such as Google and Google Scholar. Indeed their very existence is often not disclosed. The Web of Science and Scopus are two commercial products. WoS covers 8,000 titles (including ILDS) and Elsevier's Scopus 14,000 as well as many books, conferences, reports and patents. These search engines are compared and evaluated by (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b39">Fingerman, 2006</xref>). Competition has ensured continuous improvement and these are detailed and commented upon. A brief and useful overview.</p></sec><sec><title>Scholarly communications</title><p>A key player in the scholarly communication debate is interviewed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">Ayris, 2006</xref>). He makes some useful points on the current state of play with subscription e‐journals and open access. The former have significantly improved access to the research record but at a heavy price. Open access is certainly increasing in influence as more and more academics become willing to deposit in Institutional Repositories (IRs), encouraged by the move to make “research funding conditional on publication of the results in open access journals”. In addition the impact of OA journals has “produced some challenging results, most notably a significant divergence between the current ranking of top journals by impact factor (citation indices) and actual use of individual articles”. Scott Plutchak shares his thoughts for the future including “grey literature which has been the bane of existence for many librarians and researchers will become far more prominent, accessible and important over the next few years, highlighting the decreasing dependence that we have on traditional publishing venues for the distribution of important scientific information” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b70">Plutchak, 2006</xref>). He makes the important if controversial point that:<disp-quote><p>It is easier and less expensive to make content freely available on the Internet than it is to provide restricted access.</p></disp-quote>Together with five reasons for the success of Google (simplicity, intuitive, ubiquity, relevant and free) this is well worth a read.</p></sec><sec><title>Electronic journals</title><p>The practical problem is highlighted of UK National Health Service libraries purchasing “bundles” of journal titles (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Crudge and Hill, 2006</xref>). The article also provides an insight into the tensions between the NHS “core content” collection of e‐journals, the locally held NHS collections and document supply. “Bundles of titles offer value for money solutions, but maybe at the expense of popular titles. Furthermore, the success of regional document supply schemes may be compromised if large numbers of health care libraries replace print holdings with similar electronic journal bundles”. Interesting insights into user preferences for journals contrasting with what is held centrally. The difference in price between commercially and non‐commercially produced journals is often noted. One of the latest comes from Indian where “analysis of the top thirty journals at IISc shows that two‐thirds of these journals belong to non‐profit/society publishers and one third to for‐profit/commercial publishers” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b63">Moghaddam, 2006</xref>). A useful list of the 30 journals, their prices and impact factors is also given. Another article from India describes in detail the history of consortium purchasing of e‐journals in a country with “310 universities/institutions, 16,000 affiliated colleges, around 10 million students and five lakh (500,000 MM) teachers” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b65">Murthy, 2006</xref>). The INFILIBNET Centre has managed a programme of giving access to 4,000 e‐journals to currently 100 Indian universities. Much detail is given on the content provided and the universities selected. The author is optimistic about further expansion so that “no one should be deprived of education because of location or time inconvenience” – and with that I hope we can all agree.</p><p>The issue of long‐term access to e‐journals is of increasing importance. Publishers go out of business, merge and subscriptions are cancelled with the possible loss of access to previously subscribed material. The contracts “between a large, research‐level university library and 40 publishers of electronic journals, as well as ten large electronic journal aggregators” are analysed. “The authors seek to determine the frequency of contractual provisions for permanent access rights for the years of active subscription in the event an electronic journal is terminated for any cause other than breach by the licensee.” At the end of another lengthy article they make seven recommendations which include “libraries should not assume that they may safely cancel the print version of a journal published by a society publisher and retain online access to subscribed titles if the electronic version is later cancelled. Based on the research published in this paper, society publishers are not more likely to provide perpetual access to subscribed articles than commercial publishers” and “libraries should not assume that they can safely cancel the print version of a journal included in a full text aggregator database and retain access”. Well worth reading and should figure in the cost effectiveness calculations associated with document supply (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b75">Stemper and Barribeau, 2006</xref>). An excellent presentation on the future of serials at the 2006 conference of UKSG has been turned into an article (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b3">Anderson, 2006</xref>). In a crisply written piece he identifies three trends – “the end of information scarcity” (at least for academic staff and students), “the attention crisis” (more to read, same time available) and “the online presumption” – “between 1994 and 2005 the annual number of circulation transactions per enrolled student fell from 28.2 to 12.2”, he predicts that this trend will continue and wonders “what will be the hard floor of materials that continue to be used?”. His three predictions are that “there will be more and more free, high quality information”, “the percentage of high quality information will never reach 100” and “of what remains we will continue to purchase the wrong things for our patrons”! Well worth a read from an excellent and reasonably priced journal.</p></sec><sec><title>Google</title><p>At the time of writing the legal battle between publishers and Google continues but has not yet reached the courtroom. A very comprehensive article sets out the pros and cons of the conflict but with a bias towards Google. Not surprising given the author is employed by one of the original five participating libraries – Harvard. However it is a fair assessment and along with some lawyers who have committed themselves to print the odds do seem to be in Google's favour. The article abounds with well selected quotes including:<disp-quote><p>In fact “if the Amazon statistics are any guide, the market for books that are not even sold in the average bookstore is larger than the market for those that are”. This suggests that discovering books through the Google Books Library Project would create an expanded market.</p></disp-quote>The author points out that “as for the holdings of the five participating libraries, estimates suggest that more than 80 per cent of the collection are still in copyright.” As it has been calculated that 80 per cent of books in copyright fall into the orphan category then two‐thirds of books in the collections would never be digitised if the publishers had their way. A fascinating article with 117 useful references (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b11">Baksik, 2006</xref>). An optimistic piece concludes that libraries and Google need to work together in order to determine “how best to co‐exist while concurrently making each other better”. A thorough exploration of some of the consequences and implications of free to use search engines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b7">Ashmore and Grogg, 2006</xref>). The previous article looked at Google Scholar in some detail and this one looks specifically at “the efficiency of the Google search engine at retrieving items from the 26 UK institutional repositories … ”. A number of difficulties were identified and the authors acknowledge that we are in the early days of populating IRs with good quality content. They conclude that:<disp-quote><p>The user seeking a specific journal article title may well find that a Google or Google Scholar search will provide a free full text version of the article. It is certainly a search strategy worth trying. On the other hand, such a user will also need a degree of skill and expertise to disentangle the best version from a list of deposited papers, and at present the repositories do not always help this process by clearly marking each document (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b61">Markland, 2006</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p></sec><sec><title>Open access</title><p>Before looking at just what has been published on open access readers might like to consider this advice from Heather Morrison that appears on the SOAF open access forum discussion list:<disp-quote><p>Librarians, in my opinion, should do much more than provide a little bit of support for open access when we have a little extra cash (helpful though this can be). We should lead in the economic aspects of transition to open access. From my perspective, this means prioritising economic and other support for the transition to open access now, not at some distant point in the future when open access results in savings from subscriptions budgets. Here are some examples of what libraries can do:• Include rights for authors when negotiating licenses for subscriptions. If your authors will not have immediate self‐archiving rights – don't sign!• Look for an open access copy before you consider interlibrary loan or document delivery. Many libraries are already doing this!• Interlibrary loans departments and staff should be looking for opportunities to move into support services for open access. These departments are particularly well suited to managing institutional repositories, in my opinion (all that experience with working with documents on a one‐at‐a‐time basis, careful quality control, precision in metadata), or coordinating payments for open access publishing (not at all unlike coordinating ILL and document delivery payments).• Before – or when, you interlibrary loan, consider asking the author whether they have considered self‐archiving, or include a suggestion to the requestor about this possibility on ILL communications [did you know that many authors are now making their work freely available? …].• Provide support for open access publishing fees, in a way that will be economically sustainable. For example, consider blanket payments for open access publishers with a reputation for quality and reasonable prices, such as BioMedCentral, Public Library of Science, and Hindawi [with apologies to anyone accidentally omitted].• Experiment, carefully, with payments for hybrid options, that is, make sure you're not paying for double dipping (paying to produce, and paying to purchase through subscriptions).• Provide support for open access initiatives, such as the DOAJ membership program and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.</p></disp-quote>Turning now to what has been published recently – the avalanche continues! But clarity on the future still escapes us. Linked institutional repositories? Author pays? Reader/librarian pays? Who knows. Here is just a selection of the outpourings from the previous few months. It is impossible to cover more than a selection of the material published (articles, conference reports, institutional reports, newsletters etc).</p><p>First off we have a study on “the potential viability of open access (OA) models for commercial scholarly publishers” which concludes “that it is as yet unproven whether or not a viable OA business model exits” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b71">Rae and Rowland, 2006</xref>). They usefully provide definitions of “green” and “Gold” roads, the distinction between which causes confusion. “‘green’ implying providing access free of charge to papers by self archiving by the author or mounting of papers on an OA repository, ‘gold’ implying the publication of OA electronic journals on the basis of toll free access to readers everywhere.”. Their paper deals only with the “gold” road. They discuss various options concluding that the best model would be one in which “submission fees (are) paid for all papers submitted for publication, and publication fees paid only for papers accepted for publication.” A useful paper which outlines current thinking. The employment of aggressive PR consultants by Association of American Publishers to confront open access publishing makes the front page of <italic>Information World Review</italic> together with a scathing editorial. “Men like Eric Dezenhall, the PR agent at the centre of the debate, contribute nothing to debates and lower the perceived value of the industry – and no‐one wins if that happens” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b19">Chillingworth, 2007</xref>). However advocates of OA have little to fear from an agent who recommends that the STM publishers (including John Wiley and Reed Elsevier) should focus on the simple message that “public access equals government censorship”. Simple? Simple minded might be more appropriate. A 69 page report on self‐archiving signals a sea change in the perception of open access (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b12">Beckett and Inger, 2006</xref>). “A major study of librarian purchasing preferences has shown that librarians will show a strong inclination towards the acquisition of open access (OA) materials as they discover that more and more learned material has become available in institutional repositories”. Three other key findings are that:<list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>“There is a strong preference for content that has undergone peer review”.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>“ How soon content is made available is a key determinant of content model preference” (to which one may add that by implication the early appearance of OA material compared to publication in conventional journals is an attraction both for the reader and the librarian, MM).</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>“Lastly and perhaps unsurprisingly librarians show a strong preference for content that is made freely available” (again one may add that this is driven by the inability of library budgets to keep pace with the annual real price increases from publishers over the past 20 years not because librarians are by nature free loaders, MM).</p></list-item></list>The statistical techniques used are interesting, offer nice visuals on the page and sound convincing. However, contrary to the optimistic gloss in the report (p. 39), 424 responses to an e‐mail sent to 16,173 does not sound very reliable to me. How can one determine that the responses are typical enough for the degree of confidence shown when the variation within the total cohort is not known? Maybe I read maths too long ago … This report and others are disturbing many publishers and seminars in 2007 are, and will be, debating these issues earnestly and passionately. After all, an industry worth many billions of pounds/dollars in revenue does not take threats lying down. I have observed in more than one review that the author pays model is a recipe for disaster – as publisher revenues will simply flow from research funders and libraries will not be able to cancel subscriptions until such time as the vast majority of articles are produced in this model – until then the publishers will be laughing all the way to the bank with all the additional revenues – no doubt with a well manipulated “discount” for author pays material. And what of those who are not generously funded or funded at all? This concern is expressed vividly – “there are at least a few other librarians in the world who share my fear that the ultimate result of the open access phenomena will be the migration of library's serial funds out of the door of the library, across the quadrangle, up the steps and into the faculty research center offices which will have the job of allocating these funds to researchers so they can pay to make their research openly accessible” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b37">Ferguson, 2007</xref>). Publishers complain that institutional repositories will threaten the existence of academic publishing. Four key journals in astronomy are analysed and it is concluded that “e‐prints have not undermined journal use in this community”. The fly in the ointment of that optimistic conclusion is that “astronomers … have access to institutional subscriptions, thanks to the librarians who make decisions about maintaining those subscriptions”. If I were a publisher I would not relax yet – what happens when cash strapped librarians tell the astronomers to be content with the e print archive especially if it is peer reviewed? Indeed the librarian may offer the astronomers other “goodies” unaffordable in the past but now purchasable with funds saved by moving to e prints. And so on with other disciplines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b49">Henneken <italic>et al.</italic>, 2007</xref>). A useful article on IRs “review(s) the current literature and discussion on institutional repositories and open access” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b55">Kennan and Wilson, 2006</xref>). The indefatigable CIBER team come up trumps again by evaluating the impact of open access on a prominent biology journal. The particular characteristics of the journal analysed, Nucleic Acids makes it difficult to generalise as the authors acknowledge. Most of the content was free before the conversion to full OA took place in January 2005 with the remainder subject to only a six‐month embargo. So it is not surprising that “the introduction of OA publishing … had a relatively small impact, adding on average less than 10 per cent on usage, and this could be explained by several factors: (i) the fact that much content was already free to read; (ii) search engines had already delivered most of the potential readership for the journal (from 1 per cent in 2003 to 49 per cent in 2005 – “a paradigm shift in the way that scholarly users navigate to content”); (iii) it was still early days with only six months of OA having been evaluated and on the basis of what we have found we estimate that there could be as much as 20 per cent growth in the pipeline … ” A fascinating evaluation and to be enhanced when they continue “the study with more OUP journals … ” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b66">Nicholas <italic>et al.</italic>, 2007</xref>). It is argued that the open access movement in legal scholarship fails to address – and in fact diverts resources from – the real problem facing law libraries today: the soaring costs of non scholarly, commercially published, practitioner orientated legal publications. The author argues that “there is a financial crisis in scholarly publishing in other disciplines, especially the sciences, technology and medicine, but their problem is not ours”. An interesting and substantial article from a field not normally included in the OA debate (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b62">Milles, 2006</xref>).</p><p>Those wanting a brief(ish) update on the current thinking of some key players should look at the report of a conference convened by JISC in London and reported on by two industry veterans (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b17">Brown and Prior, 2006</xref>). It is freely available as a “teaser” at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.charlestonco.com/features.cfm?id=210&type=fr">www.charlestonco.com/features.cfm?id=210&type=fr</ext-link>. And those who want an overview of developments generally in the field of open access should look at <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b76">Suber's (2007)</xref> review of 2006 developments in his newsletter freely available at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-02-07.htm">www.earlham.edu/ ∼ peters/fos/newsletter/01‐02‐07.htm</ext-link>. Also his predictions for 2007 in the previous issue. He conveys the excitement of the evangelist without losing a measured and honest voice.</p><p>A sober evaluation of the costs to institutions of open access publishing and three pricing models considered, is worth quoting from at length:<disp-quote><p>Critics of the conventional model have claimed that mainstream journals require scholars to buy back their own research – that publishers charge authors and universities for access to the work that they themselves created … When evaluated at the institutional level (my emphasis MM) this claim is false. Most colleges and universities contribute relatively little to the scholarly literature and the vast majority can be regarded chiefly as consumers rather than producers of research. As a result, institutional disparities in research output are far greater than institutional disparities in library holdings. A shift from a pricing model based on subscription to one based on publishing productivity will therefore reduce the proportion of the total cost paid by most institutions and increase the proportion of the total cost paid by the largest research universities. In terms of both journal accessibility and institutional cost, the PLoS model is a clear improvement over the conventional model. It provides nearly universal access to journal content while reducing expenditures even at the major research universities. For all but the largest research institutions., the potential saving can be dramatic … “Unlike the PLoS model, the equal‐revenue model is based on the assumption that all institutions together will spend no less than under the conventional model … (the) switch from the conventional model to the equal revenue model would dramatically increase journal access whilst substantially reducing costs … ” They conclude that “the success of open access pricing may therefore depend, at least partly, on the creation of an environment in which the largest research universities are both able and willing to pay that cost”. Perhaps their most important point comes right at the end where they draw attention to the consequence of open access pricing leading “to greater short term volatility in institutional expenditures.” Many would say not so short term and for “volatility” one could read “consistent upward pressure” as publishers try to hang onto profits and research funders increase investment in publishing (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b81">Walters, 2006</xref>).</p></disp-quote>Likely to be much quoted so get a copy and read carefully! It is argued that citations in open access journals are greater than comparable subscription based journals. If true then this is a significant incentive for researchers to go OA. This assertion is given credibility by a careful study of two comparable journals that shows citations are not only greater for the OA journal than the subscription but go beyond academics to the general public. In addition more citations came from the developing world. Convincing stuff (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b86">Zhang, 2006</xref>).</p></sec><sec><title>Public libraries</title><p>The interlending system in public libraries in the UK, which deals primarily with about 150,000 inter library loans of books a year has struggled for years, for many reasons – not the least of which is the chronic underfunding of libraries that makes them resistant to promoting the interlending service. However processing costs seem to be cut dramatically with the introduction of Unity UK – the new service offered by OCLC Pica using VDX. Three authorities share their experience and this seems to be the common thread – so perhaps the door to ILL in the UK public library system will finally be opened wider to the public (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b59"><italic>Library + Information Gazette</italic>, 2007</xref>). Book borrowing in UK public libraries continues to fall – “by almost a quarter since 1993‐1994”, An extensive literature review looks at the reasons in detail and finds that “some of these reasons include an increased level of buying books as opposed to borrowing, lack of time to visit the library, the opening hours of the library, stock selection and restrictive borrowing periods and fines”. The article also includes a small‐scale study of Scottish public libraries (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Breslin and McMenemy, 2006</xref>). Another take on this subject looks at the competition between public libraries and large bookstores in the US and concludes that “almost all of the crowding out of public library use by large bookstores appears to take place among middle class households” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b48">Hemmeter, 2006</xref>).</p></sec><sec><title>Copyright</title><p>Copyright has always been a fraught subject and this fraughtness has intensified recently as serious tensions between fair use and digital rights management techniques (DRM) continue. Book publishers are up in arms over Google's “world domination” plans and actually in court in the litigious US, although the stakes are so high that an out of court settlement is likely – or certainly rational. One consequence of this is the rapid spread of Creative Commons Licences. The issue is tackled in an article that is rather disjointed as a result of an excessive number of quotes but has the advantage of capturing many viewpoints. There is also a very useful box describing the various CC licences on offer and their purpose (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">Caldwell, 2007</xref>). An interview with one of the founding members of Creative Commons in the UK also explores these licences and their viability – a robust case is made! (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">Ahlert, 2006</xref>). The Gowers review has already been commented on in an earlier review but a slew of responses are published in <italic>Managing Information</italic> in their increasingly psychedelic house style. The British Library's response is particularly interesting and the Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance is particularly detailed. Gowers and the responses should keep many copyright aficionados out of mischief for a long time (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b21">Coult, 2007</xref>). The problem of managing copyright is described vividly in an article on the introduction at AstraZeneca of a new management tool called Rightsphere which displays to end users what they can and cannot do with any particular item they are viewing. It is estimated that 90 per cent of queries will be answered in layman's language and residual queries will be dealt with by a designated member of the library staff. With 12,000 R&D staff and turnover of $24 billion Astra Zeneca is certainly as complex, if not more so, than the largest university so their experience should generate much interest (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Archer, 2006</xref>). The very substantial report on DRM by the UK All Party Parliamentary Internet Group (APIG) has already been mentioned in earlier reviews but an excellent overview goes through the report in a rather more manageable three pages (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6">Arthur, 2006</xref>). The report coincides with two other government reports (“The Gowers Report” and “new media and the creative industries”) but he concludes that “in crystallising the areas of debate in a helpful, clear and highly readable report, the APIG inquiry has already contributed significantly to clarity of understanding in respect of a complicated, technical but hugely fascinating issue”. Some of us may pass on the “fascinating” but nonetheless an accurate enough conclusion. And of course we have the Gowers review. Although positive on the role of libraries in archiving and preserving material as well as liberalising the use of orphan works it hedges its bets on fair use simply recommending “clarifying the research exception. This will create greater scope for research on protected material by universities and business and expand the stock of knowledge” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b42">Gowers, 2006</xref>). The knotty issue of DRM techniques conflicting with and overriding copyright law is not addressed.</p></sec><sec><title>Miscellaneous</title><p>Grey literature – hard to find, harder to get and more and more of it. Its future is discussed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b73">Schöpfel, 2006</xref>), including the problem of definition (although he does not mention the British Library staff definition – “that which won't stand up on its own on the shelf” – light hearted and now out of date in an increasingly “e” only world). He produces some fascinating figures – a table of “the proportion of grey literature cited in publications from different scientific disciplines” shows that the citations from engineering sciences comprise as much as 42 per cent whilst psychiatry is only 1 per cent. An analysis of 1,842 references from US theses produced a figure of over 19 per cent of “grey” document sources. He also carries a section on open access which will undoubtedly become more popular and concludes with some observations of “certain to happen” and “likely to happen” developments. Essential reading for all those concerned with grey literature that must be all document supply librarians. A useful overview of print on demand developments is only weakened by being a bit out of date – this reviewer's fault not the author's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">Blummer, 2005</xref>). An interesting article on managing serial cuts describes the problem of going all ‘e’ – “additional costs, archival access … and restrictions on interlibrary loans”. The author concludes that the Medical Center Library (at Duke University) “had cancelled more than 530 titles, representing 30 per cent of existing journal subscriptions and a 32 per cent decrease in the journal budget … The library retained access to more than 200 of these cancelled titles through continuing publisher and aggregator packages and various open access models”. Also important to note that “when the library decided to walk away from unreasonable process and ultimately some of the ‘big deals’ the faculty supported and in some cases even applauded these decisions” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b85">Woodburn <italic>et al.</italic>, 2005</xref>).</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="b1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ahlert</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Creative thinking</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Copyright World</italic></source>, No. <issue>165</issue>, pp. 18‐21.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Anderson</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>What will become of us? Looking into the crystal ball of serials work</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Serials</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>19</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>88</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>93</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Archer</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Knowledge sharing and copyright</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Outlook</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>10</volume> No. <issue>11</issue>, pp. <fpage>31</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>3</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Armstrong</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Are e‐books our friends?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library + Information Gazette</italic></source>, 1‐14 December, p. <fpage>9</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Armstrong</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lonsdale</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nicholas</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Superbook: planning for the e‐book revolution</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Update</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>5</volume> No. <issue>11</issue>, pp. <fpage>28</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>30</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Arthur</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Banging the DRM: APIG's inquiry</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Copyright World</italic></source>, No. <issue>163</issue>, pp. <fpage>14</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>16</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ashmore</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Grogg</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Google and OCLC: open libraries on the web</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Searcher</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>14</volume> No. <issue>10</issue>, pp. <fpage>44</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>52</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Association of Research Libraries</string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>ARL Statistics 2004‐05</italic></article-title>”, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat05.pdf">www.arl.org/bm∼doc/arlstat05.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ayris</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Moving beyond e‐journals</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Update</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>5</volume> No. <issue>10</issue>, pp. 18‐20.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Baker</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Evans</surname>, <given-names>W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>From holdings to access – and back</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Interlending & Document Supply</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>85</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>91</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Baksik</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Fair use or exploitation? The Google Book Search controversy</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Portal: Libraries and the Academy</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>6</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>399</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>415</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Beckett</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Inger</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Self‐archiving and journal subscriptions: co‐existence or competition?</italic></article-title>”, Publishing Research Consortium, 69 pages, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/prcweb/PRCWeb.nsf/e637be326ce8018380256ad20058e462/8e87fcd6bb8573f680257220005836ee/$FILE/PRC%20Report%20SIS%2026.10.06.pdf">www.publishingresearch.org.uk/prcweb/PRCWeb.nsf/e637be326ce8018380256ad20058e462/8e87fcd6bb8573f680257220005836ee/$FILE/PRC%20Report%20SIS%2026.10.06.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b13"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bensman</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Donald J. Urquhart and the integration of science with librarianship: part 1</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Interlending & Document Supply</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>74</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>84</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Blummer</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Opportunities for libraries with print‐on‐demand publishing</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Access Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>3</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>41</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>54</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bradley</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Search engines: where we were, are now, and will ever be</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Ariadne</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue47/">www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue47/</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b16"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Breslin</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McMenemy</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>The decline in book borrowing from Britain's public libraries: a small scale Scottish study</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>55</volume> No. <issue>7</issue>, p. <fpage>14</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b17"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Brown</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Prior</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Moving towards open access – a JISC conference</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Charleston Advisor</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>8</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>54</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Caldwell</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Commons touch on rights</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information World Review</italic></source>, February, pp. <fpage>10</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>12</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chillingworth</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Leaked plan to attack open access has science in uproar</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information World Review</italic></source>, No. <issue>232</issue>, p. <fpage>1</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b84"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Choi</surname>, <given-names>W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Industrial information programs in Korea: an overview</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Interlending & Document Supply</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>60</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>5</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b20"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cooper</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>The costs of providing electronic journals access and printed copies of journals to university users</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>76</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>323</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>51</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b21"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Coult</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Intellectual property: a balance</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Managing Information</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>13</volume> No. <issue>9</issue>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cousins</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>The European Library: pushing the boundaries of usability</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Electronic Library</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>24</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>434</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>44</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Creaser</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Maynard</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>White</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>LISU annual library statistics 2006: featuring trend analysis of UK public and academic libraries 1995‐2005</italic></article-title>”, 200 pages.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cross</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>National archives squares the data circle</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Technology Guardian</italic></source>, 14 September, p. <fpage>3</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b25"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Crudge</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hill</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Electronic journal provision in a health‐care library: insights from a consultation with NHS workers</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Health Information and Libraries Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>23</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>87</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>94</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b26"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dale</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Goulding</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>The dawn of a new era for information science publishing</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Update</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>5</volume> No. <issue>11</issue>, p. <fpage>7</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b27"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dalton</surname>, <given-names>M.S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>A system destabilized: scholarly books today</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Scholarly Publishing</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>37</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>251</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>69</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b28"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Daniels</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), <source><italic>Brave New World</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Booksellers Association</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b29"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Davis</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Price</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>eJournal interface can influence usage statistics: implications for libraries, publishers and Project COUNTER</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>57</volume> No. <issue>9</issue>, pp. <fpage>1243</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>8</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b30"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dawes</surname>, <given-names>T. (Ed.)</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Marketing and managing electronic reserves</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>16</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b31"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Delaney</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Rapid and the new interlending: a cooperative document supply system in the USA</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Interlending & Document Supply</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>56</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>9</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b32"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Doan</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ferry</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Providing one‐stop shopping for the faculty's teaching needs</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>16</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>57</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>63</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b33"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dudman</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Meet the national archives' CEO</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information World Review</italic></source>, December, pp. <fpage>18</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>20</lpage>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/features/2170617/meet-ceo">www.iwr.co.uk/information‐world‐review/features/2170617/meet‐ceo</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b34"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Duy</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vaughan</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Can electronic journal usage data replace citation data as a measure of journal use? An empirical examination</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Journal of Academic Librarianship</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>32</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, pp. <fpage>512</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>17</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b35"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ewing</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Customizing the patron web interface of OCLC ILLiad</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>3</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>1</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>11</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b36"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Fadel</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>The pay‐per‐view trend</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Online</italic></source>, November/December, pp. <fpage>39</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>42</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b37"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ferguson</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Back talk – Charleston wrap up: top 10 things I learnt at the Charleston conference</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Against the Grain</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>18</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>86</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b38"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Fielden</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Harris</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hayes</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Scofield</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Optimising storage and access in UK research libraries</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>New Review of Academic Librarianship</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>11</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>99</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>151</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b39"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Fingerman</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Electronic resources review: web of Science and Scopus: current features and capabilities</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship</italic></source>, No. <issue>48</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.istl.org/06-fall/index.html">www.istl.org/06‐fall/index.html</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b40"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>George</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bright</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hurlbert</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Linke</surname>, <given-names>E.C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>St Clair</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Stein</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Scholarly use of information: graduate students' information seeking behaviour</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Research</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>11</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://informationr.net/ir/11-4/paper272.html">http://informationr.net/ir/11‐4/paper272.html</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b41"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gladstone</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kenausis</surname>, <given-names>V.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Creating an electronic toolkit: from discovery to delivery</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>16</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>73</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>83</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b42"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gowers</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Gowers' review of intellectual property</italic></article-title>”, HMSO, 150 pages, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/583/91/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf">www.hm‐treasury.gov.uk/media/583/91/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b43"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Grogg</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ashmore</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>CrossRef at the crossroads</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Searcher</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>14</volume> No. <issue>8</issue>, pp. <fpage>32</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b44"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Haank</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Industry developments</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Learned Publishing</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>20</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>69</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>71</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b45"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hahn</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Impacts of mass digitization projects on libraries and information policy</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>33</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>20</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>4</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b46"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hane</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>New publishing models – Espresso to you</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Newslink</italic></source>, No. 87, January, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.infotoday.com">www.infotoday.com</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b47"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hellriegel</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Van Wonterghem</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Package deals unwrapped … or the librarian wrapped up? “Forced acquisition” in the digital library</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Interlending & Document Supply</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>66</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>73</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b48"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hemmeter</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Household use of public libraries and large bookstores</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library & Information Science Research</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>28</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>595</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>616</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b49"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Henneken</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kurtz</surname>, <given-names>M.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Eichhorn</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Accomazzi</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Grant</surname>, <given-names>C.S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Thompson</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bohlen</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Murray</surname>, <given-names>S.S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ginsparg</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Warner</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>E‐prints and journal articles in astronomy: a productive existence</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Learned Publishing</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>20</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>16</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>22</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b50"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hill</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006a</year>), “<article-title><italic>Document delivery for the hospital library, 2005</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Hospital Librarianship</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>6</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>85</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>6</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b51"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hill</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006b</year>), “<article-title><italic>Document delivery for the hospital library, 2006</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Hospital Librarianship</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>6</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>97</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>109</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b52"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hiom</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Retrospective on the RDN</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Ariadne</italic></source>, No. 47, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue47/hiom/">www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue47/hiom/</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b53"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Huntingdon</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nicholas</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jamali</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Article decay in the digital environment: an analysis of usage of OhioLINK by date of publication, employing deep log methods</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>57</volume> No. <issue>13</issue>, pp. <fpage>1840</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>51</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b54"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Information Access Alliance</string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Letter to US Department of Justice Antitrust Division Litigation III</italic></article-title>”, November 29, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.informationaccess.org/wiley.blackwell.pdf">www.informationaccess.org/wiley.blackwell.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b55"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kennan</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wilson</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Institutional repositories: review and an information systems perspective</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>27</volume> Nos <issue>4/5</issue>, pp. <fpage>236</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>48</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b56"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kim</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Capturing metrics for undergraduate usage of subscription databases</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Online</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>30</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>32</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>9</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b57"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>King</surname>, <given-names>D.W.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tenopir</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Clarke</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Measuring total reading of journal articles</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>D‐Lib magazine</italic></source>, October, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october06/king/10king.html">www.dlib.org/dlib/october06/king/10king.html</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b58"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kirby</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Spitzberg</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>How to find resources without using subscription services</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Outlook</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>10</volume> No. <issue>10</issue>, pp. <fpage>23</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>31</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b59"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><collab><italic>Library + Information Gazette</italic></collab></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Time saving and resource sharing</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library + Information Gazette</italic></source>, p. <fpage>6</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b60"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Marfleet</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Roadmap for the future – where to next?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Business Information Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>23</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>258</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>63</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b61"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Markland</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Institutional repositories in the UK: what can the Google user find there?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Librarianship and Information Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>38</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>221</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>8</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b62"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Milles</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Redefining open access for the legal information market</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>American Association of Law Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>98</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>619</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>37</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b63"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Moghaddam</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Price and value of electronic journals: a survey at the Indian Institute of Science</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Libri</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>56</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>108</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>16</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b64"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mortimore</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Access‐informed collection development and the academic library: using holdings, circulation and ILL data to develop prescient collections</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Collection Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>30</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>21</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>37</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b65"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Murthy</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>UGC‐Infonet e‐journal consortium for universities and colleges: an Indian experience</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Herald</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>44</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>15</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>27</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b67"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nicholas</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Huntingdon</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jamali</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tenopir</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Finding information in (very large) digital libraries: a deep log approach to determining differences in use according to methods of access</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Journal of Academic Librarianship</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>32</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>119</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>226</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b66"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nicholas</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Huntington</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jamali</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>The impact of open access publishing (and other access initiatives) on use and users of digital scholarly journals</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Learned Publishing</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>20</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>11</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>15</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b68"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Paden</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Congleton</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Loansome Doc®, librarians, and end‐users in the Midwest: a replication study</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Hospital Librarianship</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>6</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>31</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>47</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b69"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Paine</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Document supply in a large research library: the experience of the London School of Economics</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Interlending & Document Supply</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>99</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>101</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b70"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Plutchak</surname>, <given-names>T.S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>The landscape shifts: new opportunities for collaboration arise as the primacy of the traditional journal article fades</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Serials</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>19</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>184</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b71"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rae</surname>, <given-names>V.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rowland</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Is there a viable business model for commercial open access publishing?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Serials</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>19</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>188</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>93</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b72"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Rightscom</string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Researchers and discovery services: behaviour, perceptions and needs</italic></article-title>”, November, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.rin.ac.uk/files/Report%20-%20final.pdf">www.rin.ac.uk/files/Report%20‐%20final.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b74"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><collab><italic>Scholarly Communication Report</italic></collab></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Wiley to acquire Blackwell Publishing</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Scholarly Communication Report</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>10</volume> No. <issue>11</issue>, pp. <fpage>1</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>2</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b73"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Schöpfel</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Observations on the future of grey literature</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Grey Journal: An International Journal on Grey Literature</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>2</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>67</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>76</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b75"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Stemper</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Barribeau</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Perpetual access to electronic journals: a survey of one academic research library's licenses</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Resources and Technical Services</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>50</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>91</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>109</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b76"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Suber</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>SPARC open access newsletter</italic></article-title>”, Nos 105 and 104 (for 2007 predictions).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b77"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>University of California Libraries' Collection Development Committee</string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>The promise of value‐based journal prices and negotiations: a UC report and view forward</italic></article-title>”, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/cdc/valuebasedprices.pdf">http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/cdc/valuebasedprices.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b78"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vaglio</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Document supply in Italy: actual models and future perspectives</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Interlending & Document Supply</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>115</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>18</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b79"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vakkari</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Talja</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Searching for electronic articles to support academic tasks: a case study of the use of the Finnish National Electronic Library (FinELib)</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Research</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>12</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://informationr.net/ir/12-1/paper285.html">http://informationr.net/ir/12‐1/paper285.html</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b80"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Voorbij</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ongering</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>The use of electronic journals by Dutch researchers: a descriptive and exploratory study</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Journal of Academic Librarianship</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>32</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>223</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>37</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b81"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Walters</surname>, <given-names>W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Institutional journal costs in an open access environment</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>58</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>108</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>20</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b82"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wanner</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Beaubien</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jeske</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>The rethinking resource sharing initiative: a new development in the USA</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Interlending & Document Supply</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>92</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>8</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b83"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Williams</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Intute: the best of the web</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Ariadne</italic></source>, No. 48, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue48/williams/">www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue48/williams/</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b85"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Woodburn</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Murphy</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Peterson</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Thibodeau</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), “<article-title><italic>Dealing with journal cuts – when the sky's not the limit</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>2</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>1</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>18</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b86"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Zhang</surname>, <given-names>Y.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>The effect of open access on citation impact: a comparison study based on web citation analysis</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Libri</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>56</volume>, pp. <fpage>145</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>56</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Interlending and document supply a review of the recent literature 59</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Interlending and document supply a review of the recent literature 59</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Mike</namePart><namePart type="family">McGrath</namePart><affiliation>Editor, Interlending & Document Supply, Leeds, UK</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="review-article" displayLabel="review-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2007-06-05</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2007</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract>Purpose The purpose of this article is to provide a review of the most recent literature concerning document supply and related matters. Designmethodologyapproach The article covers the reading of over 150 journals as well as monographs, reports and websites. Findings That the fundamental debate on the direction of scholarly publishing continues intensely and that opposition is growing to DRM constraints. Electronic books remain a small minority market but the mass digitisation of books is proceeding apace. Open access continues to grow but with widely differing views on its impact the publishers start to fight back. Originalityvalue The paper represents a useful source of information for librarians and others interested in document supply and related matters.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Interlending</topic><topic>Resource sharing</topic><topic>Copyright law</topic><topic>Electronic books</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Interlending & Document Supply</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-LISC">Library & information science</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-CBM">Collection building & management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LISE">Library & information services</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-CONS">Consortia</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-SREV">Stock revision</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-DOCD">Document delivery</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LDG">Lending</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0264-1615</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">ilds</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/ilds</identifier><part><date>2007</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>35</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>102</start><end>114</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/02641610710754114</identifier><identifier type="filenameID">1220350208</identifier><identifier type="original-pdf">1220350208.pdf</identifier><identifier type="href">02641610710754114.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Belgique/explor/OpenAccessBelV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000036 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000036 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Belgique
|area= OpenAccessBelV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:62E85608480554AF99560446BE624D5408661A87
|texte= Interlending and document supply a review of the recent literature 59
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.25. |  |