LIBRARY BUDGET PREDICTIONS FOR 2013
Contents List of Tables... 1 Executive Summary... 2 What was done... 2 Summary of Results... 2 Who was surveyed... 5 Sample Frame... 6 Length of Impact of the Economic Crisis... 7 Overall Library Expenditure... 8 Overall Library Budget Broken Down... 8 Overall Library Budget Change for 2013... 9 Materials Expenditure... 11 Materials Budget Change for 2013... 11 Expenditure of Materials Budget on Electronic Information Sources... 13 Materials Budget Change to 2016... 14 Serials Expenditure... 16 Serials Budget Change for 2013... 18 Reasons for Decrease in Serials Budget... 20 Reasons for Increase in Serials Budget... 20 Budget used for electronic and full text databases... 20 Plans for Serial Additions and Cancellations... 20 Electronic Journals and Breakdown of Serial Subscription into Format Type... 22 Expenditure on Electronic Serials... 24 E-Journal Budgets... 25 Abstracting and Indexing Services... 25 Books Expenditure... 26 Books Budget Change for 2013... 26 New Books in 2012... 28 Percentage of Books Budget Spent on Electronic Books in 2012... 28 E-Books Budget Change for 2013... 29 Proportion of front list books... 30 Major Reference Works... 31 Major Reference Works Predicted Change for 2012... 31 Reasons Why the Number of MRWs is Likely to Change in 2012... 33 Major Reference Works Formats Being Purchased... 33 perpetual vs yearly access of mrws... 34 Institutional Repositories... 35 How Information in Repositories is Stored... 35 How Information in Repostiories is Maintained... 36 Growth of Institutional Repositories... 36
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Budget % Change by Type of Institute... 2 Table 2: Average number of Faculty and Students by Type of Institute... 5 Table 3: Consortia Membership... 5 Table 4: Institutional Repository Ownership... 5 Table 5: Breakdown of sample by country and type of institute... 6 Table 6: Library Budget change for 2013 - Overall Library Budget... 10 Table 7: Material Budget change for 2013... 12 Table 8: Percentage Expenditure On Electronic Information Resources... 13 Table 9: Material Budget change 2016... 14 Table 10: Ave. Serial Cost for ARL Institutes Reporting in the Year of Estimation... 17 Table 11: Serials Budget Change for 2013... 19 Table 12: Serials Additions in 2013... 21 Table 13: Breakdown of serials subscriptions into format type in 2012... 23 Table 14: Percentage of Serials Expenditure on Electronic Serials (Current year)... 24 Table 15: Abstracting & Indexing Budget Predictions for 2013... 25 Table 16: Books Budget Change for 2013... 27 Table 17: Book Purchasing in 2012 Compared to 2011... 28 Table 18: Average Number of books in 2012 per institute type... 28 Table 19: Library Book Budget - % spent on electronic books... 28 Table 20: E-Books budget change... 29 Table 21: E-books access models... 29 Table 22: Proportion of front list books... 30 Table 23: MRW Budget change for 2013... 32 Table 24: Purchasing patterns for MRWs by region and organisation (up to current year)... 33 Table 25: MRW access models... 34 Table 26: Usage of Institutional Repositories... 35 Table 27: Usage of Institutional Repositories... 35 Table 28: Usage of Institutional Repositories... 36 Table 29: Who maintains the repository... 36 Table 30: Availability of repository... 36 Table 31: Growth of Institutional Repositories... 36 Table 32: Growth of Institutional Repositories... 37 P a g e 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHAT WAS DONE A global telephone survey was carried out at 525 institutional libraries. Institutes in North America, South America, Europe and Asia Pacific Region were contacted. Senior librarians with control over and knowledge of library budgets for 2013 were contacted. Academic institutions were split into categories reflecting the size of their institute. The telephone survey was carried out by two independent research agencies both of whom have specialist knowledge of the library markets. SUMMARY OF RESULTS The global economic outlook at the start of 2012 was relatively positive. Improving market sentiment, combined with quantitative easing in developing countries, meant a rebound in economic activity in both developing and advanced countries. However, since May, progress has faltered. Austerity measures in EU countries have negatively impacted growth in the European economy, which in turn has impacted the global economy. America s recovery remains slow, whilst even strongly performing Asia-Pacific emerging countries such as China have seen a slowdown in their growth (their GDP growth slowed in Q2). The global economic outlook is important because GDP growth impacts the amount of funds available in institutional budgets, which in turn impinges on library budgets. Therefore, it is not surprising that the results of this year s library budget survey show small growth predictions. The overall library budget is predicted to increase in 2013 by 0.8% and the materials budget by 0.7%. However, as these rates are lower than the inflation rate in most countries, many libraries will be pressed maintaining existing services. The pressure is greatest on the serials budget, which shows the lowest percentage increase at just 0.3%. Librarians continue to juggle their subscriptions to gain best value. An examination of library data for North American institutes (ARL) shows that average serial cost continues to decline. The cost to the library of a serial in 2011 ($139) is very similar to the cost paid in 1990 ($138). There is slightly more optimism in the forecasts when librarians look further forward. From 2013 to 2016 librarians, estimate that year on year the materials budget will increase by 2%. Looking at the regional breakdown, there are some distinct differences in predicted budgets for 2013. South America s prediction of decrease shows a worsening position after last year s relatively static picture. Brazil, the world s sixth biggest economy, has been hardest hit by the overseas downturn and is expected to grow more slowly than other regional economies 1. Asia Pacific continues to have the most optimistic predictions. The picture in North America improves on last year with growth, albeit very modest, for all areas except books. Europe continues to decline across all budget lines. The key findings of the study are: Table 1: Budget % Change by Type of Institute NB: At a base size of 525, error margin is ±3.7. At base sizes of around 100, the error margin is ±5.8. Arrows green or red indicate change greater than 0.5% 1 Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/15/brazil-latin-america-economic-growth P a g e 2
When reviewing the results of this survey while knowing the absolute increases is valuable, what is important are the relative differences between regions, budgets and institute types. Overall library budgets are set to increase by 0.8% (last year a 0.2% increase was forecast). South America predicts the biggest decrease at -3.4%. (n.b. our respondent base for South America is 35, so these figures should be treated with caution), Europe is the only other region to predict a decrease (-1.4%). Asia Pacific continues to perform strongly with a 4.9% increase.this is the fifth successive year that librarians in the Asia Pacific region have predicted an increase of 2% or above. Emerging countries predict a 5.3% increase, mainly driven by the strong performance in Asia Pacific. Just over a third (34%) of institutes expect their budget to increase, 41% to remain static, 23% to decrease, 2% were unable to say. Materials budgets (all information content provision) are predicted to increase by 0.7% (last year saw a forecast of a 0.3% increase). In tandem with the overall budget, South America predicts a -3.4% decrease, a sharp contrast to last year s prediction of a 0.6% increase. North America returns to a projected increase, though only just, at 0.1%. Europe remains broadly on a par with last year, predicting a -0.9% decrease (last year -1.0%). Asia Pacific continues to have the healthiest budget, with an expected 4.5% increase. The emerging countries group also performs well with a 3.4% increase. 34% of institutes predict an increase, 42% remain static, 21% predict a decrease, 3% were unable to say. It is estimated that approximately 51% of the library materials budget is spent on electronic information sources (up 1.7%) Looking ahead to the 2016 materials budget, overall, institutes expect their budget to increase by an average of 2.0%, year on year. Serials budgets are forecast to increase by 0.3% (last year a 0.5% increase was predicted) North America predicts a 0.7% increase, an improvement on last year s 0.1% decrease. Europe however, sees a worsening picture for serials with a -1.1% decrease (last year was -0.2%). South America expects a 3.3% decrease. Asia Pacific expects to increase spending by 2.4%. Emerging countries perform less well on the serials budget: just a 0.1% increase. While the overall increase is relatively low, more institutes than last year are predicting their budget will increase (40% vs 34%). A reduction in available funds was the main reason given by those who expect their serials budget to decrease. The Library Journal periodical survey (see p20) indicates that the average serial price increased 7.1%. An analysis of ARL serial expenditure suggests that the average serial cost actually dropped by 7.7%. Book expenditure is forecast to increase by 0.8% (a decrease of 0.1% was predicted last year). Only Asia Pacific s strong performance (4.8% increase) saves the overall forecast from sliding into decline. North America (-0.4% decrease), Europe (-0.6% decrease) and South America (-3.6% decrease) all predict reductions in their books budgets. However, these figures do show improvements on last year for North America and Europe. Last year, North America had predicted a -2.4% decrease, while Europe forecasted -0.8%. Emerging countries show strong purchasing intention for books with a 6.5% expected increase The majority (51%) of institutes believe their budgets will remain static. 27% predict that budget expenditure for 2013 will increase while 21% predict a decrease. On average, 15.5% of the book budget is spent on e-books. Predicted change in e-book expenditure is 6.1% The number of Major Reference Works (MRWs) to be purchased in 2013 is set to decrease by -2.9% (last year was a predicted decrease of -1.4%). All regions predict a decrease in MRW expenditure, with Europe hardest hit (-4.0% decrease) E-Journal services 97% of institutes take an e-journal service. E-only journals represent 59% of journal subscriptions, rising 3% from last year. Institutes still take a reasonable portion of their subscriptions in print only form (22%), while the remainder (19%) is part of a combined print and electronic package. 28% of those with E-journal services have a separate budget for them. The average budget change for e-journals is a 4.2% increase. Adding in those respondents who do not have a separate budget but are aware of how the e-journal portion will change, this figure drops to a 3.3% increase P a g e 3
A&I Services are provided by 85% of institutes. 35% have a budget separate to the serials budget. These institutes forecast an increase of 1.2% Adding in those respondents whose A&I budget was within serials but were able to predict change on the A&I element, this increase drops to 0.1%. Institutional Repositories These are fairly widespread with just over half (57%) of institutes either owning or sharing ownership. This figure rises to 83% for top academic institutes. Research articles continue to be the most commonly stored information type, with 87% of repositories holding them. In terms of content expansion, 46% felt that the repository was growing fast or very fast. North America 2013 (change) Overall 0.3% Materials 0.1% Serials 0.7% Books -0.4% Europe 2013 (change) Overall -1.4% Materials -0.9% Serials -1.1% Books -0.6% South America 2013 (change) Overall -3.4% Materials -3.4% Serials -3.3% Books -3.6% Asia Pacific 2013 (change) Overall 4.9% Materials 4.5% Serials 2.4% Books 4.8% P a g e 4
WHO WAS SURVEYED Altogether 525 institutes were successfully surveyed, from a range of countries and institute types reflecting the market generally. This provides a 3.7%± confidence interval at 90% confidence levels; however it must be borne in mind that the estimates made by some librarians are indications, rather than the known budgeted amount. Librarians who were surveyed last year were approached again this year to take part in the survey. The survey was completed in North America, South and Mid- America, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region. Institutions were chosen from North America (USA, Canada), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Mexico, Venezuela), Europe (20 countries) and Asia Pacific (9 countries). Since the 2009 survey, we have included a category, emerging countries, which cuts across geography (see next section for countries included in this group). Librarians were asked to quantify the number of faculty and studetns for the library. The average results by region and institute type are in the table opposite. Consortia Membership Table 2: Average number of Faculty and Students by Type of Institute Region Level Members/Users Academic top 26,217 Academic middle 13,750 North America Academic lower 4,925 Medical/Health 4,579 Government 5,493 Corporate 8,793 Academic top 26,765 Academic middle 14,435 Europe Academic lower 7,833 Medical/Health 4,843 Government 3,511 Corporate 2,167 Academic top 29,375 Academic middle 17,048 Asia Pacific Academic lower 6,565 Medical/Health 3,338 Government 2,008 Corporate 3,436 Academic top 31,875 Academic middle 20,313 South America Academic lower 11.125 Medical/Health 5,215 Government 22,250 Corporate 11,000 The majority of those surveyed are consortia members, with the proportion highest among academic institutes (92%). Table 3: Consortia Membership Institute Type Yes No Academic Top 89% 11% Academic Middle 94% 6% Academic Lower 94% 6% Medical/Health 71% 29% Government 65% 35% Corporate 42% 58% Total 79% 21% Institutional Repositories (for more detail please see the final section) Librarians were asked if their institute had its own institutional repository. Overall, more than a half (57%) have an institutional repository, with academic institutes being most likely to have a repository (74%). Table 4: Institutional Repository Ownership Institute Type Yes No Academic Top 83% 17% Academic Middle 77% 23% Academic Lower 61% 39% Medical/Health 22% 78% Government 39% 61% Corporate 40% 60% Total 57% 43% P a g e 5
SAMPLE FRAME The sample frame was constructed into several organisation types: Academic, Corporate, Government, and Medical. The Academic sector was further split into three groups based upon size of the institute. The breakdown by country and type is in the table below. Emerging countries are a grouping introduced in 2009 and are a subset of countries that cross the below geographical categories and includes: India, China, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Mexico and Venezuela. Region Asia Pacific Europe North America South America Table 5: Breakdown of sample by country and type of institute Academic % of overall Country top middle lower Corp. Gov't Medical Total sample Australia 4 0 2 1 1 1 9 2% China 6 10 5 3 2 4 30 6% HK 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 1% India 5 3 3 3 1 2 17 3% Japan 8 13 12 10 6 9 58 11% Korea 3 1 2 3 1 2 12 2% Malaysia 3 1 1 0 0 0 5 1% New Zealand 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 1% Taiwan 1 1 4 2 1 2 11 2% Total 32 31 31 22 12 20 148 28% Austria 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 1% Belgium 2 0 1 1 1 1 6 1% Czech Republic 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1% Denmark 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1% Finland 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 1% France 2 4 3 3 3 3 18 3% Germany 3 5 4 4 3 3 22 4% Hungary 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1% Ireland 0 1 2 0 0 1 4 1% Israel 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 1% Italy 3 3 3 2 2 2 15 3% Netherlands 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1% Poland 2 2 1 1 1 1 8 2% Portugal 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 1% Romania 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1% Russia 3 2 1 1 1 1 9 2% Spain 3 2 1 2 2 2 12 2% Sweden 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1% Switzerland 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1% UK 4 3 5 4 3 4 23 4% Total 33 33 32 26 23 29 176 34% Canada 3 3 3 2 2 2 15 3% USA 27 27 27 20 18 32 151 29% Total 30 30 30 22 20 34 166 32% Argentina 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 2% Brazil 2 2 2 1 1 2 10 2% Chile 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 1% Colombia 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 1% Mexico 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 1% Venezuela 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 1% Total 8 8 8 2 2 7 35 7% Grand Total 103 102 101 72 57 90 525 100% Overall % 20% 19% 19% 14% 11% 17% 100% P a g e 6
LENGTH OF IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS Since the start of the economic crisis we have asked librarians how long they expect their budgets to be impacted by the crisis. As the crisis rumbles on, so too does its impact. Most believe budgets will be affected until next year at least, with a minority (22%) believing they will still be feeling the effect in 4 years time or even longer. In North America, the proportion is as high as 45%, the equivalent figure for Europe is 8%. Overall, 26% believe the economic crisis has had no impact on their budget. This rises to 39% amongst institutes in Asia. Europe has the highest proportion of institutes (27%) which feel the budgets will be affected until the end of next year. Figure 1 Figure 2 P a g e 7
OVERALL LIBRARY EXPENDITURE OVERALL LIBRARY BUDGET BROKEN DOWN The overall library budget includes the ongoing costs of maintaining a library, salary, materials and operating expenditure. By examining the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) expenditure we can get an idea of how library budgets breakdown. The ARL statistics include details of collections, expenditures, staffing, and service activities for its member libraries and the majority of the libraries are large North American academic institutes. For 2011 the 126 members of the ARL reported a combined expenditure of $4.6 billion. This expenditure broke down into four areas: salaries (45%), materials (43%), binding (0.4%) and other operating expenditures (12%) made up the remainder of the budget. The materials budget further broke down into serials expenditure (68%), books expenditure (20%) with the remaining being allocated to miscellaneous expenditure or other materials. (NB this split is based upon 91 institutes reporting on all elements of the budget) Figure 3 P a g e 8
OVERALL LIBRARY BUDGET CHANGE FOR 2013 % Change: The overall library budget continues to show modest recovery from the 0.1% decline that was forecast for 2011. After rising to a 0.2% increase for last year, librarians expect to see a 0.8% increase for 2013. o Region: After having predicted decreases for the past two years, the position in North America returns to a forecast of increase at 0.3%. In Europe the situation remains relatively static, with librarians predicting a decrease (-1.4%), compared to last year s prediction of -1.3%. South America shows the biggest change year on year, with a -3.4% decrease following the 0.6% increase forecast last year. Asia Pacific performs strongly with a predicted increase of 4.9%, although this is partly influenced by three institutes who are predicting a 100% increase. The emerging countries forecast the highest increase of 5.3% (again influenced by the three 100% scores). o Type of institute: Academic markets expect a 0.6% increase overall, North American and European academics predict their budgets to shrink (-0.2% and -1.6% respectively) but less than in 2012. Asia Pacific shows strong performance at 4.5% increase as do academic institutes in the emerging countries (6.2%). Qualitative predictions: (see table 9) suggest that less than half of the institutions (41%) believe their budget will remain static. The proportion of institutions predicting increases reaches 34%, 8 points up from last year s 26%. Those predicting decreases remain as 23%. Only Government institutes expect a decline (-0.9%) with 30% expecting a decrease. South America and Europe are the two regions where there are more institutes predicting decreases than those predicting increases Figure 4 Figure 53 Figure 6 P a g e 9
Table 6: Library Budget change for 2013 - Overall Library Budget Quantitative Qualitative Predictions Predictions % respondents predicting Region Organisation Increase Static Decrease % Budget Change Academic Top 43% 40% 17% 0.0 Academic Middle 33% 40% 27% 0.0 Academic Lower 33% 37% 30% -0.7 North America All Academic 37% 39% 24% -0.2 Medical/Health 50% 32% 18% 2.3 Government 30% 35% 30% -3.6 Corporate 59% 32% 9% 2.6 Overall 42% 36% 22% 0.3 Academic Top 18% 48% 27% -1.5 Academic Middle 18% 48% 30% -1.6 Academic Lower 31% 28% 31% -1.7 Europe All Academic 22% 42% 30% -1.6 Medical/Health 17% 55% 28% -1.0 Government 26% 48% 26% -2.7 Corporate 38% 31% 23% -0.1 Overall 24% 43% 28% -1.4 Academic Top 44% 41% 16% 1.8 Academic Middle 39% 29% 29% 6.1 Academic Lower 39% 42% 13% 5.9 Asia Pacific All Academic 40% 37% 19% 4.5 Medical/Health 45% 40% 10% 5.6 Government 33% 33% 33% 8.5 Corporate 32% 64% 5% 4.1 Overall 39% 41% 17% 4.9 Academic Top 50% 25% 25% 0.0 Academic Middle 38% 38% 25% -1.9 Academic Lower 13% 50% 38% -5.0 South America All Academic 33% 38% 29% -2.3 Medical/Health 0% 71% 29% -3.6 Government 0% 50% 50% -10.0 Corporate 0% 50% 50% -10.0 Overall 23% 46% 31% -3.4 Academic Top 52% 33% 11% 3.4 Academic Middle 54% 39% 7% 7.6 Academic Lower 48% 24% 19% 7.9 Emerging Countries All Academic 51% 33% 12% 6.2 Medical/Health 33% 50% 11% 1.7 Government 40% 30% 30% 8.5 Corporate 38% 38% 23% 2.2 Overall 48% 35% 14% 5.3 Academic Top 36% 42% 20% 0.1 Academic Middle 30% 39% 28% 1.2 Academic Lower 33% 37% 26% 0.6 Overall All Academic 33% 39% 25% 0.6 Medical/Health 34% 44% 20% 1.5 Government 28% 40% 30% -0.9 Corporate 42% 42% 14% 1.8 Overall 34% 41% 23% 0.8 P a g e 10
MATERIALS BUDGET CHANGE FOR 2013 MATERIALS EXPENDITURE The material budget covers all the costs a library incurs when purchasing content for the library, including journal subscriptions, book costs, inter-library loans etc. % Change: Overall material budgets are set to increase in 2013 by 0.7% (last year was a 0.3% increase). o Region: North America predicted a 0.1% increase, a slight improvement in contrast to last year s decline (-0.5%). Europe remains on a par with last year with a 0.9% decrease (last year: -1.0%). South America performs poorly with a forecast of -3.4% (in contrast to last year s 0.6% increase). The Emerging countries grouping perform strongly with a predicted 3.4% increase. The Asia Pacific region is forecasting the biggest increase of 4.5%. o Type of institute: Academic libraries show a slight improvement with a 0.5% mean increase (last year was a 0.3% increase). As with overall budgets, Asia Pacific and Emerging countries are healthiest, with predicted increases of 3.4% and 3.9% respectively. In tandem with their overall budget, Government institutes are seeing negative growth (-0.2%). They are not the only institute type predicting a decrease. Academic Lower expect to see a downturn (- 0.1%) Qualitative predictions: suggest that 34% of institutes will see an increase in their budget (6 points up on last year) with the majority (42%) believing their budget will remain static. The number of institutes forecasting a drop in budget for 2013 is 21%. o Region: South America has the highest proportion of institutes predicting a decrease (31%), followed by Europe (27%). This is a 5% improvement on 2012 predictions for Europe. o Emerging countries form the most optimistic group, with 45% predicting an increase (a 6% rise on last year). Asia Pacific performs best of the geographical regions with an increase of 39%, a slight drop from last year s 41% o Type of institute: Academic Lower institutes have the smallest proportion of institutes predicting an increase in the budget (27%) which is in sharp contrast to Academic Top (43%). Government institutions predict the highest proportion of budget decreases (26%), however, this is a 4% improvement on 2012. Reasons for change: In terms of reasons why budgets are decreasing, institutes report that it is mostly due to reduction in funding. As for budget increases, most common reasons include the inflation of prices for materials, and the acquisition of new subscriptions. Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 P a g e 11
Table 76: Material Budget change for 2013 Qualitative Predictions Quantitative Predictions % respondents predicting Region Organisation Increase Static Decrease % Budget Change Academic Top 50% 40% 10% 0.9 Academic Middle 30% 47% 20% 0.4 Academic Lower 27% 43% 30% -1.3 North America All Academic 36% 43% 20% 0.0 Medical/Health 41% 41% 15% 1.8 Government 20% 35% 30% -4.0 Corporate 36% 55% 5% 1.5 Overall 35% 43% 18% 0.1 Academic Top 36% 36% 21% -0.5 Academic Middle 27% 36% 36% -1.2 Academic Lower 25% 44% 25% -1.7 Europe All Academic 30% 39% 28% -1.1 Medical/Health 21% 45% 28% -0.1 Government 35% 39% 22% -1.9 Corporate 35% 35% 27% -0.3 Overall 30% 39% 27% -0.9 Academic Top 41% 34% 16% 3.2 Academic Middle 42% 35% 19% 3.1 Academic Lower 32% 55% 10% 4.0 Asia Pacific All Academic 38% 41% 15% 3.4 Medical/Health 35% 50% 5% 3.7 Government 50% 25% 25% 10.1 Corporate 41% 45% 14% 6.4 Overall 39% 42% 14% 4.5 Academic Top 50% 25% 25% 0.0 Academic Middle 38% 38% 25% -1.9 Academic Lower 13% 50% 38% -5.0 South America All Academic 33% 38% 29% -2.3 Medical/Health 0% 71% 29% -3.6 Government 0% 50% 50% -10.0 Corporate 0% 50% 50% -10.0 Overall 23% 46% 31% -3.4 Academic Top 48% 22% 15% 2.9 Academic Middle 54% 36% 7% 4.6 Academic Lower 29% 43% 14% 4.2 Emerging Countries All Academic 45% 33% 12% 3.9 Medical/Health 22% 44% 17% 0.1 Government 50% 30% 20% 8.0 Corporate 46% 31% 23% 1.3 Overall 45% 36% 15% 3.4 Academic Top 43% 36% 17% 1.1 Academic Middle 33% 39% 25% 0.5 Academic Lower 27% 48% 23% -0.1 Overall All Academic 34% 41% 22% 0.5 Medical/Health 30% 47% 18% 1.2 Government 32% 35% 26% -0.2 Corporate 36% 44% 17% 2.1 Overall 34% 42% 21% 0.7 P a g e 12
EXPENDITURE OF MATERIALS BUDGET ON ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SOURCES The below figures do not represent a prediction, but an estimate of spend on electronic resources during the year the survey was conducted. With the exception of North America, all regions have increased their percentage spend on electronic resources. Overall, the percentage spend increased by 1.7 points. At organisation level, the take-up in Government institutes dropped by 6.3 points to 41.2% while the Academic Lower started to show a strong inclination to increase the expenditure, with a 6 point increase to 49.0% Regionally, North America still has the highest proportion of spend on electronic information resources at 59.3%. Asia Pacific is catching up with 50.1%. Table 8: Percentage Expenditure On Electronic Information Resources Region North America Europe Asia Pacific South America Emerging Overall Organisation % (2005) % (2006) % (2007) % (2008) % (2009) % (2010) % (2011) % (2012) Academic Top 30.6 30.5 39.1 51.3 60.2 61.3 64.0 69.5 Academic Middle 34.5 31.5 37.1 54.3 52.2 64.4 65.6 66.3 Academic Lower 23.1 25.1 23.4 44.2 44.6 50.5 49.6 56.7 Medical/Health 30.1 33.1 34.2 39.3 46.4 54.8 59.1 55.4 Government 34.7 32.5 51.4 43.6 52.7 50.9 62.6 45.7 Corporate 45.5 39.9 48.8 48.1 54.1 72.0 62.2 59.5 Overall 31.4 31.4 37.2 47.7 51.2 58.8 60.4 59.3 Academic Top 38.2 27.9 45.7 43.5 44.5 50.5 46.3 51.5 Academic Middle 34.1 34.0 38.3 40.7 40.7 42.9 45.7 52.9 Academic Lower 27.3 31.1 33.8 40.7 41.8 47.2 43.8 52.9 Medical/Health 44.1 38.8 40.0 42.1 36.8 44.7 41.9 40.6 Government 32.6 31.4 45.5 42.5 46.2 46.7 37.8 38.4 Corporate 37.9 45.6 45.3 50.8 31.2 46.9 46.4 48.3 Overall 35.5 34.0 40.7 42.7 40.8 46.4 43.9 48.0 Academic Top 30.0 29.8 38.8 37.8 41.4 51.3 53.4 54.6 Academic Middle 38.6 31.3 39.2 28.6 42.8 45.5 48.8 50.0 Academic Lower 26.4 16.3 23.2 39.7 37.5 34.3 42.5 43.5 Medical/Health 15.3 7.6 33.3 54.9 32.7 56.0 43.1 55.6 Government 14.9 31.4 33.0 29.4 28.9 46.3 47.3 41.9 Corporate 19.1 22.6 45.3 29.2 51.7 52.0 55.1 52.6 Overall 25.7 23.5 33.2 39.1 39.4 46.8 48.1 50.1 Academic Top 29.4 42.5 40.6 42.9 43.9 Academic Middle 29.2 38.6 39.3 40.0 40.6 Academic Lower 21.0 23.3 22.5 27.9 28.1 Medical/Health 15.0 27.1 27.1 29.9 29.9 Government 15.0 15.0 15.5 18.5 27.5 Corporate 15.0 15.0 15.5 17.5 29.0 Overall 24.2 30.6 30.6 33.8 34.9 Academic Top 28.9 48.5 40.4 43.5 44.6 Academic Middle 33.4 44.0 35.9 39.8 49.0 Academic Lower 36.5 39.5 28.7 29.4 34.9 Medical/Health 17.5 38.4 37.2 32.5 41.6 Government 26.9 41.6 22.8 25.6 30.6 Corporate 37.5 42.5 37.7 36.3 34.4 Overall 38.0 42.5 34.6 35.8 41.0 Academic Top 33.5 29.4 41.7 43.7 48.5 53.2 53.7 57.1 Academic Middle 35.4 32.4 38.2 44.3 44.0 49.6 51.6 54.3 Academic Lower 25.5 23.6 27.1 38.9 39.5 42.2 43.9 49.0 Medical/Health 32.9 30.2 36.9 37.0 38.4 49.6 48.1 49.0 Government 28.2 31.7 44.9 41.0 41.6 46.9 47.5 41.2 Corporate 34.0 37.7 46.7 48.8 42.5 55.9 53.1 52.7 Overall 32.0 30.0 38.0 42.0 42.5 49.3 49.6 51.3 P a g e 13
MATERIALS BUDGET CHANGE TO 2016 Respondents were asked to think ahead to 2016, in order to predict whether their budget was likely increase year on year, remain static year on year, decrease year on year or vary (i.e. increase one year, but decrease the following year) and by how much the materials budget would change year on year. It is important to note that many librarians found it difficult to answer and therefore figures are likely to be indicative. North America and Asia Pacific predict a year on year increase (2.4% and 5.9% respectively) while South America and Europe expect their current downturns to continue (-3.1% and -0.5% respectively). Emerging countries predict the largest year on year increase of 6.0%. Table 9: Material Budget change 2016 Qualitative Predictions Quantitative Predictions % respondents predicting Region Organisation Increase Same Decrease Vary % Budget Change Academic Top 63% 20% 10% 0% 3.3 Academic Middle 43% 33% 23% 0% 1.5 Academic Lower 33% 40% 20% 0% 0.4 North America All Academic 47% 31% 18% 0% 1.7 Medical/Health 44% 24% 21% 3% 1.5 Government 40% 35% 15% 0% 2.3 Corporate 68% 23% 0% 5% 6.7 Overall 48% 29% 16% 1% 2.4 Academic Top 15% 33% 24% 6% -1.8 Academic Middle 24% 27% 33% 9% -0.3 Academic Lower 25% 47% 16% 0% -0.7 Europe All Academic 21% 36% 24% 5% -0.9 Medical/Health 14% 41% 21% 7% -1.5 Government 30% 35% 22% 4% -0.1 Corporate 35% 42% 15% 0% 1.3 Overall 23% 38% 22% 5% -0.6 Academic Top 48% 28% 14% 10% 3.7 Academic Middle 50% 17% 23% 7% 7.5 Academic Lower 33% 37% 13% 13% 4.4 Asia Pacific All Academic 44% 27% 17% 10% 5.2 Medical/Health 50% 28% 17% 0% 9.6 Government 42% 8% 25% 17% 6.8 Corporate 50% 32% 9% 5% 5.1 Overall 45% 26% 16% 9% 5.9 Academic Top 50% 25% 25% 0% 0.0 Academic Middle 38% 38% 25% 0% -1.3 Academic Lower 25% 38% 38% 0% -4.4 South America All Academic 38% 33% 29% 0% -1.9 Medical/Health 0% 71% 29% 0% -3.6 Government 0% 50% 50% 0% -10.0 Corporate 0% 50% 50% 0% -10.0 Overall 26% 43% 31% 0% -3.1 Academic Top 46% 21% 8% 4% 4.4 Academic Middle 67% 19% 11% 0% 10.4 Academic Lower 55% 25% 15% 5% 4.2 Emerging All Academic 56% 21% 11% 0% 6.7 Countries Medical/Health 25% 50% 13% 0% 2.5 Government 40% 20% 20% 10% 7.0 Corporate 38% 23% 15% 8% 5.9 Overall 40% 36% 7% 12% 6.0 P a g e 14
Overall Academic Top 42% 27% 17% 5% 1.6 Academic Middle 39% 27% 27% 5% 2.4 Academic Lower 30% 41% 18% 4% 0.9 All Academic 37% 32% 21% 0% 1.6 Medical/Health 32% 34% 20% 3% 1.9 Government 35% 30% 21% 5% 1.8 Corporate 49% 33% 10% 3% 3.8 Overall 37% 32% 19% 4% 2.0 As this question required respondents to think 4 years ahead, we wanted to have an idea of the certainty of the answer. Respondents were asked how confident they were of their prediction. Figure 10 Taking into account only the predictions of those who were confident or somewhat confident of the accuracy of their predictions, the overall percentage change increases to 2.7% (n=322). Figure 11 P a g e 15
SERIALS EXPENDITURE In this section we track several measures drawn from two sources: Library Journal periodical survey 2 for the average serial cost, and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) statistical data for serial expenditure and number of serials purchased by North American institutes 3. The ARL in North America annually tracks library expenditure and includes amongst its members some of the largest universities in the USA and Canada. 113 university libraries contributed data to the ARL statistics for 2011. In reference to figure 18 below, until 2002, broadly annual changes in serial expenditure reflect annual changes in average serial costs as tracked in the Library Journal. Although serials expenditure change appears to follow serials cost change, they do so at a lower level. After 2002 the changes are no longer in tandem. This disconnect is likely due to the impact of a number of factors. It should be borne in mind that the average serial prices produced by the Library Journal are based on catalogue prices. In recent years serials agents and publishers have introduced more and more individualized deals. Consequently the list price of journals rarely reflects the actual cost paid. Since 1997, there have been increases year-on-year in the number of subscriptions taken. The year-on-year increases are likely to be explained by the addition of electronic versions, at modest additional costs, via individualized deals and/or libraries accommodating the purchase of new and cheaper subscriptions through cancellation of a few expensive titles. The ARL average serial costs, instead of the Library Journal average serial costs are perhaps more indicative of the true costs incurred by institutes (it is derived by dividing the number of serials purchased by serial expenditure). These figures suggest that the cost paid by institutions per serial has broadly been falling since 2001. In fact the average serial cost in 2011 at $139.18 is only slightly higher than the 1990 cost of $138.24 (see table 13). Figure 12 NB. From 2007 the ARL has changed its method for tracking serials purchased, no longer reporting institutes count the number of subscriptions, but instead unique titles, thus an institute that previously took 3 copies of Nature would now be counted as taking 1, this is likely to explain the subsequent decline in the number of serials purchased. 2 http://www.libraryjournal.com/info/ca6435067.html?q=periodical+survey 3 http://interactive.arlstatistics.org/home P a g e 16
Table 70: Ave. Serial Cost for ARL Institutes Reporting in the Year of Estimation Year No of Institutes reporting Ser Unit Cost: US$ Mean % Change 1990 68 138.24 8.3% 1991 76 151.00 9.2% 1992 76 166.16 10.0% 1993 77 185.77 11.8% 1994 81 194.20 4.5% 1995 81 210.71 8.5% 1996 81 231.17 9.7% 1997 81 248.67 7.6% 1998 80 252.82 1.7% 1999 82 261.41 3.4% 2000 83 276.81 5.9% 2001 82 267.13-3.5% 2002 86 266.82-0.1% 2003 84 266.87 0.0% 2004 89 270.70 1.4% 2005 88 247.55-8.6% 2006 89 241.60-2.4% 2007 101 201.26-16.7% 2008 107 178.17-11.5% 2009 108 161.95-9.1% 2010 112 150.78-6.9% 2011 113 139.18-7.7% NB: ARL institutes reported in table above and in Figure 18 are only those institutes that are universities and have reported values for the number of serials purchased and serial expenditure in a given year. P a g e 17
SERIALS BUDGET CHANGE FOR 2013 % Change: The serials budget in 2013 is set to increase by 0.3%, this is on par with last year s increase of 0.5%. o Region: North America returns to a positive forecast (0.7%), after predicting decreases for the last two years. However, the position in Europe worsens, where a decrease is predicted (-1.1% - last year -0.2%). Asia Pacific predicts an increase of 2.4% (last year was 2.3%), while South America predicts the largest decline (-3.3%). o Type of institute: Academic institutional budgets are predicted to increase overall by 0.6% (last year: 0.5% increase). In reverse to last year s picture, Academic Top institutes predict the biggest growth (1.2%) across the institutional types. Qualitative predictions: suggest that 40% of institutes forecast an increase in their serials budget for 2013 6 points up on the last year. 20% predict a decrease, a slight drop from last year s figure of 19%. Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 P a g e 18
Table 81: Serials Budget Change for 2013 Qualitative Predictions % respondents predicting Region Organisation Increase Static Decrease North America Europe Asia Pacific South America Emerging Countries Overall Quantitative Predictions % Budget Change Academic Top 67% 27% 7% 2.9 Academic Middle 47% 33% 20% 1.0 Academic Lower 37% 33% 30% -0.4 All Academic 50% 31% 19% 1.2 Medical/Health 50% 32% 18% 0.7 Government 35% 40% 15% -1.3 Corporate 36% 36% 27% 0.4 Overall 46% 33% 19% 0.7 Academic Top 36% 42% 21% -0.6 Academic Middle 24% 42% 30% -2.7 Academic Lower 31% 50% 19% 0.2 All Academic 31% 45% 23% -1.1 Medical/Health 28% 31% 38% -3.1 Government 43% 35% 22% -0.3 Corporate 27% 58% 15% 0.1 Overall 31% 43% 24% -1.1 Academic Top 59% 22% 16% 1.8 Academic Middle 45% 32% 19% 2.2 Academic Lower 52% 45% 3% 3.9 All Academic 52% 33% 13% 2.6 Medical/Health 50% 25% 15% 3.7 Government 42% 42% 17% 5.8 Corporate 18% 59% 18% -1.5 Overall 46% 36% 14% 2.4 Academic Top 50% 25% 25% 0.0 Academic Middle 38% 38% 25% -1.3 Academic Lower 13% 50% 38% -5.0 All Academic 33% 38% 29% -2.1 Medical/Health 0% 71% 29% -3.6 Government 0% 50% 50% -10.0 Corporate 0% 50% 50% -10.0 Overall 23% 46% 31% -3.3 Academic Top 52% 36% 16% 1.3 Academic Middle 43% 39% 14% -0.2 Academic Lower 57% 29% 14% 2.4 All Academic 50% 35% 15% 1.0 Medical/Health 22% 44% 22% -3.1 Government 50% 30% 20% 5.5 Corporate 0% 69% 23% -5.8 Overall 39% 39% 17% 0.1 Academic Top 53% 30% 16% 1.2 Academic Middle 38% 36% 24% 0.0 Academic Lower 38% 44% 19% 0.7 All Academic 43% 37% 19% 0.6 Medical/Health 39% 33% 24% -0.2 Government 39% 39% 19% 0.3 Corporate 26% 51% 21% -0.6 Overall 40% 38% 20% 0.3 P a g e 19
REASONS FOR DECREASE IN SERIALS BUDGET Librarians were asked why they believed their budgets had changed. Altogether 107 librarians gave reasons as to why they thought it had decreased. Reduction in available funds remains the top reason (62%). 22% ascribe the decrease to consequence of the shift from print to electronic. This year 15% indicate that it is due to price inflation, a drop of 10 points compared with last year. Although price inflation has not directly reduced budgets, it does erode the purchasing power of the libraries. REASONS FOR INCREASE IN SERIALS BUDGET 206 librarians were able to specify why their budget had increased. The most often stated reason (52%) was due to price increase and new subscriptions, followed by price inflation (44%). BUDGET USED FOR ELECTRONIC AND FULL TEXT DATABASES Librarians were asked which part of the library budget is used to cover the cost of electronic journals and full text databases. 71% said that these costs were borne by the serials budget. For the 28% that used a separate budget, this tended to be an Electronic Resources budget or One line item in overall budget PLANS FOR SERIAL ADDITIONS AND CANCELLATIONS Many libraries manage their budgets by cancelling and subscribing to different journals in order to minimize costs. It is entirely feasible for an institute to see a decrease in their serials budget but an increase in the number of journals purchased (through the acquisition of more inexpensive titles). Change is often based upon usage data, a desire to streamline particular subjects, or simply cancelling the most expensive titles. The percentage of institutes cancelling (46%) is higher than those adding (31%). The average number of serials added (11) is lower than those cancelled (32). Asia Pacific, which showed the highest level of predicted additions (150) last year, predicts the highest level of cancellation (76) for 2013. The level is even higher for its academic sector of which the predicted cancellations reach 114. The highest cancellation comes from an Academic middle institution in Hong Kong (5,000), an Academic top one Hong Kong (2,000), and a middle one from China (1,400). It is difficult to be precise about how institutes go about deciding how to cancel titles, in order to gain further insight it is worth looking at the strategy that Stanford University follows for cancellations, it is referenced by other members of the library community. Source: http://sulair.stanford.edu/scholarly_com/cancels.html#projects STANFORD s strategy for cancellations: Consult with faculty to identify the highest priorities for collections. Eliminate virtually all remaining duplicate print subscriptions. Migrate subscriptions from print or print plus online to online only whenever possible. Perform cost-benefit analysis for titles, cancel higher cost per use titles and acquire articles on-demand as needed. Reduce expenditures on books and other non-serials. Cancel unique titles. Continue to pursue cooperative agreements that benefit campus. Monitor and influence the future of scholarly publishing. P a g e 20
Table 92: Serials Additions in 2013 Serials Cancellations in 2013 Region Organisation Increase North America Europe Asia Pacific South America Emerging Countries Overall Qualitative Predictions Quantitative Qualitative Predictions % respondents predicting Predictions % respondents predicting No Additions Unable to say Ave no. of Additions Cancels No Cancels Unable to say Quantitative Predictions Ave no. of Cancels Academic Top 47% 33% 20% 24.0 43% 57% 0% 54.9 Academic Middle 43% 37% 20% 6.2 60% 40% 0% 30.3 Academic Lower 50% 43% 7% 9.8 57% 43% 0% 15.0 All Academic 47% 38% 16% 13.1 53% 47% 0% 33.1 Medical/Health 47% 47% 6% 14.5 62% 38% 0% 6.6 Government 30% 70% 0% 5.6 45% 55% 0% 24.0 Corporate 64% 27% 9% 6.8 64% 36% 0% 5.1 Overall 47% 42% 11% 11.6 55% 45% 0% 22.6 Academic Top 18% 45% 36% 26.2 48% 52% 0% 23.5 Academic Middle 18% 42% 39% 7.1 45% 55% 0% 13.9 Academic Lower 28% 50% 22% 1.5 25% 75% 0% 1.9 All Academic 21% 46% 33% 11.0 40% 60% 0% 12.6 Medical/Health 17% 52% 31% 1.0 59% 41% 0% 1.9 Government 13% 43% 43% 0.6 39% 61% 0% 9.7 Corporate 15% 69% 15% 0.9 35% 65% 0% 6.4 Overall 19% 50% 31% 6.4 42% 58% 0% 9.7 Academic Top 47% 28% 25% 18.7 44% 50% 6% 80.0 Academic Middle 26% 35% 39% 7.8 45% 52% 3% 245.9 Academic Lower 26% 42% 32% 45.2 45% 48% 6% 20.8 All Academic 33% 35% 32% 24.2 45% 50% 5% 113.6 Medical/Health 40% 35% 25% 6.4 35% 45% 20% 7.1 Government 25% 58% 17% 7.0 58% 42% 0% 4.2 Corporate 23% 41% 36% 1.2 45% 41% 14% 2.6 Overall 32% 38% 30% 16.8 45% 47% 8% 76.1 Academic Top 25% 50% 25% 8.3 38% 63% 0% 5.1 Academic Middle 13% 63% 25% 3.3 25% 75% 0% 2.5 Academic Lower 13% 63% 25% 3.3 50% 50% 0% 8.8 All Academic 17% 58% 25% 5.0 38% 63% 0% 5.5 Medical/Health 0% 100% 0% 0.0 14% 86% 0% 0.9 Government 0% 100% 0% 0.0 0% 100% 0% 0.0 Corporate 0% 100% 0% 0.0 0% 100% 0% 0.0 Overall 11% 71% 17% 3.1 29% 71% 0% 3.9 Academic Top 30% 37% 33% 35.0 41% 59% 0% 9.3 Academic Middle 14% 39% 46% 2.5 33% 79% 4% 12.8 Academic Lower 29% 29% 43% 69.2 24% 60% 0% 2.9 All Academic 24% 36% 41% 33.3 33% 66% 1% 27.7 Medical/Health 11% 67% 22% 4.1 20% 100% 0% 4.1 Government 0% 60% 40% 0.0 22% 89% 0% 0.0 Corporate 8% 77% 15% 0.1 17% 92% 0% 10.2 Overall 18% 47% 35% 20.5 26% 65% 8% 7.2 Academic Top 36% 37% 27% 21.7 45% 53% 2% 49.6 Academic Middle 27% 40% 32% 6.6 48% 51% 1% 87.8 Academic Lower 33% 47% 21% 16.0 43% 55% 2% 12.1 All Academic 32% 41% 27% 15.0 45% 53% 2% 48.9 Medical/Health 32% 50% 18% 7.8 51% 44% 4% 4.8 Government 21% 58% 21% 4.2 44% 56% 0% 13.7 Corporate 32% 49% 19% 3.0 46% 50% 4% 4.7 Overall 31% 46% 24% 10.7 46% 52% 2% 31.7 P a g e 21
ELECTRONIC JOURNALS AND BREAKDOWN OF SERIAL SUBSCRIPTION INTO FORMAT TYPE Librarians were asked if they took an e-journal service and if they did what proportion of their subscriptions were received in electronic form. 97% of institutes surveyed currently use e-journal service providers. The proportion of journals taken in e-only format has gone up 3 points to 59% while subscriptions in combined format dropped 3 points to 19%. Just over a fifth of subscriptions are taken in the print only format (22%). North America has both the highest proportion of e-only subscriptions (69%) and the lowest proportion of print only format (16%) and combined (15%). South America has by far the lowest take up of e-only subscriptions (33%), with combined subscriptions being their preference (43%). This is the only region where e-only is not the most commonly taken format. Academic institutes are more likely to take e-only subscriptions (62%) than other types, and the take-up for Academic Top reached 66% in 2012. Only North and South America have 100% take up on provision of electronic journal services. P a g e 22
Table 103: Breakdown of serials subscriptions into format type in 2012 Region North America Europe Asia Pacific South America Emerging Countries Overall % of journals received in different formats % respondents predicting % of institutes Organisation e- using electronic Comb Print only journal services Academic Top 76% 12% 12% 100% Academic Middle 72% 12% 16% 100% Academic Lower 69% 16% 15% 100% All Academic 72% 13% 15% 100% Medical/Health 63% 17% 20% 97% Government 63% 16% 21% 100% Corporate 67% 20% 13% 100% Overall 69% 15% 16% 100% Academic Top 57% 22% 22% 100% Academic Middle 56% 17% 27% 100% Academic Lower 49% 21% 31% 100% All Academic 54% 20% 26% 100% Medical/Health 52% 23% 25% 97% Government 49% 20% 31% 91% Corporate 45% 17% 38% 88% Overall 52% 20% 28% 97% Academic Top 71% 13% 15% 100% Academic Middle 58% 20% 22% 100% Academic Lower 72% 11% 17% 97% All Academic 67% 15% 18% 99% Medical/Health 65% 15% 20% 95% Government 41% 27% 32% 92% Corporate 57% 12% 30% 82% Overall 63% 16% 21% 95% Academic Top 41% 42% 17% 100% Academic Middle 35% 46% 19% 100% Academic Lower 27% 45% 28% 100% All Academic 35% 44% 21% 100% Medical/Health 31% 49% 21% 100% Government 25% 35% 40% 100% Corporate 30% 25% 45% 100% Overall 33% 43% 24% 100% Academic Top 58% 21% 21% 100% Academic Middle 52% 29% 19% 100% Academic Lower 50% 25% 25% 100% All Academic 54% 25% 22% 100% Medical/Health 43% 34% 24% 89% Government 44% 11% 45% 80% Corporate 56% 15% 29% 62% Overall 51% 24% 24% 92% Academic Top 66% 18% 16% 100% Academic Middle 59% 19% 22% 100% Academic Lower 60% 18% 22% 99% All Academic 62% 18% 20% 100% Medical/Health 57% 21% 22% 97% Government 51% 21% 28% 95% Corporate 55% 17% 28% 90% Overall 59% 19% 22% 97% P a g e 23
EXPENDITURE ON ELECTRONIC SERIALS Within the serials budget the proportion spent on electronic information source has dropped slightly since 2011 to 55%. Europe has also seen a decline when compared to 2011 there is no clear indication as to why we might be seeing such adjustments. In South America and emerging countries the amount being spent on electronic services continues to be considerably lower than other regions. Table 114: Percentage of Serials Expenditure on Electronic Serials (Current year) Region Organisation 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 North America Europe Asia Pacific South America Emerging Countries Overall Academic Top 42 48 69 65 80 81 Academic Middle 39 48 63 64 75 78 Academic Lower 21 32 55 62 65 68 All Academic 35 44 62 64 73 75 Medical/Health 34 31 40 57 64 55 Government 50 45 54 60 64 58 Corporate 40 27 48 69 75 73 Overall 37 40 55 63 71 69 Academic Top 40 45 52 52 57 56 Academic Middle 42 42 49 43 54 49 Academic Lower 33 44 51 50 55 54 All Academic 38 44 51 48 56 53 Medical/Health 38 42 38 44 53 47 Government 44 38 55 54 47 39 Corporate 38 41 36 45 58 43 Overall 39 42 47 48 55 49 Academic Top 38 35 40 61 56 64 Academic Middle 49 40 45 48 54 47 Academic Lower 41 35 39 41 47 50 All Academic 43 37 42 49 52 54 Medical/Health 34 29 33 52 42 55 Government 31 44 35 43 46 42 Corporate 37 39 40 47 54 52 Overall 41 37 40 49 50 53 Academic Top n/a 38 41 41 42 43 Academic Middle n/a 41 41 39 42 41 Academic Lower n/a 21 23 23 26 28 All Academic n/a 34 34 34 37 37 Medical/Health n/a 50 27 27 30 31 Government n/a 15 15 15 21 35 Corporate n/a 15 15 15 21 33 Overall n/a 32 31 31 34 36 Academic Top n/a 27 34 45 45 49 Academic Middle n/a 31 39 35 44 40 Academic Lower n/a 34 31 37 35 30 All Academic n/a 31 35 39 41 40 Medical/Health n/a 38 31 31 30 37 Government n/a 17 38 29 31 22 Corporate n/a 29 30 41 43 31 Overall n/a 29 34 38 39 37 Academic Top 41 44 52 58 63 64 Academic Middle 43 43 49 50 59 55 Academic Lower 33 36 45 48 53 54 All Academic 39 41 48 52 58 58 Medical/Health 36 36 36 49 53 50 Government 43 41 48 52 52 45 Corporate 39 34 39 53 61 54 Overall 39 40 45 52 57 55 P a g e 24
E-JOURNAL BUDGETS Library Budget Survey - 2013 28% of institutes with a serials budget indicate that they have a separate budget for e-journals. E-journal budgets overall are set to increase by 4.2% (last year s forecast was 3.1%). Adding in the institutes without a separate budget but that were able to make an estimate, this figure is less and a 3.3% increase is forecast. 61% of those institutes with a separate e-journal budget forecast an increase for 2013. 31% expect to maintain their current position while 5% forecast a decrease. Overall, a 4.2% increase is expected. ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING SERVICES The majority of institutes (85%) provide electronic access to abstracting and indexing (A&I) services. % Budget Change: Of those who take A&I services, 35% have a separate budget outside of the serials budget for A&I services. 63% of the institutes pay for their A&I service using their serial budgets. Of those institutions with knowledge of the A&I budget (whether separate or part of the serials budget), 60% believe that it will remain static in 2013, whilst 23% expect an increase. Here, an average increase of 0.1% is expected. Concentrating on those with a budget outside of serials, on average, a rise of 1.2% is predicted. Number of A&I Services Taken: Of the institutes that provide access to A&I databases, the majority (80%) take two or more A&I services. 52% took four or more. Table 15: Abstracting & Indexing Budget Predictions for 2013 Respondents with an A&I budget separate from All responses serials. Forecast % Mean % n % Mean % n Increase 23.5 6.4 110 32.3 6 54 Same 60.0 0.0 281 58.7 0 98 Decrease 11.3-12.7 53 4.8-17.25 8 Don't Know 5.1-24 4.2-7 Total 100 0.1 468 100 1.2 167 Figure 16 P a g e 25
BOOKS EXPENDITURE BOOKS BUDGET CHANGE FOR 2013 Books budgets, which includes electronic books, are predicted to increase by 0.8% in 2013 (last year was -0.1%). o Regions: In spite of the global increase, both North America and Europe still predict drops (-0.4%, and -0.6% respectively), but this represents a 2 point improvement for North America compared to last year. Europe remains broadly consistent with last year (-0.8% decrease in 2012). o Those in Asia Pacific continue to be more optimistic and predict an increase of 4.8%, higher than the 3.7% increase forecast last year. Academic institutes are set to perform even better, with a 5.4% increase predicted. None of the sectors in APAC predict decreases. o As with the other main budget areas, the South American region expects the biggest decrease (-3.6%). All sectors except Governmental institutes (which is predicted to remain static) report decreases for 2013. o Emerging countries predict a 6.5% increase, remaining the strongest performing group for a third consecutive year. o Overall, all types of institutes predict increase for the books budget. Qualitative forecasts indicate that the majority (51%) of institutes believe their budgets will remain static. 27% of institutes predict that their budget expenditure for 2013 will increase, 6 points higher than those predicting a decrease. The majority of non-academic institutes expect their budget to remain static. Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 P a g e 26
Table 16: Books Budget Change for 2013 Qualitative Predictions % respondents predicting Region Organisation Increase Static Decrease North America Europe Asia Pacific South America Emerging Countries Overall Quantitative Predictions % Budget Change Academic Top 40% 23% 37% -0.3 Academic Middle 27% 37% 37% -2.6 Academic Lower 30% 43% 27% -1.9 All Academic 32% 34% 33% -1.6 Medical/Health 21% 65% 15% 0.5 Government 20% 60% 20% -1.1 Corporate 36% 55% 9% 3.9 Overall 29% 46% 25% -0.4 Academic Top 27% 39% 33% -0.9 Academic Middle 24% 52% 24% -1.3 Academic Lower 25% 53% 22% 0.1 All Academic 26% 48% 27% -0.7 Medical/Health 10% 66% 24% -0.6 Government 26% 70% 4% 1.3 Corporate 23% 46% 31% -2.2 Overall 23% 53% 24% -0.6 Academic Top 38% 47% 16% 5.2 Academic Middle 39% 42% 19% 6.5 Academic Lower 35% 52% 10% 4.5 All Academic 37% 47% 15% 5.4 Medical/Health 40% 45% 10% 2.3 Government 33% 50% 17% 6.3 Corporate 27% 73% 0% 3.3 Overall 36% 51% 12% 4.8 Academic Top 25% 50% 25% -1.3 Academic Middle 0% 75% 25% -3.1 Academic Lower 0% 63% 38% -5.6 All Academic 8% 63% 29% -3.3 Medical/Health 0% 71% 29% -3.6 Government 0% 100% 0% 0.0 Corporate 0% 50% 50% -10.0 Overall 6% 66% 29% -3.6 Academic Top 52% 37% 11% 7.2 Academic Middle 29% 64% 7% 6.4 Academic Lower 38% 43% 14% 4.8 All Academic 39% 49% 11% 6.3 Medical/Health 46% 38% 15% 3.2 Government 60% 40% 0% 16.4 Corporate 33% 44% 17% 4.6 Overall 41% 46% 11% 6.5 Academic Top 34% 38% 28% 1.1 Academic Middle 27% 46% 26% 0.6 Academic Lower 28% 50% 21% 0.3 All Academic 30% 45% 25% 0.7 Medical/Health 20% 61% 18% 0.2 Government 25% 63% 12% 1.5 Corporate 28% 57% 15% 1.1 Overall 27% 51% 21% 0.8 P a g e 27
NEW BOOKS IN 2012 We asked librarians to indicate whether or not the number of books purchased this year represented a decrease or increase when compared to the previous year. Librarians estimate that the number of books purchased this year is on a par with 2011 (0.5% change). We also asked librarians how many books they purchased this year. The average number of books is 9,096. Table 17: Book Purchasing in 2012 Compared to 2011 Movement of books 12 against 11 Count % Mean Min Max Increase 131 25% 15.2 1 150 Same 245 47% 0.0 0 0 Decrease 116 22% -15.1-99 -1 Don t know 33 6% Total 525 100% 0.5-100.0 100.0 Table 18: Average Number of books in 2012 per institute type Institution Mean Count Academic Top 21,368 76 Academic Middle 15,267 76 Academic Lower 5,404 81 Medical/Health 599 70 Government 6,834 41 Corporate 954 51 Overall 9,096 395 PERCENTAGE OF BOOKS BUDGET SPENT ON ELECTRONIC BOOKS IN 2012 Librarians were asked to estimate the proportion of their book budget spent on electronic books. After last year s sizeable increase, the proportion levels out at 15.5% - a slight drop from 2011. Academic Top institutes are still leading the way (18.3%) although the increase is 4 points lower than last year. Table 19: Library Book Budget - % spent on electronic books Region Organization 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Academic Top 5.7 4.7 8.3 14.1 22.4 18.3 Academic Middle 5.9 5.6 8.5 9.0 14.8 17.7 Academic Lower 5.7 5.1 8.0 7.1 15.7 15.4 Overall All Academic 5.8 3.2 8.3 10.0 17.6 17.1 Medical/Health 5.9 3.7 6.5 4.8 15.0 17.5 Government 9.2 5.9 2.4 9.4 10.9 7.7 Corporate 3.8 3.5 2.7 11.5 16.8 11.5 Overall 6.0 4.9 6.6 9.4 16.3 15.5 P a g e 28
E-BOOKS BUDGET CHANGE FOR 2013 Librarians were asked to indicate their expectations for the level of expenditure change on e-books for 2013. Although these figures seem healthy for most regions, the overall books budget increase of 0.8% suggests that these increases are at the expense of print books. Also, the e-books budget currently stands at only 15.5% of the overall books budget (see table 26). Table 120: E-Books budget change Predicted % change in e- Region book expenditure North America 8.6 Europe 7.3 Asia 4.2 South America -1.2 Overall 6.1 Librarians that purchase e-books were asked to specify the proportions spent on perpetual one-time purchases and yearly subscription models. The majority choose to take perpetual models, with Medical being the only group to take a higher proportion of yearly models. Table 131: E-books access models Proportion of budget spent on perpetual models (%) Proportion of budget spent on yearly models (%) Academic Top 74.1 25.9 Academic Middle 75.4 24.7 Academic Lower 60.8 39.2 Medical 44.3 55.8 Government 70.0 30.0 Corporate 61.1 38.9 Total 65.8 34.2 P a g e 29
PROPORTION OF FRONT LIST BOOKS Librarians were asked to give the proportion of books bought in 2012 that were front list and also to estimate the proportion of front list books for 2013. Overall, 75% of books purchased are front list. There is little difference between the proportions across the two years. Table 22: Proportion of front list books Region Organisation 2012 2013 North America Europe Asia Pacific South America Emerging Countries Overall Academic Top 85% 85% Academic Middle 77% 77% Academic Lower 69% 71% All Academic 77% 78% Medical/Health 75% 73% Government 77% 79% Corporate 69% 70% Overall 76% 76% Academic Top 78% 75% Academic Middle 77% 76% Academic Lower 77% 66% All Academic 77% 73% Medical/Health 78% 71% Government 76% 75% Corporate 73% 67% Overall 77% 72% Academic Top 73% 76% Academic Middle 66% 64% Academic Lower 59% 60% All Academic 66% 67% Medical/Health 64% 63% Government 72% 67% Corporate 73% 74% Overall 67% 67% Academic Top 100% 100% Academic Middle 100% 100% Academic Lower 83% 83% All Academic 95% 95% Medical/Health 100% 100% Government 100% 100% Corporate n/a n/a Overall 96% 96% Academic Top 88% 89% Academic Middle 75% 74% Academic Lower 66% 61% All Academic 78% 76% Medical/Health 75% 67% Government 92% 84% Corporate 65% 67% Overall 77% 75% Academic Top 80% 80% Academic Middle 75% 75% Academic Lower 69% 67% All Academic 75% 74% Medical/Health 74% 70% Government 76% 75% Corporate 72% 70% Overall 75% 73% P a g e 30
MAJOR REFERENCE WORKS MAJOR REFERENCE WORKS PREDICTED CHANGE FOR 2012 Librarians were asked whether the number of Major Reference Works (MRWs) to be purchased in 2013 would be greater, remain the same or be less than in 2012. 501 librarians answered these questions. % Change: Overall, the budget for MRWs is predicted to decrease (-2.9%) which returns close to the levels predicted two years ago (-2.4%) after last year s slight improvement to a -1.4% decrease. o Region: Europe is the weakest area, with a drop of 4.0% predicted (last year a 2.2% drop was forecast). o Asia Pacific budgets show the biggest change on last year a 2.3% decrease this year compared to a 1.5% increase for 2012 budgets. o North America again predicts a decrease (-2.4%), but this is an improvement on the -3.1% predicted last year. o South America predicts a -2.6% decrease following last year s -0.1% decrease. o Academic institutes in Europe and North America are harder hit than non-academic sectors. Qualitative Predictions: Just 7% of institutes feel that the number of Major Reference Works purchased in 2013 will increase. The majority of institutes (70%) believe the number of purchases will remain static, and 18% anticipate a decline. Explanations as to why these changes may have occurred are listed in the next section. Figure 20 Figure 21 P a g e 31