Library Budget Predictions for 2017Across the other main budget lines, the materials budget is...

PCG, 7 Bulfinch, Suite 202, Boston MA 02114

Results from a Telephone Survey

Library Budget Predictions for 2017


Contents

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 What was done ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Results ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2

Who was surveyed ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Sample Frame .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Overall Library Expenditure ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Overall Library Budget Broken Down ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Overall Library Budget Change for 2017 .................................................................................................................................... 8

Materials Expenditure ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Materials Budget Change for 2017 ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Materials expenditure on electronic resources .......................................................................................................................... 12

SERIALS EXPENDITURE ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Serials Budget Change for 2017 ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Reasons for Decrease in Serials Budget ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Reasons for Increase in Serials Budget ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Plans for Serial Additions and Cancellations .................................................................................................................................... 15 Electronic Journals and Breakdown of Serial Subscription into Format Type ....................................................................................... 18 Expenditure on Electronic Serials ............................................................................................................................................. 19 E-Journal Budgets ........................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Abstracting and Indexing Services .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Awareness of institutional discovery services ................................................................................................................................... 21 REFERENCE MANAGEMENT TOOLS ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Books Expenditure .......................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Books Budget Change for 2017 ................................................................................................................................................. 23 Books print and electronic budget change for 2017 .................................................................................................................. 25 Percentage of Books Budget Spent on Electronic Books in 2016 ....................................................................................................... 28 Proportion of front list books..................................................................................................................................................... 29 Books Budget allocation by subject ................................................................................................................................................. 30

Major Reference Works .................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Major Reference Works – Predicted Change for 2017 ...................................................................................................................... 31 Reasons Why the Number of MRWs is Likely to Change in 2017 ....................................................................................................... 31 Major Reference Works Formats Being Purchased .......................................................................................................................... 33

1 PCG, 7 Bulfinch, Suite 202, Boston MA 02114

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Budget % Change by Type of Institute ................................................................................................................................ 2 Table 2: Average number of Members and Students by type of Institute ......................................................................................... 5 Table 3: Breakdown of sample by country and type of institute ........................................................................................................ 6 Table 4: Library Budget change for 2017 - Overall Library Budget ................................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Materials Budget change for 2017 .................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 6 Expenditure on Electronic Information Sources ................................................................................................................. 12 Table 7: Serials Budget Change for 2017 ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 8: Serials Additions in 2017 .................................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 9: Breakdown of serials subscriptions into format type in 2016 ............................................................................................ 18 Table 10: Percentage of Serials Expenditure on Electronic Serials (Current year) ......................................................................... 19 Table 11: Electronic resource spending in 2017 ............................................................................................................................. 20 Table 12: Abstracting & Indexing Budget Predictions for 2017 ....................................................................................................... 20 Table 13: Awareness of discovery services: by institute type ......................................................................................................... 21 Table 14: Awareness of discovery services: by region ................................................................................................................... 21 Table 15: Purchase intention of discovery services: by institute type ............................................................................................. 22 Table 16: Purchase intention of discovery services: by region ....................................................................................................... 22 Table 17: Provision of reference management tools: by institute type ............................................................................................ 22 Table 18: Provision of reference management tools: by region ...................................................................................................... 22 Table 19: Books Budget Change for 2017 ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 20: Print Books Budget Change for 2017.............................................................................................................................. 26 Table 21: Electronic Books Budget Change for 2017 ..................................................................................................................... 27 Table 22: Library Book Budget - % spent on electronic books ....................................................................................................... 28 Table 23: Proportion of front list books ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 24: Do you allocate books budget by subject? (by institute type) ......................................................................................... 30 Table 25: Do you allocate books budget by subject? (by region) ................................................................................................... 30 Table 26: Does subject allocation change year on year? (by institute type) ................................................................................... 30 Table 27: Does subject allocation change year on year? (by region) ............................................................................................. 30 Table 28: MRW Budget change for 2017 ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Table 29: Purchasing patterns for MRWs by region and organisation (up to current year) ............................................................ 33


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHAT WAS DONE

• A global telephone survey was carried out at 665 institutional libraries. Institutes in North America, South America, Europe, Asia Pacific and Middle East and Africa were contacted.

• Senior librarians with control over and knowledge of library budgets for 2017 were contacted. • Academic institutions were split into categories reflecting the size and research focus level of their institute. • The data in this study has been weighted to reflect the global contribution of each country to library spend. All counts in the

report are based on the weighted number of responses, rather than the actual number. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The April 2016 World Economic Outlook report from the IMF subtitled “Too slow for too long”1 gives a baseline projection for global growth of 3.2%, the OECD forecast a similar increase. The IMF felt that recovery would strengthen in 2017, largely driven by emerging and developing economies. However, following the UK referendum result on June 23rd, a subsequent IMF report2 now believes the global outlook has worsened due to uncertainty. Whilst the majority of interviews for this study were conducted before the referendum, it is possible that uncertainty of the result may have tempered some predictions, especially in Europe. Librarians believe that their overall library budget will increase of 0.8%. However, there are some marked differences geographically. Regions consisting of mainly mature markets predict decreases, with North American budgets expected to drop by an average of -1.4% and Europe by -0.2%. Asia Pacific, with its mixture of mature (Japan, South Korea) and emerging (China, India) markets forecasts a 2% increase for 2017. In line with the predictions of the IMF, the regions of South America and Middle East and Africa (containing many emerging/developing nations) expect strong budgetary increases (7.6% and 11.4%) respectively. Across the other main budget lines, the materials budget is anticipated to increase by 1.2%, serials by 0.8% whilst books is set to decrease by -0.1%. Spending patterns regionally broadly reflect the overall budget. Notably, North America predicts a -3.9% decrease on its books budget alongside a -1% decrease on serials. For the first time, we see the serials forecast change is lower than the materials forecast. It is possible this is down to blurring between the budget lines and could also be due to additional items outside of serials being purchased/paid for with the materials budget (costs of repository maintenance, purchase of institutional discovery services and payment of Open Access publication charges). The key findings of the study are:

Table 1: Budget % Change by Type of Institute

1 IMF World Economic Outlook Report April 2016 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/ 2 IMF World Economic Outlook Report July 2016 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/update/02/


NB: Error margin overall is ±3.3%. Arrows green or red indicate change greater than 0.5%

• Overall library budgets are set to increase by 0.8% (last year a 1.4% increase was forecast).

• Both North America and Europe predict decreases for their overall budget with North America’s being the more severe at -1.4%. Europe’s decrease is marginal at -0.2%.

• Within North America, the only segment to expect an increase in budget is Corporate (0.7%). Government budgets are predicted to be hardest hit (-3.8%), with Medical expecting a downturn of -2.3%. The Academic sector expects a decrease of 1.1%.

• Medical and Government are also the segments with the largest predicted downturn in Europe, albeit more modest at -1.5%. The Academic sector in Europe expects to see a very small increase of 0.1%

• Asia Pacific forecasts a 2.0% rise, a smaller increment than last year’s 2.8% increase. Strong performers here are medical institutes. They predict a 5.2% rise on average. Corporate also performs well with an estimated 3.4% increase. The academic sector expects a 1.5% increase. As with last year, Government is the only sector to predict a decrease (-1.5%).

• South America expects a strong increase this year at 7.6%, (last year was 2.1%). It is important to note that the base size for South America is low and therefore figures for South America should to be treated with caution throughout the report.

• As with last year’s report Middle East and Africa predict the largest region increase at 11.4%. Again, the base size here is low and figures should be treated with caution.

• The Emerging countries segment forecast a 5.3% increase, an increase on the 3.9% predicted for 2016. • Considering qualitative predictions, 27% of institutes expect their budget to increase (down 6% on last year), 52% to

remain static while 16% will decrease. The remainder were unable to say. • Materials budgets (all information content provision) are predicted to increase by 1.2% (last year also saw a forecast of a

1.2% increase). • Regionally, North America is the only area to predict a decrease in materials budget (-0.9%). European budgets are

expected to be static. Asia Pacific forecasts a 2.2% increase, broadly static with last year (2.3%). South America and Middle East and Africa both predict slightly higher rises than for the overall budget at 8% and 12.2% respectively.

• 27% of institutes predict an increase, 51% remain static, 15% predict a decrease, the remainder were unable to say. • Serials budgets are forecast to increase by 0.8% (last year a 1.4% increase was predicted)

• North America predicts a -1% decrease for serials following marginal increases of 0.2% for the previous two years, with the Government sector faring worst (-5.3% decrease). As with the materials budget, Europe predicts no change in funding levels. Asia Pacific anticipates a 1.9% increase, buoyed by strong predictions for Medical (5.6%) and Corporate (3.2%). The Academic segment is set to rise at a lower rate than the regional average at 1.2%. The remaining sector, Government, predicts a decrease of 1.5%. Middle East and Africa performs strongly, with an anticipated 7.6% budget rise. This is a further improvement on last year’s 6.6% increase. South America is forecast to increase by 6.5%

• 29% of institutions expect an increase in serials budgets. 53% believe it will remain static whilst 14% predict a decrease in spend.

• A reduction in available funds was the main reason given by those who expect their serials budget to decrease. • Book expenditure is forecast to decrease by 0.1% (an increase of 1.3% was predicted last year).

• As with last year, Europe predicts a decrease of -0.4% for their books budgets. This is largely driven by a decrease of 2% in the Medical sector. The Academic sector forecasts a marginal decrease of -0.1%

• North America shows a strong decline of -3.9%. Decreases are expected for all segments: the most notable being Academic Top (-4.9% decrease).

• Asia Pacific anticipates a 1.9% increase, just slightly lower than last year’s 2.0% increase. Medical is the only segment to predict a decrease (-0.5%) whilst Academic Top has the strongest forecast of 4% growth.

• South America anticipates a 6.8% increase, mainly due to strong increases in Medical and Government. The Academic sector here expects to see a decline of -2.4%. Conversely, Middle East and Africa predicts a 10.5% increase which is mainly attributable to the Academic sector (14.5% increase).

• The majority (55%) of institutes believe their budgets will remain static. 23% predict that budget expenditure for 2017 will increase while 19% predict a decrease.

• On average, 27% of the book budget is spent on e-books. E-book expenditure is predicted to increase by 4.9%: a stark contrast to print book expenditure which is expected to decrease by 2.1%.

• The Major Reference Works (MRWs) budget for 2017 is set to decrease by 1.7% (last year a 2.1% decrease was forecast). 72% expect the budget to remain static. Just 8% expect it to increase.


• E-Journal services 98% of institutes take an e-journal service. E-only journals represent 71% of journal subscriptions. Institutes still take a reasonable portion of their subscriptions in print only form (19%), while the remainder (10%) is part of a combined print and electronic package.

• A&I Services are provided by 87% of institutes. Budgets here are expected to rise by 0.4%, however the majority of institutions believe their budget will remain static. Most institutes (82%) take two or more services, with 52% taking 4 or more.

Europe 2017 (change) Overall -0.2% Materials 0.0% Serials 0.0% Books -0.4%

North America 2017 (change) Overall -1.4% Materials -0.9% Serials -1.0% Books -3.9%

Asia Pacific 2017 (change) Overall 2.0% Materials 2.2% Serials 1.9% Books 1.9% Middle East and Africa

2017 (change) Overall 11.4% Materials 12.2% Serials 7.6% Books 10.5%

South America 2017 (change) Overall 7.6% Materials 8.0% Serials 6.5% Books 6.8%


WHO WAS SURVEYED

• Altogether 665 institutes were surveyed across a range of countries and institute types reflecting the market generally. Weights have been applied to the data to make the country breakdown representative of the global position. Institutes in Angola, Ghana, (MEA region) Latvia and Lithuania (Europe region) were included in the study for the first time this year although the number of interviews are low for these countries.

• The error margin is 3.3%± 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 amount.

• Librarians were asked about their budgets and expenditures generally.

• Librarians who were surveyed last year were approached again this year to take part in the survey and were offered a summary of last year’s results as an incentive.

• Institutions were chosen from North America (USA, Canada), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela), Europe (21 countries), Asia Pacific (9 countries) and Middle East and Africa (Angola, Ghana, Israel, Kenya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey). Since 2009, we have tracked, ‘emerging countries’, which cuts across geography (see next section for countries included in this group).

• Librarians were asked to quantify the number of members for the library. The average results by region and institute type are in the table opposite.

Table 2: Average number of Members and Students by type of Institute

Region Level Members/Users

North America

Academic top 28,421 Academic middle 13,194 Academic lower 3,242 Medical/Health 9,955 Government 4,779 Corporate 8,789

Europe


Asia Pacific

Academic top 31,041 Academic middle 13,532 Academic lower 5,155 Medical/Health 3,759 Government 752 Corporate 4,726

South America


Middle East and Africa

Academic top 30,667 Academic middle 23,500 Academic lower 7,256 Medical/Health 15,801 Government 710 Corporate 752


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, Colombia, Mexico, Nigeria, Turkey, South Africa and Venezuela. These tallies show the weighted contribution to the study, as opposed to the actual number of interviews. Rounding on these weights means that the totals do not completely tally in this view.

Table 3: Breakdown of sample by country and type of institute

Region Country

Academic

Medical Gov't Corp. Total

% of overall sample top middle lower

Asia Pacific

Australia 4 2 2 0 0 2 10 2% China 15 16 15 12 10 10 78 12% Hong Kong 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0% India 4 4 4 5 2 3 22 3% Japan 10 13 13 13 7 11 67 10% Korea 4 4 4 5 4 3 24 4% Malaysia 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0% New Zealand 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0% Taiwan 2 2 2 3 1 2 12 2% Total 220 33%

Europe

Austria 1 2 1 2 0 0 6 1% Belgium 1 2 1 2 1 1 8 1% Czech Republic 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1% Denmark 1 2 1 2 1 1 8 1% Finland 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 1% France 4 5 4 3 3 4 23 3% Germany 8 6 6 6 4 5 35 5% Hungary 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0% Ireland 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 1% Italy 3 4 3 3 2 3 18 3% Latvia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Lithuania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Netherlands 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 1% Poland 1 2 1 2 1 1 8 1% Portugal 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 1% Romania 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 1% Russia 2 3 2 2 2 2 13 2% Spain 3 3 2 3 1 2 14 2% Sweden 1 2 1 1 1 1 7 1% Switzerland 1 0 2 1 1 1 6 1% United Kingdom 4 5 4 4 3 2 22 3% Total 191 29%

North America Canada 3 3 3 2 2 3 16 2% United States 36 36 36 35 21 26 190 29% Total 204 31%

South America

Argentina 1 2 0 0 1 1 5 1% Brazil 3 2 2 3 1 2 13 2% Chile 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0% Colombia 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0% Mexico 1 1 0 1 2 1 6 1% Peru 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0% Uruguay 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0% Venezuela 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0% Total 32 5%


Angola 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Ghana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Israel 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1% Kenya 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Nigeria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Saudi Arabia 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0% South Africa 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 1% Turkey 1 1 0 2 1 1 6 1% Total 18 3%

Grand Total 127 126 128 118 74 94 665 100% Overall % 19% 19% 19% 18% 11% 14% 100%


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. • The latest data that we have from the ARL is from 2015. 114 members of the ARL reported a combined expenditure of $3.4

billion. This expenditure broke down into three areas: salaries (43%, static against 2014) materials (45% -increase 1%), and other operating expenditures (12%).

• The materials budget further broke down into ongoing resource expenditure (72%), one-time resource expenditure (21%), with the rest being allocated to collection support. It is worth noting that the ARL no longer classifies expenditure in terms of serials or books, they changed their approach in 2012. However, when looking at their definitions and the amount of expenditure this classification represents when compared to previous periods, it is pretty clear most of the expenditure associated with ongoing resources will be traditional journal subscriptions.

Figure 1


OVERALL LIBRARY BUDGET CHANGE FOR 2017

% Change: Overall, a 0.8% increase is predicted for 2017. This is the lowest level of predicted increase since 2013.

o Region: North America and Europe both forecast decreases for the overall budget (-1.4% and -0.2% respectively) Asia Pacific’s 2% increase is a slight downturn on last year’s predicted 2.8% rise. South America and MEA both show large increases at 7.6% and 11.4%.

o Type of institute: Government is the only market expecting to see a decrease in its budgets, with a -1.4% drop expected. Academic markets forecast a 0.7% increase, somewhat lower than last year’s 1.6% increase. As with last year, the Medical sector expects the largest increase (2.1%), but this too is lower than last year’s 2.8% predicted increase. Corporate perform more strongly than last year: a 1.4% increase this year (last year 0.4%)

Qualitative predictions: suggest that 52% of institutional budgets will remain static. Only 27% of institutes predict an increase: down from 33% last year. The proportion of institutes expecting a decrease is broadly stable (16% this year, compared to 15% for 2016. 5% of institutes were unable to make a prediction. North America has the largest proportion of budget decreases at 21%. Conversely, just 5% of MEA institutes believe their budget will decrease in 2017.

Figure 2 Figure 3

Figure 4


Table 4: Library Budget change for 2017 - Overall Library Budget

Qualitative Predictions Quantitative Predictions

% respondents predicting Region Organisation Increase Static Decrease % Budget Change

North America

Academic Top 28% 51% 21% -0.6 Academic Middle 29% 47% 21% -0.5 Academic Lower 28% 45% 25% -2.3 All Academic 28% 48% 22% -1.1 Medical/Health 19% 57% 24% -2.3 Government 4% 65% 30% -3.8 Corporate 21% 76% 3% 0.7 Overall 23% 55% 21% -1.4

Europe

Academic Top 11% 61% 22% -0.7 Academic Middle 17% 57% 20% 0.8 Academic Lower 19% 54% 11% 0.2 All Academic 16% 57% 18% 0.1 Medical/Health 26% 44% 18% -1.5 Government 5% 64% 14% -1.5 Corporate 31% 58% 12% 1.0 Overall 18% 56% 16% -0.2

Asia Pacific

Academic Top 38% 43% 19% 1.6 Academic Middle 29% 62% 10% 2.0 Academic Lower 29% 50% 19% 0.8 All Academic 0% 0% 0% 1.5 Medical/Health 53% 32% 11% 5.2 Government 25% 54% 21% -1.5 Corporate 32% 55% 3% 3.4 Overall 35% 49% 14% 2.0

South America

Academic Top 29% 71% 0% 4.7 Academic Middle 33% 50% 0% -0.5 Academic Lower 29% 57% 14% 6.2 All Academic 30% 60% 5% 4.1 Medical/Health 50% 50% 0% 25.5 Government 25% 0% 25% 11.7 Corporate 25% 50% 25% -5.0 Overall 32% 50% 9% 7.6


Academic Top 33% 67% 0% 6.7 Academic Middle 67% 33% 0% 11.9 Academic Lower 50% 25% 0% 14.5 All Academic 50% 40% 0% 11.2 Medical/Health 50% 0% 25% 11.3 Government 50% 0% 0% 26.7 Corporate 33% 33% 0% 2.9 Overall 47% 26% 5% 11.4

Emerging Countries


Overall



MATERIALS EXPENDITURE

MATERIALS BUDGET CHANGE FOR 2017

The materials 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 2017 by 1.2% (last year was also 1.2 % increase). o Region: North America predict that materials budgets will decrease by -0.9% in 2017. This is in contrast to last

year’s 0.7% increase. Europe is consistent with last year, with budgets expected to remain static. Asia Pacific is also broadly steady against last year (2.2% for 2017 vs 2.3% for 2016). South America and MEA each have notable increases forecast for 2017 at 8% and 12.2% respectively.

o Type of institute: Medical institutes report the strongest growth, expecting a 3.3% rise in the materials budget (up from 2.4% last year). Last year, Government was the sole segment to expect a decrease, but now forecast a modest 0.4% increase. Academic markets forecast a 0.8% rise, while Corporate predict a 0.7% increase.

• Qualitative predictions: suggest that 27% of institutes will see an increase in their budget (5 points down on last year) with 51% believing their budget will remain static. The number of institutes forecasting a drop in budget for 2017 is 15%. o Region: Europe has the lowest proportion of institutes predicting an increase (20%) however this is static against

last year. Middle East and Africa has the highest proportion of increases – 61% expect to expand their materials spending in 2017.

o Type of institute: Government institutes predict the smallest proportion of increases at 15%. Medical performs most strongly with 36% of institutes expecting an increase in spending. Academic Middle has the highest proportion of decreases at 20%.

• 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 to cover price increases and new subscriptions.

Figure 5 Figure 6

Figure 7


Table 5: Materials Budget change for 2017

Qualitative Predictions Quantitative Predictions

% respondents predicting Region Organisation Increase Static Decrease % Budget Change

North America

Academic Top 31% 44% 21% -0.8 Academic Middle 32% 37% 29% -0.4 Academic Lower 30% 38% 25% -2.0 All Academic 31% 39% 25% -1.1 Medical/Health 16% 65% 11% -0.3 Government 5% 59% 23% -1.3 Corporate 13% 57% 3% -0.6 Overall 23% 49% 19% -0.9

Europe

Academic Top 16% 57% 22% -0.4 Academic Middle 12% 68% 18% 0.1 Academic Lower 26% 55% 8% 0.4 All Academic 18% 60% 16% 0.0 Medical/Health 33% 42% 18% -0.3 Government 0% 64% 14% -0.9 Corporate 27% 54% 8% 1.0 Overall 20% 56% 15% 0.0

Asia Pacific


South America

Academic Top 14% 86% 0% 4.3 Academic Middle 33% 50% 17% -3.8 Academic Lower 25% 50% 13% 6.7 All Academic 24% 62% 10% 3.2 Medical/Health 33% 50% 0% 31.1 Government 25% 0% 25% 12.1 Corporate 0% 100% 0% 0.0 Overall 23% 57% 9% 8.0



Emerging Countries


Overall



MATERIALS EXPENDITURE ON ELECTRONIC RESOURCES

Institutions were asked what proportion of the current (2016) materials budget was spent on electronic resources. Overall, 61% of the budget is used for electronic information: an increase of 2% compared to last year. Europe increases its expenditure proportion from 56% to 61%. Asia Pacific also shows an increase to 57% (last year 54%). North America remains the biggest proportional spender on electronic resources at 70%.

Table 6 Expenditure on Electronic Information Sources


SERIALS EXPENDITURE

SERIALS BUDGET CHANGE FOR 2017 • % Change: The serials budget in 2017 is set to increase by 0.8%. This is lower than the 2016 prediction of 1.4% and is

also the lowest level of predicted increase since 2013. o Region: North America is the sole region to predict a decrease in budget at -1%. Last year, a small increase of 0.2% was

forecast. European expenditure will remain static, marginally down on last year’s 0.3% increase. Asia Pacific also sees a lower forecast than last year (1.9% vs 3.0%). South America and MEA both expect higher levels of increase than in 2016.

• Type of institute: All institute types expect an increase, with Medical the highest of these at 1.9%. Academic markets are set to rise by 0.5%

• Qualitative predictions: suggest that 29% of institutes forecast an increase in their serials budget for 2017: 7 points down on last year. 14% predict a decrease (static against 2016). Of the segments, Academic Top appears the healthiest, with 37% predicting a rise in serials spending. However, this is 11pts down on 2016 expectations.

Figure 8 Figure 9

Figure 10


Table 7: Serials Budget Change for 2017

Qualitative Predictions Quantitative Predictions % respondents predicting

Region Organisation Increase Static Decrease % Budget Change

North America


Europe

Academic Top 25% 47% 22% -0.1 Academic Middle 31% 47% 19% 0.2 Academic Lower 25% 64% 3% 0.7 All Academic 27% 53% 15% 0.3 Medical/Health 20% 57% 11% -0.9 Government 0% 86% 5% -0.5 Corporate 30% 52% 11% 0.3 Overall 23% 57% 13% 0.0

Asia Pacific


South America

Academic Top 14% 86% 0% 4.3 Academic Middle 33% 33% 33% -6.1 Academic Lower 0% 100% 0% 0.0 All Academic 16% 74% 11% 0.2 Medical/Health 33% 50% 0% 13.3 Government 50% 0% 25% 44.1 Corporate 0% 100% 0% 0.0 Overall 21% 64% 9% 6.5



Emerging Countries


Overall



REASONS FOR DECREASE IN SERIALS BUDGET Librarians were asked why they believed their budgets had changed.

• Altogether 94 librarians gave reasons as to why they thought it had decreased. Reduction in available funds stays as the top reason (48%). 27% ascribe the decrease to cancellation of unneeded materials. 17% mentioned that this was due to the shift from print to electronic serials.

REASONS FOR INCREASE IN SERIALS BUDGET

• 189 librarians were able to specify why their budget had increased. The most often stated reason was due to price

increase and new subscriptions (51%), followed by price inflation (48%)

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 quite 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 (42%) is higher than those adding (31%). This is reflected in the average number of

cancellations (33) outstripping the number of additions (22). • It should be borne in mind that while most institutes know whether they plan to add or cancel journals in 2017, many are

unable to give an actual figure. Therefore, particularly in the smaller segments, the average number of additions/cancellations can sometimes be based only on a few responses and should therefore be treated as a broad indicator only.

• One Asia Pacific government organisation plans to cancel 1000. Although some other institutes in this segment predicted a decrease in their serials holdings, only one other was able to estimate a quantity. Hence the figure given is not truly an “average” for the segment.

• One MEA Academic Middle institute plans to add 1000. Only a few other institutes in this segment were able to give a figure for cancellations, so the figure here is heavily skewed towards this response.

• Academic institutes plan to cancel 41 journals on average and add 23. Academic Top are expecting the greatest number of cancellations (72), and this is mainly driven by the European market.

• Those cancelling titles were asked to give the reason(s) behind the cancellation decisions. 66% stated that cancellations were made on journals that were no longer relevant or had low usage statistics. 38% indicated a lack of funds, whilst 31% mentioned the price of the journal (n.b. respondents were able to choose more than one reason for cancellation)


Table 8: Serials Additions in 2017

Qualitative Predictions Quantitative

Predictions % respondents predicting

Region Organisation Additions No Additions

Unable to say Ave no. of

Additions

North America


Europe


Asia Pacific


South America




Emerging Countries


Overall


Serials Cancellations in 2017


Cancels No Cancels

Unable to say

Ave no. of Cancels

67% 18% 15% 70.6 67% 15% 18% 68.0 51% 38% 10% 24.0 62% 24% 15% 52.4 59% 22% 19% 3.5 41% 41% 18% 10.0 31% 55% 14% 5.6 55% 30% 16% 28.1 50% 25% 25% 125.1 36% 25% 39% 10.9 22% 41% 38% 8.2 36% 30% 34% 57.7 29% 41% 29% 10.5 22% 26% 52% 4.8 19% 50% 31% 6.7 31% 34% 35% 37.4 52% 38% 10% 13.8 53% 37% 9% 14.7 26% 64% 10% 15.5 44% 46% 9% 14.6 45% 50% 5% 2.5 52% 44% 4% 502.0 32% 61% 6% 3.4 43% 49% 8% 35.7 13% 38% 50% 0.0 50% 50% 0% 14.0 14% 57% 29% 10.0 24% 48% 29% 13.6 0% 83% 17% 0.0 0% 50% 50% 0.0 0% 100% 0% 0.0

14% 60% 26% 10.0 0% 50% 50% 10.0

67% 33% 0% 74.1 20% 60% 20% 4.6 30% 50% 20% 45.4 33% 67% 0% 7.4 0% 0% 100% 0.0

33% 67% 0% 4.8 29% 53% 18% 4.8 52% 30% 18% 12.4 42% 52% 6% 23.0 7% 76% 17% 4.0

35% 52% 14% 17.5 16% 74% 10% 5.8 43% 29% 29% 0.0 28% 60% 12% 4.9 31% 54% 15% 13.6 53% 28% 19% 72.2 53% 27% 20% 28.6 31% 50% 19% 16.2 46% 35% 19% 40.5 44% 40% 16% 4.5 36% 37% 27% 127.3 27% 58% 15% 5.3 42% 39% 19% 33.0

18


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. • 98% of institutes surveyed currently use

e-journal service providers. • The proportion of journals taken in e-

only format is 71% while the subscription in combined format drops five points to 10%. Just under a fifth of subscriptions are taken in the print only format (19%).

• 99% of North American institutes have electronic journal services and just 11% have print only subscriptions. South America continues to have the heaviest reliance on print only journals at 32%, although this is a decrease of 9pts from last year.

• Academic Top and Middle institutes are more likely to take e-only subscriptions (76%) than other segments and have 100% take-up of electronic journal services.

Table 9: Breakdown of serials subscriptions into format type in 2016

% of journal by formats % of institutes using electronic journal services

% respondents predicting Region Organisation e-only Comb Print

North America

Academic Top 79% 13% 9% 100% Academic Middle 86% 5% 9% 100% Academic Lower 71% 15% 14% 100% All Academic 79% 11% 11% 100% Medical/Health 87% 7% 6% 97% Government 75% 8% 17% 95% Corporate 73% 17% 12% 100% Overall 79% 11% 11% 99%

Europe


Asia Pacific


South America




Emerging Countries


Overall


19


EXPENDITURE ON ELECTRONIC SERIALS

• Within the serials budget the proportion spent on electronic information source is 69%. North America continues to have the greatest proportional spend on electronic serials (81%). South America has the least (51%).

Table 10: Percentage of Serials Expenditure on Electronic Serials (Current year) Region Organisation 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

North America

Academic Top 42 48 69 65 80 81 81 78 84 85 Academic Middle 39 48 63 64 75 78 76 74 74 83 Academic Lower 21 32 55 62 65 68 79 70 75 75 All Academic 35 44 62 64 73 75 79 74 78 81 Medical/Health 34 31 40 57 64 55 73 73 76 84 Government 50 45 54 60 64 58 77 64 69 79 Corporate 40 27 48 69 75 73 80 77 79 74 Overall 37 40 55 63 71 69 78 73 77 81

Europe


Asia Pacific


South America

Academic Top n/a 38 41 41 42 43 44 53 46 45 Academic Middle n/a 41 41 39 42 41 41 33 27 64 Academic Lower n/a 21 23 23 26 28 47 45 41 49 All Academic n/a 34 34 34 37 37 44 44 38 53 Medical/Health n/a 50 27 27 30 31 34 41 28 58 Government n/a 15 15 15 21 35 46 34 38 23 Corporate n/a 15 15 15 21 33 60 42 55 59 Overall n/a 32 31 31 34 36 43 42 40 51


Academic Top n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 70 67 73 Academic Middle n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 80 73 59 Academic Lower n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 68 75 69 All Academic n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 73 71 67 Medical/Health n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 70 66 76 Government n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 21 60 48 Corporate n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 50 41 51 Overall n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 63 66 64

Emerging Countries

Academic Top n/a 27 34 45 45 49 58 51 50 69 Academic Middle n/a 31 39 35 44 40 53 47 46 60 Academic Lower n/a 34 31 37 35 30 48 42 38 48 All Academic n/a 31 35 39 41 40 53 47 44 59 Medical/Health n/a 38 31 31 30 37 58 58 67 66 Government n/a 17 38 29 31 22 42 36 46 39 Corporate n/a 29 30 41 43 31 51 53 63 60 Overall n/a 29 34 38 39 37 53 48 51 58

Overall

Academic Top 41 44 52 58 63 64 70 69 69 75 Academic Middle 43 43 49 50 59 55 63 62 63 73 Academic Lower 33 36 45 48 53 54 61 55 55 63 All Academic 39 41 48 52 58 58 65 62 62 70 Medical/Health 36 36 36 49 53 50 66 64 66 71

20


Government 43 41 48 52 52 45 57 50 61 62 Corporate 39 34 39 53 61 54 65 62 65 66 Overall 39 40 45 52 57 55 64 61 63 69

E-JOURNAL BUDGETS

• 47% of institutions expect their spending on electronic resources to increase in 2017. Overall, spending on electronic resources is set to rise by 3.7%.

• The highest percentage change in e-journal spending is expected in South America, which expects a 15.4% rise in 2017. Europe has the lowest rise at 2%.

Table 11: Electronic resource spending in 2017

Qualitative predictions Quantitative predictions

Region Increase Remain the

same Decrease % change North America 56% 35% 9% 2.5% Europe 32% 53% 7% 2.0% Asia Pacific 52% 40% 6% 3.8% South America 32% 61% 0% 15.4% Middle East and Africa 61% 22% 6% 13.8% Emerging Countries 50% 41% 2% 7.5% Total 47% 43% 7% 3.7%

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING SERVICES

• The majority of institutes (87%) provide electronic access to abstracting and indexing (A&I) services. • % Budget Change: 69% of institutions believe that their A&I budget will remain static in 2017, whilst 21% expect an

increase. An average increase in spending of 0.4% is expected. • Number of A&I Services Taken: Of the institutes that provide access to A&I databases, the majority (82%) take two or more

A&I services. 52% took four or more.

Table 12: Abstracting & Indexing Budget Predictions for 2017 Forecast % Mean % n

Increase 20.6 7.2 119 Same 69.0 0.0 397 Decrease 5.8 -21.4 33 Don't Know 4.6 - 26 Total 100.0 0.4 576

21


Figure 11

AWARENESS OF INSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY SERVICES

Increasingly, there are services available to libraries that help improve discovery and access to resources held by the library. Overall, 83% of respondents are aware of such services. This is an increase of 7pts on last year. The Academic sector continues to have the highest awareness: this has risen 6pts. Last year, Governmental institutes were least aware (61%). A rise of 14pts has seen this sector overtake awareness levels in the Corporate sector, which itself drops 2pts. Regionally, awareness continues to be highest in North America.

Table 13: Awareness of discovery services: by institute type

Organisation

Awareness

Yes No

Academic Top 92% 8% Academic Middle 89% 11% Academic Lower 88% 12% All Academic 90% 10% Medical/Health 78% 22% Government 75% 25% Corporate 69% 31% Overall 83% 17%

Those respondents aware of search and discovery services were then asked if they had already, or were considering, purchasing a search and discovery service. Overall, 37% of those already aware of discovery tools have already purchased one (last year was 28%). A further 9% are planning to purchase. Take-up is highest in the Academic sector (46%). Corporate are least likely to purchase (2%). Regionally, take-up is lowest in Middle East and Africa at 25%. Regionally, intention to purchase is highest in South America, where just under a quarter plan to buy (24%). North America predicts the fewest future sales (3%).

Table 14: Awareness of discovery services: by region

Region

Awareness

Yes No

North America 97% 3% Europe 77% 23% Asia Pacific 78% 22% South America 79% 21% Middle East and Africa 65% 35% Overall 83% 17%

22


Table 15: Purchase intention of discovery services: by institute type

Organisation

Intention

Planning to purchase

Have already purchased

Not purchased/ not planning to purchase

Academic Top 10% 54% 37% Academic Middle 12% 51% 38% Academic Lower 11% 35% 55% All Academic 11% 46% 43% Medical/Health 11% 23% 66% Government 4% 18% 79% Corporate 2% 28% 71% Overall 9% 37% 54%

REFERENCE MANAGEMENT TOOLS Librarians were asked if they currently provide reference management tools to their users. Overall, 63% do so, with provision being more common in academic institutes (74%). Regionally, Europe have greatest uptake at 69%. Asia Pacific is least likely to provide reference management tools (55%). Table 17: Provision of reference management

tools: by institute type

Organisation Do you provide Ref. Man. Tools? Yes No Don't know

Academic Top 83% 15% 2% Academic Middle 77% 21% 2% Academic Lower 62% 35% 2% All Academic 74% 24% 2% Medical/Health 53% 46% 2% Government 43% 51% 5% Corporate 45% 55% 0% Overall 63% 35% 2%

Table 16: Purchase intention of discovery services: by region

Region Intention

Planning to purchase

Have already

purchased

Have not purchased/ do not plan to purchase

North America 3% 57% 40% Europe 8% 28% 64% Asia Pacific 13% 26% 61% South America 24% 28% 48% Middle East & Africa 17% 25% 58% Overall 9% 37% 54%

Table 18: Provision of reference management tools: by region

Region Do you provide Ref. Man. Tools? Yes No Don't know

North America 66% 31% 2% Europe 69% 29% 2% Asia Pacific 55% 45% 1% South America 63% 31% 6% Middle East and Africa 67% 22% 11% Overall 63% 35% 2%

23


BOOKS EXPENDITURE BOOKS BUDGET CHANGE FOR 2017

• Books budgets, which includes electronic books, are predicted to decrease by -0.1% in 2017 (last year was 1.3%). o Regions: North America predicts the largest level of decrease at -3.9%. Europe is the only other region to anticipate a

decrease (-0.4%) which is static compared to 2016. Asia Pacific’s 1.9% increase is marginally down on last year (2.0%) o South America expects an increase of 6.8% - up by some margin from last year’s 1.8% increase. Middle East and

Africa outperforms the other regions with a 10.5% increase o Emerging countries predict a 5.0% increase, up compared to last year (3.9%) o Amongst the academic budgets, North America and Europe each expect a downturn (-4.9% and -0.1% respectively).

Middle East and Africa academic institutes will increase by 14.5%. • Qualitative forecasts indicate that the majority (55%) of institutes believe their budgets will remain static. 23% of institutes

predict that their budget expenditure for 2017 will increase, 19% are predicting a decrease.

Figure 12 Figure 13

Figure 14

24


Table 19: Books Budget Change for 2017

Qualitative Predictions Quantitative

Predictions % respondents predicting


North America


Europe

Academic Top 22% 64% 11% 0.4 Academic Middle 28% 44% 28% -0.9 Academic Lower 22% 62% 11% 0.2 All Academic 24% 57% 17% -0.1 Medical/Health 6% 62% 26% -2.0 Government 18% 64% 9% 1.0 Corporate 19% 65% 8% -0.3 Overall 19% 60% 16% -0.4

Asia Pacific

Academic Top 40% 33% 24% 4.0 Academic Middle 35% 47% 19% 2.5 Academic Lower 39% 37% 24% 1.7 All Academic 38% 39% 22% 2.7 Medical/Health 38% 38% 24% -0.5 Government 25% 71% 4% 2.4 Corporate 10% 87% 0% 1.0 Overall 33% 49% 17% 1.9

South America

Academic Top 13% 75% 0% 4.6 Academic Middle 50% 33% 17% -6.1 Academic Lower 0% 71% 29% -6.5 All Academic 19% 62% 14% -2.4 Medical/Health 50% 33% 0% 23.3 Government 50% 25% 0% 49.1 Corporate 0% 75% 0% 0.0 Overall 26% 54% 9% 6.8



Emerging Countries


Overall

Academic Top 28% 43% 26% 0.0 Academic Middle 27% 48% 25% -0.3 Academic Lower 23% 55% 20% -0.7 All Academic 26% 49% 24% -0.4 Medical/Health 23% 55% 19% -0.3 Government 20% 65% 8% 2.4

25


Corporate 14% 73% 9% -0.6 Overall 23% 55% 19% -0.1

BOOKS PRINT AND ELECTRONIC BUDGET CHANGE FOR 2017

• Librarians were asked to predict the changes for both the print and electronic book budget. It is clear that the print books budget is being reduced in favour of the electronic budget. These figures will not exactly tally with the overall books budget due to the varying proportions of print vs electronic in each institute. It should be noted that there were a high proportion of librarians who answered “don’t know” (12% for the print budget and 17% for the electronic budget). Further to this, some respondents could only give a directional indication, rather than a predicted budgetary amount. Therefore, base sizes for both the qualitative and quantitative predictions are lower than in other areas of the study. o Regions: North America expects the biggest decline in print book spending (-6.0%), Middle East and Africa predict the

largest increase in print books at 6.1%. Overall, the print book budget is expected to fall by 2.1% whilst the electronic budget is anticipated to rise by 4.9%.

• Qualitative forecasts indicate that 13% of institutions expect to increase their print books spend compared to 33% predicting a rise in electronic book budgets. Only 4% of institutes anticipate a decrease in their electronic budget whereas 28% forecast a decrease for print books.

Figure 15 Figure 16

Figure 17 Figure 18

26


Table 20: Print Books Budget Change for 2017



North America


Europe


Asia Pacific


South America

Academic Top 0% 57% 29% -1.7 Academic Middle 17% 50% 17% -13.0 Academic Lower 0% 71% 29% -4.1 All Academic 5% 60% 25% -6.0 Medical/Health 29% 29% 29% 0.0 Government 50% 0% 0% 65.0 Corporate 0% 75% 0% 0.0 Overall 14% 49% 20% 1.0



Emerging Countries

Academic Top 21% 42% 24% -0.1 Academic Middle 24% 39% 30% 1.2 Academic Lower 40% 27% 23% 3.1 All Academic 28% 36% 26% 1.4 Medical/Health 37% 40% 13% 3.8 Government 36% 41% 9% 9.9 Corporate 12% 72% 4% 0.9 Overall 28% 43% 18% 2.7

Overall

Academic Top 12% 38% 42% -3.6 Academic Middle 13% 41% 35% -2.3 Academic Lower 19% 46% 27% -1.4 All Academic 14% 42% 35% -2.4 Medical/Health 12% 46% 28% -4.1 Government 13% 57% 11% 2.3 Corporate 7% 67% 12% -1.7 Overall 13% 48% 28% -2.1

27


Table 21: Electronic Books Budget Change for 2017



North America


Europe


Asia Pacific


South America




Emerging Countries


Overall


28


PERCENTAGE OF BOOKS BUDGET SPENT ON ELECTRONIC BOOKS IN 2016

• Librarians were asked to estimate the proportion of their book budget spent on electronic books. This drops to 26.7% for 2016 compared to 29.7% last year. It should be noted that 106 respondents could not give an answer to this question, which possibly contributes to the decrease.

Table 22: Library Book Budget - % spent on electronic books Region Organisation 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall Academic Top 5.7 4.7 8.3 14.1 22.4 18.3 19.9 27.8 30.9 27.9 Academic Middle 5.9 5.6 8.5 9.0 14.8 17.7 16.8 22.1 25.7 26.7 Academic Lower 5.7 5.1 8.0 7.1 15.7 15.4 19.9 25.3 24.7 23.1 All Academic 5.8 3.2 8.3 10.0 17.6 17.1 18.9 25.0 27.0 25.9 Medical/Health 5.9 3.7 6.5 4.8 15.0 17.5 21.0 33.9 36.4 32.0 Government 9.2 5.9 2.4 9.4 10.9 7.7 11.8 24.2 28.7 24.5 Corporate 3.8 3.5 2.7 11.5 16.8 11.5 20.9 26.6 34.1 26.1 Overall 6.0 4.9 6.6 9.4 16.3 15.5 18.8 26.7 29.7 26.7

29


PROPORTION OF FRONT LIST BOOKS

Librarians were asked to give the proportion of books bought in 2016 that were front list and also to estimate the proportion of front list books for 2017. Very few were able to answer the latter, so this cannot be reported per segment, however, overall, the estimate of front list proportion for 2017 is 68%. This is just down on the 71% estimated for this year.

Table 23: Proportion of front list books Region Organisation 2016

North America

Academic Top 59% Academic Middle 72% Academic Lower 69% All Academic 68% Medical/Health 81% Government 71% Corporate 59% Overall 69%

Europe


Asia Pacific


South America

Academic Top 63% Academic Middle 66% Academic Lower 88% All Academic 71% Medical/Health 80% Government n/a Corporate 95% Overall 64%



Emerging Countries


Overall


30


BOOKS BUDGET ALLOCATION BY SUBJECT

A new set of questions were added to this year’s survey to investigate if the books budget was allocated to particular subject areas, and if so, whether this changed year on year.

Overall, 47% said that the books budget was allocated by subject area. It is more common for the allocation to be made by subject in the Academic sector. Corporate institutes (which may concentrate on one area only) are least likely to allocate by subject (24%). Regionally, Middle East and Africa is most likely to allocate by subject (78%).

Table 24: Do you allocate books budget by subject? (by institute type)

Yes No Don't know

Academic Top 65% 35% 0% Academic Middle 59% 41% 0% Academic Lower 57% 43% 0% Medical 30% 69% 1% Government 34% 66% 0% Corporate 24% 70% 6% Total 47% 52% 1%

Those who said they allocated the budget by subject area were asked if the proportion of allocation to each subject changed year on year. Overall, 37% said that yes, different subjects got priority each year, whilst 59% said the budget proportions per subject were broadly similar each year. Middle East and Africa displays the most change, with 79% saying it changes year on year.

Table 26: Does subject allocation change year on year? (by institute type)

Yes No Don't know Academic Top 33% 63% 5% Academic Middle 40% 56% 4% Academic Lower 34% 63% 3% Medical 57% 43% 0% Government 31% 62% 8% Corporate 22% 65% 13% Total 37% 59% 4%

Those saying the allocations changed year on year were asked which subject was set to receive most allocation this year. Allocating these responses into broad subject areas, Medicine and Health received the most mentions (Medical was the segment with the largest proportion of those changing allocation year on year). Social Sciences (including subjects such as Law and Business) received the second highest number of mentions.

Table 25: Do you allocate books budget by subject? (by region)

Yes No Don't know

North America 51% 49% 0% Europe 43% 56% 1% Asia Pacific 43% 56% 1% South America 63% 38% 0% Middle East and Africa 78% 22% 0% Total 47% 52% 1%

Table 27: Does subject allocation change year on year? (by region)

Yes No Don't know

North America 28% 68% 4% Europe 44% 52% 4% Asia Pacific 36% 61% 3% South America 25% 65% 10% Middle East and Africa 79% 21% 0% Total 37% 59% 4%

31


MAJOR REFERENCE WORKS

MAJOR REFERENCE WORKS – PREDICTED CHANGE FOR 2017 • Librarians were asked whether the number of Major Reference Works (MRWs) to be purchased in 2017 would be greater,

remain the same or be less than in 2016. • % Change: Overall, the budget for MRWs is predicted to decrease by 1.7%.

o Region: North America predicts the largest drop (-3.2%). Europe also expects a decrease, though more modest at -1.4%. Both these decreases are less severe than last year (-4.8% and -2.6% respectively).

o Middle East and Africa is the only region to predict an increase for MRW spending in 2017 (1.7%). o Asia Pacific and South America both predict small drops (-0.9% and -1.0% respectively). In both cases, this

represents a slight worsening compared to last year (-0.2% and -0.6% respectively). o Academic institutes are hit slightly harder across North America and Asia Pacific, while South American

academic institutes see substantially greater decreases (-3.2%) than the region as a whole (-1.0%). • Qualitative Predictions: 72% of institutes believe the budget will remain static. Just 8% expect an increase, while 13% predict

a decrease. The remainder were unable to give an estimate.

Figure 19 Figure 20

REASONS WHY THE NUMBER OF MRWS IS LIKELY TO CHANGE IN 2017 Librarians were asked why the amount of MRWs purchased had changed from the previous year. The top three reasons for increases and decreases are below: Increases:

User demand New publications/ updated editions are coming out Price increases

Decreases: Low usage of MRWs Budget cuts Information is available for free on the internet

32


Table 28: MRW Budget change for 2017



North America


Europe

Academic Top 8% 68% 11% -2.1 Academic Middle 8% 69% 8% 0.3 Academic Lower 6% 67% 17% -2.0 All Academic 7% 68% 12% -1.3 Medical/Health 0% 65% 24% -2.8 Government 5% 67% 5% -0.2 Corporate 15% 62% 12% -1.3 Overall 7% 66% 13% -1.4

Asia Pacific

Academic Top 10% 62% 26% -3.5 Academic Middle 16% 74% 5% 0.0 Academic Lower 10% 80% 7% -1.2 All Academic 12% 72% 13% -1.6 Medical/Health 8% 87% 5% -0.3 Government 8% 92% 0% 0.6 Corporate 0% 94% 3% 0.0 Overall 9% 80% 9% -0.9

South America

Academic Top 0% 86% 14% 0.0 Academic Middle 33% 50% 17% -7.5 Academic Lower 13% 63% 13% -2.5 All Academic 14% 67% 14% -3.2 Medical/Health 0% 100% 0% 0.0 Government 50% 0% 25% 16.3 Corporate 0% 100% 0% 0.0 Overall 14% 69% 11% -1.0



Emerging Countries

Academic Top 15% 64% 12% 0.6 Academic Middle 27% 61% 6% 0.7 Academic Lower 13% 60% 10% -2.5 All Academic 19% 61% 9% -0.3 Medical/Health 13% 77% 3% 0.6 Government 19% 57% 5% 3.0 Corporate 4% 88% 0% 0.2 Overall 16% 67% 6% 0.3

Overall

Academic Top 6% 68% 21% -3.2 Academic Middle 13% 71% 10% -1.2 Academic Lower 9% 70% 15% -1.6 All Academic 9% 69% 16% -2.0 Medical/Health 4% 75% 13% -2.3 Government 10% 76% 6% 0.5 Corporate 8% 75% 8% -1.2 Overall 8% 72% 13% -1.7

33


MAJOR REFERENCE WORKS FORMATS BEING PURCHASED • 65% of institutes that take MRWs choose to purchase the print version, this is 7pts higher than those taking online (58%). • South America has the lowest proportion of online usage at 36%. It also has the lowest uptake on combined MRWs (12%),

meaning that it predominantly relies on print MRWs. Overall, academic institutes have the highest uptake of online (68%). • Please note that due to a methodology change, proportions are lower than last year so are not directly comparable.

Previously, a question was asked about which budget line MRWs fell under. Some respondents answered that they did not have an MRW budget and were routed away from the questions on format type. This year, all respondents were asked. Therefore, there is an increase in the numbers of those not taking particular formats which has depressed the proportions.

• Institutes who had cancelled a subscription to an online MRW were asked why they had done so. Of the 111 who had cancelled, 31% cited low usage and 14% said it was because it was not value for money.

Table 29: Purchasing patterns for MRWs by region and organisation (up to current year)

% respondents purchasing different MRW formats

Region Institution MRW Print

MRW Combined

MRW Online

All MRW Formats

North America


Europe


Asia Pacific


South America



Academic Top 50% 33% 67% 33% Academic Middle 75% 33% 67% 33% Academic Lower 75% 50% 75% 50% All Academic 70% 36% 73% 36%

34


Medical/Health 50% 0% 67% 0% Government 100% 0% 50% 0% Corporate 100% 33% 33% 33% Overall 74% 29% 61% 29%

Emerging Countries


Overall


Date post:	16-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Library Budget Predictions for 2017Across the other main budget lines, the materials budget is...

Documents