NASIG 2021

A Proactive approach towards providing seamless access to E-resources
This presentation illustrates proactive approach carried out by Electronic Resources Management (ERM) team at Arizona State University (ASU) Library, which has resulted into reduction of tickets volume from users during this unprecedented time. It will discuss about systematic process of handling various e-resources projects carried out by the team, challenges encountered, and share tips, which would assist institutions in providing uninterrupted access of E-Resources to their library users.

SILLVR: Streaming Interlibrary Loan Video Resources is an innovative initiative allowing libraries to ILL streaming videos for the first time. By leveraging relationships with local consortia (Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries) and building partnerships with streaming video vendors, the Streaming Interlibrary Loan Video Resources (SILLVR) pilot launched in January 2020. This launch started just as the world saw the need for increased access to electronic resources as physical libraries and print materials were inaccessible for most. SILLVR demonstrates how vendors and libraries can work together to increase access to underfunded libraries and meet the needs of patrons. The SILLVR pilot continues in 2021 continuing to build on partnerships and build new ones. Attendees will learn about how SILLVR came to be, SILLVR workflows, and advice on how others can create their own SILLVR program.
---
Video and audio content are growing as a portion of scholarly output, and libraries are increasing the percentage of their budgets allocated to such resources. However, while there are some innately accessible aspects to these mediums, ensuring true accessibility by all who wish to access these resources doesn’t just happen. The existing accessibility requirements often don’t go far enough or have widespread uptake. This presentation will discuss the many kinds of accessibility that need to be addressed and their challenges; examples of today’s standards and guidelines and current efforts, such as the NISO working group, Assessing Video and Audio Metadata and Standards for Academic Research and Professional Information, to provide clarity and rigor; the ethical imperative as well as the business case for doing so (there are many other benefits, from increased discoverability to enhanced engagement); and some ideas about how the technology is pointing toward future accessibility milestones.

KBART is one of the most successful NISO recommendations today. Formally supported by over 80 organizations across all stakeholder groups, it enables a standardized transfer of data between content providers and knowledge bases. Recently KBART added an automated process to transfer institution-specific holdings data to knowledge bases.

Now, the KBART Standing Committee is beginning work on Phase III of the KBART Recommended Practice, which has not been updated since 2014.

While KBART was originally designed to deliver journal and book holdings information in support of OpenURL link resolvers, KBART files are now used in multiple systems and by various stakeholders throughout the e-resource supply chain. In addition, content providers have moved beyond journals and books to deliver multimedia and non-book/non-journal content from around the globe.

In this session, members of the KBART Standing Committee will provide an overview of our plans around KBART Phase III, which is now underway. We will review our progress to date, highlighting our efforts to resolve thorny issues around KBART files for which there are no easy answers such as:
=> Challenges of supporting additional content types beyond serials and monographs
=> How best to handle gap coverage for serials
=> How to indicate open access content 

During the session, we will engage the audience by requesting feedback on a number of issues using an EasyRetro board, with the goal of keeping KBART relevant and valuable into the future.

As libraries increasingly make explicit their commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion (EDI), it is critical to measure how well collections support these mandates, as well as identify areas for improvement. By approaching metadata as a data source that can be studied, rather than solely as descriptors about library materials, we can expand our capacity for self-reflection, and support our missions around EDI.
This session will begin with an overview of the MARC fields that may be the best choices to investigate when asking diversity-related questions. Attention will be paid to useful tips to consider when starting and structuring an exploratory analysis, before jumping into an example analysis. The bulk of the presentation will focus on useful technical tools for extraction and cleaning of data, based off of an analysis ran on metadata from the University of Toronto Libraries. This analysis examined over 2.8 million geographic subject headings (field 651 subfield a), as one surrogate measure for diversity. Tools used included the ILS API for data extraction, as well as the UNIX shell and python for data cleaning and analysis. Alternative tools will be presented for varying levels of technological comfort, and I will share my scripts for audience members to reuse in their local contexts as they see fit.
The session will finish with a discussion of possible implications of such studies, such as identifying whether gaps lay in metadata or in acquisitions policies, as well as best ways to communicate results.

NISO recently updated the Open Discovery Initiative Recommended Practice (https://www.niso.org/publications/rp-19-2020-odi), which outlines best practices for working with library discovery services. It defines ways for libraries to assess the level of content provider participation; streamlines the process by which libraries, content providers and discovery service providers work together; defines models for “fair” linking; and suggests usage statistics that should be collected for libraries and for content providers. The recommendations in this document, created by members of the Open Discovery Initiative Standing Committee, enable libraries, discovery service providers, and content providers to work together to the full extent of their abilities—providing the most effective and rich experience to end users.

In this presentation, you will learn about the Open Discovery Initiative, what changes were included in the 2020 revision of the ODI Recommended Practice, and delve more deeply into several areas: free-to-read content, fair linking, and the key elements included in the newly added library conformance statements.

You will also learn from a library and publisher perspective of concrete steps you can take to achieve conformity as well as ways to fine tune your processes for increased discoverability of your content.

The publisher perspective will demonstrate what content providers do to conform to the ODI recommendations:
-conduct internal projects to improve metadata and data delivery mechanisms;
-collaborate with discovery service, link resolver and authentication vendors to improve indexing, linking, authentication and reporting;
-work with libraries to guide and troubleshoot configuring library discovery service, link resolver, and authentication tools for subscribed content;
-participate in industry activities to create, update and promote best practices;
-examine and conduct steps to conform to ODI I and ODI II recommendations.

The library perspective will demonstrate how to complete a conformance statement, how to work with discovery and content providers on improving discovery and access, and we will touch on authentication tools for subscribed content.

Many Electronic Resource Librarians (ERL) review and negotiate contracts and must balance this work with other time-sensitive activities. Electronic resource license review and negotiation is a complex undertaking due to the concurrent demands of an expedient initial review and the negotiation process itself that can take several months to complete. In addition, developing adeptness in understanding legal concepts and contract language is a long-term commitment as license content continues to change. The main challenge in many libraries arises from the high volume of contracts that often bear little resemblance to one another. There are some popular approaches to contract review that involve iterations of checklists, but is there s more efficient way to review these documents? Can AI contract review software help expedite the review process for libraries? If so, how accurate is the review? Since 2019, The Florida Virtual Campus/Florida Academic Library Services Cooperative began a three-year pilot using AI software (LegalSifter) to review agreements. This presentation will cover to what extent has the software influenced the content of the contract to include favorable terms; how problematic terms are flagged in agreements; and how consistent are these executed agreements. We will also explore the efficacy of using the software to train those new to reviewing and negotiating electronic resource licenses. Limitations of using AI contract review software will also be discussed.