한국비블리아학회지 (Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science)

한국비블리아학회 (Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Unsub를 활용한 전자저널 구독방식 개선 연구

A Study on the Improvement of Electronic Journal Subscription Method using Unsub

  • 김이기 (충북대학교 도서관 ) ;
  • 김신영 (대구대학교 문헌정보학과 )
  • 투고 : 2024.08.19
  • 심사 : 2024.09.06
  • 발행 : 2024.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 대학도서관의 전자저널 구독종수, 구독료, 이용 현황, 비용-효과 등을 분석하여 한계와 문제점을 도출하였다. 이를 바탕으로 사례도서관을 선정하여 시뮬레이션 도구인 Unsub를 활용하여 패키지 구독과 개별 구독의 효율성을 비교하고 개선 방안을 제시하였다. C대학도서관의 경우, SAGE와 Emerald는 기존과 같이 패키지 구독이 비용 효과적인 것으로 나타났고, ScienceDirect와 OUP는 개별 구독을 고려할 수 있는 것으로 나타났다. 특히 OUP의 경우는 개별 구독 시에 연 £6,063을 절감할 수 있고, 접근·이용 가능한 논문 비율이 85.8%에 달했다. 그리고 ScienceDirect는 개별 구독 및 종량제를 병행하는 모델이 예산 절감과 이용 편이성을 감안하면 가장 효과적인 것으로 나타났다. 본 사례 연구의 결과를 바탕으로 Unsub의 적용 한계와 함께 한국 실정에 맞는 'K-Unsub' 버전 개발을 위한 정책적 과제를 제언하였다.

This study analyzed the number of electronic journal subscriptions, subscription fees, usage, cost-effectiveness, etc. of university libraries to identify limitations and problems. Based on this, a case library was selected and the simulation tools Unsub was used to compare the efficiency of package subscriptions and individual subscriptions and suggest improvement measures. In the case of C University Library, SAGE and Emerald were found to be cost-effective as package subscriptions, while ScienceDirect and OUP were found to be worth considering for individual subscriptions. In particular, OUP was found to save £6,063 per year with individual subscriptions, and the ratio of accessible and usable articles reached 85.8%. In addition, ScienceDirect was found to be the most effective model for combining individual subscriptions and pay-per-view systems, considering budget savings and ease of use. Based on the results of this case study, the limitations of Unsub's application and policy tasks for developing a 'K-Unsub' version suitable for the Korean situation were suggested.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Choi, Duck-Soo (2022). Selection of electronic journals based on subscription value analysis. 63th National University Libraries Information Science Academic Seminar, 11-44.
  2. Kim, Jung-Hwan & Lee, Eung Bong (2013). A study for the efficiency analysis on big deals of electronic journal. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 47(4), 187-210. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2013.47.4.187
  3. Kim, Sang-Jun & Kim, Jeong Hwan (2011). Seeking alternative models and research trends for big deals in the electronic journal consortium. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 42(1), 85-91. https://doi.org/10.1633/JIM.2011.42.1.085.
  4. Kim, Yi-Gi (2018). The need for a Korean subscription model for overseas e-journal. 38th Administrator Seminar of the Korean Council of Private University Libraries, 17-41.
  5. Ministry of Education (n.d.). Lookup Statistics, Rinfo. Available: http://www.rinfo.kr/stat/search/basic/
  6. Park, Eun-Kyung (2005). A Study on Acquisition Policy of Electronic Journals in University Libraries. Master's thesis, Ewha Womans University.
  7. Unsub Korea Branch (2022). KERIS University License Unsub New Introduction Proposal.
  8. Yoon, Hee-Yoon (2014). Collection Management(Complete rev. 3rd ed.). Seoul: Korean Library Association.
  9. 橋本 郷史 (2015). Nature Publishing GroupにおけるPay Per ViewサービスAODの利用評価: 外国雑誌価格高騰への対策. 医学図書館, 62(2), 131-136. Available: https://mylibrary.toho-u.ac.jp/webopac/TD49255146
  10. 尾城孝 (2011). 国立大学図書館協会の電子ジャーナル․コンソーシアム活動-過去․現在․ 未来. 薬学図書館, 56(2), 158-165. Available: https://ndlsearch.ndl.go.jp/books/R000000004-I11058306 1058306
  11. Carlson, A. & Pope, B. M. (2009). The "Big Deal": a survey of how libraries are responding and what the alternatives are. The Serials Librarian, 3, 380-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260903206861
  12. Curcic, D. (2023. June 21). Academic Publishers Statistics. WordsRated. Available: https://wordsrated.com/academic-publishers-statistics/
  13. Dekeyser, R. (2000). Scientific information: a partnership between the library and the academic community. Liber Quarterly, 10(3), 294-295. Available: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/80953
  14. Elsevier Korea (2022). 4 surprising facts about Elsevier & ScienceDirect.
  15. Griffiths, J. & King, D. W. (1993). Special Libraries: Increasing the Information Edge. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association.
  16. Hunt, R. K. (1990). Journal deceleration in a biomedical research library: a medicated mathematical approach. Bulletin of Medical Library Association, 78(1), 45-48. Available: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2295012/
  17. Milne, D. & Tiffany, B. (1991). A cost-per-use method for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of serials. Serials Review, 17(2), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-7913(91)90036-I
  18. Parang, E. & Whitt, J. (2021). When to hold them, when to fold them: reassessing "Big Deals" in 2020. The Serials Librarian, 80(1-4), 149-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2021.1877083
  19. RELX Group(n.d.). Key financial data. RELX Homepage. Available: https://www.relx.com/investors/
  20. Schares, E. (2022). Unsub Extender: a Python-based web application for visualizing Unsub data. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(3), 600-623. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00200
  21. SPARC (2020.9.2). Unsub gives Libraries powerfu; evidence to walk away from big deal. Available: https://sparcopen.org/news/2020/unsub-gives-libraries-powerful-evidence-to-walk-away-from-big-deals/
  22. Sykes, P. (2022). The N8+ Consortium: how Unsub helped UK university libraries to strengthen their bargaining position in negotiations with Elsevier. Available: https://unsub.org/n8-case-study.pdf
  23. Wolerton, R. E. (2008). Are consortium "Big Deals" cost effective? a comparison and analysis of e-journal access mechanisms. Workshop Report, 55(3), 469-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260802059858