Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers, and Societies April 7, 2010 Authors: Roger C. Schonfeld (Manager of Research) & Ross Housewright (Analyst)

Copyright 2010 ITHAKA. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of the license, please see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us Ithaka S+R (www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r) is the strategy and research arm of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to helping the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways. The Ithaka S+R team supports innovation in higher education by working with initiatives and organizations to develop sustainable business models and by conducting research and analysis on the impact of digital media on the academic community as a whole. Insights from these efforts are shared broadly, with more than a dozen reports freely available online. JSTOR, an accessible archive of more than 1,200 scholarly journals and other content, and Portico, a service that preserves scholarly content published in electronic form for future generations, are also part of ITHAKA.

I T H A K A S + R F A C U L T Y S U R V E Y 2 0 0 9 : K E Y S T R A T E G I C I N S I G H T S F O R L I B R A R I E S , P U B L I S H E R S , A N D S O C I E T I E S 1 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................2 CHAPTER 1: DISCOVERY AND THE EVOLVING ROLE OF THE LIBRARY ...4 INFORMATION DISCOVERY AND USE .........................................................4 THE CHANGING ROLES OF THE LIBRARY ..................................................8 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................13 CHAPTER 2: THE FORMAT TRANSITION FOR SCHOLARLY WORKS ......... 15 CURRENT ISSUES OF SCHOLARLY JOURNALS ........................................15 BACKFILES OF SCHOLARLY JOURNALS ...................................................18 PRESERVATION OF ELECTRONIC JOURNALS ..........................................21 FORMAT & PRESERVATION OF OTHER SCHOLARLY MATERIALS ..... 22 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................24 CHAPTER 3: SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONS ..............................................25 FACULTY OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................25 DEPOSIT OF MATERIALS IN REPOSITORIES .............................................27 USE OF MATERIALS IN REPOSITORIES ......................................................28 THE SCHOLARLY SOCIETY ..........................................................................30 TENURE & PROMOTION ................................................................................32 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................32 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................34 WORKS CITED ........................................................................................................35

I T H A K A S + R F A C U L T Y S U R V E Y 2 0 0 9 : K E Y S T R A T E G I C I N S I G H T S F O R L I B R A R I E S , P U B L I S H E R S , A N D S O C I E T I E S 2 I N T R O D U C T I O N Ithaka S+R Faculty Surveys provide a regular examination of key strategic issues facing academic information services providers. Conducted every three years since 2000, these surveys examine a broad sweep of issues affecting academic libraries, publishers, and scholarly societies, among others, to help them serve the changing needs of their faculty constituents. In the Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey 2009, we examined faculty attitudes and reported practices in three broad areas, finding that: Basic scholarly information use practices have shifted rapidly in recent years, and as a result the academic library is increasingly being disintermediated from the discovery process, risking irrelevance in one of its core functional areas Faculty members��� growing comfort relying exclusively on digital versions of scholarly materials opens new opportunities for libraries, new business models for publishers, and new challenges for preservation and Despite several years of sustained efforts by publishers, scholarly societies, libraries, faculty members, and others to reform various aspects of the scholarly communications system, a fundamentally conservative set of faculty attitudes continues to impede systematic change. In planning for the future, attention to the needs, attitudes, and behaviors of faculty is of paramount importance, but these can only be one input into strategic planning processes. As our information environment continues to change, the institutions that serve scholars are challenged not only to keep up with changing attitudes and practices but also to help lead scholars, in order to best support and facilitate scholarship as well as to ensure their own continuing relevance. Methodology Since 2000, our Faculty Surveys have examined how new technologies are impacting faculty attitudes and behaviors. Every three years, we have conducted large-scale studies of faculty members to learn more about their attitudes toward the transition to an increasingly electronic environment. These surveys have been limited to colleges and universities in the United States that grant bachelor���s degrees or higher. They have been designed to allow for stratifications in each of the major arts and sciences disciplines, as well as in a number of professional fields. We conducted these surveys in the fall of 2000, 2003, 2006, and most recently 2009, updating the questionnaire to match the rapidly-changing environment but allowing for powerful longitudinal tracking of change in faculty attitudes and practices.1 Unless specified otherwise, all findings presented in this report are based on 2009 data. 1 Findings from the 2006 Faculty Survey can be found in Ross Housewright and Roger Schonfeld, ���Ithaka's 2006 Studies of Key Stakeholders in the Digital Transformation in Higher Education,��� August 18, 2008, http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s- r/research/faculty-and-librarian-surveys. See also Kevin Guthrie and Ross Housewright, ���Attitudes and Behaviors in the Field of

I T H A K A S + R F A C U L T Y S U R V E Y 2 0 0 9 : K E Y S T R A T E G I C I N S I G H T S F O R L I B R A R I E S , P U B L I S H E R S , A N D S O C I E T I E S 3 Following an initial introductory letter, survey questionnaire booklets were mailed to 35,184 faculty members in September 2009. A total of 3,025 complete responses were received and tabulated, for a response rate of approximately 8.6%. Demographic characteristics, including discipline, are self-reported. Table 1 and Table 2 contain information on the breakdown of responses across demographic categories. In 2006, we deposited the dataset with ICPSR for long-term digital preservation and access, and we intend to do so again with the 2009 dataset.2 Table 1: Respondents by institution size Institution Size Respondents Share Very Large 893 29.5% Large 482 15.9% Medium 1038 34.3% Small 361 11.9% Very Small 251 8.3% Table 2: Respondents by disciplinary grouping Disciplinary Grouping Respondents Share Area Studies 191 6.3% Humanities 652 21.6% Social Sciences 1154 38.1% Sciences 791 26.1% Other 237 7.8% Ithaka S+R collected thousands of survey responses with hundreds of data points each in 2009 alone, and due to the richness and quantity of the data this summary report can only scratch the surface of the analysis. For example, we have the ability to stratify by most individual disciplines in the arts and sciences and many professional fields, by characteristics such as time in field and faculty rank, by profile as a researcher or a teacher, and by institutional type, along with more sophisticated analyses. If there are survey findings that you believe would benefit from further detail, or where an organizationally customized lens would be helpful, please let us know so that we can respond to your interests.3 Economics: Anomaly or Leading Indicator?��� Journal of Library Administration 48, no. 2 (August 2008), pages 173 ��� 193, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930820802231369 and Roger C. Schonfeld and Kevin M. Guthrie, ���The Changing Information Services Needs of Faculty,��� EDUCAUSE Review, 42, no. 4 (July/August 2007): 8���9, http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume42/TheChangingInformationServices/161 752. 2 The dataset for the Faculty Survey 2006 is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR22700. 3 With questions, comments, or requests, please contact us at research@ithaka.org.