AN INTERLIBRARY LENDING NETWORK FOR TURKISH UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
Yažar Tonta*
Introduction
This study aims to propose an interlibrary lending (ILL) network model for sharing of serials collections among university libraries in Turkey. The proposed network involves the concentrated serials collection of the Higher Education Council Documentation Center (HECDOC), of the University of Hacettepe Medical Center Library and the Middle East Technical University (METU) Library, and of the Turkish serials collection of the National Library. Various requirements of the proposed network are also explained.
The state_of_the_art of Turkish university libraries and the existing ILL services are reported elsewhere (1,2). In Turkey, there are 29 universities. They are governed by a common law, namely the Higher Education Act. The majority of universities have decentralized libraries. The library collections of individual universities range in size from hundreds of thousands of volumes at the Universities of Istanbul, Hacettepe, Ataturk and METU, to a very limited number of volumes at newly established universities like Yuzuncu Yil, Inonu and Bilkent. Likewise the number of serial titles acquired by each university
library shows a great deal of variation, ranging between 100 and 2,000 titles. HECDOC was established, in 1984, to develop a national collection of serials which would support university library collections, thereby obviating the need for each university to develop its own large collection. Instead university libraries would be able to spend their limited resources on the most heavily used serials and on purchasing more books. It was also felt that the creation of HECDOC would reduce the dependence of Turkish university libraries on foreign libraries (3). So far HECDOC has built up a collection of some 12,000 serial titles.
ILL among Turkish university libraries is an activity which has been largely neglected. The number of ILL transactions is pretty low. Yet, resource sharing, including ILL, seems to be a significant way of easing the collection development problems arising from declining library budgets, rising literature costs and a shortage of hard currency.
Interlending Models
In a report for Unesco (4), Line and others presented four main interlending models as follows:
Model A: Concentration on a single library;
Model B: Concentration on a few libraries;
Model C: Planned decentralization;
Model D: Unplanned decentralization;
Also investigated were various models such as Model AC (i.e., single library supported by planned decentralization), Model AD (i.e., single library supported by unplanned decentralization) and Model BC (i.e., few libraries supported by planned decentralization). Of these, Model AC and Model AD attract further attention as even concentration on a single library for interlending purposes may conceivably not be self_sufficient and the resources of other libraries might be made use of. The following summary elaborates some related topics in this respect.
The main characteristic of concentration on a single library (Model A) is that a single collection dedicated solely to interlending such as the British Library Document Supply Center (BLDSC) is set up and all interlending demand is concentrated on this collection. "A dedicated lending collection", say Line and others, "would almost certainly have to be mainly built up specifically for the purpose, unless an existing large library were willing to surrender its present functions; but it could draw on some of the resources of other libraries in order to build up a collection, especially of older material" (5).
Concentration on a few libraries (Model B) needs close cooperation of participating libraries as each library concentrates on different subjects such as medicine and humanities. There are virtually no examples of this model at present, although some countries have systems that approach to it.
The provision of materials is allocated between libraries on a systematic basis in planned decentralization (Model C). It appears that, due to the decentralized development of librarieswithin a country, most of the countries, by and large, wish to exploit those existing resources of decentralized libraries by introducing a "planned decentralization" concept. The Federal Republic of Germany is a typical example of this model with its Sondersammelgebiete und Zentrale Fachbibliotheken (Special Subject and Central Subject Libraries) (6). The main advantages are: direct transmission of many requests; resources can serve both local and national needs; and low additional costs of provision.
Unplanned decentralization (Model D), described as being "not a system at all" (7), also occurs frequently. The advantage of this pragmatic approach is that it makes use of existing library materials, seeking to coordinate their use through the provision of union catalogs. It makes no attempts at specialization, nor at exhaustivity and has numerous disadvantages.
One of the most important issues in ILL is of course the degree of centralization/decentralization of provision of the materials. Line and others well summarize this issue, and specifications and limitations of abovementioned models:
"Total centralization of provision _the provision of all required material in one single collection is unattainable, if only because the literature of the past could not be gathered in such a collection. Total decentralization _all libraries playing a more or less equal part in interlending is equally impossible, because libraries are very unequal in the collections they have. We therefore consider various degrees of centralization and decentralization between these extremes, and the general bias of the system towards or against centralization. Four levels of concentration may be identified, although even these are unlikely to exist in their pure form, and, ... they constitute a continuum rather than clearly distinct entities, and in practice systems will approximate to composite models ..."(8).
The main advantages of concentration on a single library are that it offers a single channel to which most or many requests can be sent thus simplifying procedures and saving transmission costs; that a very broad range of materials can be easily provided; that direct costs of handling requests are low because of economies of scale and special procedures; that it is economical for libraries to use. But it has disadvantages, too. It is very expensive in that the costs of setting up and maintaining central collections are high and the unit costs are high unless demand is heavy. More importantly, any failure to finance it adequately could undermine the whole system of interlending (9).
For central provision of materials, serials are especially suitable. As explained later, they also account for a large amount of demand. Kefford and Line give the following reasons for this:
(i) Acquisition and recording processes for journals are usually simpler (and therefore cheaper) than for most other forms of material;
(ii) Most requests for journal articles can be supplied in the form of photocopies; this saves money on postage and keeps the original issues available for further requests;
(iii) Most 'serious' journals are in science and technology, where the need for supply is greatest; (iv) A higher proportion of demand for journals tends to fall on a relatively limited number of titles; (v) Current and past use is generally a good indicator of future use, so that the journals needed can be relatively easily identified (10).
In fact, these issues establish the main criteria for an interlending system and are the significant factors effecting the performance. This is because the three main requirements of a national interlending system are given as:
(i) Adequate satisfaction level (proportion of requests satisfied;
(ii) Adequate speed of supply;
(iii) Lowest cost for achieving adequate satisfaction and adequate speed (11).
The results of a recent study carried out at the then British Library Lending Division may well explain why serials are so important for interlending systems. It revealed that out of a total of 54,000 current titles (plus 96,000 that ceased publication) held by the Center, 12,626 accounted for 90 percent of all demand for serials, 7,480 for 80 percent and 1,939 for 50 percent (12). Kefford and Line evaluate the research results and conclude that: "in most developed countries a collection of 7,000_8,000 current titles (with adequate backruns) could supply 80% of demand and a collection of around 2,000 50%" (13) provided they are core collections. Although the general characteristics of core collections are unlikely to vary greatly between countries, they will consist predominantly of scientific, technical and medical journals, where demand is not only greatest but most urgent, where backruns do not need to be so long, and where the greatest and most immediate impact on service to users can be made (14).
Proposed Interlending Network for Turkish University Libraries£ Before going on further, perhaps it is time to pose the question of "why resource sharing by way of centralization?" rather than provision of library materials by each library individually. Papers published in the literature have shown that if a library has to request a specific item more than two or three times it might spend more money for interlending procedures such as communication, xeroxing, etc. than the actual price of the item itself. What difference then does it make to share resources if one has to pay more? Is it not the cost that matters?
Cost is obviously the dominant factor. The findings of abovementioned studies, on the other hand, mainly reflect the situation in developed countries such as USA and UK where average cost of an interlending transaction,draft if the BLDSC findings are taken as an indicator, varies between 4 and 6, and where the number of transactions is much higher. It is therefore understandable to put the question in that way.
But the other side of the coin is quite different. This is not the case in most countries such as Turkey where the information resources are not only provided mainly from abroad but also a major percentage of the budgets are paid as a hard currency which immensely increases the expenditures since the money paid as an equivalent of foreign currency is much dearer. Not to mention the prices of information resources. Roughly speaking, the annual subscription price of a journal is somewhere between $70 and $100, which is by and large equal to 150,000_210,000 TL. The following figures are not based on strict cost analysis results but it is believed that, with this money, a library in Turkey can borrow at least 20_30 issues of that journal. Furthermore, interlending will also bring down the expenditure of other libraries for serials. Invisible expenditures on serials such as overheads and personnel time for processing can be reduced as well.
I would like to introduce the proposed interlending network model for Turkish university libraries by likening it to Line and others' Model AC (i.e., single library supported by planned decentralization) and Model AD (i.e., single library supported by unplanned decentralization). There are some similarities in that there is a concentrated large collection of serials of the HECDOC and the resources of three concentrated libraries.
The proposed network is not such that it is to be created from the scratch. It is entirely based on existing resources available to Turkey. The network involves the foreign serials collection of the HECDOC with seven_year backruns, the collections of the two concentrated university libraries, namely the University of Hacettepe Medical Center Library on medicine and METU Library on science and technology, both having considerable amount of backruns in their specialization domains, together with the Turkish serials collection of the National Library.
It should also be stressed that the proposed network would not be considered as a "national interlending system" despite the fact that it proposes a "nationwide" interlending system for sharing of certain type of library materials (serials) among certain type of libraries (university libraries). It aims to upgrade and streamline the service by making use of resources more efficiently and effectively.
Discussion
Interlending systems consist of several elements such as collection of documents, means of locating documents, procedures for requesting them, communications and so on. One of the most important prerequisites for an interlending network to function properly is the level of library development that a country has reached. Bibliographical control is also crucial. The existence of national bibliographies and union catalogs of serials have a great impact upon the way in which interlending systems work. Standardization of library procedures (e.g., processing of serials in general, and, of interlending procedures in particular) and adequate and effective means of transmission and communications for any interlending system are important.
It has for long been observed that factors such as geographical distribution of population and of libraries and concentration of telecommunication facilities in certain areas are relevant to the design and operation of interlending systems. Some 70 percent of the total student population is located in universities in three big cities of Turkey. Ankara, being the capital of the country, has a total of five universities, two of which are among the most developed university libraries, and it has the National Library and the HECDOC. Research and development activities are concentrated on those institutions. Therefore it makes sense to site the center of our interlending network in Ankara.
In relation to total interlending demand what emerged from an earlier study (15) is that the use of online search and interlending services is concentrated on the big cities such as Ankara and Istanbul.
As may be seen from the proposed network, the HECDOC is the hub of the overall network with its a total of 12,000 current serial titles together with seven_year backruns. The dedicated serials collection of the HECDOC is perfectly suitable to cope with most of the interlending requests produced by the university libraries. It is also capable of meeting more than 85 percent of the total ILL demand for serials. As HECDOC is unable to satisfy the demand for back issues of more than seven years of foreign serials and Turkish serials, the two concentrated libraries with their rich backruns on medicine, and science and technology and the National Library with its full Turkish serials collection should also be made use of.
In the long term it is likely that, as the backruns of HECDOC gradually develop, the demand for backruns of the Hacettepe and METU libraries will diminish. The reason for this is that, particularly in medicine, science and technology, about 10_year backruns of the literature is generally the most frequently requested part of the overall serials collection. The use of older material in social sciences and humanities persists over a larger period. However, the involvement of the serials collection of the National Library will always be necessary because HECDOC has no intention of developing extensive Turkish serials collection. The literature needs of academics and researchers in Turkish universities are heavily concentrated on foreign scientific and technical serials.
It is reasonable to assume that the foreign serials collection of HECDOC can and ought to be utilized within a Turkish national interlending system. Despite the fact that HECDOC has not been established for ILL purposes it would be great wastefulness not to do so as HECDOC is satisfying almost the total demand for serials which may represent the overwhelming proportion of the total ILL demand within the country.
The HECDOC should not only be a concentrated single library in terms of its collection but it should be a referral and switching center for unsatisfied demands. HECDOC is eager to be a national center for coordinating all outgoing interlending requests. The relationships between HECDOC and the concentrated libraries, and the National Library are shown in Figure 1.
It may be thought that while HECDOC is involved in the request process the foreign centers such as BLDSC, to which the requests are forwarded by HECDOC, can directly send the photocopies to requesting libraries in Turkey. Such an arrangement means that all university libraries should send their international ILL requests to HECDOC. Having consulted the various verification and location tools such as international directories and union lists of serials, HECDOC then forwards the requests abroad. It is assumed that the vast majority of international ILL requests for serials can be satisfied by the BLDSC.
Similar organization has already been in operation in the German Democratic Republic where the Institute for Interlibrary Lending and Union Catalogs of the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek functions as a national coordinating center for international ILL requests (16). Krause and Rother conclude that this system
"... to a large extent guarantees compliance with IFLA recommendations that requests should be forwarded to a foreign country only if it has been confirmed that the required literature is not available in the home country" (17).
The requirements for developing the HECDOC as a referral and switching center are as follows.
Although some improvements have already been made in this respect, the database of the full records of the serials HECDOC owns should be created on the computer environment in a way it can easily be updated. There are several standalone serials control systems on the market in developed countries. Such a system may well prove very useful for HECDOC.
Annual serial acquisition lists and backruns of the university libraries should be monitored regularly. In fact, the provision of available union lists of the libraries within the country will facilitate the location of the ILL requests. Ultimately, the union catalog of all serials in the university libraries should be published.
The national database of the articles published in Turkish serials which is yet to be prepared by the National Library will be a significant location tool in switching the requests to those items.
Being the richest libraries for interlending purposes, the cooperation between HECDOC and Hacettepe and METU libraries, and the National Library regarding the union catalog of serials should be developed. It may be desirable to consider the possibility of a common serials database in the long term provided it is economical. This will facilitate the automatic switching of the requests among the aforementioned libraries.
As the number of ILL transactions that the two concentrated university libraries have to deal with increases, the additional arrangements should be made to cope with ever increasing interlending demand coming through HECDOC. New units within the university libraries should specifically be created for ILL work including xeroxing and communication facilities.
Requesting university libraries should also reorganize their processes in a way that they can speak the same "language" with HECDOC regarding the preparation of ILL requests, sending the forms and so on. Unless all participating libraries are agreed on the forms that are to be used and adhere to the agreed ILL procedure, the overall system may degrade. Standardization of the process and tools are an essential part of the system.
As for the transmission of requests and documents, it is likely that the traditional mail system would be the most frequently used method for a certain period since reaping the full benefits of new innovations such as telefax is beyond the reach of all university libraries. Even if the facilities can be accessed via parent organizations the cost factor is a significant impediment. This point deserves further elaboration.
In the transmission of documents themselves telefax seems, at present, to increase the costs without reducing delays. Even in developed countries such as the US ultimate assessment of telefacsimile is that it is still not cost_effective. The unit cost per document transmitted is high. Line points out that for cost_effective transmission the documents themselves need to be available in digital form (18).
Another important point that should be contemplated carefully is whether the document requests are time_critical for researchers or not. In a telefax project (TALINET) carried out in the US it was found that about 28 percent of the questions submitted to the system were time_critical. The rest could have been handled by conventional means (mail) and still have been useful (19). It does not of course necessarily mean that telefax cannot or should not be used at all. In fact, in the transmission of ILL requests, or one_page documents in general, it is not only cost¬effective but it brings down the time required for the whole ILL procedure by about 50 percent provided the libraries possess, or have access to, telefax facilities.
In conclusion, to establish an interlending network for sharing of serials collections among university libraries in Turkey depends on a number of factors. First, it seems that HECDOC is not ready for such a leadership. Though the Center has an excellent serials collection of about 12,000 serial titles, it has been underutilized. Existing services should be promoted so as to reduce the unit costs. HECDOC desperately needs financial resources. The number of personnel is insufficient in order to handle ever increasing demand for serials. Both professional and paraprofessional staff should be recruited. The manual procedures for serials collection such as acquisition and check_in need to be automated. A serials control system, among others, needs to be developed or bought. Necessary computer power, information technology and information retrieval software should be provided. (This is applicable to all university libraries!)
Secondly, the standardization of library processes and interlending procedure is needed. This would help develop an integrated communications environment for sharing of serials among concentrated libraries and participating institutions.
Thirdly, resource sharing in its broadest sense should be encouraged, and the legal improvements regarding interlending activities should be made effective as soon as possible.
Finally, the optimum way of transmitting requests and documents should be studied and more effective use of the mail system and other delivery systems should be practiced.
References
1. Tonta, Y. Turkish university libraries. Libri vol. 37, no. 4, December 1987, 259_278.
2. Tonta, Y. Interlending services in Turkish university libraries. Interlending & Document Supply vol. 15, no. 4, October 1987, 122-125.
3. Tuncer, N. Higher Education Council Documentation and International Literature Search Center. [In Turkish] Yuksekogretim Bulteni vol. 1, no.1, March 1986, 33_35.
4. Line, M. B. and others. National interlending systems: a comparative study of existing systems and possible models. Paris, Unesco, 1980. 134 p. (PGI/78/WS/24(Rev)).
5. ibid., p.59.
6. Landwehrmeyer, R. A planned decentralized solution for national document supply: the Federal Republic of Germany. Interlending Review vol. 9, no. 4, October 1981, 122-127.
7. Verliet, H.D.L. Speaking for a Cinderella: unplanned decentralized interlending. Interlending Review vol. 9, no. 4, October 1981, 128-130.
8. Line and others. op. cit., p.58.
9. ibid., pp.63-64.
10. Kefford, B. and Line, M.B. Core collections of journals for national interlending purposes. Interlending Review vol.10, no. 2, April 1982, 35_43.
11. Line and others. op. cit., p.29.
12. Clarke, A. The use of serials at the British Library Lending Division in 1980. Interlending Review vol. 9, no. 4, October 1981, 111_117.
13. Kefford and Line, op. cit., p.36.
14. ibid., p.43.
15. Tonta, October 1987, pp.122-125.
16. Krause, F. and Rother, E. Interlibrary lending in the German Democratic Republic: problems of centralization in a decentralized system. Interlending Review vol. 10, no. 1, January 1982, 8-11.
17. ibid.
18. Line, M.B. Where to now for interlending in Australia. In: Vago, J. ed. Proceedings of the Library Association of Australia National Interlending Conference 31 August-2 September 1983. Sydney, LAA, 1984. p.149.
19. McKean, J.M. Facsimile and libraries. In: King, D.W. and others. Telecommunications and libraries. New York, Knowledge Industry Publications, 1981. 184 p. ISBN 0-914236-88-1. p.105.
Abstract
The article begins with a brief introduction of Turkish university libraries and goes on to outline the principal interlending models. Proposes an interlibrary lending network model for sharing of serials collections among university libraries in Turkey. Discusses the various requirements of the proposed interlibrary lending network.
*Yažar Tonta is Doctoral Student, School of Library and Information Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94707.