University of Texas Libraries

1. University of Texas Libraries David Flaxbart Head, Mallet Chemistry Library

2. Chemical Information at UT-Austin • Mallet Chemistry Library • Founded in 1883 (along with UT) • Oldest Departmental Library • Now in its 4th location • Subjects covered: • Chemistry, Biochemistry • Chemical Engineering • Nutrition and Food Science John W. Mallet 1832-1912

3. Major U.S. Chemistry Branch Libraries School Volumes Texas 91,000 Illinois 70,000 Berkeley 67,000 LSU 63,000 Washington 63,000 North Carolina 58,000 Harvard 57,000 Princeton 55,000 Columbia 55,000 Stanford 54,000 Wisconsin 51,000 (Source: American Library Directory, 2004-05)

4. Chemistry Degrees, 2002-03 • Ranked 3rd in U.S. in chemistry BS degrees granted (130) • Behind Washington and UCLA • Tied for 17th in PhD degrees granted (24) • Ranked 7th in chemical engineering BS degrees (98) • Tied for 3rd in chemical engineering PhDs (19) • (Source: Chemical & Engineering News, 2/7/2005)

5. UT’s Chemistry Students and Credit Hours, Fall 2004 Majors MS PhD Credit Hours Chemistry 326 51 153 29,940 Biochemistry 510 11 35 Chem Engin 579 51 138 4,856 (Source: Office of Institutional Research, 2004-05)

6. UT’s Rankings in Chemistry • 13th in NRC graduate program ranking (1995) • 11th in U.S. News & World Report graduate programs • 13th most-cited institution in the world (1994-2004) • 6th among U.S. universities • published 4,138 papers in chemical journals • cited 54,675 times • (Sources: NRC; USNWR; ISI Essential Science Indicators)

7. UT’s Chemical Science R&D Funding • UT-Austin spent $22.8 million in 2002 • 62% federal funding • Ranked 2nd in U.S. (behind UC San Francisco) • Challenges ahead due to NSF and NIH budgets • (Source: NSF/Chemical & Engineering News, 11/15/2004)

8. Current Trends in Chemistry • Interdisciplinarity: Old boundaries are now blurred • Discipline Drift: Chemistry is becoming “biologized” • “Hot Fields”: Nano-anything; Biotechnology; Proteomics/Genomics; Materials; Informatics

9. Current Library Trends • Most traditional measures of physical library use have diminished steadily over the last decade. • Gate count • Photocopying • Journal volume reshelving • In-person reference questions • But this represents not a loss of users, but rather a shift in the way users interact with the Library. Use of the Digital Library is far above what physical library use ever was. • The challenge is to meet and serve the users where they are.

10. Chemistry Library Books Out, 2000-2004

11. Top Ten Most-Cited Journals in Chemistry, 1999-2004 • Title UT-Austin Paid, 2005 • Nature $7,970 • Science $11,905 • PNAS $3,690 • Angew. Chem. $3,311 • J. Am. Chem. Soc.* $3,275 • Anal. Chem.* $1,421 • J. Med. Chem.* $1,892 • Electrophoresis $3,450 • Chemistry: a Eur. J. $2,748 • J. Combinatorial Chem.* $1,097 • (all titles Print + Electronic License; * ACS title) • (Source: ISI Essential Science Indicators, 2005)

12. Transition from Print to Electronic Literature • Early 1990s: Chemists at Cornell expressed little confidence that electronic journals would replace print (CORE Study) • A Decade Later: Chemists everywhere express little interest in print journals • Over 100 Chemistry Library journals now E-Only • Austin users downloaded over 140,000 full text articles from 30 American Chemical Society electronic journals in 2004. • Chemistry tops most other publisher packages in usage too

13. Sustainability Issues • Journal Inflation: 7 - 10 percent every year • Publisher mergers and consolidation • Journal proliferation • Pressure from within: • New faculty hires • New degree programs and • New research units

14. The Open Access Movement • Business models are new and untested: who pays? • Growing support from researchers and policy makers • Resistance from publishers and vested interests • Unknown impact on large research institutions • Chemists tend to resist changes in their literature: top established journals have a huge advantage

15. The Current Reality • UT currently spends over $600,000 per year on “chemical information” in all its forms. • Yet this is much less than what some of our peer institutions spend: e.g. Michigan spends nearly twice as much.

16. The Current Reality • We remain “trailing edge” in acquiring new electronic databases and journals in the sciences: • Very high buy-in cost • Lack of new money • Lack of budget flexibility • Erosion of bibliographer control • Licensing headaches • Consortial limitations and politics

17. Collaboration with Faculty is essential • Sharing costs of resources • Identifying development opportunities • Input on a regular basis (from faculty and students) • Support on scholarly communication and pricing issues

18. These collaborations lead to others… • JACS Book Review Dept. gifts: over $500,000 since 1992 • Gifts of books and journals from faculty and alumni • Cross-linking of library and departmental web sites • Library articles in alumni newsletter • Publishing opportunities for librarian • Teaching and Orientation involvement • Reserve copies of textbooks for students • Use of library as faculty/graduate recruiting tool • Departmental History and Genealogy projects • Access to departmental/college facilities

19. … and hopefully to future potential • Overhead sharing • New endowments • Cooperative computing resources for students • Information literacy initiatives in the curriculum • Facilities and space improvements