1.return on

61
Return on investment (ROI) in German libraries The Berlin School of Library and Information Science and the University Library at the Humboldt University, Berlin – a case study Kathrin Grzeschik Humboldt Universita ¨ t zu Berlin/Berlin School for Library and Information Science, Berlin, Germany Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to verify the proposition by the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), that their return on investment (ROI) formula developed for academic libraries and based on hard facts is broad enough to be used throughout the world for ROI studies in academic institutions/libraries. It further aims to verify that UIUC’s methodology is adaptable enough to work in other academic environments as well. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology developed by UIUC (an ROI formula developed for academic libraries based on grant proposal applications and citations) has been “copied” and thereby adapted to enable it to be used in an academic environment in Europe/Germany. Findings – The methodology developed by UIUC was adaptable enough to be used in a German academic environment for calculating the ROI of a University library. However, the methodology was sometimes complicated and therefore simplified for this and possible further studies. Likewise, the ROI formula was very complex and this study found that it was possible to simplify it as well for further use. Research limitations/implications – There was difficulty in gathering all the information necessary for conducting such a study in Germany as grant proposals contain sensitive data that people are unwilling to display. Further, it was noticeable that German statistics on funding were unable to provide the necessary data without further enquiries, despite the German law that public institutions are obliged to disclose funding information. Originality/value – Previously no one else has tried to verify the methodology for an ROI study developed by UIUC. This study gives evidence that UIUC was right in claiming that their ROI formula developed for academic institutions/libraries may be used for any academic library in the world. Further, this study shows how the formula and the methodology may be adapted to fit individual academic environments. Keywords Return on investment, Libraries, Germany Paper type Case study Introduction The following paper describes the experiment to implement the return on investment (ROI) concept developed by the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) (see Kaufman, 2008a or Luther, 2008) for the field of LIS (Library and Information Science) at the University Library of the Humboldt Universita ¨t zu Berlin (HU)[1] and the Berlin School of Library and Information Science (IBI) (www.ibi.hu-berlin.de/). It investigates the principal ideas and methodology developed by UIUC and applies those in a German The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0888-045X.htm ROI in German libraries 141 Received May 2010 Revised June 2010 Accepted June 2010 The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances Vol. 23 No. 4, 2010 pp. 141-201 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0888-045X DOI 10.1108/08880451011104009

Transcript of 1.return on

Page 1: 1.return on

Return on investment (ROI) inGerman libraries

The Berlin School of Library and InformationScience and the University Library at the

Humboldt University, Berlin – a case study

Kathrin GrzeschikHumboldt Universitat zu Berlin/Berlin School for Library and Information

Science, Berlin, Germany

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to verify the proposition by the University of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), that their return on investment (ROI) formula developed for academiclibraries and based on hard facts is broad enough to be used throughout the world for ROI studies inacademic institutions/libraries. It further aims to verify that UIUC’s methodology is adaptable enoughto work in other academic environments as well.

Design/methodology/approach – The methodology developed by UIUC (an ROI formuladeveloped for academic libraries based on grant proposal applications and citations) has been“copied” and thereby adapted to enable it to be used in an academic environment in Europe/Germany.

Findings – The methodology developed by UIUC was adaptable enough to be used in a Germanacademic environment for calculating the ROI of a University library. However, the methodology wassometimes complicated and therefore simplified for this and possible further studies. Likewise, the ROIformula was very complex and this study found that it was possible to simplify it as well for furtheruse.

Research limitations/implications – There was difficulty in gathering all the informationnecessary for conducting such a study in Germany as grant proposals contain sensitive data thatpeople are unwilling to display. Further, it was noticeable that German statistics on funding wereunable to provide the necessary data without further enquiries, despite the German law that publicinstitutions are obliged to disclose funding information.

Originality/value – Previously no one else has tried to verify the methodology for an ROI studydeveloped by UIUC. This study gives evidence that UIUC was right in claiming that their ROI formuladeveloped for academic institutions/libraries may be used for any academic library in the world.Further, this study shows how the formula and the methodology may be adapted to fit individualacademic environments.

Keywords Return on investment, Libraries, Germany

Paper type Case study

IntroductionThe following paper describes the experiment to implement the return on investment(ROI) concept developed by the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) (seeKaufman, 2008a or Luther, 2008) for the field of LIS (Library and Information Science)at the University Library of the Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin (HU)[1] and the BerlinSchool of Library and Information Science (IBI) (www.ibi.hu-berlin.de/). It investigatesthe principal ideas and methodology developed by UIUC and applies those in a German

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0888-045X.htm

ROI in Germanlibraries

141

Received May 2010Revised June 2010

Accepted June 2010

The Bottom Line: Managing LibraryFinances

Vol. 23 No. 4, 2010pp. 141-201

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0888-045X

DOI 10.1108/08880451011104009

Page 2: 1.return on

academic environment. One of the features Illinois claimed for their study, was thechance for other institutions to use and copy the main steps.

Quantitative and qualitative measurements have been used in public, corporate andacademic libraries before, but this paper focuses on ROI as a quantitative method toevaluate a library’s monetary value. The research question is: “Can the methodologydeveloped by UIUC be applied to German universities?” It is not the aim of this study tocome up with a true ROI figure for the IBI and the HU, but the testing and evaluation ofthe UIUC method; nevertheless, all calculations aim to achieve as true of a possiblefigure as can be determined.

The institutions that are part of this study are both well established in highereducation in Germany, The IBI is one of the two European members of the iCaucus[2].Since the middle of the past decade, more and more grant proposals have been issuedby the IBI, which makes a study based on the ROI study of the University of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign feasible, as the core of the ROI study by UIUC are grant proposals.The university library at the Humboldt University, Berlin (UB) was founded in 1831,and currently has an inventory of 6.5 million media[3]. It sprawls over several sectionlibraries, but the collection for LIS is situated at the main library in the newly-builtJacob-und-Wilhelm-Grimm Zentrum in Berlin-Mitte.

Literature reviewThe “gain from investment” is not easily determined by libraries. The literature reviewwill demonstrate the lack and need of a continued investigation in ROI in academiclibraries in Germany, as well as the speciality of the concept developed by UIUC.

ROI is a financial metric performance measure to calculate what a certaininvestment is worth. Very simply put, ROI is how much one gets back for what one hasput into something. “To calculate ROI, the benefit (return) of an investment is dividedby the cost of the investment; the result is expressed as a percentage or a ratio”[4].A positive percentage or ratio indicates that more benefit than cost has been generated;a negative percentage or ratio indicates less benefit was generated. In order to calculateROI, one needs to be able to quantify how much money was invested into somethingand compare it with the loss or gain that is a result of handling the initial investment.ROI is a well-used performance measure in fields such as human resources, marketing,engineering, business studies, and training[5]. A problem libraries have to deal with isthat they are not capitalistic corporations, but exist to support their specific clientelewith information and technology. This is true for any library: the difficult part for aROI study in libraries is the assignment of monetary values for library services.

Among the uses of ROI in libraries, differences are discernible between the aimsaddressed in studies:

Quantitative measurements for a special library’s ROI include time saved by library users(. . .); the money users save by using the library instead of alternative sources; and revenuegenerated with the assistance of the library (Strouse, 2003, para. 9).

Commonly-used methods to filter monetary values for non-profit organisations are:. “assessing time costs (replacement value of a client’s time)”; and. “the contingent valuation method” (Poll and Boekhorst, 2007, p. 36).

BL23,4

142

Page 3: 1.return on

The ROI study by UIUC focused on revenue generated with the assistance of thelibrary in question.

The first method is valuable when average salaries of users are known, as itcalculates time costs with the help of average salaries. These measures may thentranslate into actual dollar savings; nonetheless, the method is not feasible in anacademic surrounding, as most users of academic libraries are students who do notearn a regular salary.

The second method, contingent valuation (CV), is a technique that assigns economicvalue to non-market resources with the help of surveys. It has been around a while, butwas quite controversial until it gained a better reputation when scientists discussed themethod at a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Panel in 1993.They found it meaningful when a set of rules was followed[6]:

[. . .] [B]y means of carefully designed surveys it is possible to elicit, in quantitative terms,how much people value a particular organisation or service (British Library, 2004, p. 4).

Other publications followed, for example Mitchell and Carson (1993) claimed toprovide:

[. . .] decision makers, policy analysts, and social scientists with a detailed discussion of a [. . .]technique for the valuation of goods not traded in private markets. [. . .] the technique drawsupon economic theory and the methods of surveys to elicit directly from consumers the thevalues they place upon public goods (Mitchell and Carson, 2000, p. xv).

These surveys ask participants how much they would be prepared to pay (WTP –willingness to pay), and how much they would be willing to accept for loss of quality oflife (WTA – willingness to accept). Since this panel, the method has been used incost-benefit analysis concerning the environment as Arrow et al. (1993) did, in realestate, and lately libraries have adopted this method as well.

As people (users and potential users) receive indirect (and direct) benefits fromlibraries, CV is a valuable method to use in the library environment:

Applied in a library/information context the methodology enables consideration to be givento the cost implications of having and of not having a library service. The direct economiccontribution of the library to their users is calculated including investment in terms of timeand travel (Missingham, 2005, p. 146).

Libraries employing CV as a method assign financial value to intangible products. Themost famous CV study performed in the area of library and information science is theBritish Library study from 2004[7]. The surveys used in the British Library CV studyasked questions such as “how much beneficiaries would be willing to pay for thelibrary’s continued existence” and “how much they would invest in terms of time andmoney to make use of the library” (British Library, 2004, p. 4). After evaluating thesurveys, the research organisations found that “[f]or every £1 of public funding theBritish Library receives annually, £4.40 is generated for the UK economy“ (BritishLibrary, 2004, p. 5).

It is difficult, however, to establish objective economic value based on surveys thatask people for estimations. Even the British Library (2004) indicates in its summarythat this method is seen as one of the most appropriate available, but it is still not anexact science. UIUC set their goals to find a more tangible ROI method that could besummarised in a formula adaptive enough to be used by other academic libraries and

ROI in Germanlibraries

143

Page 4: 1.return on

institutions. Apart from that, the UIUC-study is the first ROI study based in anacademic setting. The British Library is a national library and their study was not setin such an environment; therefore, it is less adaptable to be used in an academic setting.

The interest in ROI and performance measurement in general has generated hugeinterest in the past decade. Missingham (2005) spoke about a third wave of ROI studies.Demonstrating that libraries are worth their expenditures is not a new topic forlibrarians. Librarians are no longer secure in their assumptions that the impact of alibrary will be recognised by the communities served, or the authorities that fund them.“As librarians we naturally tend to think our libraries and our services are invaluable.”(The Krafty Librarian, 2008, para. 1). But it is rather the opposite that is believed byacademic as well as public communities and their funding bodies.

One of the major reasons for the strengthened demand for value is the paradigmshift of media processed and stored in libraries. The shift has been induced by themassive changes in technology development in the past two decades. Libraries havebeen very adaptive, and included each new technology as it came along, but criticshave often voiced to librarians the familiar question: “Why do we need libraries wheneverything is on the internet now.” It is common knowledge among library staff thattechnology is altering the way information is created and thereby technology iscreating new ways of how information is distributed; nevertheless, this informationneeds to be prepared and made available the same way printed information has been.What has changed is the perception of the public and of funding bodies, “librariescannot take for granted, if they ever could, that they have a monopoly over theprovision of information” (Payne and Conyers, 2005, p. 1). This shift in thinking as wellas economic problems have lead to an accumulation of calls from funding bodies forproofs of value. Aabø (2009) conducted a meta-analysis on what she calls the“subgroup of library valuation that returns a return on investment or a cost-benefitratio”:

Public libraries [. . .] need to prove how the taxpayers’ money is used to benefit both theindividual citizens and the local communities. Academic libraries, school libraries, andspecial libraries in different businesses meet similar types of demands, being asked forperformance measurement, cost justifications, and return on investment from theadministration of their university, school, or enterprise. These demands have beenstrengthening due to increasing economic pressure (Aabø, 2009, p. 312).

Aabø emphasised that, owing to the financial crisis, the need for library valuationgrows stronger.

Libraries in the private as well as the public sector have a slightly longer tradition inproving their value with the help of ROI, compared to academic libraries. Althoughcollecting, analysing, and presenting quantitative and qualitative data has been part ofa library’s pursuits for a longer period of time, only in the past few years it has shiftedfrom “simple questionnaires to complex surveys, and from simple economiccost/benefit assessments to complex economic algorithms and forecasts” (Imholzand Weil Arns, 2008, p. 5). Only recently have German libraries realised thatperformance measurement is not only an internal task but an external one: “[. . .] dasBewusstsein fehlte, wofur Bibliotheken und Bibliothekar/innen eigentlich da warenund wie sie die Unterstutzung der Offentlichkeit [. . .], gewinnen und behalten konnen,[. . .] heute erst hat sich das geandert!” (Busch, 2004, p. 13)[8].

BL23,4

144

Page 5: 1.return on

In the 1990s Holt et al. (1996) researched into frameworks for evaluating publicinvestment in public libraries. They emphasised that “economic impact occurs onlywhen a business’s or institution’s activities bring outside clients to the region, therebybringing new dollars into the region, or when an institution attracts fiscal support fromoutside the region for its activities”. (Holt et al., 1996, p. 3). They strengthened thenotion that libraries are among those institutions that are able to have economicimpact. A 2004 ROI study by the State Library and Archives of Florida showed “thatwhen Florida’s state and local governments invest in libraries, it enhances the qualityof life in communities and helps build a stronger state economy” (Griffith, 2004,Overview). Academic libraries supporting academic institutions that bring newdollars, or in this case Euro, into their institutional region, have the chance to havesimilar economic and qualitative impact as described above by Holt et al. and Griffith.

Public libraries have been especially creative in finding solutions to raise awarenessfor ROI regarding their library. Aabø found that “of the 38 studies [evaluated in hermeta-analysis], 32 are of public libraries” (Aabø, 2009, p. 311). Browsing the web pagesof public libraries showed many Anglo-American ones creating their own ROIcalculators. An example is the Library of Michigan ROI calculator[9] that enables taxpayers to calculate their own ROI when using the library[10]. Further discoveries werepublic libraries doing surveys, listing their studies’ results or uploading videos onYouTube[11].

ROI calculators by public libraries help customers to get an insight into their ROI ontax money spent when using a library; academic libraries need to focus on the ROI fortheir funding bodies. Poll and Payne (2006) demonstrated a variety of purposes andmethods used, again mostly by public libraries. They distinguished among othersbetween the “correlation of library use and academic or professional success [. . .]impact on information literacy, the importance of the local library on research [. . .]social impact [. . .] [and] the financial value of libraries” (Poll and Payne, 2006, p. 6).Two of their findings are particularly important for this study: first, they emphasisedthat measuring the financial value of libraries is the most interesting to fundinginstitutions. Despite the social importance of libraries and their impact on informationliteracy, what counts for funding bodies is the money made. There is evidence for thistheory even in Germany. German universities and their libraries are recognized moreand more for the monetary value they bring their communities. For example, theGerman Exzellenzinitiative[12] considers third-party funds in their benchmark ofparticipating universities; naturally, that makes German universities interested in themonetary surplus or deficit their libraries are producing. Second, Poll and Payne (2006)mentioned two studies that show that the impact of local libraries on research hassuccessfully been measured with the help of citations analysis. Both studies evaluated“what percentage of the material cited was (or could have been) retrieved via the locallibrary” (Poll and Payne, 2006, p. 7). Additionally, they conducted surveys to supporttheir assumptions. The study at UIUC started in a similar way, but went a step furtherand added real economic value to citations by calculating ROI with the help of citationanalysis in grand proposals.

There have been studies on performance measurement in Germany as well, but veryfew in the academic sector and even fewer considering ROI as a method. In 2003 asimilar tendency was seen in the Anglo-American academic field of LIS:

ROI in Germanlibraries

145

Page 6: 1.return on

Precious little attention is currently given to development and collection of ROI data. Amongthe three primary types of special libraries (corporate, academic, government), corporatelibraries are most likely to study their value impact, and academic libraries are least likely(Strouse, 2003, para. 3).

Later international outcome-studies such as “Worth Their Weight” conducted byImholz and Weil Arns (2008) showed that opinions and trends, at least among thepublic library sector in continental America, have changed. This development giveshope for a new trend in Europe. Imholz and Weil Arns presented seventeenUS-American studies by public libraries punctuating current approaches and methodsused by contemporary scholars and researchers. Nevertheless, two years earlier Blanck(2006) surveying performance measurements in (mainly public) libraries in Germanywas correct to claim that “Im deutschen Bibliotheks- und Informationsbereich findethierzu bisher so gut wie keine Diskussion statt.” (Blanck, 2006, p.13)[13].

One exception in the growing field of evaluations of public library ROI studies (seeMissingham, 2005; Blanck, 2006; Imholz and Weil Arns, 2008; Aabø, 2009) is Blanck’spredecessor Fett (2004), who collected literature on performance measurement inacademic libraries. He devoted a short chapter to the topic of ROI and lists only theValue-Added Library Methodology (V þ LM) by Ruth MacEachern. This methodologyis based on CV and results from “eine Ermittlung von Schatten- oder Quasipreisendurch Erhebungen bei den Nutzern“ (Fett, 2004, p. 42)[14]; additionally, replacementcosts are calculated. As previously mentioned, the problem of CV and V þ LM are theoften very subjective monetary values assigned to library services that are then usedas hard facts.

Designing an ROI measurement based on hard facts and figures is a sensible taskfor the German field of academic libraries. UIUC’s study provides a new way tocalculate ROI for libraries based on hard facts instead of assumptions (see for examplethe British Library study). UIUC, however, had to gather certain figures with the helpof surveys. These minor approximations are amended in this study due to its smallerscale and the possibility to count and individually evaluate citations.

The making of the UIUC return on investment studyIn 2007, researchers of the Library at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaigntogether with Judy Luther, president of Informed Strategies at Elsevier and Dr CarolTenopir, Professor at the University of Tennesee at Knoxville, conducted the ROIstudy that is the basis for this study. The starting point of their study was the commonperception that academic libraries are in need of a tool that is easy to use for answeringthe demands for accountability from funding institutions. The research group aimed athaving numbers rather than figurative values for proving what their university librarygives back to their funding institutions, “[. . .] it is important to demonstrate thatinvestment in the library yields a ‘return’ that contributes to the strategic goals of theinstitution” (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 29). Their aim was to find a formula that wouldanswer the question “for every dollar invested by the University in the library, theUniversity received x dollars in return” (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 30). The ground-breakingapproach was that they did not plan to develop a model based on predictions as is thecase with the CV method, but they planned to base the formula on real figures. In orderto have real figures, they were in need to find a connection between the library and

BL23,4

146

Page 7: 1.return on

strategic concerns of the university that could be expressed in quantifiable terms.Their goals were to:

[. . .] demonstrate that the library and its research collections contribute to [essential]income-generating activities [. . .], quantify the return on the University’s investment in itslibrary, highlight the library’s role in the extra-mural funding process on campus [and to]demonstrate correlation between the library and grant activities, rather than attempt to provecause and effect (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 30).

Roger Strouse’s (2003) approach for a ROI-study in corporate libraries was theapproach chosen by UIUC for the development of a generic model that is not predictiveand works in the academic environment. Strouse developed a formula that determinesvalue based on “revenue generated with the assistance of the library [. . .] [and] theimportance of information provided by the library that the user would not have foundor had access to without the library’s intermediation” (Strouse, 2003, para. 8).

His formula (adapted by Judith Luther (Kaufman, 2008a, Slide 7)) was to multiplythe percentage of respondents generating revenue with library’s support by thepercentage of instances when the library was used and thereby revenue generated.This was multiplied by the median revenue generated in US dollars. This would leavea certain amount of US dollars generated per library use (Kaufman, 2008b, p. 430). ThisCorporate Library Model by Roger Strouse (adapted by Judith Luther) is shown below:

xx% of respondents report generating revenue w= library’s support

£ xx% of instances when library was used £ $xx median revenue generated

¼ $xx average revenue generated per library use

The research team in Illinois decided that grant proposals are revenue generatingincomes in an academic setting that are created with the help of library resources. Inorder to confirm that assumption, Illinois distributed an online survey among 2,000members of their faculty. The survey elicited how users perceived the library and itsresources when constructing grant proposals. “Almost 75% of respondents stated thatmore than three-quarters of the citations they included in their grant applications wereaccessed through the library” (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 31). After evaluating the surveyresults, calculating the ROI for Illinois’ university library based on the use of citationsin successful grant proposals was confirmed as a reasonable method.

Calculating the ROI with the total library budget, the researchers determined a ROIof $4.38 for every dollar invested in the library, for the fiscal year 2006 (Kaufman,2008a). This result is based on surveys, i.e. evaluating “percentages of staff usingcitations in their grant proposals” and budgets provided i.e. “the actual size of grantsawarded ” by the finance department (see Table I).

The ROI was calculated by dividing the proportion of grant income in US dollarusing library materials by the total library budget (see Table I, E). The researchers atUIUC decided to use the total library budget instead of for example the materialsbudget or a subset of the budget (i.e. electronic resources), because staff and supportcosts are also part of acquiring materials that are used for citations. Nevertheless, toshow the difference, they calculated the ROI with the materials budget of UIUC libraryand it resulted in a ROI of approximately $12. It is important to note that:

ROI in Germanlibraries

147

Page 8: 1.return on

[. . .] [f]aculty survey results factor into the equation in three separate places. In this way, themodel does not assume that all grant proposals use references, it does not assume that that allreferences come from the library, and it does not assume that citations are deemed critical toall grant proposals (Kaufman, 2008b, p. 433).

The differing amounts of citations per grant proposals in this study show, that UIUCwas right in assuming the above, but the model designed by UIUC is a feasible versionof including revenue generating actions supported by the library (citations in grantproposals (see Appendix 1)) into a ROI calculation for academic libraries.

Designing an ROI study for the Berlin School of Library and InformationScienceWhen initially planning to adopt the University of Illinois ROI study for a Germansetting, a study larger in scale and more similar to the Illinois ROI study was intended.It was planned to conduct the study for the Niedersachsische Staats- undUniversitatsbibliothek Gottingen[15] and its partner the Georg-August-UniversitatGottingen[16]. These institutions were possible candidates for a German ROI study,because they represent a major research university and library. They are major playersin receiving grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)[17] as well asthe Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)[18]. What the author didnot consider was the sensitive nature of data grant proposals contain; collecting thenecessary data was an impossible hurdle. In addition, the data that were available inthe end for running a ROI study comparable to the one developed by UIUC haveincompatible categories that cannot readily be disentangled in the time available. Theproblems and their possible consequences will be noted in the sections below.

No. tenure system faculty 2,045No. principal investigators 1,700 *Survey Q11-94% faculty use citations in

grant proposalsA ¼ % faculty using citations in grantproposals *

78.14 (1,700 £ 94%)/2,045

No. grant proposals 2,897 * *Survey Q12-94% proposals includecitations that are obtained via campusnetwork/Library Gateway

No. grant awards 1,456 * *Survey Q10-95% faculty statecitations important or essential in grantawards

B ¼ % proposals inc. citations obtainedthrough library

50.79 (1,456 £ 95%)/(2,897) £ 94%)

$ Average size grant 63,293C ¼ $ proportion of grant $ secured usinglibrary materials

25,369 (78.14% £ 50.79% £ $63,923)

No. grants (expended) in year 6,232D ¼ $ proportion of grant income usinglibrary materials

$158,099,608 ($25; 369 £ 6; 232)

$ Total library budget $36,102,613E ¼ University return in grant $ onlibrary

$4.38 ($158,099,608/$36,102,613)

Source: Kaufman (2008a)Table I.UIUC ROI calculations

BL23,4

148

Page 9: 1.return on

To narrow down the scope and receive usable material, the author chose to examinethe Berlin School of Library and Information Science (IBI) and the Library andInformation Science section at the university library. The Berlin School for Library andInformation Science is the only LIS-research-orientated academic institution inGermany that actively participates in current state-of-the-art research. In past years,the IBI has actively participated in grant proposals applied for in cooperation withother major research universities, as well as applying on its own. Researching theactivities of other LIS-orientated academic institutions with the help of the DFG searchengine GEPRIS[19] showed no results. Neither of the major Universities of AppliedScience[20] had any projects listed in the field of LIS that were funded by the DFG inthe past five years.

By choosing a smaller institution than the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaignand its library for this study, the author had to adjust the longitudinal scope. In orderto have a substantial enough amount of grant proposals, it was extended to threeconsecutive years (2006-2009).

In total, 13 grant proposals applied for by the IBI and partners have been awardedwith grants in those three years. The total budget of these conglomerates wase3,190,502.72 (see Appendix 2 Grants Calculations). This budget is a compositenumber compiled with the help of budgets forecast in the grant proposals. Anapproximate number had to be established because official budget listings forthird-party funds vary a lot, and unfortunately the listings by the HU[21] are notsufficient for this study. The above figure has been composed of average wage costs(salary and fringe benefits) as well as travel costs, print and publishing costs, plusmiscellaneous costs listed in the grant proposals.

The average salary and fringe benefit costs were calculated on the basis of apersona[22] being just under 30 years of age and being paid on BAT IIa level 1[23].BAT IIa is a standard level for a scholarly member of staff working on a researchproject at the HU. The age plays an important part, as BAT scales income based onmaturity. For example, a 26-year-old person would earn a gross income of e2,293.30 permonth plus residence allowance and further allowances based on marital status andchildren. A person having the same conditions but being 30 years of age would earn agross income of e2,523.37 per month plus allowances simply because of being fouryears older. The basic idea was that people being older have had more experience andare therefore better qualified. This way of calculating easy changed from April 2010with a new collective wge agreement called TV-L (Tarfivertrag fur den offentlichenDienst der Lander)[24], but the average salary and fringe benefits will not changesignificantly because of those changes.

The salary and fringe benefits are not the amount such research project employeesreceive in their paychecks, but the amount of money the institution actually spends onthem. In Germany, institutions support their employees by paying proportions forcertain benefits such as health insurance, pension, unemployment insurance, andsometimes accident en route. These proportions are paid directly to the respectiveorganisation responsible for the benefit or the state. For the above-described persona( just under 30 years of age, level 1 BAT IIa) it amounts to e3,492 per month. Thisamount correlates with expenditures for one person-month. Person-month is a measureof work effort, for example if a project will take three months to finish with three people

ROI in Germanlibraries

149

Page 10: 1.return on

working full time on it, the project requires 3*3 ¼ 9 person-month effort. That wouldimply e31,428 in salary and fringe benefits costs at the HU for such a project.

As mentioned above, UIUC conducted a survey. They found out that 94 percent ofproposals include citations that are obtained via a campus network or library gateway.This survey, however, is the weakest part of the UIUC ROI study. A response rate of 16percent is not seen as low, but a higher response rate would have been better, becauseUIUC based their percentage of proposals including citations obtained through thelibrary on the survey results. Certain factors determine the statistical confidence ofsurveys, these factors are for example the size of the population or the degree ofvariance in responses from the population. All the same, Bennekom (2002) states thereis no average response rate, and UIUC had Dr Bruce Kingma of Syracuse Universityconsulting their research methodology. Due to the smaller scale of this study, a surveywas not deemed necessary. It was possible to evaluate the citations individually toretrieve a more accurate proportion of grants in Euro secured by using librarymaterials; the number was acquired by calculating the (%) proportion of citationsobtainable through the library.

The starting-point was to find and investigate each citation in the successful grantproposal. All references made to a published or unpublished source, includingwebsites, were identified as citations and either found as footnote, link in the full-text,or traditionally in the bibliography. References in German grant proposals are usuallyadded in the section “Ausgangslage/Eigene Vorarbeit”[25], but the variety of proposalsfor the differing funding bodies showed that simply searching through this section wasnot enough; each proposal was searched from top to bottom. For the establishedreferences the focus was the availability either through the Online Public AccessCatalogue (OPAC) or the digital library accessible via Virtual Private Network (VPN).The OPAC of the UB is connected with the Kooperativer BibliotheksverbundBerlin-Brandenburg (KOBV)[26]. Loan sharing is one of the features KOBV (n.d.)facilitates among its participants, and any citations available via loan sharing weretherefore counted as belonging to the UB.

In the 13 grant proposals, 474 individual citations are discernible. Individual meansthat some proposals cited the same source twice, for example as a proper citation in thereferences list and as a link in the full-text; in this case, the citation was counted as oneonly. For 190 citations, its source could be traced back via the materials provided bythe UB. This means either the source being a physical or electronic item at the UB, orthe source being obtainable via loan sharing and thereby listed in the OPAC. 284citations were purely internet-related sources; quite a few of those were websitescreated by other projects led by HU members and/or institutions.

The number of citations per proposal varied a lot as well. Some projects had a verylow number of citations, others comparatively very high numbers (see Appendix 3Citations). The project LuKII (LOCKSS-und-KOPAL-Infrastruktur-und-Interoperabilitat)with the lowest amount of citations cites only seven sources, whereas the projectDistributed Open Access Reference Citation Services (DOARC) cites 103. Grandproposals applied for at the DFG are supposed to cite or add literature references, but“Der Antrag sollte nicht mehr als 20 Seiten umfassen und aus sich heraus, auch ohneLekture der zitierten oder beigefugten Literatur, verstandlich sein”[27]. Therefore theamount of citations seem to be individually determinable. Owing to the survey resultsgathered by UIUC, citations in grant proposals were assessed as valuable

BL23,4

150

Page 11: 1.return on

measurement for revenue generated by the respective library. This assumption isbased on perceptions by the tenure system faculty. The question is if this is true forGerman grant proposals as well. The vastly differing amount of citations persuccessful grant proposal for the IBI suggests that citations might not carry such animportance for success or failure in Germany. Comparing the two studies in this matteris impossible, however, as UIUC did not count the individual citations and no surveywas conducted for this study. Hence for this study, UIUC’s assumption of value forcitations in grant proposals is taken as fact.

Some of the internet-based sources cited in the grant proposals link to projects bythe HU, those that are very closely linked to the IBI and which sources are found via theUB catalogue have been counted as belonging to the UB (i.e. DINI – Deutsche Initiativefur Netzwerkinformation e.V)[28]. Those that are linked to the HU by being a projectbut whose sources are not (yet) obtainable via the library are counted as internet-basedsources.

Some grant proposals cite internet-based sources more often than once; for exampleIUWIS lists press releases by “Borsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels” in itsreferences list as well as in its footnotes. Sources listed twice were counted once only,but sources linking to differing locations on one website were counted twice. Thepercentage of citations obtainable via the university library were calculated accordingto above descriptions. This adds up to 40.08 percent citations that are obtainablethrough the UB (see Table II).

As briefly mentioned above, calculating the percentage of citations obtainable via thelibrary by counting and evaluating the citations single-handedly is a different way ofutilising the results as UIUC purported. With the help of data gathered with the surveyamong tenure system faculty, UIUC determined what percentage of faculty is usingcitations in grant proposals. Afterwards, they established the percentage of proposalsincluding citations obtained through the library, by multiplying the grants awarded withthe percentage of faculty stating that citations are important or essential in their grantsawards. This figure was then divided through the grant proposals made multiplied withthe percentage of proposals, including citations that are obtained via the library (seeTable I, UIUC ROI calculations). As said before, by counting and evaluating the citationsindividually, the established figures are more accurate and allow a more precisecalculation of the ROI. One has to keep in mind, however, that UIUC would have toevaluate the citations of 1,456 successful grant proposals for 2006 alone. Given thedifferences in scope, other institutions working with the UIUC method need to analyse ifcounting and evaluating costs more or less time and effort than executing a major survey.

The grant proposals evaluatedBetween 2006 and 2009, 13 grant proposals applied for by the IBI were successful andhad grants awarded by either DFG, BMBF, or the European Union (European

Total amount of citations 474Amount of citations obtained through UB 190Proportion of citations obtained through UB in allproposals (%) 40.08 (190/4.74)

Table II.Citations obtained

through UB (library) inproposals (%)

ROI in Germanlibraries

151

Page 12: 1.return on

Commision/i2010)[29]. (for more details, see the paragraphs on each grant proposalbelow or Appendix 3 Citations). When looking at this appendix the comment “notapplicable” might catch someone’s eye, or the fact that there are more running numberslisted than citations in the total count. Not all footnotes were counted as citations. If thetext provided in the footnote was additional information regarding the proposal but nota link or reference, the information was not counted as citation.

As said before, the third-party funds statistics available at the HU website are notsufficient for the purpose of this study; the HU statistics do not segment third-partyfunds into individual years per institute for more than the last accounting year(currently 2008). The funds expended are split between the institutions receivinggrants, but the previous years are summarised as third-party funds expenditures forthe entire HU. This fashion of listing funds forced individual calculations for eachproposal to be made.

The budget calculations themselves proved to be challenging. For example, thetravel budget intended for DOARC was split up between the three participatinginstitutions. This information posed the question of how detailed the calculations weregoing to be. If only the travel costs allotted to the HU were calculated, the costs fortravel, publishing, and miscellaneous costs would minimize to e13,932.72 instead ofe23,132.72 in total. Initially this way seemed to be the right way to go, as this study isconcentrating on the IBI and the UB. Further considerations, however, indicatedsplitting up travel costs like that would imply splitting up the other costs as well. Thisin turn would demand a level of interrogation of applicant bodies that is not possible.In addition, it is not traceable which partner added which citation to the grant proposal.If the costs would be split up between the participating institutions, the citations wouldhave to be split up too. This approach is too highly structured and not feasible simplybecause of applicants not remembering their citations. Under US practice, it is quitepossible that grant money for one institution is also used to fund travel for people atother universities. Trying to tease out the amounts for other partners is not necessarilyimproving the comparability of data. Nevertheless, it is important to understand thatthis is a ROI study for the IBI and not for the other institutions, as the ROI is calculatedon the basis of citations obtainable via the UB and the materials budget for the UB.

The budgets of grant proposals applied for on a European level posed anotherproblem. Total budgets for European projects amount to millions; for example,EuropeanaConnect has a budget of e4,798,149 (without own contribution)[30] of whichthe HU receives only e191,986 (without own contribution). If this study were to use thetotal budgets allocated for European projects, as done for the DFG or BMBF fundedprojects, the final ROI figure would be distorted immensely and thus lead to seriousmisrepresentations. Additionally, the amount of e191,986 allocated to the IBI forEuropeanaConnect as well as the budgets of the other two European-based projects,correspond with the budgets calculated for the non-European projects. Although thisstudy does not aim at calculating a precise ROI number for the IBI and UB, but atreconstructing the UIUC study in a German academic setting, the figures should be asclose as possible to reality and provide an approximate result in the end. Hence, for allEuropean-based grant proposals only the budgets (without own contribution) allocatedto the IBI were used for calculating the total budget.

BL23,4

152

Page 13: 1.return on

IUWISInfrastruktur Urheberrecht fur Wissenschaft und Bildung (IUWIS)[31] is a two-yearproject applied for by Professor Michael Seadle from the IBI and Professor RainerKuhlen from the University in Constance (Universitat Konstanz)[32]. It is based at theIBI and funded by DFG.

IUWIS has calculated to need 60 person-month on BAT IIa level or equivalent,creating a salary and fringe benefit budget of e209,520. Additionally e46,464 areneeded for four student assistants each working 40/h per month for both years. Costsfor printing, travel, as well as miscellaneous costs are summed up to e55,515; totallingthe grants awarded for IUWIS to e311,500.

The proposal has 28 citations for sources found at the UB and 36 purelyinternet-based ones, summing up to 64 citations in total. Some citations appear twice,once in the footnotes and once in the references; depending on their source they arecounted once or twice. For example, the Gottinger Erklarung[33] is listed as aninternet-based source, as well as a source obtainable through the library because thereferences in the grant proposal point to differing sources established by the GottingerErklarung.

LuKIILOCKSS-und-KOPAL-Infrastruktur-und-Interoperabilitat (LuKII) is one of the newestprojects currently pursued by the IBI. Its topic is the ongoing problem of long-termdigital archiving. Applicants are Professor Michael Seadle (IBI), Professor PeterSchirmbacher (IBI/CMS[34]) and Dr Elisabeth Niggemann (DNB).

LuKII was planned to run for two years and calculated to need 57 person-month onBAT IIa level or equivalent as well as one student assistant working 80/h month forboth years. The average salary and fringe benefits can be estimated at e222,276.Additional costs such as scholarly equipment, travel expenses, and publishing costsare calculated at e58,450; totalling the probable budget to e280,726.

Altogether, LuKII has only seven citations in total. Four citations are for sourcesobtainable through the UB and three are internet-based sources. This is speculative,but maybe because the websites for LOCKSS[35] and kopal[36] provide excellentinformation on each project and further references are not needed. In addition, LuKIIoperates on a new level of digital archiving and relevant sources may not be availableyet.

EuropeanaConnectEuropeanaConnect[37] is a project funded by the European Union working in closecontext with the major European library project Europeana[38]. The applicant at theIBI is Professor Stefan Gradmann; he is one of 31 pan-European applicants.

EuropeanaConnect asks for a total budget of e4,798,149 as contribution from theEuropean Commission. Of this large amount a mere e191,986 (4%) accrue to the IBI. Itis important to note that European projects are always funded only partly by theEuropean Commission, as much as up to half of the funding may come from within theparticipating institutions. In the case of EuropeanaConnect only 25 percent (e1,199,538)have to be contributed by the participating institutions. To incorporate thesedifferences for this study is unnecessary for the final ROI calculations; for eachEuropean-funded project the grants awarded without own contribution are used.

ROI in Germanlibraries

153

Page 14: 1.return on

EuropeanaConnect has 26 citations; only one is from a source obtainable by the UB.All other citations are links to European websites. This grant proposal differs frommost of the others as it did not contain a separate reference list or high amount offootnotes, but links in the running text.

GalateasGeneralized Analysis for Logs for Automatic Translation and Episodic Analysis ofSearches (Galateas)[39] is a project with eight participants all based in Europe; theapplicant at the IBI is Professor Vivien Petras.

The total budget allotted for Galateas is e3,700,000 (without own contributions).The European contribution is e1,850,000 of which the IBI receives e62,356. This is thetotal budget for one research staff member and a student assistant working for twoyears, including travel costs.

Altogether, the grant proposal for Galateas holds 31 citations of which 19 sourcesare obtainable via the UB and twelve are internet-based ones. Among theinternet-based ones are two journals that have earlier issues available at the UB, butit was not clear if the needed issue is available as well; therefore, these were ascribed tothe internet-based citations as they were available online.

DOARCDistributed Open Access Reference Citation Services (DOARC)[40] is a project of theIBI, the Institute for Chemistry at the HU, the Carl von Ossietzky University inOldenburg, and the Institute for Science Networking in Oldenburg. The applicants areProfessor Peter Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS), Dr Frank Havemann (IBI), Dr WolfgangChristen (HU), Professor Volker Mellert (Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg),and Professor Eberhard R. Hilf (Institute for Science Networking).

Not surprisingly, considering the topic, DOARC is the grant proposal with mostcitations. DOARC has 103 citations of which 39 are obtainable via the UB databases orOPAC, 64 citations are internet-based ones. A couple of the internet-based citations linkto open access publications by the applicants, as for example Havemann (2004)“Eprints in der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation.” One of the citations that werecounted as being obtainable via the UB is not explicitly allocable. DOARC’s citationNo. 51 (see Appendix 3 Citations is a publication by S. Katz in Science and PublicPolicy from 2006. The publication was not traceable at the HU for this specific year butfor the year 2000; nor did the authors’ website provide the publication from 2006. Asthe source from 2000 was at ACM and the double non-appearance of the laterpublication might indicate a typing mistake by the applicants, the citation was countedfor the UB.

The total third-party funds allocated for DOARC sum up to e183,692,72; e160,560are for staffing costs and e23,132.72 for travel, publishing, and miscellaneous costs.

EERQIEuropean Educational Research Quality Indicators (EERQI)[41] is a European researchproject in the 7t77h Framework Programme for Research in the Socio-economicSciences and Humanities Theme (SSH)[41]. The applicant at the IBI is Professor StefanGradman.

BL23,4

154

Page 15: 1.return on

Altogether, nineteen European institutions are participating in this project, the totalamount of grants awarded are e1,494,624. The Berlin School for Library andInformation Science receives e136,720. As with the other European projects this projectis only partly funded by the European Commission, the total budget is e2,226,323.08and 67,13 per cent are funded. The amount left needs to be contributed by theparticipating institutions.

The grant proposal contains 43 citations; 20 refer to sources obtainable by the UBand 23 are purely internet-based. Like the grant proposal EuropeanaConnect, the grantproposal for EERQI contains many references as links in the full-text. No peculiaritieswere discernible for citations in the grant proposal for EERQI.

ForschungsdiversitatThe full title for this project is “Messung der Diversitat der Forschung”[42], applicantsare Dr Jochen Glaser (Freie Universitat Berlin)[43], Michael Heinz (IBI), and Dr FrankHavemann (IBI). This project aims at creating methods for measuring the diversity ofresearch in various special subject areas and their respective organisations.

The total budget for Forschungsdiversitat is e230,013. This is split up in e103,645for staff, consisting of e88,621 for 18 person-month on BAT IIa level or equivalent pluse17,424 for other staffing costs not further specified. e126,338 are allocated for travel,scholarly equipment, publishing, and other costs. The staff budget for this project wasnot calculated with the help of the persona developed for this study, but taken from thebudget listing provided by the grant proposal. In contrast to grant proposals appliedfor at DFG that list the person-month only, grant proposals applied for at BMBF haveto calculate the person-month and the costs connected. Eighteen person-monthmultiplied with the e3,492 used as median for salary and fringe benefits throughoutthis study sum up to e62,856. This is e25,765 less than the budget for staff costscalculated throughout this study. Forschungsdiversitat has therefore calculated theirbudget with an older person in mind. As this study does not aim to provide an exactROI result, these differences are not important. For a concrete ROI figure, furtherinformation such as what age the actual person working in a position has, as well asthe marital status and place of residence would be necessary; however, this kind ofinformation is deemed to be too private in Germany.

The citation count for Forschungsdiversitat is 48 in total; 41 are citations obtainablevia the UB. This is the grant proposal with the largest amount of citations obtainablevia the UB, the runner up is DOARC with 39 citations obtainable via the UB. Onlyseven citations are internet-based ones. None of the citations found were peculiar.

CARPETThe motivation for CARPET (Community for Academic Reviewing, Publishing andEditorial Technology)[44] was the ongoing process of virtualisation of workingprocesses in the academic area. The applicants are Professor Peter Schirmbacher(IBI/CMS), Dr Norbert Lossau (SUB Gottingen), and Dr Laurent Romary (Max PlanckDigital Library, Berlin)[45].

CARPET (n.d.) was planned for two years and calculated to need 72 person-monthor three members of research staff for two years. Additionally three student assistantseach working 80h/month for two years were estimated, the budget for staff costs ise321,120. Additional e27,820 for travel and publishing raised the total budget to

ROI in Germanlibraries

155

Page 16: 1.return on

e348,940. This is the highest budget for a DFG-funded project the IBI is involved in, therunner-up is IUWIS with e1,441 less.

Twenty-six is the total count of citations made in the grant proposal for CARPET,with a very high amount of internet-based sources (20) and a small amount oflibrary-obtainable sources (five). Four internet-based resources (DRIVER, eSciDoc,Berlin Declaration, Budapest Open Access Initiative) point to projects the HU isinvolved in.

Meta-ImageArt history is a visual-orientated subject and the digitalisation of scholarly life hasopened new possibilities for research in art history. Applicants are Dr Martin Wanke(Leuphana Universitat Luneburg), Lisa Dieckmann (Universitat zu Koln)[46], andProfessor Peter Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS).

Meta-Image (n.d.) has a total budget of e271,520 composed of e209,520 for staff ande62,000 for travel, publications, and miscellaneous costs. There is no budget forscholarly equipment as these are goods on own account.

The citation count is relatively low, only 14 citations altogether. Nine are citationsfor publications obtainable via the UB and five are internet-based ones. One of thecitations obtainable via the library is not clearly allocable, because it is microfichebased at the UB until 1998 and then superseded by a link to the resources based inMarburg (Bildarchiv Foto Marburg)[47]. The resources provided on Marburg’swebsite, however, are freely accessible for everyone and do not have special accessrights. A test browsing the site with HU VPN and without it showed no differences inpresentation or access; therefore, the citation could have been listed as internet-basedsource as well. I decided to list it as UB source as the microfiche is on-site at the mainlibrary, the website is detectable via the OPAC, and the reference in the grant proposaldoes not refer to a certain year.

MUNIN-RSMUNIN-RS (Entwicklung und Implementierung einer Open-Source-Repository-Solutionfur vernetztes Arbeiten mit wissenschaftlichen Bild- und Multimediasammlungen/Modifiable Universal Image Network – Repository Solution) aims at developing andimplementing a kind of repository-based solution for picture and multimediacollections. The applicant is Prof. Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS).

The total budget estimated for MUNIN-RS is e276,880. Next to e214,080 for staff,the project calculates a very high amount of e53,000 for miscellaneous costs of which e

50,000 are intended for a service contract. A further e9,800 is budgeted for travel.A relatively low amount of citations (12) is split in five citations obtainable via the

UB and seven purely internet-based ones. One of the internet-based sources is awebsite by the HU (Medienportal)[48]; it is counted as an internet-based resourcebecause the Medienportal (n.d.) was not detectable via the OPAC or the digital library.

OANOpen Access Netzwerk (OAN)[49] is the oldest grant proposal of the 13 analysed forthis study. Applied for in 2006 the project was funded for two years by DFG; startingthe assembly of a network of certified open access repositories. The applicants are

BL23,4

156

Page 17: 1.return on

Professor Peter Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS), Dr Judith Plumer (University of Osnabruck)[50],and Dr Norbert Lossau (SUB Gottingen).

Based on the calculations for the persona developed for this study, e202,464 arebudgeted for staff working 48 person-month on BAT IIa level as well as three studentassistants each working 40h/month for two years. In addition e38,700 are estimated forscholarly equipment, travel expenses, and publications. The total amount calculated ise241,164.

OAN is one of the grant proposals with a very high count of citations forinternet-based sources. Of the 39 counted 31 are internet-based and only eightobtainable via the UB. All but one of the eight are online sources belonging to the UB(i.e. DINI website or edoc-Server). All of these are detectable with the aid of the OPACand therefore counted as sources belonging to the UB. A high amount of internet-basedsources is not remarkable, considering the requirements related to open access that isthe key element of this grant proposal.

OAN2OA-Netzwerk 2 (OAN2)[51] is the direct continuation of the OAN project. The grantproposal for OAN2 was written in 2009 and continues where OAN terminated.Applicants are Professor Peter Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS), Dr Judith Plumer (Universityof Osnabruck) and Dr Norbert Lossau, (SUB Gottingen), in addition Professor StefanGradmann (IBI) has joined the team.

The total budget for OAN2 is e86,858 more than assessed for the previous projectOAN; the sum totals are e328,022. e286,272 are calculated for staffing; 72person-month on BAT IIa level or equivalent and 18 month for a student assistantworking 40/h a month. Further costs add up to e 41,750. OAN2 has the third highestbudget of all grant proposals.

Citations in the grant proposal for OAN2 add up to 17 citations only, of which 13 areinternet-based ones. Only four citations are obtainable via the UB; again, the citationsmirror the OA topic of the grant proposal. One of the internet-based sources links to theMathematics Subject Classification[52] which is available in print via loan sharing. Theprint version is from 2000, however, and the link refers to an up-to-date version, thecitation was counted as internet-based resource and not as belonging to the UB.

DocupediaDocupedia is a project by Professor Peter Schirmbacher (IBI/CMS), Professor WilfriedNippel (Institute for History at the Humboldt University)[53], and Professor MartinZabrow (Zentrum fur Zeithistorische Forschung Potsdam)[54]. It aims at creating asubject-specific organised, dynamically-growing repository containing encyclopaedictexts about contemporary history.

This project was planned to run for three years and funding was applied for twoyears. The applicants calculated for 60 person-month on BAT IIa level or equivalent aswell as two student assistants each working 80/h per month for both years. Theaverage salary and fringe benefit costs can be estimated at e255,984. Additional costsare calculated at e35,000 totalling the approximate budget to e290,984.

The proposal has 45 citations; only seven citations can be found with the help of theUB and 38 citations are purely internet-based ones. Of the latter nine, links to websitescreated by projects the IBI, CMS or HU are involved. Quite a few links direct to the

ROI in Germanlibraries

157

Page 18: 1.return on

same page but at varying contents. For example arxiv.org[55] is counted twice becauseone link in the grant proposal leads to the main page and the second link to theinformation “How to replace an article in arxiv”[56]. Double references like those arecounted as two separate citations, because they do indicate two different destinations.

Determining the ROIUsually determining the ROI is a simple mathematical, monetary calculation (seeequation below)[57], but as described before, UIUC had to conduct a survey andevaluate certain data to fit into this kind of basic mathematical formula:

ROI ¼ðGain from investment 2 Cost of InvestmentÞ

Cost of Investment

The term “gain from investment” sounds innocent, but as discussed in the literaturereview of this study is rather difficult for libraries, because no direct monetary gainfrom investment is discernible.

For both studies, investment in libraries is understood as the budget allocated to alibrary. For UIUC the total library budget is $36,102,613. As visible in Table I, UIUCdid not as indicated in the formula above, subtract the “cost of investment” from the“gain from investment” before dividing it. They simply divided the “total librarybudget” from the “gain from investment.” In the UIUC study the gain from investmentis the proportion of grant income using library materials in US dollars. Thisassumption is the basis for their study. Probably UIUC decided to change the basisformula accordingly, because a library budget is not a real cost of investment for acertain product. Without the library budget a library would not exist. In contrast toalmost 100 per cent of a library budget being provided by the federal state inGermany[58],59 library budgets or higher education in general are not highlystate-subsidized in the USA:

Public support for higher education in the USA has declined over the past quarter century.Nearly half of Illinois’ budget came from state funding in 1980; by 2008, that figure haddeclined to less than 17% (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 29).

Nevertheless, the budget allocated is always the core of existence for a library andagain for both studies the basis for the ROI calculation.

In their study, UIUC calculated the ROI with the total library budget and only forcomparison reasons with the materials budget. “If the materials budget, rather than thetotal budget, had been used, the ROI would have been approximately $12.” (Kaufman,2008a, p. 32). For this study, the materials budget assigned to the Library andInformation Science section at the UB is used. This is done because this study focuseson the IBI and not on the HU in general. For comparison, a second calculation is donewith the complete materials budget of the UB. The materials budget of the UB isusually a combined amount of federal state money and earmarked capital such asthird-party funding, funds for educational books, and special grants for the acquisitionof electronic resources as well as funds spent on specific research. The latter is notincluded in the materials budget used for comparison, because the budget for the LISsection comes from the part of the materials budget that is state-funded. This secondcalculation makes sense as the citations in the grant proposals by the IBI do not remain

BL23,4

158

Page 19: 1.return on

entirely in the LIS section. Some additional sources from fields such as law, economics,and ICT (Information and Communication Technology) are used as well.

In 2009 the materials budget for the UB was e4,700,000. Approximately e2,200,000was earmarked capital as explained above, the rest (approximately e2,500,000) wasdistributed among the various subjects. The UB has a defined model for the dispersionof budgets among all subjects available at the HU. In 2009 the budget for the LISsection was e30,600 (1.21 per cent of the federal state funding). The ROI is calculatedwith both values, e30,600 and e2,500,000.

Doing the mathBetween 2006 and 2009, 13 grant proposals applied for by applicants related to the IBIhave been successfully accomplished or begun. The total amount of grands awardedfor these grant proposals sums up to approximately e3,190,502.72 (in three years),approximately e1,063,500.90 per year. The average size of grants the IBI received isapproximately e245,423.29. Owing to the decisions made for calculating the budgetand evaluating the citations, the figures are all approximate figures.

Illinois calculated their proportion of grants secured using library materials in USdollar, by using their average size grant (see Table III, lines 7 and 8 of the ROIcalculation by UIUC below).

In a second step, UIUC multiplied the result of the above calculation with thenumber of grants expended in the year 2006. This provided UIUC with the size of thegrant income using library materials (see Table IV, lines 9 and 10 of the ROIcalculation by UIUC).

For the German study, the total amount of Euro secured with the help of third-partyfunds is available for calculating the proportion of grant income using librarymaterials; hence no average size grant is needed. The two steps above were combinedinto one. The proportion of grants awarded in Euro using the library is then calculatedby multiplying the percentage of citations obtainable through the UB with the totalamount of third-party funds awarded for 2006-2009 (see Table IV ROI calculation forthe IBI and the UB).

Table V ROI calculations for the IBI and the UB shows the following results:. 13 grant proposals contain 474 citations of which 190 are obtainable through the

library;. more than 40 percent of the grants awarded to the IBI came from citations in

those 13 grant proposals that are obtainable through the UB;

$

Average size grant 63,923Proportion of grant $ secured using library materials 25,369 (78.14% * 50.79% * $ 63,923)/100/100

Table III.Lines 7 and 8 of the ROI

calculation by UIUC

No. grants (expended) in year 6,232$ proportion of grant income using library materials 158,099,608 (25,369 * 6,232)

Table IV.Lines 9 and 10 of the ROI

calculation by UIUC

ROI in Germanlibraries

159

Page 20: 1.return on

. for 2006-2009 the total grant income at the IBI is approximately e3,190,502.72;

. the average proportion of the grant income generated by using the libraryresources is approximately e1,278,753.49;

. dividing the proportion of the grant income generated by using the libraryresources through the approximate amount of the materials budget expended forthe subject area LIS in three years, calculates a ROI of e13,93 for every Euroinvested in the subject area LIS between 2006 and 2009; and

. dividing the proportion of the grant income generated by using the libraryresources through the approximate total materials budget expended in threeyears, calculates a ROI of e0,17 for every Euro invested in the materials budgetof the UB between 2006 and 2009.

The results show that implementing the UIUC concept and formula in a different, inthis case German academic setting, is possible. Certain amendments had to be made,but no major problems occurred.

Similarities and differencesIn summary, it is clear that the essentials of the study created by UIUC have stayed thesame, but that components were adapted for the study to work in a German academicsetting that is considerably smaller in scope than UIUC’s facilities. For one, UIUC hadto deal with a very large amount of grant proposals in just one year. This study had toadapt UIUC handling of large amounts of proposals in order to be able to work with a

No. grant proposals 13 Total no. of successful grant proposals atthe IBI between 2006-2009

No. citations 474 Total count of citationsNo. citations obtainable through the UB 1901st calculation% citations obtainable through the UB 40.08% For all grant proposals

e total size of grants awarded 3,190,502.72In total (see Appendix 2. GrantsCalculations Final)

2nd calculatione proportion of grant income using the UB 1,278,753.49 (40,08% * 3,190,502.72)/100No. of materials budget expended for LISin 2009 e30,600Approx. no. of materials budget expendedfor LIS in 2006-2009 e91,800 (e30,600 * 3 years)3rd calculationUniversity return in e grant on LIS 13,93 (1,278,753.49/91,800)

Approx. no. of total materials budget forUB in 2009 2,500,000Approx. no. of total materials budget forUB in 2006-2009 7,500,000 (e2,500,000 * 3 years)4th calculationUniversity return in e grant on librarywith the help of the IBI (materials budget)

e0,17 (1,278,753.49/7,500,000)Table V.ROI calculations for theIBI and the UB

BL23,4

160

Page 21: 1.return on

comparably very small amount of 13 grant proposals. The huge difference in scopeindicated the possibility and maybe necessity to change the analysis and evaluation ofthe citations. As mentioned previously, the smaller scale of this study made afull-blown survey unnecessary. It was possible to evaluate the citations individuallyand thereby to retrieve a more accurate proportion of grants in Euro secure-able byusing library materials. Using citations in grant proposals as basis for incomegenerated by the library has stayed the same.

Further, UIUC had to establish that applicant bodies do actually use their ownlibrary and its resources for citations made in grant proposals. For this they had toconduct a large scale survey examining the tenure system faculty perceptions on therole the library plays in their research and grant-seeking activities (Kaufman, 2008a).On the one hand, the study for the IBI and the UB could rely on UIUC’s findings that“75% of respondents stated that over three-quarters of the citations they included intheir grant applications were accessed through the library” (Kaufman, 2008a, p. 31). Onthe other hand, individually evaluating each citation gave a clear result which citationsand how many citations were obtainable through the library (UB), not indicatinghowever if the applicant bodies really used the UB.

Regarding the latter, when asking faculty at the IBI for the necessary documentsand grant proposals to conduct this study, a question intended to affirm UIUC’sproposition was included. The recipients were asked to rate on a spectrum rangingfrom one to five how often they use materials that could be made available by theuniversity library; including databases, eBooks, electronic journals, and theedoc-Server. Rating with a one would imply 0 per cent of one’s materials aredetectable with the help of the UB, two would imply 25 per cent are obtainable, threewould imply 50 per cent, four would imply 75 per cent and five would imply 100 percent are obtainable through the UB[59]. The spectrum was kept very elementary tosimplify answering the question. It was done in the hope of receiving a greater amountof replies. Even so only two answers came back; one voted a one or maximum two,stating that the grant proposals involved are usually focusing on applied researchrather than subject-specific fundamentals, thereby indicating that those grantproposals are not citing many resources obtainable through a library. Interestinglyenough, the grant proposals by this person had low amounts of citations. The secondanswer voted a four but was very unsure about it, simply because the person felt it wasimpossible to prove it. The grant proposals this person was involved in containedconsiderably more citations than the grant proposals by the previous person.

As it was possible to analyse each citation individually, receiving answers from allapplicants was not that important for this study, but it would have been interesting tofind out how much perception (rate) and reality (analysed citations) there is. If moreanswers were received, it would have been possible as well to verify that UIUC wasright in their assumption to use the statements by their tenure system faculty (i.e. 78.14per cent of faculty using citations in grant proposals) as basis for their ROIcalculations. All the same, this is not the research question of this study, but could bean interesting follow-up study.

The final calculations differ at two places. On the one hand, UIUC calculates theproportion (%) of grant income using library materials with the help of an average sizegrant that is multiplied with the number of grants expended in the year in question.For the IBI/UB study, calculating the average size grant was not necessary. As part of

ROI in Germanlibraries

161

Page 22: 1.return on

the evaluation of the thirteen grant proposals, the total amount of grants awarded wasestimated and used for receiving the result (proportion of grant income using librarymaterials).

In the final calculation by UIUC, the ROI was calculated with the total librarybudget of UIUC’s university library. The ROI calculated as part of this study, wascalculated with the materials budget allocated for the LIS subject area. Only forcomparability was it calculated with the total materials budget as well. The lattercalculation is not important for this study, because the grant proposals that wereevaluated are all based on the IBI and the subject area Library and InformationScience.

Table VI lists all similarities and differences at a glance.Essentially, UIUC’s formula for calculating a ROI for an academic library has been

maintained, but certain amendments due to scale and information available were made.

ConclusionAlthough a different academic setting, the study for the IBI is very small in scale andfocused on one subject area only. A further study for all subject areas at the HumboldtUniversity, Berlin would provide a clearer picture of the strength and weaknessesadapting the formula devised by UIUC into a different environment. The author,however, does not believe that any major problems would appear when conducting thestudy on a larger scale in any German academic setting. Going along as this study did,and individually analysing hundreds of citations in grant proposals might be too muchof an effort on a larger scale. This depends on the amount of people involved, however,and one could always resort to the way UIUC estimated their amount of proposalsincluding citations. When conducting such a survey, a limitation of people who wouldreceive the survey is not necessary in Germany; professors, faculty, and members ofresearch staff should be allowed to answer if they take part in grant proposalapplications.

Interestingly, another question came up that, in the author’s opinion, could beanswered with the help of UIUC’s formula. The author believes the difference in grant

Description ofprocess UIUC IBI/UB

Initial position/scope

Study conducted for a major universityand its library

Study conducted for a subject area andits institution at a university

Amount ofproposals

Large (2,879 proposals/1,456 successfulones)

Small (13 successful proposals)

Analysis With the help of estimations/based on alarge-scale survey (50,79% proposalsinc. citations obtained through library)

Individual evaluation for each citation(474 citations in total, 190 obtainablethrough the library ¼ 40,08%)

Calculation 1 Calculates $ of grant income usinglibrary materials with an average sizegrant multiplied with grants (expended)in 2006

Calculates the proportion of grantincome using library materials with thetotal amount of grants awarded between2006-2009

Calculation 2 Calculates ROI with the total librarybudget

Calculates ROI with the materialsbudget for LIS (plus total materialsbudget/total library budget)

Table VI.Similarities anddifferences

BL23,4

162

Page 23: 1.return on

proposal application behaviour between subject areas could be explored. One wouldexpect application-orientated subjects such as ICT, physics, chemistry, and economicsto have large amounts of grant proposals with a high ROI, as they are understood asthe subjects third-parties are interested in. It is true that technically- andeconomically-orientated universities have higher third-party funding than others.Some of the application-orientated grant proposals for the IBI had low amounts ofcitations, however, and would not have a very high ROI in regards to the library. Aquick glance at the amount of grant proposals at the HU[60] in subject areas such asAfrican studies/literature (ten research projects), English and American Studies (26research projects), or German literature (43 research projects) show a surprisingamount of research studies; it occurred that it would be interesting to evaluate theirROI in regards to the library. The final ROI figures would not indicate which subject isbetter or worth more in creating a ROI for the university, but the size of results wouldperhaps illuminate differences in research behaviour and eventually help a universitylibrary to decide which collections for which subject area to extend.

UIUC has planned applying their ROI formula to multiple institutions as well asexpanding the longitudinal scope. It will be interesting to see their follow-up studiesthat might show differences in institutional characters or in the countries as well.

The only problem that can be seen with the study by UIUC is the fact that they basethe proportion of grant proposals containing citations obtainable through the libraryon a survey. Kingma validated their model, but the survey is UIUC’s weakest link, andany study going along the same lines needs to make sure that their survey isimpervious.

This study validates the original research question “Can the methodologydeveloped by UIUC be applied to German universities?” It shows that UIUC developeda ROI model and formula that is modifiable enough to fit into different academicsettings. Their formula had to be adapted, but it was easy to do so. As said before,university libraries implementing the formula have to take extra special care whenevaluating the citations either with the help of a survey, or by counting themindividually. If striving for a concrete ROI figure, the evaluation of the citations is thefocal point.

Hopefully, ROI studies as this one by UIUC will help to value academic libraries’impact on research and revenue generating activities.

Notes

1. www.hu-berlin.de/ (accessed April 25, 2010).

2. “Deans from a number of leading iSchools have joined together to leverage the power ofleading iSchools in building awareness of, support for and involvement with the iFieldamong key constituencies, principally the media, business community, those who fundresearch, student prospects, and users of information.“ www.ischools.org/site/about/(accessed February 15, 2010).

3. www.ub.hu-berlin.de/ueber-uns/profil (accessed February 15, 2010).

4. www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp (accessed March 27, 2010).

5. See publications in Social Enterprise Journal (2005), Strategic HR Review (2009), Journal ofConsumer Marketing (1999), International Journal of Hospitality Management (1983),Handbook of Business Strategy (2004), Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (1996).

ROI in Germanlibraries

163

Page 24: 1.return on

6. www.google.de/url?sa ¼ t&source ¼ web&ct ¼ res& cd ¼ 1&ved ¼ 0CBAQFjAA&url ¼http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.129.2114%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei ¼ zmSFS-eCNKTqmgP-8cGtAg&usg ¼AFQjCNE3g7V508WEU8gUbIigWvmf-No_CQ&sig2 ¼ Sb7IC6GJzU9hotNT-kHoUQ(accessed February 21, 2010).

7. www.bl.uk/pdf/measuring.pdf (accessed February 21, 2010).

8. This quote translates as: “The awareness for reasons why libraries and librarians exist wasmissing as well as the comprehension how to gain and keep support from their beneficiaries.Only now this has changed.”

9. http://mel.org/files/calculatorcode.php (accessed March 23, 2010).

10. The Library of Michigan Return on Investment Calculator as well as the North SuburbanLibrary System (NSLS) calculator allows its users to enter the amount of books, magazines,audio books, movies, etc. borrowed per month and calculate the ROI in the case of NSLS withthe help of average list and retail prices of those items. Michigan in return does not specifywhere the numbers come from and let you speculate if they used retail prices as well orconsidered other costs such as library budget used for human resources needed for recordsmanagement as well.

11. www.youtube.com/watch?v ¼ TgqoM5ZNu3Q (accessed March 23, 2010) The video showsa selfmade advertisement for the North Suburban Library System’s ROI calculator.

12. www.bmbf.de/de/1321.php (accessed February 21, 2010). The German Exzellenzinitiativefunded by the BMBF (Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung) claims to supportcutting-edge research at outstanding universities, but the first two rounds (2006, 2007) showa strong bias towards richer German states. Only a fraction of the nominated winninguniversities are not in the two richest German states Baden-Wurrtemberg and Bavaria.

13. Freely translated this quote says: “The German field of Library and Information Science(LIS) has not shown much inclination to deal with this.”

14. Freely translated this quote says: “Virtual prices are estimated through surveys conductedwith users.”

15. www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ (accessed February 18, 2010).

16. www.uni-goettingen.de/ (accessed February 18, 2010).

17. www.dfg.de/index.jsp (accessed March 23, 2010).

18. www.bmbf.de/ (accessed March 23, 2010).

19. http://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/OCTOPUS/ (accessed March 23, 2010).

20. The five Universities of Applied Science searched for, were: Hochschule fur AngewandteWissenschaften Hamburg, Fachhochschule Potsdam, Hochschule Darmstadt, Hochschulefur Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur Leipzig and Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart.

21. http://forschung.hu-berlin.de/statistik/ (accessed March 16, 2010).

22. Personae are fictive people devised to represent a certain clientele (in Marketing) or users(Usability studies). The persona devised for this study is between 26 and 28 years old, single,has a postgraduate degree and starts the first job as research assistant.

23. For calculations of the BAT (Bundesangestelltentarif) see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag or http://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/tv-l/berlin/ (accessedMarch 26, 2010). People employed in the public service in Germany are paid based on acomplicated system considering previous knowledge, age, marital status, place of residenceand other. As this is very complex only average costs may be calculated.

BL23,4

164

Page 25: 1.return on

24. For more information on TV-L see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarifvertrag_f%C3%BCr_den_%C3%B6ffentlichen_Dienst_der_L%C3%A4nder (accessed March 26, 2010) Againthere are no sources available in English.

25. Translates as: Initial position/own preparatory work.

26. www.kobv.de/ (accessed April 16, 2010). Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund BerlinBrandenburg’ is the cooperative network of all academic, public and many corporatelibraries in Berlin and Brandenburg supporting each other by creating a wholesome stock ofmaterials and media as well as devising new services for their clientele.

27. www.dfg.de/forschungsfoerderung/formulare/download/1_02.pdf (accessed January 12,2010). Freely translated this quote says: “The grant proposal should not exceed 20 pagesand should be coherent on its own; reading citations and additional literature should not benecessary for comprehension”.

28. www.dini.de/ (accessed April 10, 2010).

29. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm (accessed March 30,2010).

30. Most of the time European projects receive only 50 per cent of the estimated budget forfunding. The other half needs to be contributed by the participating institutions (owncontributions). Hence is it important to indicate when talking about European budgets if thenumbers are including or excluding own contributions. As far as I understood thecalculations, own contributions are not always monetary, but can be set against equipmentsuch as computers, costs for Internet connection and such.

31. www.iuwis.net/ (accessed April 13, 2010)

32. www.uni-konstanz.de/ (accessed April 23, 2010).

33. www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de/index.html.de (accessed April 14, 2010).

34. CMS are the facilities responsible for all computer and technical support at the HU situatedin South-East Berlin in Adlershof. The director of the CMS is at the same time a professor atthe IBI.

35. http://lockss.stanford.edu/lockss/Home (accessed April 23, 2010).

36. http://kopal.langzeitarchivierung.de/index_koLibRI.php.de (accessed April 23, 2010).

37. www.europeanaconnect.eu/ (accessed April 5, 2010).

38. http://europeana.eu/portal/ (accessed April 5, 2010).

39. http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/language-technologies/project-galateas_en.html (accessedApril 20, 2010).

40. http://doarc.projects.isn-oldenburg.de/ (accessed April 5, 2010).

41. www.eerqi.eu/ (accessed April 3, 2010).

42. Translates as: “Measuring the diversity of research”

43. See: www.fu-berlin.de/ (accessed April 15, 2010).

44. www.carpet-project.net/ (accessed April 20, 2010).

45. www.mpg.de/instituteProjekteEinrichtungen/weitereEinrichtungen/mpdl/index.html

46. www.uni-koeln.de/

47. www.fotomarburg.de/ (accessed April 12, 2010).

48. http://medienportal.hu-berlin.de/ (accessed April 15, 2010).

ROI in Germanlibraries

165

Page 26: 1.return on

49. www.dini.de/projekte/oa-netzwerk/ (accessed April 15, 2010).

50. www.uni-osnabrueck.de/ (accessed April 25, 2010).

51. www.dini.de/projekte/oa-netzwerk/ (accessed April 15, 2010).

52. www.ams.org/mathscinet/msc/msc2010.html (accessed April 16, 2010).

53. www.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/ (accessed April 25, 2010).

54. www.zzf-pdm.de/ (accessed April 2, 2010).

55. http://arxiv.org/ (accessed April 2, 2010).

56. http://arxiv.org/help/replace (accessed April 2, 2010).

57. Source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp (accessed April 16,2010)

58. www.bibliotheksportal.de/hauptmenue/bibliotheken/bibliotheken-in-deutschland/bibliothekslandschaft/unterhaltstraeger/ (accessed April 16, 2010) “Wegen dergrundgesetzlich verbrieften Kulturhoheit sind in Deutschland die Lander die wichtigstenTrager wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken.” Translates as: “Due to the chartered independencein educational and cultural matters in Germany, federal states are the fundamental fundingbodies for academic libraries.”

59. The original question in German: Wie haufig benutzen Sie fur Ihre Antrage Materialien, dieauch von der Universitatsbibliothek in irgendeiner Form (Datenbanken, eBooks, Bucher,Zeitschriften, elektronische Zeitschriften, etc.) zur Verfugung gestellt werden? Bitte beziehenSie Materialien vom edoc-Server auch mit ein. Um die Antwort zu vereinfachen schatzen SieIhre Benutzung bitte auf einer Scala von 1 – 5, eins bedeutet 0 percent, 2 ¼ 25 percent,3 ¼ 50 percent, 4 ¼ 75 percent und 5 ¼ 100 percent. Eins bedeutet dass Ihre Zitierungennicht mit Hilfe der UB gefunden werden konnen und auch nicht mit Hilfe der UB daraufzugegriffen hatte werden konnen. 100 percent bedeutet dass Ihre Zitierungen alle mit Hilfeder UB gefunden und zuganglich gewesen waren.

60. http://forschung.hu-berlin.de/fdb/ (accessed April 20, 2010). The Forschungsdatenbank(database for research projects) at the HU lists all current and older projects accomplished byinstitutions at the HU. It is possible to search by institution (subject area), project leader,keyword and funding body.

References

Aabø, S. (2009), “Libraries and return on investment (ROI): a meta-analysis”, New Library World,Vol. 110 Nos 7/8, pp. 311-24.

Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. (1993), “Report ofthe NOAA panel on contingent valuation”, available at: www.google.de/url?sa¼t& source¼web&ct¼res&cd¼1&ved¼0CBAQFjAA&url¼http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.129.2114%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei¼zmSFS-eCNKTqmgP-8cGtAg&usg¼AFQjCNE3g7V508WEU8gUbIigWvmf-No_CQ&sig2¼Sb7IC6GJzU9hotNT-kHoUQ (accessed February 21, 2010)

Bennekom, van F.C. (2002), Customer Surveying. A Guidebook for Service Managers, CustomerService Press.

Blanck, S. (2006), Neues fur Bibliotheken – Neues in Bibliotheken. Wert und Wirkung vonBibliotheken, BIT Verlag, Wiesbaden.

British Library (2004), “Measuring our value”, available at: www.bl.uk/pdf/measuring.pdf(accessed February 21, 2010).

BL23,4

166

Page 27: 1.return on

Busch, R. (2004), Wie viele Bibliotheken brauchen wir?, Bock þ Herrchen, Bad Honnef.

CARPET (n.d.), “carpet-project.net: CARPET – Community for Academic Reviewing, Publishingand Editorial Technology: Startseite”, available at: www.carpet-project.net/ (accessedApril 20, 2010).

Fett, O. (2004), “Impact – Outcome – Benefit. Ein Literaturbericht zur Wirkungsmessung furHochschulbibliotheken”, in Umlauf, K. (Ed.), Berliner Handreichungen zurBibliothekswissenschaft, Vol. 142, pp. 1-71.

Griffith, J-M. (2004), “Taxpayer return on investment in Florida public libraries: Summary ReportSeptember 2004”, available at: http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/bld/roi/pdfs/ROISummaryReport.pdf (accessed March 23, 2010).

Havemann, F. (2004), “Eprints in der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation”, available at: www.ib.hu-berlin.de/, fhavem/E-prints.pdf (accessed April 5, 2010).

Holt, G.E., Elliott, D. and Dussold, C. (1996), “A framework for evaluating public investment inurban libraries”, The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 4-13.

Imholz, S. and Weil Arns, J. (2008), “Worth their weight: an assessment of the evolving field oflibrary evaluation”, Public Library Quaterly, Vol. 26 Nos 3/4, pp. 31-48.

Kaufman, P.T. (2008a), “The library as strategic investment: results of the University of IllinoisReturn on Investment Study”, Online Information 2008 Proceedings, pp. 29-36.

Kaufman, P.T. (2008b), “The library as strategic investment: results of the University of IllinoisReturn on Investment Study”, Library Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 424-37.

KOBV (n.d.), “KOBV: Startseite”, available at: www.kobv.de/ (accessed April 16, 2010).

(The) Krafty Librarian (2008), available at: http://kraftylibrarian.com/2008/02/how-much-are-you-worth.html (accessed April 6, 2010).

Luther, J. (2008), “University investment in the library: what’s the return? A case study at theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign”, White paper 1-18, 2010), available at: http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/whitepapers/lcwp0101.pdf (accessed January 2, 2010).

Medienportal (n.d.), “Medienportal – JadisNet”, available at: http://medienportal.hu-berlin.de/(accessed April 15, 2010).

Meta-Image (n.d.), available at: www.leuphana.de/meta-image/ (accessed April 10, 2010).

Missingham, R. (2005), “Libraries and economic value: a review of recent studies”, PerformanceMeasurement and Metrics, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 142-58.

Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. (1993), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The ContingentValuation Method, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. (2000), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The ContingentValuation Method, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Oder, N. (2009), “Study at UIUC suggests $4,38 in grant income for each library dollar”, LibraryJournal, 22 January, available at: www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6631202.html(accessed March 30, 2010).

Payne, P. and Conyers, A. (2005), “Measuring the impact of higher education libraries: theLIRG/SCONUL Impact Implementation Initiative”, Measuring the Impact of HigherEducation Libraries: The LIRG/SCONUL Impact Implementation Initiative, Library andInformation Research, Vol. 29 No. 91, pp. 1-9.

Poll, R. and Boekhorst, P. (2007), Measuring Quality: Performance Measurement in Libraries,K.G. Saur, Munchen.

Poll, R. and Payne, P. (2006), “Impact measures for libraries and information services”, availableat: http://eprints.rclis.org/9161/1/payne_poll_final_web.pdf (accessed February 27, 2010).

ROI in Germanlibraries

167

Page 28: 1.return on

Strouse, R. (2003), “Demonstrating value and return on investment: the ongoing imperative –assessing your library’s value statement”, Information Outlook, March, available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWE/is_3_7/ai_99011610/?tag¼content;col1 (accessedFebruary 25, 2010).

Further reading

About the iSchools (n.d.), available at: www.ischools.org/site/about/ (accessed February 15,2010).

Aktionsbuendnis (n.d.), “Aktionsbuendnis – Urheberrecht fur Bildung und Wissenschaft”,available at: www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de/index.html.de (accessed April 14, 2010).

arXiv.org (n.d.), “arXiv.org e-Print archive”, available at: http://arxiv.org/ (accessed April 2,2010).

arXiv.org help (n.d.), “arXiv.org help – to replace an article”, available at: http://arxiv.org/help/replace (accessed April 2, 2010).

Ausgewahlte Statistiken – Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin (n.d.), available at: http://forschung.hu-berlin.de/statistik/ (accessed March 16, 2010).

Frdgliotheksportal (n.d.), “Frdgliotheksportal: Unterhaltstrager”, available at: www.frdgliotheksportal.de/hauptmenue/frdgliotheken/frdgliotheken-in-deutschland/frdgliothekslandschaft/unterhaltstraeger/ (accessed April 16, 2010).

BMBF (n.d.a), “BMBF: Exzellenzinitiative”, available at: www.bmbf.de/de/1321.php (accessedFebruary 21, 2010).

BMBF (n.d.b), “BMBF: Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung”, available at: www.bmbf.de/ (accessed March 23, 2010).

Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag (n.d.), “Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag – Wikipedia”, availableat: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag (accessed March 26, 2010).

CORDIS (n.d.), “CORDIS: ICT: programme: language technologies”, available at: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/language-technologies/project-galateas_en.html (accessed April 20, 2010).

Dawson, S.M. (1983), “A synthesis of alternative techniques for calculating the return oninvestment”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 2, pp. 135-9.

DFG (n.d.a), “DFG – Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft – Formulare und Merkblatter”, availableat: www.dfg.de/foerderung/formulare_merkblaetter/index.jsp (accessed January 12, 2010).

DFG (n.d.b), “DFG – Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft”, available at: www.dfg.de/index.jsp(accessed March 23, 2010).

DFG (n.d.c), “DFG – GEPRIS”, available at: http://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/OCTOPUS/;jsessionid¼54F0262DC449F16AAE3FDF3184DCB689 (accessed March 23, 2010).

DINI (n.d.a), “DINI – Deutsche Initiative fur Netzwerkinformation e.V.: OA-Netzwerk”, availableat: www.dini.de/projekte/oa-netzwerk/ (accessed April 5, 2010).

DINI (n.d.b), ”DINI – Deutsche Initiative fur Netzwerkinformation e.V.: Startseite”,available at:www.dini.de/ (accessed April 10, 2010).

DNB (n.d.), “DNB, Deutsche Nationalfrdgliothek – home”, available at: www.d-nb.de/ (accessedApril 26, 2010).

DOARC (n.d.), “DOARC – Prototyp”, available at: http://doarc.projects.isn-oldenburg.de/(accessed April 5, 2010).

EERQI (n.d.), “About EERQI”, available at: www.eerqi.eu/ (accessed April 3, 2010).

BL23,4

168

Page 29: 1.return on

Europeana (n.d.), “Europeana – homepage”, available at: http://europeana.eu/portal/ (accessedApril 5, 2010).

EuropeanaConnect (n.d.), available at: www.europeanaconnect.eu/ (accessed April 5, 2010).

Flockhart, A. (2005), “Raising the profile of social enterprises: the use of social return oninvestment (SROI) and investment ready tools (IRT) to bridge the financial credibilitygap”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 29-42.

Forschungsdatenbank der HU (n.d.), .),”Forschungsdatenbank der HU – Humboldt Universitatzu Berlin”, available at: http://forschung.hu-berlin.de/fdb/ (accessed April 20, 2010).

Freie Universitat Berlin (n.d.), “Freie Universitat Berlin: Startseite”, available at: www.fu-berlin.de/ (accessed April 15, 2010).

Georg-August-Universitat Gottingen (n.d.), available at: www.uni-goettingen.de/ (accessedFebruary 18, 2010).

Gordon, L.A. and Iyengar, R.J. (1996), “Return on investment and corporate capital expenditures:empirical evidence”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 305-25.

Home – LOCKSS (n.d.), available at: http://lockss.stanford.edu/lockss/Home (accessed April 23,2010).

Homepage – Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin (n.d.), available at: www.hu-berlin.de/ (accessedApril 25, 2010).

Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin (2009), Berlin School of Library and Information Science,Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin, Berlin.

i2010/Europa (n.d.), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm (accessed March 30, 2010).

Institut fur Frdgliotheks (n.d.), “Institut fur Frdgliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft – IBI”,available at: www.ibi.hu-berlin.de/ (accessed April 25, 2010).

Institut fur Geschichtswissenschaften HU-Berlin (n.d.), “Institut fur GeschichtswissenschaftenHU-Berlin – Startseite”, available at: www.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/ (accessed April 25,2010).

IUWIS (n.d.), available at: www.iuwis.net/ (accessed April 13, 2010).

kopal (n.d.), “kopal – Kooperativer Aufbau eines Langzeitarchivs digitaler Informationen –koLibRI: kopal library for Retrieval and Ingest”, available at: http://kopal.langzeitarchivierung.de/index_koLibRI.php.de (accessed April 23, 2010).

Library of Michigan (n.d.) Vol. 2, “Library of Michigan return on investment calculator”,available at: http://mel.org/files/calculatorcode.php (accessed March 23, 2010).

Max Planck Gesellschaft (n.d.), “Max Planck Gesellschaft – Max Planck Digital Library(MPDL)”, available at: www.mpg.de/instituteProjekteEinrichtungen/weitereEinrichtungen/mpdl/index.html (accessed April 24, 2010).

MSC2010 (n.d.), “MSC2010 database”, available at: www.ams.org/mathscinet/msc/msc2010.html(accessed April 16, 2010).

Niedersachsische Staats- und Universitatsfrdgliothek Gottingen (n.d.), available at: www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ (accessed February 18, 2010).

Offentlicher-Dienst.Info (n.d.), “Offentlicher-Dienst.Info – TV-L – Berlin”, available at: http://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/tv-l/berlin/ (accessed March 26, 2010).

Phillipps-Universitat Marburg (n.d.), “Phillipps-Universitat Marburg – DeutschesDokumentationszentrum fur Kunstgeschichte – Bildarchiv Foto Marburg: Willkommen– Bild”, available at: www.fotomarburg.de/ (accessed April 12, 2010).

ROI in Germanlibraries

169

Page 30: 1.return on

Profil – Universitatsfrdgliothek der HU Berlin (n.d.), available at: www.ub.hu-berlin.de/ueber-uns/profil (accessed February 15, 2010).

Return on Investment (n.d.), “Return on investment (ROI)”, available at: www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp (accessed April 16, 2010).

Seymann, M. and Kleinhanzi, B. (2004), “Return on directors: maximizing return on investment inthe board room”, Handbook of Business Strategy, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 23-8.

Tarifvertrag (n.d.), “Tarifvertrag fur den offentlichen Dienst der Lander – Wikipedia”, availableat: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarifvertrag_f%C3%BCr_den_%C3%B6ffentlichen_Dienst_der_L%C3%A4nder (accessed March 26, 2010).

Universitat Konstanz (n.d.), available at: www.uni-konstanz.de/ (accessed April 23, 2010).

Universitat Osnabruck (n.d.), available at: www.uni-osnabrueck.de/ (accessed April 25, 2010).

Universitat zu Koln (n.d.), available at: www.uni-koeln.de/ (accessed April 25, 2010).

van Bennekom, F.C. (2002), Customer Surveying. A Guidebook for Service Managers, CustomerService Press, Bolton, MA.

Yapp, M. (2009), “Measuring the ROI of talent management”, Strategic HR Review, Vol. 8 No. 4,pp. 5-10.

You Tube (n.d.), “You Tube – libraries return on investment (ROI)”, available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v¼TgqoM5ZNu3Q (accessed March 23, 2010).

Zajas, J.J. (1999), “Measuring brand communication: return on investment”, Journal of ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 616-29.

Zentrum fur Zeithistorische Forschung Potsdam (n.d.), available at: www.zzf-pdm.de/ (accessedApril 2, 2010).

Appendix 1. Grant proposals. Applicant body: Christen, W., Havemann, F., Hilf, E.R., Mellert, V. and Schirmbacher, P.

(2008), Erschließung von Zitationen in verteilten Open-Access Repositorien (DistributedOpen Access Reference Citation Services) Acronym: DOARC. Antrag auf Forderung durchdie DFG im Forderungsbereich Wissenschaftliche Literaturversorgungs- undInformationssysteme (LIS), pp. 1-26.

. Applicant body: Dieckmann, L., Schirmbacher, P. and Warnke, M. (2008), Meta-Image –Forschungsumgebung fur den Bilddiskurs in der Kunstgeschichte. Antrag auf Forderungdurch die DFG im Forderungsbereich Wissenschaftliche Literaturversorgungs- undInformationssysteme (LIS), pp. 1-23.

. Applicant body: Glaser, J., Havemann, F. and Heinz, M. (2008), Messung der Diversitat derForschung. Antrag auf Forderung durch das BMBF, pp. 1-15.

. Applicant body: Gradmann, S., Lossau, J., Plumer, J. and Schirmbacher, P. (2009),Weiterentwicklung und Betrieb des Netzwerks zertifizierter Open-Access-Repositorien furDeutschland. (Fortsetzungsantrag) Kennwort: OA-Netzwerk 2. Antrag auf Forderungdurch die DFG im Forderungsbereich Wissenschaftliche Literaturversorgungs- undInformationssysteme (LIS), pp. 1-42.

. Applicant body: Kuhlen, R. and Seadle, M. (2009), Aufbau einer Informationsinfrastrukturzum Urheberrecht fur Bildung und Wissenschaft. Urheberrechtliches Wissen fur Bildungund Wissenschaft (urhWiss). Antrag auf Forderung durch die DFG im ForderungsbereichWissenschaftliche Literaturversorgungs- und Informationssysteme (LIS), pp. 1-25.

. Applicant body: Lossau, N., Plumer, J. and Schirmbacher, P. (2006), Aufbau einesNetzwerks zertifizierter Open-Access Repositories. Kenntwort: OA-Netzwerk. Antrag auf

BL23,4

170

Page 31: 1.return on

Forderung durch die DFG im Forderungsbereich WissenschaftlicheLiteraturversorgungs- und Informationssysteme (LIS), pp. 1-37.

. Applicant body: Lossau, N., Romary, L. and Schirmbacher, P. (2007), Aufbau einerInformationsplattform fur das Publizieren auf der Basis generischerPublikationswerkzeuge. Kennwort: CARPET. Antrag auf Forderung durch die DFG imForderungsbereich Wissenschaftliche Literaturversorgungs- und Informationssysteme(LIS), pp. 1-34.

. Applicant body: Niggemann, E., Seadle, M. and Schirmbacher, P. (2009),LOCKSS-und-KOPAL Infrastruktur-und-Interoperabilitat. Antrag auf Forderung durchdie DFG im Forderungsbereich Wissenschaftliche Literaturversorgungs- undInformationssysteme (LIS), pp. 1-34.

. Applicant body: Nippel, W., Sabrow, M. and Schirmbacher, P. (2007),Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte – thematische Netzwerke und informelles Publizieren mit demSoftware-Framework MediaWiki. Antrag auf Gewahrung einer Sachbeihilfe durch dieDFG, in Bezugnahme auf das DFG-Schwerpunktprogramm: Informations-Infrastrukturenfur netzbasierte Forschungskooperation und digitale Publikationen und ElektronischePublikationen im Literatur- und Informationsangebot wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken,pp. 1-48.

. Applicant body: Schirmbacher, P. (2008), Entwicklung und Implementierung einerOpen-Source-Repository Solution fur vernetztes Arbeiten mit wissenschaftlichen Bild-und Multimediasammlungen. Kennwort: MUNIN-RS. Antrag auf Forderung durch dieDFG im Forderungsbereich Aufbau und Vernetzung von Repositorien, pp. 1-21.

. eContentplus. EuropeanaConnect (2008), Description of Work, pp. 1-140.

. European Educational Research Quality Indicators, EERQI (2008), Grant agreementNo. 217549, Annex I, Description of Work, pp. 1-96.

. GALATEAS Generalized Analysis of Logs for Automatic Translation and EpisodicAnalysis of Searches (2009), Proposal Part B, pp. 1-88.

(Further Appendices overleaf)

ROI in Germanlibraries

171

Page 32: 1.return on

Appendix 2. Grant calculations final

Con

sist

ing

of

Mon

eyca

lcu

late

dE

Sta

ffco

sts

ES

chol

arly

equ

ipm

ent

ET

rav

elex

pen

ses

EP

ub

lish

ing

EO

ther

cost

sE

Com

men

ts

IUW

IS34

7,49

9.00

255,

984.

000.

006,

990.

0038

,700

.00

9,82

5.00

Lu

KII

280,

726.

0022

2,27

6.00

10,0

00.0

011

,100

.00

1,35

0.00

36,0

00.0

0E

uro

pea

naC

onn

ect

191,

986.

00£

££

££

EU

pro

ject

Gal

atea

s62

,356

.00

££

££

£E

Up

roje

ctD

OA

RC

183,

692.

0016

0,56

0.00

7,48

2.72

13,8

00.0

01,

850.

000.

00E

ER

QI

136,

720.

00£

££

££

EU

pro

ject

For

sch

un

gsd

iver

sita

t23

0,01

3.00

103,

645.

0032

,996

.00

33,5

00.0

06,

910.

0052

,962

.00

Car

pet

348,

940.

0032

1,12

0.00

0.00

23,2

220.

004,

600.

000.

00M

eta-

Imag

e27

1,52

0.00

209,

520.

000.

0027

,000

.00

5,00

0.00

30.0

00.0

0M

UN

IN-R

S27

6,88

0.00

214,

080.

000.

009,

800.

000.

0053

,000

.00

OA

N24

1,16

4.00

202,

464.

0012

,900

.00

23,1

00.0

02,

700.

000.

00O

AN

232

8,02

2.00

186,

272.

002,

000.

0031

,550

.00

8,20

0.00

0.00

Doc

up

edia

290,

984.

0025

5,98

4.00

5,50

0.00

16,0

00.0

01,

200.

0012

,300

.00

Tot

alam

oun

t3,

190,

502.

00

Table AI.

BL23,4

172

Page 33: 1.return on

Appendix 3. Citations

IDW

ISR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

1.H

elm

hol

tz-G

emei

nsc

haf

t1

2.L

stin

gN

otap

pli

cab

le3.

Got

tin

ger

Erk

laru

ng

14.

Ste

llu

ng

nah

me

der

deu

tsch

enA

kad

emie

nd

erW

isse

nsc

haf

ten

15.

IDW

Pre

ssem

itte

ilu

ng

16.

All

ian

zS

chw

erp

un

kti

nit

iati

ve

UR

Ln

otfo

un

d7.

Hel

mhol

tzN

ewsl

ette

r20

071

8.M

axP

lan

ckIn

stit

ut

Pre

ssem

itte

ilu

ng

19.

Sie

ber

/Hoe

ren

Urh

eber

rech

tfu

rB

ild

un

gu

nd

Wis

sen

sch

aft

110

.R

efer

ente

nen

twu

rfzw

eite

sG

eset

z/R

egel

un

gd

esU

rheb

erre

chts

2004

111

.R

ech

tsp

olit

tisc

hes

Pos

itio

nsp

apie

rd

esD

tsch

.B

ibli

oth

eksv

erb

un

des

112

.U

Kin

itia

tiv

e1

13.

Dts

ch.

Ph

ysi

kal

isch

eG

esel

lsch

aft

e.V

114

.V

GW

ort

115

.D

euts

cher

Hoc

hsc

hu

lver

ban

dK

urz

info

rmat

ion

(2/0

8)1

16.

Un

iS

tutt

gar

t/R

ech

tsfr

agen

117

.V

ario

us

inte

rnet

reso

urc

es,

i.e.

Lin

kto

Bor

sen

ver

ein

des

dts

ch.

Bu

chh

and

elor

law

-blo

g.d

e1

18.

DIN

ID

oku

men

te1

19.

Dri

tte

Ste

llu

ng

nah

me

zum

Ers

ten

Kor

b(D

INI)

120

.D

INI-

Net

zwer

k1

21.

Op

enac

cess

-ger

man

y.d

e1

22.

Max

Pla

nck

Pu

bli

kat

ion

en1

23.

Ver

sch

ied

ene

un

iver

sita

reju

rist

isch

eE

inri

chtu

ng

en:

Mu

nst

er,

Han

nov

er,

Saa

rbru

cken

,K

arls

ruh

e1

24.

Deu

tsch

esF

orsc

hu

ng

snet

z1

UR

Ln

otfo

un

d25

.In

stit

ut

fur

Urh

eber

un

dM

edie

nre

cht,

Mu

nch

en1

26.

UB

Un

iH

eid

elb

erg

/Urh

eber

rech

tin

der

Info

rmat

ion

sges

ells

chaf

t1

27.

Bib

liot

hek

sver

ban

dW

ebsi

te1

UR

Ln

otfo

un

d28

.S

chu

len

ans

Net

ze.

V.

1

(con

tinued

)

Table AII.

ROI in Germanlibraries

173

Page 34: 1.return on

IDW

ISR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

29.

Bu

nd

esm

inis

teri

um

der

Just

iz1

UR

Ln

otco

mp

lete

30.

iRig

hts

Urh

eber

rech

tin

der

dig

ital

enW

elt

131

.In

stit

ute

for

Sci

ence

Net

wor

kin

gO

lden

bu

rg1

32a.

Info

rmat

ion

onp

ub

lica

tion

sb

yK

uh

len

all

list

edin

the

bib

liog

rap

hy

Not

app

lica

ble

32b

.P

olte

rman

,A

.(2

002)

Gu

tzu

Wis

sen

133

.K

uh

len

,R

.(2

008)

Erf

olg

reic

hes

Sch

eite

rn1

34.

An

hor

un

gd

esB

un

des

tag

/Urh

eber

rech

t1

35.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

36.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

37.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

1.U

rheb

erre

chts

bu

nd

nis

,G

otti

ng

erE

rkla

run

g1

2.B

enk

ler,

Y.

(200

6),

Th

ew

ealt

hof

net

wor

ks.

How

soci

alp

rod

uct

ion

tran

sfor

ms

mar

ket

san

dfr

eed

om1

3,P

ress

ein

form

atio

nd

esB

orse

nv

erei

nd

esd

euts

ch.B

uch

han

del

s20

061

4.S

tell

un

gn

ahm

ed

esB

un

des

rate

s.E

ntw

urf

ein

esZ

wei

ten

Ges

etze

s1

5.C

aste

lls,

M.(

1996

)T

he

rise

ofth

en

etw

ork

soci

ety

.Th

ein

form

atio

nag

e:E

con

omy

,so

ciet

yan

dcu

ltu

re1

6.D

FG

Em

pfe

hlu

ng

end

esA

uss

chu

sses

fur

wis

s.B

ibli

oth

eken

“Ak

tuel

leA

nfo

rder

un

gen

der

wis

s.In

form

atio

nsv

erso

rgu

ng

”1

7.D

FG

“Pu

bli

kat

ion

sstr

ateg

ien

imW

and

el”.

Erg

ebn

isse

ein

erU

mfr

age

18.

DF

G-P

osit

ion

spap

ier:

“Ele

ktr

onis

ches

Pu

bli

zier

en”.

Em

pfe

hlu

ng

end

esU

nte

rau

ssch

uss

es1

9.E

uro

pai

sch

eK

omm

issi

on:

Mit

teil

un

gd

erK

omm

issi

onan

das

EU

Par

lam

ent

110

.C

oun

cil

Con

clu

sion

son

scie

nti

fic

info

rmat

ion

inth

ed

igit

alag

eN

ov.

2007

111

.A

bsc

hlu

ßb

eric

ht

des

Eu

rop

ean

Res

earc

hA

dv

isor

yB

oard

112

.F

ourn

ier,

J.(2

007)

OA

ind

erd

tsch

.F

orsc

hu

ng

sgem

ein

sch

aft

113

.G

oun

alak

is,

G.

(200

7)E

inn

euer

Mor

gen

fur

den

Wis

sen

sch

afts

par

agra

fen

1

(con

tinued

)

Table AII.

BL23,4

174

Page 35: 1.return on

IDW

ISR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

14.

Die

Gru

nen

:U

rheb

erre

cht

imd

igit

alen

Zei

talt

er1

15.

Han

sen

,G

.(2

005)

Zu

gan

gzu

wis

s.In

form

atio

n–

alte

rnat

ive

urh

eber

rech

tlic

he

An

satz

eG

RU

R1

16.

Han

sen

,G

.(2

006)

Ind

ieZ

uk

un

ftp

ub

lizi

eren

(Ste

mp

fhu

ber

)1

17.

Hil

ty,R

.M.(

2006

)D

asU

rheb

erre

cht

un

dd

erW

isse

nsc

haf

tler

GR

UR

118

.H

ilty

,R

.M.

(200

7)S

un

den

boc

kU

rheb

erre

cht?

119

.H

oere

n,

T.

(200

7)U

rheb

erre

cht

ind

erW

isse

nsg

esel

lsch

aft

In:

Au

sP

olit

iku

nd

Wis

sen

sch

aft

120

.H

oere

n,

Tan

dK

och

erJ.

K.

(200

5)D

erW

isse

nsc

haf

tler

als

Au

tor

121

.H

oere

n,

T.

and

Kal

lber

g,

N.

(200

6)D

eram

erik

anis

che

TE

AC

HA

ct1

22.

Hu

gen

hol

tz,P

.B.a

nd

Ok

edij

i,R

.L.(

2008

)Con

ceiv

ing

anin

tern

atio

nal

inst

rum

ent

onli

mit

atio

ns

and

exce

pti

ons

toco

py

rig

ht

123

.Ja

szi,

P.

(200

5)P

ub

lic

inte

rest

exce

pti

ons

inco

py

rig

ht

124

.K

uh

len

,R

.(2

008)

Got

terd

amm

eru

ng

125

.K

uh

len

,R

.(2

006)

Op

enIn

nov

atio

n:

Tei

lei

ns

126

.L

itm

an,

J.(2

001)

Dig

ital

Cop

yri

gh

t:P

rote

ctin

gin

tell

ectu

alp

rop

erty

onth

ein

tern

et1

27.

Lu

tter

bec

k,

B.

and

Geh

rin

g,

R.

(200

3)K

riti

kau

sd

erS

ich

tei

nes

Hoc

hsc

hu

lleh

rers

un

dei

nes

Wis

sen

sch

aftl

ers,

den

Ges

etze

ntw

urf

der

Bu

nd

esre

gie

run

gzu

mU

rhG

un

dd

ieU

nte

rric

htb

esti

mm

un

gfu

rU

nte

rric

ht

un

dF

orsc

hu

ng

bet

reff

end

.1

28.

Nen

twic

h,M

.(20

03)C

yb

ersc

ien

ce.R

esea

rch

inth

eag

eof

the

inte

rnet

129

.P

flu

ger

,T.

(200

7)O

pen

Acc

ess,

Ch

ance

nu

nd

Her

ausf

ord

eru

ng

en–

ein

Han

db

uch

130

.R

oyal

Aca

dem

y(2

003)

Kee

pin

gS

cien

ceO

pen

131

.S

pin

dle

r,G

.(2

006)

Rec

htl

ich

eR

ahm

enb

edin

gu

ng

env

onO

A-P

ub

lik

atio

nen

132

.S

utt

orp

,A.(

2005

)Die

offe

ntl

ich

eZ

ug

ang

lich

mac

hu

ng

fur

Un

terr

ich

tu

nd

For

sch

un

g1

012

1636

Alt

oget

her

64

Table AII.

ROI in Germanlibraries

175

Page 36: 1.return on

Lu

KII

Ref

eren

ces

Pai

d4

Inte

rnet

Res

ourc

eL

oan

shar

ing

@ UB

Inte

rnet

-b

ased

Com

men

ts

1.O

pen

DO

AR

1L

ink

avai

lab

lev

iaO

PA

C2.

Sta

tist

ic@

Sta

tCou

nte

r1

3.A

CM

Por

tal/C

onfe

rence

Pro

ceed

ings

2008

AC

M/I

EE

E-C

Sjo

int

con

fere

nce

14.

Sea

dle

/Gre

ifen

eder

“In

Arc

hiv

ing

we

tru

st”

1E

mer

ald

5.O

pen

DO

AR

1L

ink

avai

lab

lev

iaO

PA

C6.

Her

itri

x1

7.In

stal

lin

gL

OC

KS

S1

20

23

Alt

oget

her

7

Table AIII.

BL23,4

176

Page 37: 1.return on

Eu

rop

ean

aC

onn

ect

Ref

eren

ces

Pai

d4

Inte

rnet

Res

ourc

eL

oan

shar

ing

@U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

1.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le2.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

3.L

ink

zuE

uro

pea

nal

ocal

.se

Pro

jek

tbes

rkiv

enin

g05

081

Des

crip

tion

ofp

roje

ct4.

Wik

iped

ia1

5.In

form

atio

non

Mil

esto

nes

Not

app

lica

ble

1.L

ink

inte

xt/

Cre

ativ

eC

omm

ons

Liz

ense

n1

2.L

ink

inte

xt/

OA

I-O

RE

13.

Lin

kin

tex

t/E

uro

pea

nC

omm

issi

onJo

int

Res

earc

hC

entr

e1

4.L

ink

inte

xt/

Eu

roW

ord

Net

Fin

alR

esu

lts

15.

Lin

kin

tex

t/X

DX

FD

icti

onar

y1

6.L

ink

inte

xt/

On

lin

ed

icti

onar

y–

Loo

kw

ayu

p1

7.L

ink

inte

xt/

On

lin

etr

ansl

ater

18.

Lin

kin

tex

t/O

nli

ne

tran

slat

or1

9.L

ink

inte

xt/

Tin

yU

RL

for

goo

gle

map

slo

cati

on1

10.

Lin

kin

tex

t/E

uro

pea

nC

omm

issi

onIN

SIR

EG

eop

orta

l1

11.

Lin

kin

tex

t/W

ebW

idg

etfo

rV

isu

aliz

ing

Tem

por

alD

ata

112

.A

sab

ove

w/

dif

fere

nt

dep

icti

on1

13.

Lin

kin

tex

t/D

ISM

AR

Cau

dio

stor

age

dat

abas

e1

14.

Lin

kin

tex

t/D

BP

edia

115

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Tex

tGri

dV

ern

etzt

eF

orsc

hu

ng

sum

geb

un

gin

den

eHu

man

itie

s1

16.

Lin

kin

tex

t/C

yb

erIn

fras

tru

ctu

reO

urC

ult

ura

lCom

mon

wea

lth

1N

otap

pli

cab

le/L

ink

bro

ken

17.

Lin

kin

tex

t/B

ibn

etL

ux

emb

ourg

118

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Nat

ion

alb

ibli

oth

ekL

ux

emb

ourg

119

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Ru

ssia

nL

ibra

ryH

erit

age

onli

ne

120

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Fra

nk

van

Har

mel

enW

ebsi

te1

21.

Lin

kin

tex

t/L

arg

eK

now

led

ge

Col

lid

er1

22.

Lin

kin

tex

t/A

nto

ine

Isaa

cW

ebsi

te1

23.

Lin

kin

tex

t/S

UB

Got

tin

gen

124

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Un

iver

sity

ofO

xfo

rd1

00

125

Alt

oget

her

26

Table AIV.

ROI in Germanlibraries

177

Page 38: 1.return on

Gal

atea

sR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

1.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le2.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

3.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le4.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

5.F

ueg

i,D

.an

dJe

nn

ing

s,M

.(2

004)

,“I

nte

rnat

ion

alli

bra

ryst

atis

tics

”1

1.P

roce

edin

gsof

the

7th

IWP

T(R

oux

,C

han

od,

Sal

ah)

2001

1L

iste

dat

Un

iT

rier

,ac

cess

ible

via

Cit

eSee

r2.

ICS

DP

roce

edin

gs,

Ber

nad

iet

al.,

Mu

ltil

ing

ual

Acc

ess

toL

ibr.

Cat

alog

ues

l1

3.T

he

Annals

ofA

pplie

dS

tati

stic

s,B

lei

and

Laf

fert

y

1

KO

BV

/ZD

Bfr

eeac

cess

afte

r36

mon

ths

via

Eu

clid

bu

tn

osu

bsc

rip

tion

via

UB

4.C

LE

F20

08,

Bos

caan

dD

ini

15.

ICS

DP

roce

edin

gs,

Bos

caan

dD

ini

(200

9),

Th

eR

ole

ofL

ogs

inIm

pro

vin

g...

16.

Pro

ceed

ings

ofth

eW

orks

hop

onS

tati

stic

alM

ach

ine

Tra

nsl

ati

on,

Cal

liso

n-B

urc

h,

For

dy

ce,

Koe

hn

,et

al.

17.

Ch

urc

h,

K.

and

Hov

y,

C.

(199

3),

“Goo

dap

pli

cati

ons

for...“

,M

ach

.T

ranls

.8

18.

Cu

cerz

an,

S.

and

Yar

owsk

y,

D.

(199

9),P

roce

edin

gsJo

int

SIG

DA

TC

onfe

rence

19.

Cu

rton

i,P

.an

dD

ini,

L.

(200

6),

CL

EF

2006

Wor

kin

gN

otes

110

.In

form

ati

onP

roce

ssin

gand

Manage

men

t,D

un

lav

y,

D.M

.an

dO

’Lea

ryD

.P.

(200

7)1

11.

Com

munic

ati

ons

ofth

eA

CM

,Etz

ion

i,O

.et

al.

(200

8),O

pen

Inf.

Ex

trac

tion

from

the

Web

112

.G

uil

ian

o,C

.P

roce

edin

gsof

the

13th

Con

fere

nce

onC

ompu

tati

onalN

at.

Lang.

Lea

rnin

g(2

009)

(CoN

LL

)1

13.

Pro

ceed

ings

ofth

eN

ati

onalA

cadem

yof

Sci

ence

,Gri

ffith

s,T

.an

dS

tey

ver

s,M

.(2

004)

1Jo

urn

al

(con

tinued

)

Table AV.

BL23,4

178

Page 39: 1.return on

Gal

atea

sR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

14.

Gri

ffith

s,T

.,T

ech

nic

alR

epor

t1

Via

Cit

eSee

r15

.H

ein

rich

,G

.,T

ech

nic

alR

epor

t1

Via

Cit

euL

ike

16.

Hof

man

n,

T.,

Pro

ceed

ings

ofU

AI

(199

9)1

Sou

rce

has

mov

edfr

omU

AI

web

site

17.

Lib

rary

and

Info

rmati

onS

cien

ceR

esea

rch

(200

6),

Jan

sen

,B

.J.

1N

atio

nal

lice

nce

18.

Ste

ve,

J.et

al.

(200

0),In

t.Jo

urn

alon

Dig

.L

ibra

ries

119

.P

roce

edin

gsof

ICA

SS

P,

Kn

igh

t,K

.an

dM

arcu

,D

.(2

005)

120

.K

oeh

n,

P.

and

Mon

z,C

.(2

006)

,P

roce

edin

gsof

NA

AC

L1

AC

M21

.K

oeh

n,

P.

and

Mon

z,C

.(2

005)

,P

roce

edin

gsof

AC

LW

orks

hop

122

.K

oeh

n,

P.

and

Hie

u,

H.

(200

7),

Con

fere

nce

onE

mp

iric

alM

eth

ods...

(EM

NL

P)

1V

iaK

OB

V23

.K

oeh

n,

P.et

al.

(200

7)A

nn

ual

Mee

tin

gof

the

Ass

ocia

tion

for

Com

pu

tati

onal

Lin

gu

isti

cs(A

CL

)1

24.

Lop

ez,

A.

(200

8),

AC

MC

omp

uti

ng

Su

rvey

s1

25.

Mik

hee

v,

A.et

al.

(199

9),P

roce

edin

gsof

EA

CL

126

.O

ard

,D

.W.

and

Och

,F

.J.

(200

3),P

roce

edin

gsM

TS

um

mit

IX1

On

ly19

89v

iaK

OB

V27

.P

opes

cuet

al.

(200

7),

Wor

ksh

opon

Sem

anti

cE

val

uat

ion

s1

28.

Qia

ng

Pu

and

Gu

o-W

eiY

ang

(200

6),A

dv

ance

sin

Neu

ralW

ork

s1

29.

Lin

gvis

ticæ

Inve

stig

atio

nes

(200

7),S

teib

erg

er,R

.an

dP

oliq

uen

,B.,

Ban

d30

1Y

es,

bu

tn

otN

o.30

/200

730

.W

ei,

X.

and

Cro

ft,

W.B

.,P

roce

edin

gsof

AC

MS

IGIR

1 126

112

Alt

oget

her

31

Table AV.

ROI in Germanlibraries

179

Page 40: 1.return on

DO

AR

CR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

1.O

AI-

PM

H1

2.S

cien

ceC

itat

ion

Ind

ex1

3.W

ebof

Sci

ence

14.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

5.H

ilse

,H

.-W.

and

Kot

he,

J.(2

006)

,Im

plem

enti

ng

Per

sist

ent

Iden

tifier

s1

6.L

arew

nce

,S

.et

al.

(199

9),IE

EE

Com

pute

r,32

17.

Cit

eSee

r1

8.B

rod

y,T

.(20

03),

Con

fere

nce

onW

orld

wid

eC

oher

ent

Wor

kfo

rce

19.

Bro

dy

,T

.et

al.,

“Cit

atio

nIm

pac

tof

OA

Art

icle

sv

sA

rtic

les

avai

lab

le...”

(on

goi

ng

)1

10.

Goo

gle

Sch

olar

111

.E

doc

-Ser

ver

/Din

i-S

chri

ften

112

.M

cVei

gh

,M

.E.

(200

4),

“Op

enA

cces

sin

the

ISI...

”1

13.

Har

dy

,R

.et

al.

(200

5),

“OA

Cit

atio

ns

Info

rmat

ion

/ep

rin

ts”

1JI

SC

and

Un

iver

sity

ofS

outh

amp

ton

14.

Ku

rtz,

M.G

.et

al.,

“Th

eef

fect

ofu

sean

dac

cess

onci

tati

ons”

115

.T

ong

,J.

(200

6),

Cit

atio

nS

tyle

Gu

ide

for

Inte

rnet

and

Ele

ctro

nic

Sou

rces

116

.B

ran

des

,J.

(200

6),G

uid

eto

Cit

ati

on:

apa

styl

e1

Lin

kb

rok

en17

.v

anH

illa

rd,

E.,

Fu

llT

ext

Mag

azin

eA

rtic

lefr

omD

atab

ase

118

.M

ayr,

P.

(200

6),

“Res

earc

hE

val

uat

ion

,C

onst

ruct

ing

exp

erim

enta

lin

dic

ator

s...”

119

.G

un

dle

r,J.

(200

5),

“In

die

Zu

ku

nft

pu

bli

zier

en–

Her

ausf

ord

eru

ng

enan

das

Pu

bli

zier

en...”

120

.IF

Q1

21.

AC

MP

orta

l1

22.

DB

LP

Com

pu

ter

Sci

ence

Lib

rary

123

.A

rXiv

134

.S

PIR

ES

HE

P1

25.

Kri

chel

,T

.,R

ePE

cR

epor

tsin

Eco

nom

ics

1

(con

tinued

)

Table AVI.

BL23,4

180

Page 41: 1.return on

DO

AR

CR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

26.

Ed

oc-S

erv

erD

isse

rtat

ion

s-F

orm

atv

orla

ge

127

.B

ibst

er1

28.

Haa

se,

P.

(200

4),

“Bib

ster

–A

Sem

anti

c...,

”in

Pro

ceed

ings

ofth

eIn

t.S

emanti

cW

ebC

onfe

rence

129

.H

aase

,P

.et

al.,

inP

roce

edin

gsof

the

Int.

Sem

anti

cW

ebC

onfe

rence

130

.B

ibst

er,

Lin

ux

-Dev

elop

erF

assu

ng

131

.R

ich

ard

Cam

eron

/Cit

eUL

ike

Not

app

lica

ble

32.

VIK

EF

133

.K

apla

n,

A.,

San

dor

,A

.an

dR

ond

eu,

G.

(200

6),

“Dis

cou

rse

and

cita

tion

...”

134

.E

ER

QI

135

.H

yp

erjo

urn

al1

36.

DB

IS-D

aten

ban

kIn

fosy

stem

137

.C

atal

ogu

eB

n-O

pal

ep

lus

138

.S

PIN

and

My

SC

itat

ion

139

.E

BS

CO

140

.B

ibso

nom

y1

41.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

42.

Th

eD

OI

Sy

stem

143

.O

pen

UR

L1

44.

Pow

ell,

A.,

Dis

trib

ute

dS

yst

ems:

Op

enU

RL

dem

onst

rato

r1

45.

Hir

sch

,J.

E.,

Pro

ceed

ings

ofth

eN

ati

onalA

cadem

yof

Sci

ence

s,10

21

46.

Mar

shak

ova,

(197

3),I.V

.N

ach

no-

Tek

hnic

hes

kaya

Info

rmats

iya

Ser

iya

21

47.

Sm

all,

H.

(199

4),Jo

urn

alof

Am

eric

an

Soc

iety

for

Info

rmati

onS

cien

ce,

241

48.

Kes

sler

,M

.M.

(196

3),A

mer

ican

Doc

um

enta

tion

1N

atio

nal

lice

nce

49.

Sm

all,

H.

(199

4),S

cien

tom

etri

cs1

(con

tinued

)

Table AVI.

ROI in Germanlibraries

181

Page 42: 1.return on

DO

AR

CR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

50.

Ch

en,

C.

and

Car

r,L

.(1

999)

,“V

isu

aliz

ing

the

Ev

olu

tion

ofa

Su

bje

ctD

omai

n:

AC

ase

Stu

dy

“1

51.

Kat

z,S

.(2

006)

,S

cien

ceand

Publ

icP

olic

y1

Via

AC

Mv

ersi

onfr

om20

00fo

un

d,

ver

sion

from

2006

nei

ther

atA

CM

nor

atau

thor

’sw

ebsi

te52

.S

oler

,J.

(200

6),

“AR

atio

nal

Ind

icat

orof

Sci

enti

fic

Cre

ativ

ity

”1

53.

Ber

ner

s-L

ee,T

.et

al.,

Sci

enti

fic

Am

eric

an

,“T

he

Sem

anti

cW

eb”

154

.B

ern

ers-

Lee

,T.e

tal.

(200

5),“

Jou

rnal

pu

bli

shin

gan

dau

thor

self

-ar

chiv

ing

:P

eace

ful...

”1

55.

Bol

len

,J.e

tal.

(200

5),I

nfo

rmati

onP

roce

ssin

gand

Manage

men

t1

56.

Bro

dy

,T

.et

al.

(200

6),Jo

urn

alof

the

Am

eric

an

Ass

ocia

tion

for

Info

rmati

onS

cien

ceand

Tec

hnol

ogy

157

.G

arfi

eld

,E

.(1

955)

,“C

itat

ion

Ind

exes

for

Sci

ence

:A

New

Dim

ensi

on...”

158

.G

arfi

eld

,E

.(1

962-

1973

),“C

itat

ion

Fre

qu

ency

asa

Mea

sure

ofR

esea

rch

Act

ivit

yan

dP

erfo

rman

ce”

159

.H

arn

ad,

S.

(200

1),

“Res

each

acce

ss,

imp

act

and

asse

ssm

ent”

160

.H

arn

ad,S

.etal.

(200

3),“

Man

dat

edon

lin

eR

AE

CV

sli

nk

edto

...

Ari

adn

e”1

61.

Kle

inb

erg

,M

.J.,

“Hu

bs,

Au

thor

itie

s,an

dC

omm

un

itie

s”,

AC

M1

62.

Ku

rtz,

M.J

.(2

004)

,“T

he

Eff

ect

ofU

sean

dA

cces

son

Cit

atio

ns”

163

.L

and

auer

,T

.K.

(199

8),

“In

trod

uct

ion

toL

aten

tS

eman

tic

An

aly

sis”

1N

otav

aila

ble

for

HU

64.

New

man

,M

.E.J

.,P

roce

edin

gsof

the

Nati

onalA

cadem

yof

Sci

ence

s1

65.

Pag

e,L

.etal.,

“Th

eP

ageR

ank

Cit

atio

nR

ank

ing

:Bri

ng

ing

Ord

erto

the

Web

”1

66.

Sm

ith

,A

.;E

yse

nck

,M

.(2

002)

,“T

he

corr

elat

ion

bet

wee

nR

AE

rati

ng

san

dci

tati

onco

un

tsin

Psy

chol

ogy

”1

67.

Moe

d,

H.F

.(2

005)

,“C

itat

ion

An

aly

sis

inR

esea

rch

Ev

alu

atio

n”

1

(con

tinued

)

Table AVI.

BL23,4

182

Page 43: 1.return on

DO

AR

CR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

68.

“Th

eef

fect

ofop

enac

cess

and

dow

nlo

ads

(‘hit

s’)

onci

tati

onim

pac

t:a

bib

liog

rap

hy

ofst

ud

ies”

169

.P

ub

lik

atio

nsa

rch

ivd

esIn

stit

uts

fur

Ph

ysi

k,

Old

enb

urg

170

.P

ub

lik

atio

nen

des

Inst

itu

tefo

rS

cien

ceN

etw

ork

ing

171

.D

ien

ste-

En

twic

klu

ng

end

esIn

stit

ute

for

Sci

ence

Net

wor

kin

g1

72.

Zim

mer

man

n,K

.et

al.

(200

1),D

isse

rtat

ion

enO

nli

ne,

“Wor

kfl

owu

nd

Nac

hw

eis

fur

Dis

sert

atio

nen

”1

73.

Dis

sert

atio

nO

nli

ne

174

.P

hy

sNet

Ph

ysi

csN

etw

ork

Wor

ldw

ide

175

.M

yM

eta

Mak

er1

76/

Op

enA

rch

ives

Dis

trib

ute

dO

AD

177

.D

C-C

hec

ker

178

.L

iLi

–L

ink

list

end

erP

hy

sik

:eL

earn

ing

Mat

eria

lien

179

.D

ocu

men

ten

Ret

riev

alS

yst

emD

oRe

des

GS

IG

roß

fors

chu

ng

sin

stit

uts

,D

arm

stad

t:1

80.

En

gin

eE

rzeu

ger

Inn

en-N

utz

erIn

nen

-Gu

tach

terI

nn

en-I

nte

rak

tion

bei

pro

fess

ion

elle

mN

ach

wei

sv

erte

ilte

rm

ult

imed

iale

reL

earn

ing

-Ob

jek

te1

81.

Hil

f,E

.R.

and

Mim

kes

,J.

(200

2),

“Zu

ein

emv

erlu

stfr

eien

Pu

bli

zier

enu

nd

Arc

hiv

iere

n–

Mat

hem

atis

che

Au

ssag

enin

Ph

ysi

ku

nd

Ch

emie

”1

82.

Hil

f,E

.R.

(200

5),

Kan

nm

anT

eXb

eib

rin

gen

,P

hy

sik

zuv

erst

ehen

183

.H

ilf,

E.R

.et

al.

(200

8),

Mat

hem

atic

alK

now

led

ge

Man

agem

ent

184

.K

rich

el,

T.,

Aca

dem

icC

ontr

ibu

tor

Info

rmat

ion

Sy

stem

185

.H

ilf,

E.R

.an

dK

rich

el,

T.

(200

2),

42n

dS

tree

tP

aper

:“S

chol

arly

Com

mu

nic

atio

nis

auth

or-d

riv

enra

ther

than

read

er-d

riv

en”

186

.E

uro

scie

nce

Con

fere

nce

,M

un

ich

2006

187

.S

had

bol

t,N

.etal.

(200

6),“

Op

enA

cces

s:K

eyS

trat

egic

,Tec

hn

ical

and

Eco

nom

icA

spec

ts”

188

.H

arn

ad,

S.et

al.

(200

4)S

eria

lsR

evie

w,

301

(con

tinued

)

Table AVI.

ROI in Germanlibraries

183

Page 44: 1.return on

DO

AR

CR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

89.

Hav

eman

n,

F.,

Sch

rift

env

erze

ich

nis

190

.H

avem

ann

,F.(

2002

),“B

ibli

omet

risc

he

Dat

enfu

rd

ieD

ebat

teu

md

enW

and

eld

erU

niv

ersi

tat”

191

.H

avem

ann

,F

.(2

003)

,“B

ibli

omet

ric

ind

icat

ors

and

thei

ru

sefo

rre

sear

chev

alu

atio

n–

anan

aly

sis

ofh

igh

lyp

rod

uct

ive

bio

med

ial

team

s”1

92.

Hav

eman

n,

F.

(200

1),

“Col

lab

orat

ion

beh

avio

ur

ofB

erli

nli

fesc

ien

cere

sear

cher

sin

the

last

two

dec

ades

...”

,S

cien

tom

etri

cs1

93.

Hav

eman

n,F

.(20

01),

“Bib

liom

etri

sch

eA

nal

yse

von

Koo

per

atio

nu

nd

Pro

du

kti

vit

atb

iom

ediz

inis

cher...”

194

.H

avem

ann

,F

.,H

ein

z,M

.an

dK

rets

chm

er,

H.

(200

6),Jo

urn

alof

Bio

med

icalD

isco

very

and

Col

labo

rati

on1

95.

Sch

mid

t,M

.et

al.

(200

6),

Inte

rnat

ion

alW

ork

shop

onW

ebom

etri

cs,

Info

rmet

rics

and

Sci

ento

met

rics

and

Sev

enth

CO

LL

NE

TM

eeti

ng

196

.B

eren

dt,

B.

and

Hav

eman

n,

F.

(200

7),

“Bes

chle

un

igu

ng

der

Wis

sen

sch

afts

kom

mu

nik

atio

nd

urc

hO

pen

Acc

ess...”

197

.H

avem

ann

,F

.(2

004)

,“E

pri

nts

ind

erw

isse

nsc

haf

tlic

hen

Kom

mu

nik

atio

n”

198

.H

avem

ann

,F

.(2

004)

,“G

row

thd

yn

amic

sof

Ger

man

un

iver

sity

enro

lmen

tsan

dof

scie

nti

fic

dis

cip

lin

esin

the

19th

cen

tury

”1

99.

Hav

eman

n,

F.et

al.

(200

5),Jo

urn

alof

the

Am

eric

an

Soc

iety

for

Info

rmati

onS

cien

ceand

Tec

hnol

ogy

110

0.L

ian

g,

L.et

al.

(200

6),

“Str

uct

ura

lsi

mil

arit

ies

bet

wee

nsc

ien

ceg

row

thd

yn

amic

sin

Ch

ina...”

110

1.C

hri

sten

,W

.(2

001)

,C

lust

erS

cien

ceN

etC

SN

.1

102.

DO

AR

C1

103.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

104.

Ph

ysN

et1

105.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

(con

tinued

)

Table AVI.

BL23,4

184

Page 45: 1.return on

DO

AR

CR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

106.

Th

eA

CIS

Aca

dem

icC

ontr

ibu

tor

Info

rmat

ion

Sy

stem

Con

sort

ium

110

7.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le10

8.P

ub

lik

atio

nsl

iste

des

Inst

itu

tsfu

rP

hy

sik

,O

lden

bu

rg1

109.

Ph

ysi

k,

Old

enb

urg

111

0.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le11

1.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le22

413

64A

ltog

eth

er10

3

Table AVI.

ROI in Germanlibraries

185

Page 46: 1.return on

EE

RQ

IR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

1.L

ee,

K.P

.et

al.

(200

2),

JAM

A1

2.B

utl

er,

L(2

006)

,“B

ibli

omet

rics

and

Res

earc

hP

erfo

rman

ceF

ram

ewor

kIn

dic

ator

sF

oru

m/U

niv

ersi

tyof

New

Sou

thW

ales

”1

Lin

kb

rok

en3.

CE

RIF

1L

ink

bro

ken

4.B

oor,

R.M

.(1

982)

,A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogis

t1

5.M

oed

,H

.F.

(200

5),C

itati

onA

naly

sis

inR

esea

rch

Eva

luati

on,

Sp

rin

ger

16.

Hic

ks,

D.

(200

4),H

andbo

okof

Quanti

tati

veS

cien

ceand

Tec

hnol

ogy

Res

earc

h1

7.P

hil

ipp

e,J.

and

Dev

illa

rd,

J.(2

005)

,“I

mp

lem

enti

ng

rele

van

td

isci

pli

nar

yev

alu

atio

ns

inth

eso

cial

scie

nce

s”1

8.E

uro

pea

nC

omm

issi

on:

Stu

dy

onth

eec

onom

ican

dte

chn

ical

evol

uti

onof

the

scie

nti

fic

pu

bli

cati

onm

ark

ets

inE

uro

pe

19.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

10.

Moe

d,

H.F

.(2

005)

,C

itati

onA

naly

sis

inR

esea

rch

Eva

luati

on,

Sp

rin

ger

111

.M

oed

,H

.F.

(200

5),Jo

urn

alof

the

Am

eric

an

Soc

iety

for

Info

rmati

onS

cien

ceand

Tec

hnol

ogy

112

.B

rod

y,

T(2

004)

,“C

itat

ion

An

aly

sis

inth

eO

pen

Acc

ess

Wor

ld”

113

.P

ark

,H.W

.an

dT

hel

wel

l,M

.(20

03),

“Hy

per

lin

kA

nal

yse

sof

the

Wor

ldW

ide

Web

:A

Rev

iew

”1

14.

Bro

dy

,T

.et

al.

(200

6),Jo

urn

alof

the

Am

eric

an

Ass

ocia

tion

for

Info

rmati

onS

cien

ceand

Tec

hnol

ogy

(JA

SIS

T),

57(8

)1

15.

Car

r,L

.et

al.

(200

6),

“Ex

ten

din

gjo

urn

al-b

ased

rese

arch

imp

act

asse

ssm

ent

tob

ook

-bas

edd

isci

pli

nes

”1

16.

van

Lee

uw

en,

Th

.N.et

al.

(200

1),

“Lan

gu

age

bia

ses

inth

eco

ver

age

ofth

eS

cien

ceC

itat

ion

Ind

exan

dit

sco

nse

qu

ence

sfo

rin

tern

atio

nal...”

Sci

ento

met

rics

117

.P

errs

on,

O.et

al.

(200

4),

“In

flat

ion

ary

bib

liom

etri

cv

alu

es,

the

role

ofsc

ien

tifi

cco

llab

orat

ion...”

,S

cien

tom

etri

cs1

(con

tinued

)

Table AVII.

BL23,4

186

Page 47: 1.return on

EE

RQ

IR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

18.

Per

rson

,O

.et

al.

(200

4),

“Han

db

ook

ofq

uan

tita

tiv

esc

ien

cean

dte

chn

olog

yre

sear

ch”

119

.S

chn

eid

er,

J.(2

006)

,“C

once

pt

Sy

mb

ols

Rev

isit

ed...”

,S

cien

tom

etri

cs1

20.

CN

RS

/Fra

nz.

Web

site

121

.In

form

atio

n1

22.

Lin

kin

tex

t/E

ER

Aw

ebsi

te1

23.

Lin

kin

tex

t/P

hy

snet

124

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Mar

ine

Res

earc

hIn

st.

125

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Pro

jek

tU

ni

Kar

lsru

he

126

.L

ink

inte

xt/

CN

RS

127

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Ph

ysi

kM

ult

imed

iaP

roje

kt

Old

enb

urg

128

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Met

ager

129

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Hit

Cou

nte

ru

nd

Lif

eS

tati

stik

en1

30.

Lin

kin

tex

t/R

esea

rch

Por

tal.n

et1

Lin

kb

rok

en31

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Lei

bn

izU

ni

Han

nov

er1

32.

Lin

kin

tex

t/B

otte

,A

.(2

004)

,“A

chie

vem

ent

orp

erfo

rman

ce:

obse

rvat

ion

ofp

rod

uct

ivit

y...”

133

.L

ink

inte

xt/

Els

evie

r(L

earn

ing

and

Inst

ruct

ion,

Journ

al)

1S

ourc

eb

yE

lsev

ier

bu

tn

otp

art

ofth

eH

Ud

eal

34.

Lin

kin

tex

t/E

lsev

ier

(Educa

tion

alR

esea

rch,

Journ

al)

1S

ourc

eb

yE

lsev

ier

bu

tn

otp

art

ofth

eH

Ud

eal

35.

Ast

rom

,F.a

nd

Pet

ters

son

,L.(

2006

),L

ibra

ries

and

Culture

,41/

21

36.

Per

rson

,O

.an

dA

stro

m,

L.

(200

5),B

iblio

met

ric

Not

es,

7/2

137

.A

stro

m,

F.

(200

2),

“Em

erg

ing

Fra

mew

ork

san

dM

eth

ods”

,C

oLIS

41

38.

Vis

ser,

M.S

.an

dM

oed

,H

.F.

(200

4),

“Mea

suri

ng

the

imp

act

ofn

on-I

SI

sou

rce

item

s”1

(con

tinued

)

Table AVII.

ROI in Germanlibraries

187

Page 48: 1.return on

EE

RQ

IR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

39.

Vis

ser,

M.S

.an

dM

oed

,H

.F.

(200

5),

“Dev

elop

ing

bib

liom

etri

cin

dic

ator

sor

rese

arch

per

form

ance

inco

mp

ute

rsc

ien

ce”

140

.S

mey

ers,

P.

and

Dep

aep

e,M

.(2

003)

,“B

eyon

dE

mp

iric

ism

:O

nC

rite

ria

for

Ed

uca

tion

alR

esea

rch

”1

41.

Sch

nei

der

,J.

etal.

(200

7)P

roce

edin

gs

ofIS

SI

2007

142

.S

chn

eid

er,

J.an

dB

orlu

nd

,P.

(200

7)M

atri

xco

mp

aris

on/J

AS

IST

143

.S

chn

eid

er,

J.et

al.

(200

6)“B

ibli

omet

ri:

En

bib

liot

eks-

ogin

form

atio

nsv

iden

skab

elig

kom

pet

ence

”1

44.

Sch

nei

der

,J.(

2006

),“C

once

pt

sym

bol

sre

vis

ited

”,S

cien

tom

etri

cs1 13

34

23A

ltog

eth

er43

Table AVII.

BL23,4

188

Page 49: 1.return on

For

sch

un

gsd

iver

sita

tR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

1.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le2.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

3.P

oin

ter

toa

refe

ren

ceN

otap

pli

cab

le4.

Poi

nte

rto

refe

ren

ces

Not

app

lica

ble

1.A

dam

s,J.

and

Sm

ith

,D

.(2

003)

,F

undin

gR

esea

rch

Div

ersi

ty1

2.A

lter

,O

.et

al.

(200

0),P

roce

edin

gsof

the

Nati

onalA

cadem

yof

Sci

ence

s1

3.B

ord

ons,

M.e

tal.

(200

4),H

andbo

okof

Quanti

tati

veS

cien

ceand

Tec

hnol

ogy

Res

earc

h1

4.C

allo

n,

M.

(199

5),

“Fou

rM

odel

sfo

rth

eD

yn

amic

sof

Sci

ence

”1

5.C

allo

n,

M.et

al.

(198

3),S

ocia

lS

cien

ceIn

form

ati

on,

221

6.D

eerw

este

r,S

.et

al.

“In

dex

ing

by

late

nt

sem

anti

can

aly

sis”

,JA

SIS

T1

7.E

gg

he,

L.

and

Rou

ssea

u,

R.

(199

0),

“In

trod

uct

ion

toIn

form

etri

cs”,

Quanti

tati

veM

ethod

sin

Lib

rary

and

Info

rmati

onS

cien

ce1

8.E

van

s,J.

(200

8),

“Ele

ctro

nic

Pu

bli

cati

onan

dth

eN

arro

win

gof

Sci

ence

and

Sch

olar

ship

”1

9.G

lase

r,J.

(200

6),

“Wis

sen

sch

aftl

ich

eP

rod

uk

tion

sgem

ein

sch

afte

n:

Die

sozi

ale

Ord

nu

ng

der

For

sch

un

g”

110

.G

lase

r,J.

etal.

(200

8),

“Ev

alu

atio

nsb

asie

rte

For

sch

un

gsfi

nan

zier

un

gu

nd

ihre

Fol

gen

/Wis

sen

fur

En

tsch

eid

un

gsp

roze

sse”

111

.G

lase

r,J.

and

Lau

del

,G.(

2007

),“E

val

uat

ion

wit

hou

tE

val

uat

ors:

Th

eim

pac

tof

fun

din

gfo

rmu

lae

onA

ust

rali

anU

niv

ersi

tyR

esea

rch

”1

12.

Gla

ser,

J.et

al.

(200

2),

“Im

pac

tE

val

uat

ion

-bas

edF

un

din

gon

the...”

113

.G

rup

p,H

.(19

90),

“Th

eco

nce

pt

ofen

trop

yin

scie

nto

met

rics

and

inn

ovat

ion

rese

arch

”1

(con

tinued

)

Table AVIII.

ROI in Germanlibraries

189

Page 50: 1.return on

For

sch

un

gsd

iver

sita

tR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

14.

Har

ley

,S

.an

dL

ee,

F.S

.(1

997)

,“R

esea

rch

sele

ctiv

ity

,m

anag

eria

lism

,an

dth

eac

adem

icla

bor

pro

cess

”1

15.

Hav

eman

n,F

.et

al.

(200

7),“

Mea

suri

ng

Div

ersi

tyof

Res

earc

hin

Bib

liog

rap

hic

-Cou

pli

ng

Net

wor

ks”

116

.H

ein

z,M

.et

al.

(200

9),“

Sel

bst

org

anis

atio

nin

Wis

sen

sch

aft

un

dT

ech

nik

.Ja

hrb

uch

Wis

sen

sch

afts

fors

chu

ng

2008

”1

17.

HR

K(2

007)

,D

ieZ

uk

un

ftd

erk

lein

enF

ach

er:

Pot

enzi

ale

–H

erau

sfor

der

un

gen

–P

ersp

ekti

ven

.B

onn

118

.Ja

nss

ens,

F.et

al.

(200

7),

“AH

yb

rid

Map

pin

gof

Info

rmat

ion

Sci

ence

”1

19.

Jan

ssen

s,F

.et

al.

(200

6),S

cien

tom

etri

cs1

20.

Join

tst

atem

ent

(200

3),

Th

eH

igh

erE

du

cati

onW

hit

eP

aper

and

rese

arch

fun

din

gse

lect

ivit

y.

18th

Jun

e20

031

21.

Kes

sler

,M.M

.(19

63),

“Bib

liog

rap

hic

cou

pli

ng

bet

wee

nsc

ien

tifi

cp

aper

s”,A

mer

ican

Doc

um

enta

tion

122

.K

nor

r-C

etin

a,R

.(1

982)

,“S

cien

tifi

cC

omm

un

itie

sor

Tra

nse

pis

tem

icA

ren

asof

Res

earc

h?...”

,S

ocia

lS

tudie

sof

Sci

ence

,12

123

.K

nor

r-C

etin

a,R

.(1

999)

,“E

pis

tem

icC

ult

ure

s:H

owth

eS

cien

ces

Mak

eK

now

led

ge”

124

.L

and

auer

,T.e

tal.

(200

7),H

andbo

okof

Late

ntS

emanti

cA

naly

sis

125

.L

atou

r,B

.(1

988)

,“A

Rel

ativ

isti

cA

ccou

nt

ofE

inst

ein

’sR

elat

ivit

y/S

ocia

lS

tud

ies

ofS

cien

ce”,

181

26.

Mag

urr

an,

A.

(200

4),M

easu

ring

Bio

logi

calD

iver

sity

127

.M

ann

,G.S

.et

al.

(200

6),J

CD

L’0

6:P

roce

edin

gsof

the

6th

AC

M/

IEE

E-C

Sjo

int

confe

rence

onD

igit

alL

ibra

ries

128

.M

arsh

akov

a,I.

V.

(197

3),

“Sis

tem

asv

yaz

eym

ezh

du

dok

um

enta

mi,

pos

troy

enn

aya

na

osn

ove

ssy

lok

(po

uk

azat

ely

u‘S

cien

ceC

itat

ion

Ind

ex’)”

1

(con

tinued

)

Table AVIII.

BL23,4

190

Page 51: 1.return on

For

sch

un

gsd

iver

sita

tR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

29.

Mit

esse

r,O

.(20

08),

“Lat

ente

sem

anti

sch

eA

nal

yse

zur

Mes

sun

gd

erD

iver

sita

tv

onF

orsc

hu

ng

sgeb

iete

n–

Met

hod

end

isk

uss

ion

un

dA

nw

end

un

gsb

eisp

iel”

130

.M

ites

ser,

O.et

al.

(200

8),

“Mea

suri

ng

Div

ersi

tyof

Res

earc

hb

yE

xtr

acti

ng

Lat

ent...

”,P

roce

edin

gsof

WIS

2008

131

.M

olas

-Gal

lart

,J.a

nd

Sal

ter,

A.(

2002

),“D

iver

sity

and

Ex

cell

ence

:C

onsi

der

atio

ns

onR

esea

rch

Pol

icy

”,IP

TS

Rep

ort

132

.N

oyon

s,E

.C.

and

Van

Ran

,A

.F.J

.(1

998)

,“M

onit

orin

gsc

ien

tifi

cd

evel

opm

ents

from

a...”

,Jo

urn

alof

the

Am

eric

an

Soc

iety

for

Info

rmati

onS

cien

ce1

33.

Per

rson

,O

.et

al.

(200

4)“I

nfl

atio

nar

yb

ibli

omet

ric

val

ues

:th

ero

le...”

,S

cien

tom

etri

cs1

34.

Por

ter,

A.

and

Ch

ub

in,

D.

(198

5),

“An

ind

icat

orof

cros

s-d

isci

pli

nar

yre

sear

ch”,

Sci

ento

met

rics

135

.R

afol

s,I.

and

Mey

er,

M.

(200

7),

”Div

ersi

tym

easu

res

and

net

wor

k...”

,P

roce

edin

gsof

ISS

I2007

136

.R

icot

ta,

C.

(200

4),

“AR

ecip

efo

rU

nco

nv

enti

onal

Ev

enn

ess

Mea

sure

s”,A

cta

Bio

theo

reti

ca,

521

37.

Ric

otta

,C

.an

dS

zeid

l,L

.(2

006)

,“T

owar

ds

au

nif

yin

gap

pro

ach

tod

iver

sity

mea

sure

s...”

,T

heo

reti

calP

opula

tion

Bio

logy

,70

138

.R

ouss

eau

,R

.an

dH

eck

e,P

.V.

(199

9),

“Mea

suri

ng

bio

div

ersi

ty”,

Act

aB

ioth

eori

tica

139

.R

ouss

eau

,R

.et

al.

(199

9),

“Th

ere

lati

onsh

ipb

etw

een

div

ersi

typ

rofi

les”

,...

Envi

ronm

enta

land

Eco

logi

calS

tati

stic

s1

40.

San

z-M

enen

dez

,L

.et

al.

(200

1),

“In

terd

isci

pli

nar

ity

asa

mu

ltid

imen

sion

al...”

,R

esea

rch

Eva

luati

on,

101

41.

Sch

mid

t,M

.(2

006)

,E

ntr

opie

ein

esF

orsc

hu

ng

sgeb

iete

s.T

heo

reti

sch

eE

rarb

eitu

ng

un

dD

urc

hfu

hru

ng

ein

erK

ozit

atio

ns-

Clu

ster

anal

yse

imP

roje

kt

“Tes

tin

gth

eH

omog

enis

atio

nT

hes

is–

Mea

suri

ng

the

Div

ersi

tyof

Res

earc

h”

1

(con

tinued

)

Table AVIII.

ROI in Germanlibraries

191

Page 52: 1.return on

For

sch

un

gsd

iver

sita

tR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

42.

Sch

mid

t,M

.et

al.

(200

6),

“Am

eth

odol

ogic

alS

tud

yfo

rM

easu

rin

gth

e...”

,In

tern

ati

onalW

orks

hop

onW

ebom

etri

cs,

Info

rmet

rics

...

143

.S

imp

son

,E

.(1

949)

,“M

easu

rem

ent

ofd

iver

sity

”,N

atu

re,

163

144

.S

mal

l,H

.(1

973)

,“C

o-C

itat

ion

sin

the

Sci

enti

fic...”

,Jo

urn

alof

the

Am

eric

an

Soc

iety

for

Info

rm.S

cien

ce1

45.

Sta

r,S

.(1

989)

,“T

he

stru

ctu

reof

ill-

stru

ctu

red

solu

tion

s...”

,D

istr

ibute

dA

rtifi

cialIn

telli

gence

146

.S

tirl

ing

,A.(

2007

),“A

gen

eral

fram

ewor

kfo

r...”

,Jou

rnalo

fth

eR

oyalS

ocie

tyIn

terf

ace

47.

van

Lee

uw

en,

Tan

dT

ijss

en,

T.

(200

0),

“In

terd

isci

pli

nar

yd

yn

amic

sof

mod

ern...”

,R

esea

rch

Eva

luati

on1

48.

Wh

itle

y,

R.

(200

7),

“Ev

alu

atio

nw

ith

out

Ev

alu

ator

s...”

,T

he

Changi

ng

Gov

ernance

ofth

eS

cien

ces

149

.W

olg

ar,S

.(19

79),

“Th

eId

enti

fica

tion

and

Defi

nit

ion

ofS

cien

tifi

cC

olle

ctiv

es”,

Per

spec

tive

son

...

Not

fou

nd

any

wh

ere/

not

app

lica

ble

50.

Zit

t,M

.an

dB

asse

cou

lard

,E

.(2

006)

,“D

elin

eati

ng

com

ple

xsc

ien

tifi

cfi

eld

s...”

,In

form

ati

onP

roce

ssin

gand

Manage

men

t1 17

1014

7A

ltog

eth

er48

Table AVIII.

BL23,4

192

Page 53: 1.return on

Car

pet

Ref

eren

ces

Pai

d4

Inte

rnet

Res

ourc

eL

oan

shar

ing

@U

BIn

tern

et-b

ased

Com

men

ts

1.B

ud

apes

tO

AIn

itia

tiv

e1

2.B

erli

ner

Dec

lara

tion

13.

Pu

bli

cK

now

led

ge

Pro

ject

14.

Hyp

erJo

urn

al

15.

Dp

ub

s/D

igit

alP

ub

lish

ing

Sy

stem

16.

Dri

ver

17.

Igit

ur/

Pu

bli

shin

gan

dA

rch

ivin

gS

erv

ice

Un

iver

sity

Lib

rary

Utr

ech

t1

8.A

ePIC

/Ad

van

ced

e-p

ub

lish

ing

Infr

astr

uct

ure

s1

9.D

igit

alP

eer

Pu

bli

shin

gN

RW

110

.R

evu

es.

Org

/Fre

nch

elec

tr.

pu

bli

shin

gsi

te1

11.

ND

LT

D/e

-pu

bli

shin

gw

ebsi

te1

12.

Liv

ing

Rev

iew

s(2

1,22

and

24)

113

.R

ead

Wri

teW

eb/

114

.D

INI

115

.ed

oc-S

erv

er1

16.

SC

OP

E/e

doc

-Ser

ver

117

.D

igit

ale

Dis

sert

atio

nen

On

lin

e1

18.

Lan

gze

itar

chiv

ieru

ng

DE

/Nes

tor

119

.T

EX

Doc

um

ent

Cen

tre

120

.M

edia

con

omy

/For

sch

un

gsv

erb

un

dIn

tern

etok

onom

ied

erG

eorg

-Au

gu

st-U

niv

ersi

tat

Got

tin

gen

123

.H

erm

es/s

eman

tic

XM

Let

c.se

lf-p

ub

lish

ing

tool

125

.M

axP

lan

cked

oc1

26.

ww

w.

esci

doc

.de

127

.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le28

.S

oftw

are

Rev

iew

san

dR

atin

gs

129

.V

ario

us

Lin

ks

such

as:o

hlo

h,i

tera

tin

gan

djo

t.co

m(n

owg

oog

le)

130

.W

arn

er,

S.

(200

4),O

verl

ay

Journ

als

1@

E-L

IS0

05

20A

ltog

eth

er25

Table AIX.

ROI in Germanlibraries

193

Page 54: 1.return on

Met

a-Im

age

Ref

eren

ces

Pai

d4

Inte

rnet

Res

ourc

eL

oan

shar

ing

@ UB

Inte

rnet

-b

ased

Com

men

ts

1.W

arb

urg

,A

.(2

003)

,“G

esam

mel

teS

chri

ften

/Der

Bil

der

atla

sM

NE

MO

SY

NE

”1

@U

Bon

ly1.

ed.

2.W

arb

urg

,A.(

1992

),“A

usg

ewah

lte

Sch

rift

enu

nd

Wu

rdig

un

gen

”1

3.F

lick

r1

4.d

igil

ib(i

nfo

rmat

ion

)1

5.H

yp

erIm

age

(in

form

atio

n)

(&9.

)1

6.W

arn

ke,

M.

(199

8),

“Ein

ed

igit

ale

Ord

nu

ng

der

Din

ge/

Ein

Hy

per

med

iale

sB

ild

-Tex

t-A

rch

ivzu

...”

17.

War

nk

e,M

.(20

03)D

aten

un

dM

etad

aten

–O

nli

ner

esso

urc

enf.

d.

Bil

dw

isse

nsc

haf

t/Z

eite

nb

lick

e1

8.W

arn

ke,

M.

(200

7),

Hy

per

Imag

e–

Imag

eO

rien

ted

e-S

cien

ceN

etw

ork

s1

Inte

rnet

Res

ourc

e10

Info

rmat

ion

onH

yp

erIm

age

atU

ni

Lu

neb

urg

Not

app

lica

ble

11.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

12.

Pro

met

heu

s-B

ild

arch

iv1

13.

Bil

dar

chiv

Ph

oto

Mar

bu

rg1

Mik

rofi

che

bis

1998

/lat

erL

ink

14.

Cen

sus/

An

tiq

ue

wor

ks

and

arch

itec

ture

pic

ofth

eR

enai

ssan

ce(d

atab

ase

orw

ebsi

te)

115

.L

uh

man

n,

N.

(199

2),

“Kom

mu

nik

atio

nM

itZ

ette

lkas

ten

:E

inE

rfah

run

gsb

eric

ht”

116

.s.

o.1

17.

Icon

clas

s1

02

75

Alt

oget

her

14

Table AX.

BL23,4

194

Page 55: 1.return on

MU

NIN

-RS

Ref

eren

ces

Pai

d4

Inte

rnet

Res

ourc

eL

oan

shar

ing

@U

BIn

tern

et-b

ased

Com

men

ts

1.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le2.

HU

OA

-Erk

laru

ng

13.

Haf

fner

,D

.(2

006)

,D

igit

ale

Bib

lioth

eken

und

Bild

arc

hiv

e/R

undbr

ief

Fot

ogra

fie,

131

4.W

ink

elm

ann

Inst

itu

tfu

rk

lass

isch

eA

rch

aolo

gie

15.

Wes

sel,

Aan

dH

och

,A

.(2

007)

,“C

ave

pla

nth

opp

ers

onH

awai

i...

”,E

volu

tion

inA

ctio

n/A

lsdas

Leb

enla

ufe

nle

rnte

16.

Bu

rrow

s,M

.et

al.

(200

7),

“Ju

mp

ing

beh

avio

ur

ina

gon

dw

anan

reli

ctin

sect

”,T

he

Journ

alof

Exp

erim

enta

lB

iolo

gy1

7.U

MA

CW

orld

wid

eD

atab

ase

ofU

niv

ersi

tyM

use

um

san

dC

olle

ctio

ns/

Aca

dem

icH

erit

age

and

Un

iver

siti

es/m

ore

pro

ject

s...

18.

dl-

foru

m.d

e/d

euts

ch/p

roje

kte

1L

ink

bro

ken

9.C

ISC

Stu

dy

oncy

ber

met

rics

(Sp

anis

h)

1L

ink

bro

ken

10.

Sch

irm

bac

her

,P

.(2

007)

,“O

pen

Acc

ess

–In

form

atio

ns-

un

dR

epos

itor

y-N

etzw

erk

inD

euts

chla

nd

/Bei

trag

zur

Arb

eits

gru

pp

eE

lek

tron

isch

esP

ub

lizi

eren

”1

11.

Med

ien

por

tal

der

HU

112

.V

ollm

er,

A.

(200

5),

“Mn

eme:

Das

dig

ital

eG

edac

htn

is”

113

.L

ink

inT

ext/

Sta

nd

ard

ized

Hy

per

Ad

apta

ble

Met

adat

aE

dit

or1

Not

app

lica

ble

01

47

Alt

oget

her

12

Table AXI.

ROI in Germanlibraries

195

Page 56: 1.return on

OA

NR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

1.D

INI

Web

site

/Rep

osit

orie

s1

2.O

AIs

ter

dat

abas

e1

3.S

cop

us

14.

por

tal.i

si.k

now

led

ge

15.

Goo

gle

Sch

olar

16.

Dir

ecto

ryof

OA

Jou

rnal

s/D

OA

J1

7.D

irec

tory

ofO

AR

epos

itor

ies/

DO

AR

18.

Reg

istr

yof

OA

Rep

osit

orie

s/R

OA

R1

9.R

egis

try

ofO

pen

Acc

ess

Rep

osit

ory

Mat

eria

lA

rch

ivin

gP

olic

ies/

RO

AR

MA

P1

10.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

11.

Net

wor

ked

Dig

.L

ibr.

ofT

hes

isan

dD

isse

rtat

ion

112

.D

INI

Web

site

/Pol

icie

s1

13.

edoc

-Ser

ver

HU

/DIN

IP

aper

114

.B

erli

nD

ecla

rati

on1

15.

DF

GW

ebsi

te1

16.

DIN

IW

ork

shop

2005

117

.D

INI

Wor

ksh

op20

05/P

rog

ram

me

118

.S

chol

z,F

.an

dD

obra

tz,S

.(20

06),

“In

stit

uti

onal

Rep

osit

orie

san

dE

nh

ance

dan

dA

lter

nat

ive

Met

rics

ofP

ub

lica

tion

Imp

act

(...

)Dir

ecto

ryof

OA

Journ

als

119

.S

her

pa/

Rom

eo1

10.

Web

site

Pro

ject

for

OA

-Pol

icie

s1

21.

ww

w.

alas

tor.

di.o

ua.

gr/

DR

IVE

R1

Lin

kb

rok

en22

.w

ww

.G

ap-p

orta

l.de

1N

oac

cess

toth

isw

iki

23.

OA

ver

sion

ofg

apw

ork

s1

24.

Web

site

OA

Ger

man

y1

25.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

26.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

(con

tinued

)

Table AXII.

BL23,4

196

Page 57: 1.return on

OA

NR

efer

ence

sP

aid

4In

tern

etR

esou

rce

Loa

nsh

arin

g@ U

BIn

tern

et-

bas

edC

omm

ents

27.

Pu

bli

shin

gp

latt

form

for

geo

scie

nce

128

.L

ink

toU

niv

ersi

tyof

Col

ogn

e1

29.

Lin

kto

Ges

is/i

nfo

rmat

ion

for

soci

alsc

ien

ce1

30.

Lin

kto

aw

ebsi

teon

his

tory

131

.L

ink

tow

ebsi

teon

pro

gra

mm

ing

/ww

w.

typ

o3.n

et1

32.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

33.

Info

rmat

ion

gu

idin

gto

DIN

IW

ebsi

te1

34.

Info

rmat

ion

gu

idin

gto

edoc

-Ser

ver

135

.A

sab

ove

bu

td

iffe

ren

tlo

cati

on1

36.

As

abov

eb

ut

dif

fere

nt

loca

tion

137

.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le38

.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le39

.L

ink

tow

ebsi

teon

stan

dar

ds

140

.M

ath

and

Ind

ust

rya

Por

tal

141

.L

ink

toU

niv

ersi

tyof

Got

tin

gen

142

.D

spac

e1

43.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

44.

Lin

kto

DN

B/I

nfo

rmat

ion

onD

DC

(Dew

eyD

ecim

alC

lass

ifica

tion

)1

45.

As

abov

eb

ut

inE

ng

lish

146

.In

form

atio

nN

otap

pli

cab

le47

.P

roP

rin

t/P

rin

ton

Dem

and

Ser

vic

e1

48.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

00

831

Alt

oget

her

39

Table AXII.

ROI in Germanlibraries

197

Page 58: 1.return on

OA

N2

Ref

eren

ces

Pai

d4

Inte

rnet

Res

ourc

eL

oan

shar

ing

@ UB

Inte

rnet

-b

ased

Com

men

ts

1.oa

net

.cm

s.h

u-b

erli

n.d

e(&

5.)

1L

ink

bro

ken

2.L

iste

deu

tsch

erD

oku

men

ten

serv

er/D

INI

13.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

4.O

pen

DO

AR

16.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

7.R

epos

itor

ies

Su

pp

ort

Pro

ject

(JIS

CR

epos

itor

yN

et)

18.

Dew

yD

ezim

alK

lass

ifik

atio

nW

ebsi

te1

9.A

PS

Jou

rnal

s/P

hy

sics

and

Ast

ron

omy

Cla

ssifi

cati

onS

chem

ew(P

AC

S)

110

.M

ath

emat

ics

Su

bje

ctC

lass

ifica

tion

1(O

ldon

esav

aila

ble

inp

rin

tv

ialo

ansh

arin

g)

11.

Hen

zin

ger

,M

.(2

006)

,“F

ind

ing

Nea

rD

up

lica

teW

ebP

ages

:A

Lar

ge

Sca

leE

val

uat

ion

ofA

lgor

ith

ms”

112

.S

tam

ou,

S.et

al.

(200

6),

“Cla

ssif

yin

gW

ebD

ata

inD

irec

tory

Str

uct

ure

s”,C

ompu

ter

Sci

ence

113

.A

rXiv

.org

114

.C

hen

g,P

.C.e

tal.

(200

8),“

Dom

ain

-Sp

ecifi

cO

nto

log

yM

app

ing

by

Cor

pu

s-B

ased

Sem

anti

cS

imil

arit

y”,

Pro

ceed

ings

ofN

SF

CM

MI

Engi

nee

ring

Res

earc

hand

Innov

ati

onC

onfe

rence

115

.C

CS

(Th

eA

CM

Com

pu

tin

gC

lass

ifica

tion

Sy

stem

)1

16.

ZD

M(I

nte

rnat

ion

alR

evie

ws

onM

ath

emat

ical

Ed

uca

tion

)1

17.

ICD

(In

tern

atio

nal

Sta

tist

isch

eK

lass

ifik

atio

nd

erK

ran

kh

eite

nu

nd

ver

wan

dte

rG

esu

nd

hei

tsp

rob

lem

e)1

18.

OP

S(O

per

atio

nen

-u

nd

Pro

zed

ure

nsc

hlu

ssel

Inte

rnat

ion

ale

Kla

ssifi

kat

ion

end

erP

roze

du

ren

ind

.Med

izin

ein

sch

ließ

lich

...)

119

.O

bje

ctR

euse

and

Ex

chan

ge

120

.E

uro

pea

na

10

04

13A

ltog

eth

er17

Table AXIII.

BL23,4

198

Page 59: 1.return on

Doc

up

edia

Ref

eren

ces

Pai

d4

Inte

rnet

Res

ourc

eL

oan

shar

ing

@U

BIn

tern

et-b

ased

Com

men

ts

1.P

ub

lik

atio

nss

trat

egie

nim

Wan

del

(200

5),

DF

G1

2.S

eeab

ove

13.

Lor

enz,

M.

(200

6),

“Wik

iped

ia.

Zu

mV

erh

altn

isv

on#

Str

uk

tur

un

dW

irk

un

gsm

ach

tei

nes

hei

mli

chen

Lei

tmed

ium

s”,

Wer

ksta

ttG

esch

ichte

,43

14.

Lin

k/W

ikim

atri

x1

5.O

’Rei

lly

,T

.(2

005)

,“W

hat

isW

eb2.

0?”

16.

Gra

ham

,P

.,W

eb2.

01

7.H

elle

r,L

.(20

06),

“Wis

sen

sch

aftl

ich

esP

ub

lizi

eren

mit

Wik

is...“

,O

pen

Sou

rce

Jahrb

uch

18.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

9.M

eyer

,B

.(2

006)

,“D

efen

sean

dIl

lust

rati

onof

Wik

iped

ia”

110

.R

osen

zwei

g,R

.(20

06),

“Can

His

tory

be

Op

enS

ourc

e?W

ikip

edia

and

the

Fu

ture

ofth

eP

ast”

,T

he

Journ

alof

Am

eric

an...

111

.L

ink

toW

ikip

edia

“Th

eori

efin

du

ng

”1

12.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

13.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

14.

Lin

kto

wik

iped

ia“w

ikiv

ersi

ty”

115

.L

ink

toS

chol

arp

edia

116

.L

ink

toH

eise

.de

“Cit

izen

diu

mso

llb

esse

reW

ikip

edia

wer

den

”(2

006)

117

.L

ink

toa

pro

ject

by

BM

BF

/WIK

ING

ER

118

.C

lio

On

lin

eS

urv

ey1

19.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

20.

Sam

ida,

S.

(200

6),

“Wis

sen

sch

afts

kom

mu

nik

atio

nim

Inte

rnet

.N

eue

Med

ien

ind

erA

rch

aolo

gie

”1

21.

Lin

kto

Jak

obN

iels

ons

Ale

rtb

ox(2

006)

122

.L

ink

toD

INI

123

.L

ink

toar

xiv

.org

124

.O

pen

Acc

ess

pol

itic

sat

the

Geo

rg-A

ug

ust

Un

iver

sity

Got

tin

gen

1

(con

tinued

)

Table AXIV.

ROI in Germanlibraries

199

Page 60: 1.return on

Doc

up

edia

Ref

eren

ces

Pai

d4

Inte

rnet

Res

ourc

eL

oan

shar

ing

@U

BIn

tern

et-b

ased

Com

men

ts

25.

Lin

kto

edoc

/DiM

L1

26.

Lin

kto

edoc

/up

load

ing

anar

ticl

ew

ith

met

adat

a1

27.

Lin

kto

arx

iv.o

rg/H

owto

rep

lace

anar

ticl

e1

28.

Lin

kto

Cli

oO

nli

ne/

Gen

eral

Ter

ms

and

Con

dit

ion

sA

ct1

29.

Lin

kto

Wik

iped

ia/G

NU

Fre

eD

ocu

men

tati

onL

icen

ce1

30L

ink

tocr

eati

ve

com

mon

s1

31.

Lin

kto

Dig

ital

Pee

rP

ub

lish

ing

,N

RW

132

.L

ink

toC

lio

On

lin

e/G

uid

es1

33.

Lin

kto

Wik

iboo

ks

134

.L

ink

toed

oc/H

isto

risc

hes

For

um

135

.L

ink

toC

ase

Wik

i1

36.

Lin

kto

Wik

iMed

ia/S

hib

bol

eth

Au

then

tifi

cati

on1

Lin

kb

rok

en37

.L

ink

toW

ikip

edia

/Pag

eb

yP

age

Acc

ess

1L

ink

bro

ken

38.

Lin

kto

Wik

imed

ia/I

nd

exof

tru

nk

139

.L

ink

toO

DF

Ad

d-I

n1

40.

Lin

kto

Mic

roso

ftD

owlo

adC

entr

e1

41.

Lin

kto

O’R

eill

yx

ml.c

om1

42.

Lin

kto

htm

l2w

ikip

edia

143

.L

ink

toC

PA

N1

44.

Lin

kto

Wik

imed

ia/W

ord

mac

ros

1L

ink

bro

ken

45.

Lin

kto

AR

T-D

ok1

46.

Lin

kto

DIN

I/D

INI

Zer

tifi

kat

147

.S

chm

idt,

B.

(200

6)G

esch

afts

mod

elle

des

Op

enA

cces

s-P

ub

lizi

eren

s:W

elch

eP

ersp

ekti

ven

...

148

.N

eum

ann

,J.

(200

6),

“Au

fd

emW

egzu

ein

emO

pen

-Acc

ess-

Ges

chaf

tsm

odel

l”,O

pen

Sou

rce

Jahrb

uch

149

.L

ink

toC

lio

On

lin

e/B

ekan

nth

eit

un

dA

usb

auv

onH

sozu

Ku

lt1

50.

Info

rmat

ion

Not

app

lica

ble

13

338

Alt

oget

her

45

Table AXIV.

BL23,4

200

Page 61: 1.return on

About the authorKathrin Grzeschik has recently graduated with a Master of Arts from the Berlin School forLibrary and Information Science and is now a member of research staff coordinating a project onlong-term preservation. Kathrin Grzeschik can be contacted at: [email protected]

Internet-based 284@ UB 82Loan sharing 40Paid for Internet source 67190 citations count for UB 190Total count 474

Table AXV.Summary

ROI in Germanlibraries

201

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints