A library’s interlibrary loan (ILL) department serves its patrons by obtaining copies of materials not owned by the library. This is accomplished in two ways: 1) interlibrary loans in which print materials in their entirety are borrowed for patrons from outside libraries for a certain amount of time; and 2) document delivery in which digital or physical copies (most often journal articles or book chapters) are obtained for patrons from outside libraries, publishers, or vendors. Both processes may be free of charge to the borrowing library or require payments depending on which ILL system is used. Some institutions charge users for ILL, while others do not. Institutions that do not charge for ILL recover the cost in other ways, such as adding its cost to their overall operations budget.

ILL Systems

Most libraries use an ILL system for their ILL activities. The majority of health sciences libraries participate in DOCLINE, which is an online ILL request routing system that is created and managed by the National Library of Medicine. Within DOCLINE, many health sciences and hospital libraries participate in reciprocal borrowing agreements with other libraries to reduce overall costs. In these agreements, libraries provide materials free of charge to the other reciprocating libraries.

In addition to DOCLINE, larger health sciences libraries often utilize other ILL systems. They may participate in OCLC’s ILL system and/or regional ILL consortia (such as UBorrow for the Big Ten Academic Alliance). These libraries must use commercial ILL software (e.g., ILLiad or WorldShare Management) to manage their ILL activities. There are commercial software applications that allow libraries to manage their DOCLINE activity alongside other ILL activity with one software application.

There may also be state, regional, or consortial borrowing systems available to your institution. Examples include the MeLCat statewide library system and the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA) UBorrow service.

Copyright – Brief History and Practice

Copyright plays an important role in ILL and collection development. ILL staff should have a basic understanding of copyright laws, CONTU and alternative guidelines, and the details of licensing agreements pertaining to ILL for the resources they license. It is helpful for collection development librarians to have some knowledge of these topics too, since they can impact your collections decisions.

In the early 1970s, the National Commission on New Technology Uses of Copyrighted Works developed a guideline that calls for libraries to pay copyright fees after they exceed borrowing 5 articles published within the last 5 years from the same journal. This is called the “Rule of 5” or CONTU limits. While the guidelines were never formally adopted by the US government, many libraries today still follow them. Once a library reaches the CONTU limits for a journal, articles can be purchased through the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). CCC collects copyright fees on behalf of publishers and adds it to their own processing fees. Articles can also be purchased directly from publishers whose prices include copyright fees.

Commercial ILL software helps libraries comply with copyright guidelines by tracking the number of requests for each journal title each year and flagging requests that exceed CONTU limits. They can also connect to the CCC to provide copyright fee information and track total copyright fees paid for requests from the same journal. This is not a service that DOCLINE provides.

Many in the library profession question the relevancy of CONTU guidelines, which were written over 40 years ago. Some libraries have begun to develop their own guidelines for when to pay copyright fees versus subscribing to a journal. In 2020, the Association of Research Libraries published a formal white paper that concluded CONTU guidelines are not appropriate for modern ILL activities in today’s research and publishing world and offered suggestions for libraries wishing to move away from CONTU (Oakley 2020).

Some libraries have moved away from CONTU and the “Rule of 5” by paying copyright fees once per year rather than on a per-transaction basis. A global analysis of annual borrowing can weigh many factors including subscription costs, frequency and patterns across journals, requesting patrons, and it can help identify one-time spikes (i.e., one requester making all requests for articles in one journal). Choosing a number higher than five is also favored. Focusing on journals that have had 20 or more requests in a year, for example, could provide a good starting point to analyze a library’s borrowing patterns. Lastly, many libraries are applying fair use to justify more of their overall borrowing, since fair use is written into the law while CONTU is not.

ILL Data and Collection Development

ILL data provides a rich source of information about what a library’s patrons need that the library is not providing. An annual examination of ILL data can provide insights useful for collection development. Libraries can establish thresholds, guidelines, or processes for when and how ILL statistics might trigger the purchase of a book or journal subscription:

Conducting the evaluations listed below may be helpful for identifying titles to add to the collection.

• Which print books were frequently borrowed through ILL?
• Is there significant document delivery volume for an unlicensed journal title?
• What is the total cost paid for articles from an unlicensed journal?
• Looking at the publication year data from journal article ILL requests, are there potential candidates for a backfile purchase?
• Identify a new area of focus for clinicians and researchers in the institution using ILL data.

Considerations for Collection Development

Libraries cannot make decisions to add books and journals to the collection based on ILL activity alone. It is critical to examine the costs to license journals and books as well. In particular, the items listed below are worth considering.

• Some medical journals are so costly to license that paying ILL fees (e.g., copyright and other fees) may be more cost effective.
• By contrast, some journals are inexpensive enough that it does not take many document delivery requests to make licensing cost effective. However, the decision to add a title must consider if the journal is in scope, does not have high value, or if all/most of the document delivery requests were made by a single patron.
• Journals that many departments are interested in may be stronger candidates for adding to the collection than journals with narrower focus. An analysis of who is placing the requests can show the breadth of interest within an institution across disciplines and departments for a journal.
• An unlicensed journal with a high request volume may still not be worth adding if the integrity or quality of the journal is not high (e.g., predatory journals).

Communities

• Medical Library Association’s (MLA) Resource Sharing Caucus. You must be a member of MLA to join this caucus.
• The DOCLINE-L Email Discussion List is a great place to ask ILL questions, troubleshoot, and request challenging-to-find items. The community is extensive and active. The National Library of Medicine (NLM) also posts its announcements for DOCLINE maintenance and upgrades to this list. You can sign up at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNLMOCPL/subscriber/new
• New health sciences librarians should know their National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NNLM) regional library. The regional NNLMs are available to help on any topic, and can train and troubleshoot for DOCLINE, PubMed, searching, and more.