{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012391573729863693, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.121212121212121, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Electronic ILL and Document Delivery

Abstract Publishers and librarians do not agree on the use of electronic journal files as a source for interlibrary loans. The efficiency possible in electronic ILL is valued by the supplying libraries and of concern to publishers. Publishers do not accept CONTU photocopying guidelines as applicable to electronic ILL. This position is based on the historical context in which CONTU occurred and the specific wording of the CONTU report. No agreement on new guidelines has been possible to date, resulting in the need for individual license negotiations. Copyright-cleared document delivery is one alternative. Alternate models for broad database access to electronic journals is another. A new attempt to define guidelines for resource sharing is a third possibility.