1 / 30

Aloha Print Serials!

Aloha Print Serials!. Methods to Identify Titles for Cooperative Journal Retention or Disposal. Diana Reid – Serials Acquisitions Librarian diana.reid@louisville.edu Tyler Goldberg – Head, Technical Services tylergoldberg@louisville.edu. Print volumes in libraries.

keiji
Download Presentation

Aloha Print Serials!

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Aloha Print Serials! Methods to Identify Titles for Cooperative Journal Retention orDisposal

  2. Diana Reid – Serials Acquisitions Librarian diana.reid@louisville.edu Tyler Goldberg – Head, Technical Services tylergoldberg@louisville.edu

  3. Print volumes in libraries Over 1 billion volumes in North American academic libraries Mid-size libraries add average of 20,000-30,000 volumes per year http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2007/2007-01.pdf

  4. Shared print initiatives for journals Storage model Shared Distributed -- “print in place” Retrospective / Prospective Means of selection Costs Length of retention / participation Level of verification

  5. ASERL Collaborative Journal Retention - background Proposal drafted in 2009 by Shared Storage Study Group Based on other retention programs, an agreement was drafted focusing on storing low-use print journals Call for participation in spring 2010

  6. ASERL Collaborative Journal Retention Program Agreement Length of participation is 25 years Library nominated Facilities requirements Information to be provided for each title chosen Information delivery to participants Associated costs absorbed by individual libraries

  7. ASERL Steering Committee discussions: Giving issues to other libraries to fill in their gaps Modifications to facilities Bibliographic records 583 field Number of titles to be added per institution

  8. University of Louisville Lots of print journals Crowded Robotic Retrieval System (RRS) and crowded stacks Budget constraints Participant in ASERL’s Collaborative Journal Print Retention program  What do we retain for ASERL, what do we consider discarding?

  9. First steps… Created report from Voyager ILS of all serials format holdings in print Approximately 41,000 titles

  10. The path not taken…

  11. Identifying journals for retention, part 1 (easy) Observation Knowledge of collections Bibliographic Other considerations

  12. What we will retain, part 1

  13. Identifying journals for retention, part 2 • Exported a spreadsheet of electronic holdings from SFX • Included all major publishers, Ebsco, Proquest, Free titles, JSTOR, Project Muse, Highwire, etc. • Already had streamlined spreadsheet of print holdings  Print ISSN universal identifier for both

  14. Identifying journals for retention, part 2 (continued) • Established two primary categories of interest: • Titles (ISSNs) held in print that were not held electronically • Titles (ISSNs) held in print AND only available electronically through an aggregator such as Ebsco or Proquest.

  15. Identifying journals for retention, part 2 (results) • What do we hold in print that we do not have access to online? • Theory: these would be ‘unique gems' worth saving • Reality: directories, proceedings, oddball titles • Exception!: Title changes; literary titles

  16. Examples

  17. Identifying journals for retention, part 2 (results continued…) What titles do we have in print, and have e-access but only through an aggregator? Theory: These titles are potentially a higher risk for loss of access Reality: There are relatively few scholarly titles that are not accessible via an established online publisher or platform. Exception : there were a few, but…

  18. More of what we will retain

  19. Unexpected benefits • Found titles that we were not getting in electronic form but could/should be • Further reduced titles currently sent for commercial binding • Cleaned up limited runs of titles we never really wanted

  20. Withdrawal decisions Our bound periodicals are spared… for now What if you must make space NOW? JSTOR = “easy” choice Print Collections Decision Support Tool Perpetual access Publishers making more readily identifiable When can you reasonably assume?

  21. Print Collections Decision Support Tool Ithaka’s "What to Withdraw" report published in 2009 – proposes a model for preservation requirements Freely available Decision Support Tool created to apply criteria described in report to JSTOR collections Designed to reveal JSTOR titles safe to withdraw without affecting preservation A quick Google search for ‘JSTOR withdrawal’ reveals many libraries have taken advantage of the tool

  22. Future withdrawal decisions Declining print usage (statistics or dust test) Consortialagreements Faculty buy-in

  23. Final thoughts Easy to decide what to keep Hard to throw it away

  24. Bound periodicals from Colorado College’s JSTOR withdrawal project enjoy one final, brief incarnation as public art… http://libraryshenanigans.wordpress.com/category/tutt-library-colorado-college/

  25. The Bottom Line In 2035… We will be OLD And REALLY OLD What form will our collections take?

More Related