slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
No Substantial Penalty for Withdrawal Investing in a Different Collaborative Model for the Shared Print Archive PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
No Substantial Penalty for Withdrawal Investing in a Different Collaborative Model for the Shared Print Archive

Loading in 2 Seconds...

  share
play fullscreen
1 / 40
vicky

No Substantial Penalty for Withdrawal Investing in a Different Collaborative Model for the Shared Print Archive - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

77 Views
Download Presentation
No Substantial Penalty for Withdrawal Investing in a Different Collaborative Model for the Shared Print Archive
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. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. No Substantial Penalty for WithdrawalInvesting in a Different Collaborative Model for the Shared Print Archive Sharon Wiles-Young Director, Library Access Services, Lehigh University John Barnett Scholarly Communications Librarian for the University Library System, University of Pittsburgh

  2. Outline for presentation • Environmental scan – print journal volumes • Audience • Global to regional • PALCI shared collaborative print archive model • Process, experiences, future • Future of print • Questions??? and YOUR ideas

  3. Environmental Scan: Ithaka Survey 2010Insights from U.S. Academic Library Directors • Most libraries have become comfortable with deaccessioningor moving offsite their print journal collections after they have reliable digital access to copies of these materials • 91% have already done so or are planning to do so in the future • This is not the case for books, at least not yet

  4. Environmental Scan continued • A minority of 35% said that their libraries have a formal plan for how to deaccession print journals that they have access to electronically • 47% agreed with the statement: “I feel confident that I have all the information I need to make informed decisions about whether to retain or de-accession print journal collections after my library has access to digital copies.”

  5. Weeding 101 • Webinars and best practices for weeding • LYRASIS Status Discard – the how and why of weeding • Reports 2009 ITHAKA – What to Withdraw: Print Collections Management in the Wake of Digitization • Which titles need to be kept in print? • Backup archives – regional ?

  6. Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers, and Societies Ithaka Report: April 7, 2010 Authors: Roger C. Schonfeld (Manager of Research) & Ross Housewright(Analyst)

  7. Fans, we're experiencing problems with some JSTOR servers. Our tech support team is on it, and we hope to have it fixed very quickly. We're very sorry for the inconvenience and will keep you posted!

  8. JSTOR Haiku JSTOR volumes wait     Students don't visit the shelves     PDFs chuckle -anon

  9. PALCI • Academic and research library consortium • Serving PA, WV, and NJ • Resource-sharing focus (E-ZBorrow, RapidILL) • Electronic resource offers • Disaster preparedness • Cooperative collection development

  10. PALCI Realities • Small staff, reliance on member task forces • Historically-oriented, independent institutions, geographically dispersed • PA: Many older collections, with deep journal collections in humanities and sciences • No central or shared storage facility • Little budget beyond membership dues, grant funding • CCD Task Force – in existence but . . .

  11. Why Create a Shared Print Archive? • One of many possible projects; short-term projects hold appeal • Interest in responsible deaccession as well as preservation • Strong interest in reallocating lots of space (journal runs vs. book collections) • Distributed archive = shared responsibility to diminish local pressure • Cooperative storage facility costly, unlikely, “unmanageable” • Urgency of deaccession became real driver

  12. Why Us? • Isn’t there another regional or national program underway that will take care of this? • Isn’t JSTOR taking care of this? • Isn’t Portico or LOCKSS a suitable alternative?

  13. Related Projects • Orbis Cascade, other distributed archives Most similar; PALCI agreement based on Orbis Cascade contract • Triangle Research Library Network (TRLN) (North Carolina) • Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL)

  14. Other regional models • WEST Western Regional Storage Trust- Arizona to California Digital Libraries to Getty to University of Washington to University of Oregon Orbis Cascade • distributed shared print repository • Five College Library Depository • Single paper copy ACS, APS, APA, IOP, JSTOR, Project Muse • Serves 22 affliates – Bryn Mawr, Swarthmore and Haverford joined in 2011 • JSTOR- Harvard and University of California • UKRR – United Kingdom Research Reserve- 8 participants In collaboration with the British Library document supply

  15. Philosophy behind the Project • What will work for our varied membership? • Memo of understanding with flexible terms, rather than a contractual agreement • Low cost to no cost, with minimal expenses borne by participating libraries • “Ideal copy” of document • Enough security to encourage weeding • Tradition of resource-sharing

  16. Candidates for PALCI Shared Print Archive • Complete online archive back to volume 1 available, and widely subscribed • Deep print runs widely held by PALCI members • Non-commercial/society publications only

  17. Candidates for PALCI archive • Illustrations could be an issue, particularly from early volumes • Importance of titles – must provide optimal access • Not duplicate major national print archive • Historical, potentially artifactual importance (Chandler Brothers from Lehigh for example)

  18. Selected Archives

  19. More Questions . . . • Interest in shared archive? • What to archive? • For how long? • Dark archives and light archives? • How many copies? • Lending light archives?

  20. Archive Construction • How many copies? – 1 dark, 2 light • Dark and light archives defined • End date: 2000 • Environmental conditions • Lending policies/procedures • Inventory – issue-level reporting • Length of contract –10 years, review in 5 years • Representing holdings • Include supplementary materials (any format)

  21. Agreement Obligations • Based on Orbis Cascade agreement—but only so much • Shorter agreement period • Less emphasis on environmental controls • Less emphasis on ownership • Accommodates variety of institutional legal/status needs • Flexible terms • Flexibility in providing information about holdings in Local and national catalogs

  22. Start of Distribution Library 1: ACS, AIP, APS Library 2: ACS, APS Library 3: ACS, APS

  23. Distribution within archive Library 4-6 Library 7-8 Library 1: ACS, AIP, APS Library 2: ACS, APS Library 3: ACS, APS Library 9-11

  24. Archive Primary Roles Each participating institution responsible for one or more complete print runs from one or more of the scholarly societies Penn State – sole dark archive for all titles Temple – 1st light archive for American Physical Society West Virginia – 1st light archive for American Institute of Physics Lehigh – 1st light archive for American Chemical Society

  25. 2nd Light Archives Titles distributed among the following institutions: • Bucknell • Carnegie Mellon • Dickinson • Duquesne • Haverford • Lafayette • Lehigh • University of Pennsylvania • St. Joseph’s • Swarthmore • Temple • Villanova • West Virginia University

  26. Who has what? Compare holdings – Institutions report holdings

  27. xISSN History Visualization Tool (Web service)

  28. Titles and Holdings • Once spreadsheet was collected then titles change and difference in holdings reported were rectified • Other institutions expressed interest in project-potential for another dark archive • Collections development committee started to identify titles for each institution • Goal to have each library interested hold several titles other than the dark archive which held all titles.

  29. As Time Passes by • AIP changes digital archive subscription package • ACS package changes • Slow decision process about participation • Institutional legal processes take time

  30. As Time Passes by • Space problems – 2 institutions dropped out, collections withdrawn • Difficulties in replacing participants – volumes already being deaccessioned • Lehigh had withdrawal project of journals to create space for shift of overcrowded monograph collection—AIP and APS journals were pulled

  31. Project Continues • Compare holdings and inventories- report gaps in holdings • Find certain institutions missing more issues/volumes than reported earlier • Other institutions provide volumes and issues • Send to other institutions- transfer materials will become property of the member library

  32. PALCI contract, all volumes kept permanently

  33. Current Status of Project • Memos of agreement signed • Volume exchange for Light Archive completed • Record and provide information about holdings in local online library systems • Following spreadsheet available on PALCI website:

  34. Statistics • 1521 linear feet for total collections in this project • About 13,000 volumes could be withdrawn for institutional holdings • More than one dark archive because larger institutions have storage facilities for most of these journal titles already

  35. Lessons Learned • Collection development librarians – need more communication with individual libraries and consortium task force • Interest in project- what happens in the time from interest to completion • withdrawing of collections, loss of space, renovations of storage facilities • Understanding of shipping volumes to other institutions- processing • Everything takes longer than you could possibly imagine!

  36. Next Steps • ILL agreement • Additional PALCI journal collections- next collection • RSC, rare humanities journals, American Psychological Assn? • Participation in national/international level projects– e.g., CRL • Time is growing short for these decisions!

  37. Future • Keep print for visual, cultural or artifactual, exhibits, rescans, or other scholarly research use • Case in point remember the Chandler brothers: http://pubs.acs.org/toc/jceda8/16/6 • Overlay content with GIS applications • Other innovations uses of print to digital content —Push Pop Press: http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_matas.html