Transcript Aloha Print Serials!: Methods to Identify Titles for Cooperative

Aloha Print Serials!
Methods to Identify Titles for
Cooperative Journal Retention or
Disposal
Diana Reid – Serials Acquisitions Librarian
[email protected]
Tyler Goldberg – Head, Technical Services
[email protected]
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/libr
ary/2007/2007-01.pdf
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
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 lowuse print journals
Call for participation in spring 2010
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
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
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?
First steps…

Created report from Voyager ILS of all serials
format holdings in print
 Approximately
41,000 titles
The path not taken…
Identifying journals for retention,
part 1 (easy)




Observation
Knowledge of collections
Bibliographic
Other considerations
What we will retain, part 1
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
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.

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

Examples
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…

More of what we will retain
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
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?

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
Future withdrawal decisions



Declining print usage (statistics or dust test)
Consortial agreements
Faculty buy-in
Final thoughts


Easy to decide what to keep
Hard to throw it away
Bound periodicals from Colorado College’s
JSTOR withdrawal project enjoy one final, brief
incarnation as public art…
http://libraryshenanigans.wordpress.com/category/tutt-library-coloradocollege/
The Bottom Line
In 2035…
We will be OLD
And REALLY OLD
What form will our collections take?