Over the past few years, Bucknell University’s Bertrand Library has made many changes to evolve our services, physical library space, and collections in response to changing expectations and needs of our researchers. Our Collection Development team was charged with a task to develop a plan that would holistically examine our print journal collection and forecast what would be required for a single-effort de-accessioning project, aiming to weed our print journal collection by 50% or more. I will present our planning process, criteria, and grand reconceptualization for the space. Accompanying handout: http://www.slideshare.net/NASIG/taming-print-journal-collections-handout Presenter: Kathryn Dalius Serials Specialist, Bucknell University

1. TAMING THE PRINT
JOURNAL COLLECTION
To Boldly Weed Where
No One Has Weeded Before
Accompanying handout: http://www.slideshare.net/NASIG/taming-print-journal-collections-handout

2. Architect’s ‘Grand’ Plan…
• In 2013, we worked with the architectural firm, Bohlin,
Cywinski, Jackson to develop a plan to renovate our
library
• New uses for spaces in the library

3. “The Charge”
Aug 2013
Prepare a plan that would holistically examine our
journal collection and forecast what would be
required for a single-effort de-accessioning project
aiming to weed our print journal collection by 50%
or more

4. This is not unique to Bucknell
“By the early 2020s, it is easy to imagine the
following: Print collections will have been reduced
by at least half in most academic libraries. The
space will be used for a combination of enhanced
reader spaces and other activities.”
(Lewis, David W. College and Research Libraries, v.74:2 (2013): 159-
176. From Stacks to the Web: The Transformation of Academic
Library Collecting.)

5. Questions that emerged…
• What is the right size of our physical collection?
• Where does it reside?
• Would we ever leverage consortial off-site collection
arrangements?
• What is the state of our collection today?
• Is our current rate of de-accessioning driven by our
holdings or our available time to undertake collection
reviews?
• Are we only de-accessioning bound journals when the
titles are replaced in e-format or are there other variables
we should consider?

6. Recommendations & Strategy
In Sept 2013, a subset of the Collection Development Team
was formed:
• Director of Collection Development & Access Services
• Director for Research Services
• Arts & Humanities Librarian
• Manager of Reference / Information Services
• Social Sciences Librarian
• Librarian for Sciences & Engineering

7. Data
4,146 Print titles
Number of volumes ~ 100,000
Linear feet = 18,780

8. Methodology
• 300 titles were selected at random for review
1. Withdraw the print holdings
2. Keep the holdings in the building
3. Move the holdings to off-site storage
• Each team member received a set of 50 titles for review
• Each title was reviewed by two staff members to determine if a
consensus could be achieved regarding the fate of the journal
• Team members also noted the time it took to evaluate each title and
the time spent on the second review

10. Criteria for Review
• Title – and title changes
• Publisher
• Active or Ceased
• Local Holdings – how long is our
run compared to the publication
history
• Publication History
• Extent of online access available
to us
• Supports for the curriculum
• Primary Source
• Special Features (photographs,
pictures, ads, unique information, etc.)
• Condition
• Uniqueness
• Historic value to the institution
• Current subscription
• Extent of indexing
• Use
• Language
• Availability from other libraries
• Type and extent of online access
that could be acquired

11. Findings
# Titles % Decision
161 54% Withdraw
67 22% Keep in Library
66 22% Move to Storage
6 2% Require further review (consensus not
reached between reviewers)
300 100% Titles Reviewed

12. Other Considerations
• It took an average of 15 minutes per review (30 minutes per title)
• Collectively, 150 hours were spent on this review
• To complete a review of this nature, in this depth, it would take about 2,073
hours or about 60 weeks
• Additional staff & student time
• Ongoing maintenance and shifting
• Storage Costs

13. Comments
• Several aspects of journal publishing made this a time-consuming
and confusing process
• Title changes
• Publishers change, as do editors and editorial boards
• “…Our main focus was to keep everything that would be used by
current & future students that was not available in an online format
or that was particularly useful in print.” Some disciplines lend
themselves to this strategy rather naturally, while others do not.

14. Next Steps
• Investigate purchase of backfiles
• Present findings to CLIR (Library Faculty Advisory Committee)
• Remote storage?
• Review step – subject librarian and /or academic department
• Review 1,000 titles this summer

15. Questions / More Information
Jennifer L. Clarke
Director of Collection Development
& Access Services
Library & Information Technology
Bucknell University
Lewisburg, PA
jclarke@bucknell.edu
570-570-3252
Kathryn A. Dalius
Serials Specialist
Library & Information Technology
Bucknell University
Lewisburg, PA
kdalius@bucknell.edu
570-577-1663