Indiana libraries analyze shared print needs
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•846 vistas
The document discusses a shared print project between 36 academic libraries in Indiana. It provides an overview of the project goals, timeline, scope, funding, policy group, results of the collection analysis, and possibilities for future collaboration. The analysis found significant overlap between the collections, with many titles held by multiple libraries. It identified candidates for digitization and potential areas for coordinated acquisitions and retention commitments going forward.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a Indiana libraries analyze shared print needs
Similar a Indiana libraries analyze shared print needs (20)
Último
Último (20)
Indiana libraries analyze shared print needs
- 1. Shared Print in Indiana Indiana Library Federation November 17, 2014 Kirsten Leonard Private Academic Library Network of Indiana PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 2. What is Shared Print? • Commitment to retain so that others can partner libraries can rely on their availability • Common features of a Shared Print Project – Retention commitment – Selection criteria – Collection location – Ownership – Validation – Access/delivery • But where do smaller libraries fit? • PAN forum http://www.crl.edu/archiving-preservation/ print-archives/forum PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 3. Projects in the Region • CIC • Ohio Regional Depositories • MI-SPI • PALNI/ALI (2013-2015) – 36 Indiana academic libraries – Monographs – Used SCS to do our analysis • Others? PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 4. Indiana Academic Library Need • Free up space without losing access • A “more useful” collection based on immediate needs rather than long term possibilities • Justify space for collections • Data to justify weeded items • Increase efficiency of weeding process (Monographs free less space per title than journals) • Coordinate acquisitions so money is spent effectively PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 5. PALNI/ALI Project Background • Conceived and Championed – Academic Libraries of Indiana presidents Dan Bowell (Taylor University) and David Lewis (IUPUI) • Major Impetus – PALNI’s goal for shared collection management and shared processing (23 libraries “all-in”) • Means to do the project – Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) and GreenGlass http://sustainablecollections.com – Funding from Lilly Endowment Inc – Project Coordinator Tina Baich (IUPUI) PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 6. PALNI/ALI Project Participants PALNI Libraries: Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary Ancilla College Anderson University Butler University Christian Theological Seminary Concordia Theological Seminary DePauw University Earlham College Franklin College Goshen College Grace College and Theological Seminary Hanover College Huntington College Manchester University Marian University Oakland City University University of Saint Francis Saint Joseph’s College of Indiana Saint Meinrad Seminary and School of Theology Taylor University Trine University University of Indianapolis Wabash College PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 7. PALNI/ALI Project Participants ALI Libraries: Indiana State University Indiana University Kokomo Indiana University Northwest Indiana University Southeast Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis University Library Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Ruth Lilly Medical Library Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, School of Dentistry Library Purdue University Calumet St. Mary’s College St. Mary-of-the-Woods College University of Southern Indiana Valparaiso University PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 8. PALNI/ALI Project Goals 1. Provide participating libraries an opportunity to reduce their print collections with minimal impact on library users; 2. Allow participating libraries to reclaim space for other purposes more directly beneficial to library users; 3. Identify unique print items within the collections of participating libraries for preservation and potential digitization; 4. Inform and influence ongoing collection development at the individual libraries; and 5. Develop a statewide strategy for print book collections, which may involve cooperative purchasing. PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 9. Project Timeline • October 2013: Introductory meeting held • November 2013: SCS and Project Coordinator contracts finalized; Policy Group formed • December 2013: Data questionnaires submitted to SCS • January 2014: Data sets submitted to SCS • February 2014: Policy Group meeting • March 2014: Policy Group meeting • April-May 2014: SCS sent individual library data summaries • May 2014: SCS provided group data summary for use by the Policy Group; Policy Group meeting • June-July 2014: SCS loaded individual library data into its online collection analysis tool; Participant meetings held to provide training for the online tool PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 10. Scope • In scope: – Circulating print monographs • Out of scope: – Serials – Special Collections – eBooks – Micro Formats – A-V Materials – Lost/Withdrawn/Missing items – Reference Materials – except if they circulate – Government Documents – except if they are treated as circulating books PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 11. Funding • Lilly Endowment Inc. Grant • Academic Libraries of Indiana • Contribution from participants based on number of records contributed – PALNI centrally funded PALNI library contributions PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 12. Policy Group • Twelve representatives • Handled group-wide decisions – Comparison group composition – Review of retention commitments of the “Big 3” (IUB, ND, Purdue) – Whether to have a formal MOU – Definition of “Scarcely Held” PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 13. Project Policy Or How Our Project is Different • No formal MOU – “Formal Informal Agreement” • “Scarcely-held” title-holdings would be removed from each library’s dataset prior to loading into GreenGlass. • After that, each library would be free to act without restriction on any of the titles in GreenGlass. PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 14. Project Policy Scarcely Held Definition • Held by fewer than four libraries in Indiana; • Held by fewer than twenty libraries in the US; or • Not held by at least one of Indiana University Bloomington, Purdue University, or University of Notre Dame. PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 15. But will we get more formal? • Questions have arisen about scarcely held titles • Desire to indicate when books will be retained • Agreements are already in place to lend between Indiana academics, but how do we ensure regional collaboration? PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 16. Results PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 17. ALI Overlap Based on SCS Matching There are 5,184,492 title-holdings in the entire data set. There are 2,141,984 title-sets in the entire data set. (distinct OCLC numbers) 17 1,185,427 distinct OCLC numbers are held by just one library. 956,557 distinct OCLC numbers are held by more than one library.
- 18. ALI Overlap Based on SCS Matching 18 Overlap within the 36 member libraries Title Holdings % 2 Title-holding in 1 library 1,185,427 23% 3 Title-holdings in 2 libraries 737,736 14% 4 Title-holdings in 3 libraries 551,289 11% 6 Title-holdings in 4 libraries 449,806 9% 7 Title-holdings in 5 libraries 372,822 7% 8 Title-holdings in 6 libraries 309,649 6% 9 Title-holdings in 7 libraries 264,747 5% 10 Title-holdings in 8 libraries 223,994 4% 11 Title-holdings in 9 libraries 188,351 4% 12 Title-holdings in 10 libraries 158,184 3% 13 Title-holdings in 11 libraries 133,635 3% 14 Title-holdings in 12 libraries 108,638 2% 15 Title-holdings in 13 libraries 91,295 2% 16 Title-holdings in 14 libraries 75,955 1%
- 19. A few of the most widely held titles within the group 19 Title/Author Pub Year Number of ALI libraries holding The closing of the American mind: how higher education has failed … 1987 34 Music in the 20th century, from Debussy through Stravinski 1966 32 Music in Western civilization by Paul Henry Lang 1941 32 Indiana in transition: the emergence of an industrial commonwealth 1968 31 Basic writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas 1945 31 Sexual behavior in the human male by Alfred C. Kinsey 1948 31 The Puritan dilemma: the story of John Winthrop 1958 31 The basic works of Aristotle 1941 31 In search of excellence: lessons from America’s best run companies 1982 31 White over black: American attitudes toward the Negro, 1550-1812 1968 31 Beyond freedom and dignity by B.F. Skinner 1971 31 Indiana through tradition and change: a history of the Hoosier state 1982 31 and its people
- 20. WorldCat™ Counts – US 20 WorldCat Counts - US - Same Edition Includes ALI Project Libraries Title Holdings % 2 1 Holding in the US 27, 348 1% 4 2-4 Holdings in the US 55,408 1% 6 5-9 Holdings in US 76,163 1% 8 10-19 Holdings in US 131,107 3% 10 20+ Holdings In US 4,893,337 94% 12 50+ Holdings in US 4,554,335 88% 14 100+ Holdings in the US 4,066,863 78% 16 200+ Holdings in the US 3,224,889 62%
- 21. Overlap with 32 CIC Libraries 21 Overlap with CIC libraries WorldCat Counts - Same Edition Title Holdings % 26 Zero holdings among CIC Libraries 489,609 9% 28 One holding among CIC Libraries 313,125 6% 30 2-4 Holdings among CIC Libraries 747,564 14% 32 5-9 Holdings among CIC Libraries 1,311,619 25% 34 10+ Holdings among CIC Libraries 2,322,575 45%
- 22. Overlap with 57 ILL Partner Libraries 22 Overlap with ILL Partner Libraries WorldCat Counts - Same Edition Title Holdings % 36 Zero Holdings among ILL Partner Libraries 389,339 8% 38 One Holding among ILL Partner Libraries 320,353 6% 40 2-4 Holdings among ILL Partner Libraries 847,733 16% 42 5-9 Holdings among ILL Partner Libraries 1,353,699 26% 44 10+ Holdings among ILL Partner Libraries 2,273,368 44%
- 23. Overlap with the big three 23 Overlap with the big three WorldCat Counts - Same Edition Title Holdings % 46 Held by IU Bloomington 3,106,881 60% 48 Held by Purdue University 1,712,682 33% 50 Held by Notre Dame University 2,418,421 47% * Held by all three 907,073 17% * Held by at least two of the three 2,444,216 47%
- 24. Hathi Trust and Internet Archive 24 Title Holdings % 9 Hathi Trust Public Domain Match 290,009 6% 10 Hathi Trust In-Copyright Match 2,026,242 39% 11 Internet Archive Match 786,368 15% 12 In Internet Archive but not in Hathi 327,002 6% 13 In Hathi but not in Internet Archive 1,977,328 38% 14 In Hathi AND in Internet Archive 459,366 9%
- 25. Recorded Uses 25 ALI Title-Holding Counts All Libraries % 2 Total Recorded Uses = 0 2,116,420 41% 3 Total Recorded Uses = 1 867,920 17% 4 Total Recorded Uses = 2 541,708 10% 5 Total Recorded Uses = 3 357,509 7% 6 Total Recorded Uses 4-9 856,569 17% 7 Total Recorded Uses 10+ 444,366 9% 14 Last charge after 2010 693,466 13% 15 Last charge after 2007 1,195,552 23% 16 Last charge after 2005 1,472,837 28%
- 26. Title-Holdings by Publication Year 26
- 27. 27 Average number of title-holdings per title by publication year 1966 = 3.4 (peak value) 2013 = 1.3
- 28. Title-Holdings by LC Class 28
- 29. Average Recorded Uses per Title-Holding by LC Class 29
- 30. GreenGlass GreenGlass Tutorials at: sustainablecollections.com/greenglass ruth@sustainablecollections.com rick@sustainablecollections.com PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 31. Collaboration in Acquisitions Reviewing acquisitions data from 2010 • Can we tell how many copies are sufficient to meet need? • Are there characteristics available at the point of purchase that determine usage? (e.g. Choice Review, Publisher, Subject area) • Are there characteristics that determine widely held by low use? PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 32. VIVA Project Top publishers Highly circulated titles Widely held titles PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 33. Candidates for Digitization • 330,875 pre-1923 items in total, representing 153,348 unique OCLC numbers • 126,564 items, representing 93,270 unique OCLC numbers NOT in Hathi Public Domain • Less than 50% of our scarcely held is in Hathi Public Domain • This is a LARGE list – considering focusing on Indiana material for first pass PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 34. Regional Possibilities? • How does our work intersect with CIC, MI-SPI, Ohio, Indiana Public Libraries in Evergreen? • What infrastructure is needed to collaborate further (delivery, discovery, etc.?) • What analysis should be done to identify needs and benefits for regional collaboration? PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
- 35. We can do what we are doing thanks to work that the CIC and others are doing … SARA BUSHONG, DEAN OF UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES AT BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY PALNI- Private Academic Library Network of Indiana
Notas del editor
- I’m Kirsten Leonard, Executive Director at the Private Academic Library Network of Indiana (PALNI) PALNI is comprised of 23 colleges, universities, and seminaries in Indiana All our organizations also belong to the Academic Libraries of Indiana Thank you for coming today as we broaden our discussion and consider shared collections in Indiana and in the region might look like
- How many already have a good familiarity with Shared Print Initiatives? Shared print is a Commitment to retain so that others can partner libraries can rely on their availability Doesn't emphasize weeding over retention - with the blind faith that they would get access - grows out of a trust network or the act of putting the group together establishes that trust Gives explicit agreement -that volumes will be retained Funny that I am going first because our project differs a bit because we are in Indiana with partners already doing shared print who are larger and have more resources. Although even the largest struggle. The PAN forum on the Center for Research Libraries web site is a great resource to learn about other Shared Print projects
- Carol Deidrichs will be talking about the CIC project and Sara Bushong will be discussing the Ohio Depositories On our panel we have Randy Dykhuis who can give an overview of the MI-SPI Michigan project And Jake Speer might talk about what occurs with the Public libraries and their sharing of the Evergreen system in terms of collections management
- How Much Space Will the Project Make Available? David Lewis did an early estimate that 15% of all the copies could be withdrawn because they were commonly held and little used to free up over 50,000 square feet of space – with a value of that space estimated at over 11 million dollars (based on cost to construct campus space) and saving over $930,000 PER YEAR on costs to maintain these titles
- Thank you to SCS Ruth Fischer for many of the slides content – SCS has been a strong project partner, ready for additional analysis – deeply interested in the evolution of libraries and their collections, and excited about the challenge. Our project was the largest they had been presented with to date. And a really big thank you to Tina Baich who did all the project and meeting coordination and kept everyone informed.
- All the PALNI libraries participated and PALNI paid the project fees centrally
- In addition, 13 ALI libraries participated in the project
- Our specific goals for the project Weeding was our primary goal – freeing up space – but wanted to do it with minimal impact on users But we also wanted to know what we held that others in the region did not – what should we preserve And we wanted to see what we could learn so we could acquire in a more deliberate fashion so we weren’t needing to do a big project like this again – so looking at what we could learn that an individual library could use in their acquisition, and what we might want to do for a statewide strategy
- While the roots of the project go back to 2011 and earlier, the project timeline begin in October 2013 and was quite aggressive Only 3 months after the initial meeting, our data sets were sent to SCS for normalization, processing, and analysis By June each library had access to scarcely held titles and by July had access to their data in GreenGlass so they could run their own lists for weeding and change the parameters of the search
- Due to the number of participants, a representative twelve-member Policy Group was formed (Appendix B). This group was constituted in November 2013 in preparation for decision making that would be required in early 2014. The Policy Group met four times over the course of spring 2014 and engaged in further discussions over email to make several key decisions including the selection of libraries and groups of libraries to which the participant libraries’ collections would be compared (February 2014). The comparators chosen include the following. Libraries and Library Groups for Comparison: Indiana University Bloomington Purdue University University of Notre Dame Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) libraries (Big Ten) Top four interlibrary loan partners of each participating library
- No formal MOU bc of our desire to be low overhead and cost. Felt it was prohibitive to try to get an agreement past 36 different libraries. We also felt that MOUs were not widely being done by major players in this space. So our formal informal agreement was to have participants focus on holdings loaded into GreenGlass and NOT on their scarcely held list and that would meet the need for space and retention, Our scarcely held definition is very conservative … see next slide
- So unless four libraries owned it – the holding did not go into GreenGlass where project participants might weed it The objective here was to make it a no-brainer – if in GreenGlass – from a state perspective it was okay to weed. It is then a local library decision and can use GreenGlass to look at usage and decide based on collection needs
- 1) We have two sets (two imprints, different years) of the Harvard Classics. About a couple of hundred books combined, that are all the classics of literature. Individually, there are multiple copies of these classic titles throughout our library and the state. But few have them cataloged as the Harvard Classics series set. We want to get rid of them, but we’re conflicted with the “scarcely held” commitment. (An artifact vs content problem). 2) Old computer and other comp sci materials from the 90’s and early 2000’s. Windows, MS, programming languages, etc. We were probably slow to weed these and other libraries beat us to it. We don’t want to keep these outdated and useless manuals. Once again, on the Scarcely Held list. 3) Books that are damaged. We have an internal policy to no longer re-bind or spend time on book repair. If a book is damaged, we either replace it (electronically if possible) or withdraw it from the collection. These we will need to get rid of regardless of their Scarcely Held status.
- Title holdings means all the various copies of a title held by all the libraries in the group Title sets means Title tied to a distinct OCLC record So the key point here is that within our group – we actually have a really high level of uniqueness with over 50% of our titles being held by only one library
- This may seem confusing compared to the last one –the percentage is referring to copies rather than titles So 23% of all the copies in the group are owned by one library And only 1% of the holdings are held by 14 libraries or more – but still there is a large overlap even in the group of titles held by 5 or more libraries just in the 36 project participants (372,822)
- Just a fun note of what our commonly held titles look like I was amused to see the spread in subject area – from Higher Education, to music, to Kinsey and to the Puritans
- Here you can see that the group does have holdings that are scarcely held in the US – 27,348 holdings where we have the only copy in the whole US and need to preserve it So that goes back to my earlier slide about whether we will get more formal in declaring retention commitments
- This one is interesting = so 489,609 titles are in our shared print project but not in the CIC – so shows the smaller libraries still hold unique titles and can participate in preserving the scholarly record
- So for 38900 titles, we can’t rely on our usual ILL partners to supply the title – so we need to preserve it
- We do have a great deal of overlap with Bloomington, but only 17% are held by all three We looked at this because we knew Purdue was weeding and Bloomington was not able to commit to long term retention. So to be safe, we wanted to see more than one of these big state collections holding the title to make sure we had easy access. But in the end we decided that 1 copy in the big three with the other factors was good enough
- Amongst the project participants and certainly the Policy group – Hathi was not considered a good enough substitute for a copy and was not a factor in our scarcely held formula
- 2.1 million title holdings had no recorded use
- The bulk of the collection form the 60’s onwards with a dip in the early 80’s and a giant slope downward in 2008 onwards that is not surprising
- This slide shows how many copies per title So we have already been reducing the number of copies across the group – some of this is intentional as holdings are checked in WorldCat before purchasing but some is probably just random due to budget reductions
- These are copies again So you can see that our holdings in Philosophy, Psychology and Religion (B’s) are high which is not surprising considering the number of theological programs Social Sciences and Literature are the next highest held
- The highest use per copy is in Medicine and W represents medicine in the NLM cataloging schema. (Nat'l Library of Medicine.) The Medical and Dental Libraries in your project catalog using NLM. The NLM schema does not conflict with LC, so we just show the Ws where they exist. Going back to the number of holdings – you can see that these are not commonly held but highly used
- For more information about GreenGlass see the sustainable collections website. There is a great tutorial there showing what GreenGlass can do.
- Can we tell how many copies are sufficient to meet need? Are there characteristics available at the point of purchase that determine usage? (e.g. Choice Review, Publisher, Subject area) Are there characteristics that determine widely held by low use? We haven’t made this determination yet. Print only – but how does this translate to electronic collection development? PALNI is looking into doing a consortia DDA.
- Virtual Library of Virginia (VIVA) 72 academic libraries (39 public, 32 private, Library of Virginia), including doctorals, four years, two years, and specialized institutions. Looking at what is held widely and commonly used to identify shared ebook candidates Defined as: held by 10 or more VIVA libraries 10 or more recorded uses last charge date after 2007 Resulted in a list of just over 175,000 books.
- For panel discussion