1 / 19

User-Based Serials Collection Development

User-Based Serials Collection Development. UNC Pembroke Background. FTE 4950 32 undergraduate degrees offered 16 graduate degrees offered 72% commuters 40% non-traditional 16 to 1 student to faculty ratio Strong distance education program 1 Serials Librarian.

ajoel
Download Presentation

User-Based Serials Collection Development

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. User-Based Serials Collection Development

  2. UNC Pembroke Background • FTE 4950 • 32 undergraduate degrees offered • 16 graduate degrees offered • 72% commuters • 40% non-traditional • 16 to 1 student to faculty ratio • Strong distance education program • 1 Serials Librarian

  3. Current Method of Journal Selection • Compile a list of departmental subscription including cost and usage statistics. • Send list to faculty for review. • Seek faculty input for cancellations and new subscription • Send journal catalogs and pamphlets to departments

  4. Problems with the Current Method • Accurate stats are hard to keep. • Many titles are cross-disciplinary and on multiple department lists. • Not all members of the department will see the list. • Titles cancelled by one person may be being used by another. • Faculty may base decisions solely on cost. • New titles often include items only needed for faculty member’s short term research. • Faculty sometimes request titles that are out of print.

  5. Experimental Collection Development Using hard data to drive collection development

  6. Methodology • Get input from Reference staff • Review Interlibrary loan requests • Review “no-hits log” in Journal Finder • Review database vendor statistics

  7. Input from Reference Librarians • Talked with reference librarians about collection policy. Asked them to report titles that frequently come up in abstract form only. • Created a web form where they can submit journal requests.

  8. Reference Desk Request Results • Reference librarians showed interest in the idea but weren’t participating. • Only 6 requests. • Requests came from only 2 people.

  9. Interlibrary Loan Requests • Ran the ILL report for the period of 09/06-02/07 • Sorted by title

  10. Interlibrary Loan Requests • 200+ titles requested between September 2006 and March 2007 • 60% were requested less than 3 times • 90 requested 3 or more times were added to the “Journals to consider” list.

  11. Journal Finder “no-hits log” • Tracked “no-hits log” from September 2006 through the present. • Broke this list down into the following categories • Titles with multiple listings • Titles that should have been found • Searches that weren’t journal searches

  12. Journal Finder Results • 30% of searches were not for journal titles • 10% of searches failed due to misspellings or too much information • 117 titles worth reviewing • 62 titles added to the “Journals to Consider” list. • 55 had multiple hits within same hour

  13. Example of Title Reviewed Good Example Bad Example

  14. Vendor Statistics • Statistics given by vendors where not useful. • Only vendor such as JSTOR and Project Muse were willing to give a title by title break down of statistics. However they are both full text collections. • Vendors lack interest in supplying info.

  15. Bringing It All Together • Comparing ILL requests, Journal Finder “not-hits” and reference requests. • 41 titles appeared on 2 or more lists. • These 41 titles will be given to faculty as suggestions for possible new editions. • Three vendors published most of the titles requested (Sage, Haworth & Elsevier)

  16. Outcome • Already added five new journals to our collection. • Provided evidence which led to a journal package subscription. • Statistics supported some faculty requests and donations. • Discovered trends among multi-miss journals i.e. same vendor, similar areas of study.

  17. Other Positive Results • Better understanding of student behaviors, with implications for library instruction. • Better understanding of the collection as a whole. Especially lack of significant publishers such as Sage and Elsevier. • Implications for web page design/clarification.

  18. Drawbacks • Tedious • Can not determine if depth of coverage for existing subscriptions is sufficient. • ILL request could be for older issues • Journal Finder will not display a “no-hit” for titles with any full text coverage. • Hard to determine bad searches from real journals.

  19. What Does The Future Hold? • Follow same procedure next year, look for recurring titles. • Contact vendors concerning statistics • Develop a streamlined process to review lists.

More Related