ASERL’s Proposed Journal Retention Agreement

1. ASERL’s Proposed Journal Retention Agreement ASERL Directors’ Discussion Spring 2010 Membership Meeting Atlanta, GA

2. A Brief History • Conceived by Willis & Gherman ~ 10 years ago, focusing on monographs • Use existing storage facilities as a “bank” of materials that would be stored for long term • Other libs could weed/de-dupe their circulating collections based on access to “banked” items

3. A Little More History • April 2009: ASERL charged Shared Storage Study Group (SSSG) to draft a proposal; focus now on print journals. • SSSG Members: • Bob Byrd (Duke) • Millie Jackson (Alabama) • Lynn Sutton (Wake Forest) • Studied programs & existing agreements at TRLN, PALCI, Orbis/Cascade, Five Colleges, others • Flo Wilson (Vanderbilt – chairperson) • John Burger & Tim Cherubini (ASERL)

4. Overview of The Proposal - 1 • Focused on retrospective holdings oflow-use print journals, especially those with reliable digital access. • Voluntary participation & broad approach – each ASERL library can retain whatever set of titles they feel would be useful, based on completeness & condition. • A consideration: Level of duplication with other regional retention agreements/systems.

5. Overview of The Proposal - 2 • Creates a dim archive: Items are retained in “closed” facility at each library; access is via digital/photocopied surrogates except in unusual cases. • Retained items verified at the volume level. • Items to be retained thru 2035, with a review of the agreement in 2020 & 2030. • Requires 24 months notice to exit the agreement entirely; 12 months notice to relinquish a held set of titles.

6. Overview of The Proposal - 3 • Participating libs will note the retention status in their catalogs (process TBD). • ASERL will maintain a publicly-accessible list on its website of titles retained under this agreement, so others can easily access the information.

7. Overview of The Proposal - 4 • No remuneration. Participating libs undertake costs for their own retention activities. • Libraries that do not have “closed” facilities or otherwise cannot / do not agree to retain items can still consider weeding their collections -- but they have no voice in managing the process going forward.

8. Overview of The Proposal - 5 • Each participating library has one representative on the Steering Committee, to determine specific processes and manage affairs going forward • Existing borrowing agreements remain the same: All ASERL libs can request digitized/photocopied surrogates of retained items using standard ILL processes.

9. Feedback So Far • Two online review / comment sessions. Lots of support – yippee! • Include partial runs?YES – minor wording change added to draft. • Can materials be loaned to other libraries but not circulate outside lib? Under review. • Periodic affirmation/validation of status?Referred to Steering Cmte.

10. Questions? Comments? • Likes / Dislikes? • What other information do you need to consider participating in this agreement?

11. Next Steps • Recruit participants – start date of August 1? • Letter from Library Director confirming participation, referring to final draft of agreement

12. Title(s) ISSN Date range Volume #s in range Statement re: level of completeness Location where items are retained Primary contact person Steering Cmte rep Data Needed to Participate