OhioLINK Collection Analysis Project

1. OhioLINK Collection Analysis Project OCLC Members Council Preliminary Analysis 21 October 2008 Ed O’Neill, OCLC Research With support and contributions from: Julia A. Gammon, University of Akron Anne T. Gilliland, Ohio State University (Formerly OhioLINK)

2. 1987 Library Study Committee Report Key Recommendations: • Create a book depository system • Create a statewide electronic catalog • Appoint a steering committee

3. OhioLINK Planning Paper • Coordination in purchasing of shared collections • Expanded access to electronic information • Improved access to information infrastructure • Promotion of scholarly communications • Improved economies in purchase of electronic resources

4. Who is OhioLINK? • The State Library of Ohio • 5 ARL Institutions • 11 Universities • 44 Colleges • 15 Community Colleges • 28 Branch campuses • 5 Depositories • 3 Museums and other independent cultural institutions • 20 Off-campus hospitals and medical centers

5. What is OhioLINK? • Shared catalog with patron initiated borrowing • 600,000+ Users • 47.6 million books and other library materials • Millions of electronic articles • 12,000 electronic journals • 140 electronic research databases • 40,000 e-books • Thousands of images, videos and sounds • 17,500 theses and dissertations from Ohio students

6. Research Project • Joint study by OhioLINK, OhioLINK members, OhioLINK Collection Building Task Force (CBTF) and OCLC Research • Much of the planned analysis is new and untested; not all of the analysis will be successful • This project is distinct from OCLC’s collection analysis service

7. Distinctive Aspects • Size and scope of collections • Use of local holdings information • Number and variety of institutions • FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) • Application of Audience Level

8. Project Goals For the book collection: • To reduce unnecessary duplication • To increase local collection development activities • To expand the amount spent on cooperative acquisitions • To strengthen the collective collection

9. Books: What we hope to learn • Is the OhioLINK collection getting more diverse? • Is duplication increasing or decreasing? How much is justified? • What does the OhioLINK collective collection look like? • What books didn’t we acquire? • Does the 80/20 rule apply? • Are the acquisitions budgets effectively allocated? • What is the average age of the books by subject?

10. What we hope to learn (Cont.) • Does the size of core collections vary by subject? • What is the half-life of books in a particular subject areas? • Does circulation correlate with the strengths/specialties/programs? • Are the sciences really not using books? • Does circulation correlate with number of copies? With WorldCat holdings? • Do usage pattern vary by institution? • Are the ARLs different or just larger? • What books should be in the depositories?

11. OhioLINK Circulation Data i25878591 45207959 The infinite / A.W. Moore 00051722 bc - 5 1 8/3/2001 8/23/2004 0415252857 (pbk.) Akron Item No.: OCLC No.: Title: LCCN: Location Code: Status Code: Circulation: Renewals: Accession date: Date of Last Use: ISBN: Source:

12. Accumulative Circulation Data • Makes comparison difficult; An item with high circulation may be currently be little used, i.e. Word97 • To obtain current circulation rates, Pre/post images will used: • The first data set of circulation data was collected in the Spring of 2007 • The second data was collected this Spring (2008) • From the second set of data, the circulation for the past year can be determined

13. Data Collection Schedule • First Snapshot: April - May, 2007 • Second Snapshot: April – May 2008 • Validation of circulation policies: July – October 2008

14. WorldCat Linking The OCLC Number is used to link the circulation records to the corresponding bibliographic record in WorldCat • For records with an obsolete OCLC No.; the obsolete OCLC No. is replaced with current OCLC No. • For records without an OCLC No. which had either a unique LCCN or ISBN; that number is used to identify the corresponding OCLC No. • Records lacking any standard number could not be validated and were excluded from the study

15. Validation • Validating link • The title from the OhioLINK circulation record was compared to the title from the WorldCat record • If the title from the circ record was similar to the title in the WorldCat record, the record was validated • Records with dissimilar titles were not be validated and were excluded from the study • Determining material type • Only books and manuscripts were included • Material type was based on fixed fields codes in the WorldCat records (bib lvl = m and type = a or t)

16. Validated OhioLINK Circulation Data Records Received … 33,146,008 Records Validated … 30,718,454 (92.7%) Validated Books …… 27,002,190 (81.5%)

17. Work A distinct intellectual or artistic creation Is realized through The intellectual or artistic realization of a work Expression The physical embodiment of an expression Manifestation Is embodied in Item A single exemplar of a manifestation Is exemplified by Is embodied in FRBR: Group One Entities

18. Humphry Clinker Example • 53 OhioLINK libraries hold the work • 1 English language expression • 48 Different manifestations

19. Lots of Different Manifestations

20. Most Common in OhioLINK OCLC No.: 358955 52 Copies 27 Libraries Not held by the University of Cincinnati University of Cincinnati does hold 9 other manifestations

21. Audience Level • Audience level identifies the audience for which the book or other library resource is suitable • Audience level is inferred from the type of libraries (ARL, Academic, Public, School) that have acquired the resource using the library holdings data from WorldCat • The audience level ranges from 0.0 (Juvenile) to 1.0 (Scholarly)

22. Phylogeny and systematics of the treehopper subfamily Audience level: 0.96 Octopusses and squid Audience level: 0.06 Fundamentals of entomology Audience level: 0.51    Audience Level Examples A collection can be characterized by average audience level of its resources. 0 1

23. Library Organizational Structure The large universities are complex organizations: • Multiple administrative units • Many different physical locations • Branch campuses • Depositories • Independent cultural institutions • Off-campus hospitals and medical centers

24. Library Organizational Structure • Campuses, independent cultural institutions, and depositories are treated as top (first) level units • Independent administrative units (if present) within the campus • Separate libraries (if present) within an administrative unit • Distinct collections with unique location codes

25. University of Akron University of Akron University of Akron University Libraries University Libraries Bierce Library Multi Level Structure Top level units: Individual campus, depositories, and external organizations (Museums, Centers, Hospitals) Third level units: Distinct library units. Second level units: Separate administrative units [university libraries, law, medicine, etc.) or distinct library units. Location codes : The codes used within OhioLINK to identify to location of the individual items. Over 4,200 different location codes were found; one institution alone used 556 different codes) bccco, bccct, bccir, bccm, bcgd, bcgdo, bcmu, …

26. Three Level Structure for Akron

27. Location Codes Mapping

28. The project is still “in progress” and the data analysis is incomplete Results are preliminary; revisions and corrections will occur Caution!

29. General Information

30. Languages Additional columns include statistics for German, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Hebrew, Polish, Greek, and Arabic

31. Subjects The subject analysis included 24 primary subjects; a more detailed subject analysis with approximately 500 subject areas will included in the final analysis

32. Age Statistics on 20 different age groups are provided

33. Collective Collection: What Do We Have? How many items do we have? What languages do we have? How old are they? How many are unique? In what subjects? How many copies do we need?

34. Most Held Libraries: 68 Copies: 109 Circulations: 99

35. The National union catalog, pre-1956 imprints Most Copies Libraries: 12 Copies: 9,542 Circulations: 9

36. Most Circulated Libraries: 6 Copies: 92 Circulations: 6,023

37. Holdings vs. Active Collection

38. Subject Distribution

39. Circulation by Subject

40. Language Distribution 24,386,814

41. Circulation of Non-English Materials Average per Item Circulation

42. Circ. Rate by Institution Type 2.3 3.6 2.3 Circulation 1.7 ARL Univ. Colleges CC/ Branches

43. 12.86% (788,483) Usage Distribution % of Circulation % of Books

44. Annual Collection Growth Max 114,375 (2000) No. of Manifestations Added Publication Date

45. 4.5 Duplication Rate Average No. of Copies Publication Date

46. Duplication by Subject

47. Conclusions? • Only first phase of data analysis complete • Additional and more reliable statistics will be available after the next phase • Preliminary results: • Duplication rates are steady • The 80/20 rule may be closer to 80/10 • Limited use of non-English materials • Books are still being used in the Sciences • Circulations rates vary greatly by subject, institution • To be continued ….

48. Questions? Ed O’Neill OCLC Research oneill@oclc.org 614-764-6074 This presentation is available on the OCLC Web Site at: http://www.oclc.org/memberscouncil/meetings/2009/october/researchsg-oneill.ppt