Why am I still ordering so many books? I'm wrapping up the month and looking at my budget to see if I'm where I should be in my spending for this time of year. It made me think back to one of the morning sessions at last year's Charleston Conference. The first morning, well, I didn't think those sessions were nearly as good as the rest of the conference. But, one of the things said by a presenter still sticks out in my mind. He said we're "risking the future if we're not going to a digital library."
I have no problem with going digital, especially with journals, but he didn't really define material types, though I did jot down something about reference. I agree - reference titles are well suited for a digital format. However, in order to go digital, so must the publishers. And, I can tell you, many, many publishers are still turning out ooodles of printed books without electronic (digital) counterparts. I've ordered over 100 titles just in the past week and that doesn't include what has come in on approval.
In going through my slips this past week, I did find one Economics title (2 volumes) that was available through the e-book vendor we recently signed up with (the pricing and usage model is incredibly convoluted, but that's a different post), so since we didn't purchase a collection and have been encouraged to purchase titles from this vendor, I decided to get this set in digital format. Each title was one and half times the cost of the print version. I suspect this is due to the convoluted pricing model of the vendor, but if I were on a tight budget (as I was in my previous position), I would have a decision to make regarding how important it was to have the title electronically or just to have the title. Many titles are low usage by the nature of the work (i.e. more theorteical, very specialized, limited audience). Is it justified to purchase in digital format at higher cost just to be digital or is it more prudent to go with the less expensive of the options? Or, will having it in a digital format increase the usage? It will be interesting to see the usage on this title over time as it falls into what I would call a low usage category.
I would like to experiment with others, but this was the only title in all of the slips I went through (and there were a lot) that was available electronically. So, if I take the presenter literally, I should be moving toward having everything in digital format. But maybe not. Maybe he just meant reference. Or maybe he meant we need digital libraries alongside traditional libraries. Regardless of how he is defining it, what I do know is that publishers are still churning out printed books en masse and for most there is no digital/electonic counterpart. Which means I'm still purchasing printed books for the traditional part of my library.
January 25, 2008
January 18, 2008
Comparing Collections....
One of the best sessions I attended in Charleston was presented by three librarians from Charleston College, Michael Phillips, Robert Neville, and Marth Stackel. The session: How Different Are You? Analyzing/Comparing Your Collection with Others: WorldCat Techniques in the Expert Mode. To be honest, I'd never thought of using the Expert Search in WorldCat - that blank box can be scary. Not only did they use it, but they used it to compare their collections in various subject areas with other similar or "goal" institutions.
As noted in previous postings, MPOW was evaluating collection analysis tools (Library Dynamics and WorldCat Collection Analysis). My concern with the expenditure was that we hadn't defined how we were going to use said product once we got it. So, I loved this session. Using the Expert Search mode will help me to get my feet wet and determine exactly how I would want to use such a tool.
After returning from the conference, I wasn't sure where to start with my new found knowledge. Then, opportunity presented itself. We received funding from our county to house a second county law library (in addition to the one at the court house). That funding is being withdrawn (everyone has budget issues). So, our directive was to evaluate what we have versus what we need to support our programs and our faculty and staff. It was decided to evaluate the legal collection as whole once our collection development policy for this area was defined. One of the things we decided to do was compare our legal holdings with those of peer institutions in the state. I narrowed the subject area to LC range KF and identified a couple of peer instituitons with Criminal Justice programs (there are other areas, but I started with this one). I followed the basic formula from the examples given in the Charleston Conference session as these parameters fit my needs, though I will be exploring the other limiters available. The one thing that doesn't seem to work for me is limiting by a year range. If I use or (i.e. 2007 OR 2008), that works, but not 2007-2008. However, once the results are listed, I am able to go in a limit the results further by date, which lets me enter a date range or pick from a date list. The date list also shows the number of titles that match the query for each year, which I like. I found that if I compare to more than two schools, it appears to handle date range differently, but I can't be sure. I've done a couple of different versions of my query and have gotten some strange results, but I'm chalking that up to operator error.
Overall, I'm happy with the search results. I would recommend writing out the query in advance (as the presenters also recommended) due to the time out feature in WorldCat. I'd also recommend creating a personal WorldCat account to save the searches. The one thing you can't do (which WorldCat Collection Analysis does do) is export to Excel. As a matter of fact, the export is tied to a text file (very messy and not delimited) or EndNotes or RefWorks. Basically, citation exporting. I did export to RefWorks and then exported from RefWorks to Excel. Kind of clunky. I also discovered that you must pay attention to what you're exporting in both programs and that RefWorks exports a lot.
If you've been thinking about comparing your collection to others, but haven't yet purchased a collection analysis tool, I heartily recommend giving this a go.
As noted in previous postings, MPOW was evaluating collection analysis tools (Library Dynamics and WorldCat Collection Analysis). My concern with the expenditure was that we hadn't defined how we were going to use said product once we got it. So, I loved this session. Using the Expert Search mode will help me to get my feet wet and determine exactly how I would want to use such a tool.
After returning from the conference, I wasn't sure where to start with my new found knowledge. Then, opportunity presented itself. We received funding from our county to house a second county law library (in addition to the one at the court house). That funding is being withdrawn (everyone has budget issues). So, our directive was to evaluate what we have versus what we need to support our programs and our faculty and staff. It was decided to evaluate the legal collection as whole once our collection development policy for this area was defined. One of the things we decided to do was compare our legal holdings with those of peer institutions in the state. I narrowed the subject area to LC range KF and identified a couple of peer instituitons with Criminal Justice programs (there are other areas, but I started with this one). I followed the basic formula from the examples given in the Charleston Conference session as these parameters fit my needs, though I will be exploring the other limiters available. The one thing that doesn't seem to work for me is limiting by a year range. If I use or (i.e. 2007 OR 2008), that works, but not 2007-2008. However, once the results are listed, I am able to go in a limit the results further by date, which lets me enter a date range or pick from a date list. The date list also shows the number of titles that match the query for each year, which I like. I found that if I compare to more than two schools, it appears to handle date range differently, but I can't be sure. I've done a couple of different versions of my query and have gotten some strange results, but I'm chalking that up to operator error.
Overall, I'm happy with the search results. I would recommend writing out the query in advance (as the presenters also recommended) due to the time out feature in WorldCat. I'd also recommend creating a personal WorldCat account to save the searches. The one thing you can't do (which WorldCat Collection Analysis does do) is export to Excel. As a matter of fact, the export is tied to a text file (very messy and not delimited) or EndNotes or RefWorks. Basically, citation exporting. I did export to RefWorks and then exported from RefWorks to Excel. Kind of clunky. I also discovered that you must pay attention to what you're exporting in both programs and that RefWorks exports a lot.
If you've been thinking about comparing your collection to others, but haven't yet purchased a collection analysis tool, I heartily recommend giving this a go.
January 09, 2008
Call for Book Contributors and straggling Survey Participants!!
We are writing a book entitled “Federated Search: A Librarian’s Guide”. We are surveying both library practitioners and the federated search vendors to get a complete picture of what the profession is looking for and what the current / forthcoming options are. This data will be combined with a guide on selecting and implementing a federated search tool. The aim is to illuminate all of the decisions necessary in order to alleviate the pitfalls of the process.
There is still time to give us your feedback through our survey and feel free to pass along this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx? sm=Au1Me4INFknkQbscTVcViw_3d_3d
Additionally, if you are interested in contributing your experience with implementation to the book, please contact me (kewllibrarian01@gmail.com) asap!
There is still time to give us your feedback through our survey and feel free to pass along this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx? sm=Au1Me4INFknkQbscTVcViw_3d_3d
Additionally, if you are interested in contributing your experience with implementation to the book, please contact me (kewllibrarian01@gmail.com) asap!
December 04, 2007
Weeding
Umm... maybe I should call it deselection. Whatever the term, my library is in the midst of a large weeding project. We had several thousand titles stored in a remote facility in a different part of the state. That facility ran out of room and the books are being returned. All 43,000 of them. The returned items do contain journals as well as monographs.
To start, we pulled a list of the journal titles and made decisions on what to keep or discard before they arrived. My criteria for this was if my holdings were incomplete and complete holdings were available locally, then I withdrew my holdings. However, there are five librarians involved in this project, each with collection development responsibilities for different areas. And, we're all making the withdraw or keep decision differently. It's really rather fascinating to watch.
Then, we get to the monographs. They are in our local remote storage and have come in by size (they were stored by size). So, they are in random order. This means you have to peruse every shelf to see what titles fall in your area. They went to remote storage because they had one or zero circulations. However, upon reviewing many titles, those circulations were since we brought up the ILS. Prior to that, many titles had very high circulation, but due to age or change in instructors or programs or the way classes are taught, that usage has dropped off. Some have been recalled from remote and have a flag on them, so those automatically get kept. That was a fairly easy decision, though I've wanted to discard a few that were recalled, because I know I have more current titles in those areas.
I have collection development responsibilities for areas that have materials that age out, although I think most areas have materials that age out, but it has to be thought out. Each subject area here basically has it's own collection development policy (called an Information Management and Access Plan); there is a general weeding/deselection policy, but it hasn't been updated in awhile. So, again, all five librarians are using different standards/judgement to do their deselecting. For me it goes if: the age of the book (especially if it's a text book) is over five years old; bibliographies (pretty much replaced and outdated by databases); symposium proceedings, pamphlets specific to a particular event or city (unless it's in my state), especially if the condition of the item is bad; biographies, especially if they've never circulated or it's a person not widely known (we received many by donation); dissertations; and statistics and other data that can now be found online. I also look closely at materials related to other countries for fit with programs that are offered by the university. If the fit isn't good, the material goes. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, as well as some materials that just have to be reveiwed.
We have one more shipment to go. It's time consuming and tedious, but it has given me great insight into not only the process of deselection, but also collection development. Since it's time to be updating my the collection development plans for my areas, what I've learned from doing this project will be incorporated there as well.
On a side note, I did attend the Charleston Conference last month and attended some very good sessions and lively lunches. Once I can get my thoughts together on that, I will be posting on the things that really stood out to me.
To start, we pulled a list of the journal titles and made decisions on what to keep or discard before they arrived. My criteria for this was if my holdings were incomplete and complete holdings were available locally, then I withdrew my holdings. However, there are five librarians involved in this project, each with collection development responsibilities for different areas. And, we're all making the withdraw or keep decision differently. It's really rather fascinating to watch.
Then, we get to the monographs. They are in our local remote storage and have come in by size (they were stored by size). So, they are in random order. This means you have to peruse every shelf to see what titles fall in your area. They went to remote storage because they had one or zero circulations. However, upon reviewing many titles, those circulations were since we brought up the ILS. Prior to that, many titles had very high circulation, but due to age or change in instructors or programs or the way classes are taught, that usage has dropped off. Some have been recalled from remote and have a flag on them, so those automatically get kept. That was a fairly easy decision, though I've wanted to discard a few that were recalled, because I know I have more current titles in those areas.
I have collection development responsibilities for areas that have materials that age out, although I think most areas have materials that age out, but it has to be thought out. Each subject area here basically has it's own collection development policy (called an Information Management and Access Plan); there is a general weeding/deselection policy, but it hasn't been updated in awhile. So, again, all five librarians are using different standards/judgement to do their deselecting. For me it goes if: the age of the book (especially if it's a text book) is over five years old; bibliographies (pretty much replaced and outdated by databases); symposium proceedings, pamphlets specific to a particular event or city (unless it's in my state), especially if the condition of the item is bad; biographies, especially if they've never circulated or it's a person not widely known (we received many by donation); dissertations; and statistics and other data that can now be found online. I also look closely at materials related to other countries for fit with programs that are offered by the university. If the fit isn't good, the material goes. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, as well as some materials that just have to be reveiwed.
We have one more shipment to go. It's time consuming and tedious, but it has given me great insight into not only the process of deselection, but also collection development. Since it's time to be updating my the collection development plans for my areas, what I've learned from doing this project will be incorporated there as well.
On a side note, I did attend the Charleston Conference last month and attended some very good sessions and lively lunches. Once I can get my thoughts together on that, I will be posting on the things that really stood out to me.
November 05, 2007
NISO Forum
Last week I attended the NISO Forum Understanding the Data Around Us: Gathering and Analyzing Usage Data. This forum came at an appropriate time for me, as many of our databases (as I'm sure is the case at most libraries) renew in January. So, I've spent the past couple of weeks digging for usage statistics and then trying to interpret what I got.
The Forum was basically two well spent days. I won't give a synopsis of every session, but will point out ones I particularly enjoyed and then some of the key pieces of information and thoughts that I walked away with.
For the most part, all sessions were good, but there were a few that I particulalry enjoyed: Usage Data: Seeing the Full Picture by Kevin Cohn, Product Director, Atypon; From What to Why: Electronic Resource usage Data in Collection Development and User Behavior by Karen Coombs, Head of Web Services, Univeristy of Houston Libraries; SUSHI & COUNTER by Oliver Pesch, Chief Strategist, E-Resources, EbSCO Information Services; Why Collect Data? by Colleen Cook, Dean of the Texas A&M University Libraries; Real World Data: Using Usage to Shape Libraries by Virginia Steel, University Librarian, University of California, Santa Cruz; and Electronic Resource Usage Statistics: Defining a Complex Problem by Caryn Anderson, Doctoral Studies Program Manager, GSLIS, Simmons College.
One idea stated by many presenters is that all data is good. The key is knowing what to do with it. There was some overlap between presentations, but the general consensus is that usage data are a good thing. This may sound basic, but apparently there are folks out there who do not think usage data serve a purpose. I like usage stats, so I have to agree with this. I have an undergraduate business degree and business experience; I tend to say if it isn't being used, then don't subscribe to it. However, we live in the real world and while I'd like to live by this adage, sometimes you can't, given the nature of programs offered by the university. I'm not sure if the same would ring true in public libraries. However, usage statistics are being used for a variety of reasons outside of subscription/renewal decisions - weeding/deselection, marketing, editorial decisions by journal editors, just to name a few. An off shoot of this is that everyone approaches usage statistics from a different perspective; the variety of ways to use usage statistics are limitless. In the end though, usage statistics of any kind should help you be better informed about your users.
There is no standard, so to speak, on how to use usage data, however, there is a standard for getting/providing those usage stats. I felt like I'd had my head in the sand when several presenters mentioned the problems with COUNTER. After listening to them, they made some good points. (Several presenters mentioned problems with COUNTER, but Kevin Cohn with Atypon defined them well. Link to the presentations is provided at the end of this post). I agree with what they were saying, but, I have a slightly different perspective. All of those presenters were assuming that usage stats were coming in a COUNTER compliant format. Ah... if that were true. There may be faults with COUNTER, but I deal with a lot of business databases and they are not COUNTER compliant, which makes it quite difficult to compare usage for similar databases, though admitedly many business databases provide unique resources. One database provides usage for their Quick Search, Company Snapshot, General Sources, etc. The only totals they provide for all this are the "What if Total Price," the amount we would have been charged if we didn't subscribe. I don't find that particular piece of information useful. I then had to try and reconcile what I did have to something along the lines of searches and sessions. There was also the assumption that usage statistics were being provided. I have a subscription to one commercial database that does not provide statistics and has no intention of doing so. Their viewpoint - it's the same cost regardless of the number of users. My thought of course, is if no one uses it, why should I subscribe.
Powerpoints for the NISO Forum are available at http://www.niso.org/news/events_workshops/usage07/agenda.html.
Also available is a new Usage Data wiki at http://usagedata.pbwiki.com/. Join the community conversation about developing a usage data decision framework (and other usage data issues). For more information about the usage data conversation, see Caryn Anderson's closing remarks (available on the presentations page).
The Forum was basically two well spent days. I won't give a synopsis of every session, but will point out ones I particularly enjoyed and then some of the key pieces of information and thoughts that I walked away with.
For the most part, all sessions were good, but there were a few that I particulalry enjoyed: Usage Data: Seeing the Full Picture by Kevin Cohn, Product Director, Atypon; From What to Why: Electronic Resource usage Data in Collection Development and User Behavior by Karen Coombs, Head of Web Services, Univeristy of Houston Libraries; SUSHI & COUNTER by Oliver Pesch, Chief Strategist, E-Resources, EbSCO Information Services; Why Collect Data? by Colleen Cook, Dean of the Texas A&M University Libraries; Real World Data: Using Usage to Shape Libraries by Virginia Steel, University Librarian, University of California, Santa Cruz; and Electronic Resource Usage Statistics: Defining a Complex Problem by Caryn Anderson, Doctoral Studies Program Manager, GSLIS, Simmons College.
One idea stated by many presenters is that all data is good. The key is knowing what to do with it. There was some overlap between presentations, but the general consensus is that usage data are a good thing. This may sound basic, but apparently there are folks out there who do not think usage data serve a purpose. I like usage stats, so I have to agree with this. I have an undergraduate business degree and business experience; I tend to say if it isn't being used, then don't subscribe to it. However, we live in the real world and while I'd like to live by this adage, sometimes you can't, given the nature of programs offered by the university. I'm not sure if the same would ring true in public libraries. However, usage statistics are being used for a variety of reasons outside of subscription/renewal decisions - weeding/deselection, marketing, editorial decisions by journal editors, just to name a few. An off shoot of this is that everyone approaches usage statistics from a different perspective; the variety of ways to use usage statistics are limitless. In the end though, usage statistics of any kind should help you be better informed about your users.
There is no standard, so to speak, on how to use usage data, however, there is a standard for getting/providing those usage stats. I felt like I'd had my head in the sand when several presenters mentioned the problems with COUNTER. After listening to them, they made some good points. (Several presenters mentioned problems with COUNTER, but Kevin Cohn with Atypon defined them well. Link to the presentations is provided at the end of this post). I agree with what they were saying, but, I have a slightly different perspective. All of those presenters were assuming that usage stats were coming in a COUNTER compliant format. Ah... if that were true. There may be faults with COUNTER, but I deal with a lot of business databases and they are not COUNTER compliant, which makes it quite difficult to compare usage for similar databases, though admitedly many business databases provide unique resources. One database provides usage for their Quick Search, Company Snapshot, General Sources, etc. The only totals they provide for all this are the "What if Total Price," the amount we would have been charged if we didn't subscribe. I don't find that particular piece of information useful. I then had to try and reconcile what I did have to something along the lines of searches and sessions. There was also the assumption that usage statistics were being provided. I have a subscription to one commercial database that does not provide statistics and has no intention of doing so. Their viewpoint - it's the same cost regardless of the number of users. My thought of course, is if no one uses it, why should I subscribe.
Powerpoints for the NISO Forum are available at http://www.niso.org/news/events_workshops/usage07/agenda.html.
Also available is a new Usage Data wiki at http://usagedata.pbwiki.com/. Join the community conversation about developing a usage data decision framework (and other usage data issues). For more information about the usage data conversation, see Caryn Anderson's closing remarks (available on the presentations page).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)