ALCTS Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group (Big Heads)
by Judith Hopkins, University at
the text of the Round Robin on issues of concern to these institutions, which was distributed via the Big Heads electronic discussion list
in the weeks prior to the
BREAK (15 min.)
Present: Bob Wolven (
Karen Calhoun (Cornell) Lee Leighton (UC-Berkeley)
Nancy Gibbs (Duke) Cindy Shelton (UCLA)
Horrell (Harvard) Judith
Nadler (U of
Beacher Wiggins (LC) Leighann Ayers
Sinn (NAL) Barbara
Stelmasik (U of
Duane Arenales (NLM) Larry Alford (UNC-Chapel Hill)
Clark (NYPL) Carton
Rogers (U of
Arno Kastner (NYU) Beth Picknally Camden (U of Va)
Pitts Diedrichs (OSU) Joyce
Ogburn (U of
Rosann Bazirjian (
T. Farrell (
Jean Hirons (CONSER Coordinator, LC)
Chair Sally Sinn announced that there would be an open discussion on E-resource management from to that evening in the Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel. The meeting is sponsored by Big Heads.
Judith Hopkins gave the URL for the January 2003 Round Robin web site: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~ulcjh/bh12003rr.html
In late 2000 the Mellon Foundation awarded the University of California a 2 year grant (which was extended by 6 months) to store print journals in a remote location and to collect data on use of the stored journals and their digital counterparts. (For Brian Schottlaender’s report on this Initiative at the Atlanta 2002 Big Heads meeting see http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~ulcjh/bhmin062002.html#ITEM3”
Usage data was collected for the 12
Usage data was collected for both print copies (the one at the control campus and the one at the experimental campus) plus their digital counterparts. Usage statistics for CMI journals is organized on the spreadsheets into 4 major subject categories.
· 8 % of the titles were in the Arts and Humanities. Average use of the digital version of each titles was 10 times greater than use of the control print copy. That is, even when a print copy was available in the library, the use of the digital version was still greater than the use of the print by a factor of ten.
· 37% of the titles were in the Physical Sciences and Engineering. In this group use of the digital version on the control campus was 24 times greater than use of the control print copy.
· 9 % of the titles were in the Social Sciences. In this group use of the digital version on the control campus was 10 times greater than use of the control print copy.
· 46 % of the titles were in the Life and Health Sciences. In this group use of the digital version on the control campus was 9.4 times greater than use of the control print copy.
Looked at from the number of volumes represented in the study:
· 7% of the volumes were in the Arts and Humanities.
· 52% of the volumes were in the Physical Sciences and Engineering.
· 3% of the volumes were in the Social Sciences.
· 38% of the volumes were in the Life and Health Sciences.
The Collection Management Initiative is now gathering user preference data. A user preference survey will be distributed to faculty, graduate students, undergraduate students, staff and health sciences personnel (20,000 individuals on 9 campuses) will receive the survey in early February 2003. They have just concluded a pre-test of the survey.
The survey will ask questions such as: What is the typical pattern of digital use in your field? What do you see as the advantage of print versus digital? If both print and electronic journals are equally available, given various uses, which do you prefer? What are the barriers to using each format? To what extent have you found the following to be a barrier? They hope to have survey responses back by late March-early April and plan to write their final reports in May and June.
Karen Calhoun (Cornell) asked whether different patterns have been seen in the 4 groups.
Horrell (Harvard) asked: Is there a policy among
the universities that at least one library will keep a print copy of each title? Ms.
Johns said the
Arenales (NLM): Do you have any additional data
on why people ask for print from storage?
Ms. Johns said nothing more
than what Brian Schottlaender reported at the Atlanta
Big Heads meeting in June 2002. Surveys
were given to patrons who requested that a print journal be returned from
storage. The response rate for these
user surveys was about 40%-50%. D. Arenales asked whether
Judi Nadler (
J. Nadler said she applauds the fact that the next stage of the study will focus on Why instead of What.
Duane Arenales (NLM) commented that the same campus will be control for 1 title and experimental for another; it might be useful to see if the same effect occurs within a single campus.
Sally Sinn (NAL): What model will be used to determine cost data? How do you attribute costs across licensing and usage? Ms. Johns said they had gathered data from campuses about costs including the selection of print titles to be stored, processing, bibliographic control, transportation to storage, and storage of print volumes. The most difficult task was to gather cost data for the preparation phase prior to transporting print runs to storage. The licensing cost data is coming from the California Digital Library. Sally Sinn (NAL) followed up by saying: So you are more interested in aggregated costs than cost per usage. The answer was Yes.
Karen Calhoun (Cornell) said that JSTOR is conducting a study with 4-5 (Cornell, Hamilton, NYU, and other) libraries to determine the cost ?
Shelton (UCLA) said that
Arenales (NLM) said she was curious where last
copies are retained. What happens when
that last copy becomes brittle? Cynthia Shelton (UCLA) said that is one
of the questions the
Judi provided comments to serve as a springboard for a discussion of some of the issues libraries face in maintaining both print and electronic journals.
The finding of the
In the process of reviewing our journal subscriptions for possible cancellations, availability of electronic versions is one of the factors considered, though not the major factor. Among the primary considerations for canceling a journal are relevance to research at the University, impact factors as measured by citation studies, local use (in so far as this can be determined), and price.
She shared issues/facts from the
experience of the
· In 1998 they licensed on-line access to 5,700 electronic full-text journals
· In 2002 they licensed on-line access to 20,000 electronic full-text journals
Almost half of the journals they subscribe to in print form are also available electronically and that number is growing.
In Fiscal Year 2002 expenditures for
electronic journals represented more than 15% of
The Library’s science librarians have developed criteria for considering electronic-only access for a journal. These are just broad guidelines, and should be seen as such. They may be more applicable to the sciences than to other disciplines.
Criteria for selecting a journal for electronic-only access:
· Complete coverage of print content that is either simultaneously available or available in advance of the print edition
· Functionality and stability of the technology maintaining the electronic version, including viewing, navigating, and printing choices
· Search options for tables of contents and abstracts and the availability of alerting services and usage statistics
· Explicit archival policies and options for access to content under specific conditions
· Acceptance of electronic-only access by most of the affected user community
· Additional content and features available in the electronic edition
· Document delivery options and linking capabilities, such as SFX links
· License provisions permitting use of electronic edition for interlibrary lending and course management systems
asked if anyone has had success in achieving the arrangement of treating the
electronic version as the primary (like OHIOLINK). Joyce Ogburn (
Picknally Camden (
Tierney (Stanford) asked Judi Nadler (
Pitts Diedrichs (OSU) said that
Arenales (NLM) asked if the
Shelton (UCLA) said that the
Arenales (NLM): How long do we think this will continue to be
a problem? How long will the Elseviers of this world
continue to print as fewer and fewer libraries purchase print copies? Larry
Sally Sinn (NAL) asked: How many of us have any system to monitor the disappearance of content in electronic versions? After an initial lack of response Catherine Tierney (Stanford) mentioned that a number of those present were involved with LOCKSS (Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe), a Mellon-funded prototype for e-journal archiving. http://LOCKSS.stanford.edu/”
Karen Calhoun (Cornell) said that Cornell provides access to 20,000 e-journals through the opac plus access to 40,000 other e-resources. They get record sets when they can, otherwise they generate records from metadata provided by vendors. They are planning to generate title lists from catalog records. The world of access to these journals is changing; we now have a patchwork of methods.
said that Stanford puts a link to the
e-resource on the catalog record for the print version but they don’t know how
long they can afford to do it this way. At the same time, patrons are at a loss
dealing with serial title changes, multiple copies over multiple campus
libraries; adding yet another record for electronic versions further confuses
the situation. Bob Wolven said that
Rosann Bazirjian (
Arno Kastner (
said that the
Duane Arenales said that NLM doesn’t purchase aggregations; that makes use of a single record easier.
Jean Hirons (LC) spoke on education for catalogers: (See the White paper on the PCC role in Continuing Education for Catalogers, http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/whitepapertrng.html). Where is the training coming from as the current generation of catalogers retires? Most of our libraries have staff members who serve as trainers or who have attended a continuing education course. Twenty-nine people are currently attending the SCCTP (Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program) course on Integrating Resources (the last SCCTP course to be developed for a while) which is being used at both LC and many small libraries as well.
SCCTP is a successful model. The
question is: how can we expand it beyond serials? This model calls on those with expertise,
catalogers, to develop courses and then training experienced librarians to give
the courses. Materials have been translated into Spanish and Chinese; the
courses are being used in
Beth Picknally Camden (University of Virginia) said there was a joint ALCTS/ALISE task force on action item 5.1 (“Address educational needs through improved curricula in library and information science schools and through continuing education for cataloging practitioners by: promoting consensus on determination of ‘Core Competencies;’ devising training in two areas of ‘Mind set and values’ and ‘Managing operations;’ develop Toolkits; and identifying other mechanism to meet these needs.”) It has just submitted its final report, which proposes three levels of competencies for cataloging and metadata. The idea is to change the ways in which they are being taught in library schools. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee chaired the task force. Its interim report is available at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/5-1status.pdf. A group chaired by Carol Hixson is working on action item 5.3 (“Promote the use and understanding of standards for describing Web resources through education, targeted outreach, etc.”) on continuing education. The website for this task force is: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/5-3workplan.pdf.
Arno Kastner (
Joan Swanekamp (Yale) said the amount of time Yale has to spend on training has been growing exponentially. One problem is new catalogers who don’t have much training and experience. She has appointed one cataloger as a Training and Documentation librarian; Yale is putting many documents on the web site. The gap between what the library schools provide and what we need is very great.
Duane Arenales (NLM): We are not going to produce experienced catalogers in library schools nor should we try to (and many students may not have taken advantage of what their school offered). She wondered if provision of distance education courses would be helpful.
Cynthia Clark (NYPL) said she is trying to set up a training team at NYPL. She is trying to grow people locally who can maintain a program.
Jean Hirons (LC) said the SCCTP model can be used by everyone. The advantage is that the materials only have to be prepared once.
Sally Sinn (NAL) said she agreed with both objectives: filling in the needs of recent graduates and providing continuing education for experienced catalogers. Anything that would share the burden would be quite beneficial.
Carols Pitts Diedrichs (OSU) said ALCTS has been using a similar model for its online Fundamentals of Acquisitions course. ALCTS has placed a renewed emphasis on training and continued education.
Jean Hirons (LC): you can’t train a serials cataloger in a 2 day workshop but it is beginning. She said she would like to start a mentoring program.
Sally Sinn (NAL) asked Lee to expand on what he considered cooperative cataloging efforts. He cited the creation of Anglo-American authority files as one example.
Arno Kastner (NYU) said there are two different issues: quality of copy and availability of copy. Many unique records are waiting to be loaded.
Several people commented on OCLC’s seeming inability to batch load original cataloging records and the work-arounds implemented in their libraries.
Larry Alford (
Karen Calhoun (Cornell) said another issue relates to cooperative cataloging by which different libraries take responsibility for certain subject or language areas; it is often those records which are not being loaded.
Sally Sinn (NAL) said the problem of batch loading original cataloging records in OCLC had several layers. At the basic level there are those of us who have unique records that still await loading at OCLC.
She also asked if this was the time to put greater emphasis on sharing expertise. NAL, for example, is losing language expertise.
Catherine Tierney (Stanford) asked how many of the Big Head libraries batch loaded into both OCLC and RLIN. Of the 24 libraries represented at this meeting only 7 did not load into both utilities.
Joyce Ogburn (
Beacher Wiggins (LC) pointed out that this was not the first time that the Big Heads had talked about cooperative cataloging but it proves how difficult it is to do. It is easier to make small arrangements between institutions like UC Irvine and UCLA than it is to involve large groups.
In terms of national library cooperation, he reported that progress has been made with the British Library. LC has also started to work with the German community to have a virtual authority file that would be useful to all of us. We need to determine what kind of cooperation is going on at the international level and what can each of us do to fill in the gaps.
Judi Nadler (
Larry Alford (
Sally Sinn (NAL) suggested that this discussion be continued at lunch.
Beacher Wiggins (LC) gave a quick update of the various areas in which LC is currently engaged.
· NDIIPP (National Digital Information Infrastructure Preservation Policy). Congress has appropriated $100 million to develop a national strategy for collecting and preserving in digital form at-risk material of value to the national heritage. Part of the money is to be spent on developing a national preservation infrastructure, with LC working in collaboration with the other national libraries.
Among the problems to be considered are:
· How to deal with materials in legacy formats.
· Experimenting with harvesting of data and how to meld that data into formats accessible to and useful for our users.
· Working with the national libraries to capture the national heritage.
· MINERVA Web Preservation Project to collect and preserve materials that exist only on the web. Four major web sites are being collected:
o Election 2000
o Election 2002
o Winter Olympics 2002
Audio-visual materials: LC is building a storage facility at
reported that the ALCTS Board of Directors wanted to know if the Big Heads
would be interested in co-sponsoring a program on D-Space in
Sally Sinn summarized
the discussion by saying that we would agree to focus the
The meeting adjourned at