Archives for the Month of May 2011 on Bibliographic/Metadata Services
Notes from Ohio Valley Group Tech Services Librarians Conference 2011
OVGTSL 2011 Conference (Oxford, OH)
Several interesting, thought-provoking sessions. I with Stephanie Church and Suzhen Chen presented on "TEI Projects in Technical Services."
Keynote speakers were Karen Coyle and Susan Gibbons. Click here for Karen Coyle's presentation (and others)
Susan Gibbons. "Time Horizon 2020: Library Renaissance." University librarian, Yale
Cornell: 55 percent of monogrtaphs published since 1990 had not circulated. At Rochester, 46 percent.
-- does not mean one should cut budget (e.g. build collections, used but not circulated, etc)
-- patron-driven acquisitions. Merge ILL and acq. From user perspective, makes sense.
-- eBook purchase through use. Based on use, purchase made. Debate: what constitutes a true use.
-- SUNY Geneseo: "Getting It System Toolkit" (GIST). When a request comes through, if to ILL, ILL asks if book is already freely available on web, then tells patron. If not, do we have it, or is it at a nearby institution. If neither, consider purchasing. Factors: cost of book, etc. Decision tree. If faculty, definitely buy; if student, examine it. Decision tree is the factor, not librarian. Rochester tried this, but had customized ILLiad to be similar to this. They rush-order, and do NOT catalog it. They get it to the user, and catalog it once it's returned. --> ILL and Acquisitions. Collection Management 35:3-4
-- Just-in-time. Print on demand. Espresso machine. 300-page book in less than 4 minutes. But, expensive and huge machines. Publishers intrigued by this; saves them money (rather than print 500 books, for example, that don't get used and then sent back). Publishers can also take more risks. Espresso machine currently $100K, but this may change over next 5-10 years.
Problem of buying same book repeatedly. True of serials in particular. Elsevier, Wiley, for example. Examine how much money is spent on same material.
false dichotomy -- paper vs. ebook. Different types of uses and research. E.g. Wordle. Creates word cloud. Textual analysis is doable for scholars thanks to e-version of book. Etexts may bring readers back to print versions.
Repositories. Physical. Cost of volumes on shelf approx 5 dollars (see UMich). How many copies is enough? How trustworthy are the digital copies? How do you determine what the "master" physical copy is? Etc. OCLC help may be needed.
-- Models: 5 Colleges (Mt. Holyoke, UMass, Smith, Hampshire, Amherst); Cornell and Columbia; Triangle Research Libraries (Duke, UNC, NCSU).
Institutional repositories.
-- download counts as meaningful indicator.
-- open access mandates.
-- At Rochester, all ETDs. White papers, conference papers, tech reports that do not make it to a publishing stream are welcome in the institutional repository. For published material, embargo system. Long-term preservation commitment. Music scores are being put in institutional repository. Things uniquely owned, in other words. Faculty have asked for download counts of their material for tenure purposes. Faculty data welcome into repository.
Yale open access mandate. No charges for open access material (just wants credit).
Cornell DataStar project. Repository of data sets. Day a grant is written, librarian should be involved. Document decisions along the creation process. Final data set needs to be the most useful. See also Johns Hopkins and Purdue
Academic Analytics. They document who are the most productive faculty at your university. They look at grant dollars, citations, number of publications, awards, etc. This data is compiled and used as a tool. Dangerous, in Gibbons's opinion, because some libraries already may do this, and potential political landmine. Provosts and administrators are paying attention to this, though.
-- Use institutional repository for unique university material, not so much for material that has already been published.
Summary:
-- cooperative everything.
-- more focus on institutional metadata and assets.
-- user-centric
-- user-driven
April 2011 statistics
The cataloging statistics for April 2011 are now available at:
April 2011 Cataloging (MS Excel file)