Reconfiguring Collection Development A Faculty Print Serials Review

1
Reconfiguring Collection Development A Faculty
Print Serials Review

• Audrey Powers, Matt TorrenceCheryl McCoy, Jared
  Hoppenfeld
• University of South Florida
• Charleston Conference - November 5, 2009

2
University of South Florida

• Metropolitan University (population 39,000)
• 1850 Instructional Faculty
• 9000 Graduate Students
• 130 Advanced Degree Programs
• Large Academic Library
• Number of volumes 2,472,484
• Periodical subscriptions 31,700
• Licensed databases 685

3
Periodicals 2007-2008

• 31,700 periodical subscriptions
• 25,150 e-Journals purchased
• 11,180 open access e-Journals
• Total E-Access 36,330 e-Journals

4
Motivation

• Spend library money responsibly
• Transparent process
• Faculty input was important
• Address workflow, space and budget issues

5
Is Print Used?

• Do students and faculty still use print journals?
• Print journals are expensive to purchase, bind,
  store, and maintain
• Dust in the stacks provides the first clue for
  some titles, but thats not enough evidence

6
Faculty Engagement

• Dean of Libraries wanted to engage the faculty
• Endorsement of study from Library Council and CD
  Faculty Representatives
• The survey instrument was tested through a pilot
  project
• Initial survey was distributed campus-wide early
  April, 2008

7
Resources Used

• Databases
• Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
• Ulrichs Periodicals Directory
• Books
• Journals of the Century by Tony Stankus
• Periodicals
• Magazines for Libraries by William A. Katz
• Others
• Curriculum Vita of USF Faculty Members
• USF Libraries Core Title List

8
Survey Development

• Subject librarians compiled lists of print
  journals, by discipline
• Most core journal titles were exempt from the
  survey
• Separate survey instruments created for use with
  each of the Colleges

9
Survey Dissemination

• Librarians worked with Deans and Department Heads
  to distribute survey materials
• Publicity about the website was sent to faculty
  using a variety of methods
• 1642 faculty were contacted and 340 responded to
  the initial survey

10
SurveyMonkey
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
The Process

• Survey results for each title were tabulated
  according to a three-point continuum of Use,
  Dont Use, and No Opinion.
• Two usage rates were computed for each title, as
  follows
• Including No Opinions
• Excluding No Opinions

15
The Process

• Usage threshold of 20 was established
• Librarians used discretion on the threshold for
  each subject, or discipline
• Exceptions were the norm
• Some titles saved from the axe
• Free the bound periodicals

16
Initial Results
17
Final Review Process

• Faculty and students had one last opportunity to
  review the titles on the chopping block
• In lieu of a follow-up survey, librarians
  developed a Print Journals Review website
• Three lists were created, allowing respondents to
  view the titles alphabetically, by format, and by
  discipline

18
Print Journals Review Website
19
Journal Retention

• Each title was linked to an online Journal
  Retention Form
• Subject librarians reviewed all Journal Retention
  Forms that were submitted
• Journals retained in print were removed from the
  final review list

20
Journal Retention Form
21
(No Transcript)
22
After Final Review

• 223 titles were canceled
• 41,810.73 saved
• 54 journals added
• 51,363.91 total expenditure
• 29 new e-journals added
• Use statistics 1147

23
Cancellations by College
24
Print Journals Review Summary
25
Contact Information

• Audrey Powers apowers_at_lib.usf.edu
• Matt Torrence torrence_at_lib.usf.edu
• Cheryl McCoy cmccoy_at_lib.usf.edu
• Jared Hoppenfeld jhoppenf_at_lib.usf.edu
• This work is
  licensed under a Creative Commons
  Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
  United States License.