Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
How do small Academic Libraries within a consortium provide ILL? How do they meet the research needs of their faculty as well as their students? This session will talk about the challenges they face and what benefits they would derive from centralized ILL offered by the largest member of the consortium. Presentation by Karen Hildebrandt & Bonita Bjornson.
Citation preview
Getting to the Core: What Centralized ILL Means for a Small Academic
Library
Presented by:Karen Hildebrandt & Bonita Bjornson
Library Staff @ King’s
ILL Staff @ King’s
ILL Service @ King’s
ILL Stats: 2012-2013
Library Staff @ Concordia
ILL Staff @ Concordia
ILL Stats: 2012 - 2013
Our Consortia Agreements & Impact
Spring 2013
Centralized NEOS ILL
References• Breeding, M. (2013). “Introduction to resource sharing”, Library Technology Reports, Vol.
49 No. 1, pp.5-11.• Lars, L. et al (2003) “Enhanced resource sharing through group interlibrary loan best
practices: a conceptual, structural, and procedural approach”, Library Faculty & Staff Publications. Paper 84.
• Lars, L. and Kress, N.(2011) “Looking at resource sharing costs”, Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp.81-87.
• McGillivray, S. et al (2009). “Key factors for consortial success: realizing a shared vision for interlibrary loan in a consortium of Canadian libraries”, Librarian and Staff Publications. Paper 15.
• Rogers, D. (1997). “Centralized vs. decentralized models in interlibrary loan access”, Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 29-32.
• Stevens, R. (1974). “A study of interlibrary loan”, College & Research Libraries, September 1974, pp. 336-343.
• Zhou, J. (1999). “Interlibrary loan cost studies and copyright fees”, Journal of Interlibrary loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 29 – 38.
