Giving Them What They Want Providing Information For a Serials Review Project

Outside Sources

AtoZ Journal List ▪ Online availability

Subscription Agent▪ Abstract/index report codes

Content Provider▪ Online Use ▪ Provider name▪ Date ▪ Metric

Librarian Assignments▪ Librarian ▪ Department ▪

Program ▪ Fund Code

AccessDatabase

Reports & Spreadsheets

Data Sources

ILS Data

Bibliographic Records ▪ Title ▪ ISSN

▪ Publisher

Order Records ▪ Price ▪ Format ▪ Vendor ▪ Fund Codes

▪ Subscription Type

Item Records ▪ Use

Check-in Records ▪ Holdings

BackgroundIn spring 2011, it became apparent that a state budget cuts would affect North Carolina universities, including significant reductions to the library budget at Western Carolina University. Library budget scenarios included a 20% budget reduction in the collections budget, indicating the need for a complete review of continuing resources. 

Structure of the Review 

Faculty involvement and data-driven decision making were identified as priorities for the review. Subject librarians canvassed faculty about core journals in the spring semester. Collecting and organizing information fell to the Electronic Resources Librarian on her arrival in March 2011. Coordinated review began when the new Serials Librarian arrived in June, to be completed before October.  

Standing Orders Identified for review by subject librarians and faculty.

Databases Identified for review by reference librarians as a group with input from departments.

Newspapers Reviewed by library faculty with input from departments.

Package Titles Titles which were associated with journal packages were identified and largely exempted from individual review.

Microforms Reviewed by library faculty, with attention to format overlap.

Library Drop - Format Overlap

Included subscriptions to journals where full text access was available through databases with no embargo.

Recommended Drop - Low Use

Included print and electronic journal subscriptions with a high cost per use which were not included in other categories.

Recommended Drop - Embargoed Full Text

Included print and electronic journal subscriptions which had a high cost per use and were available in full text through a database provider. Database and length of embargo were provided.

No Recommendation Titles with reasonable use and no overlap had no recommendations, but review was encouraged based curricular need.

Categories of Review

“Library Recommendations” were assigned by the serials librarian to simplify review by creating categories to guide consideration according to the budget reduction strategies. Some categories clarified misleading information, separating both databases and titles that are part of journal packages from the more general e-journal format. Other categories combined several data points into a succinct recommendation.

Second Audience: Subject LibrariansSubject librarians were responsible for analyzing the preliminary recommendations, introducing subject expertise, and liaising with departments for faculty feedback.

Presenting the DataTo ensure that subject librarians were well prepared to both consume and disseminate the data, we provided the data in two formats. We provided PDF versions of the Access form for each title. In order to provide subject librarians with as much data as possible in a manageable format, we also provided a spreadsheet that contained the contents of the database for each fund code.

The spreadsheet included summary and detailed information. The summary report contains vital information in that can be easily manipulated with basic Excel skills. The detailed spreadsheet includes the same data as the Access database, with the added benefit of all resources for each fund in a single location.

Explaining the Data

We held a workshop with subject librarians to go over data and prepare for the review. In addition to explaining the data included on the spreadsheet, we explained data collection and discrepancies in preparation for likely questions. We were also asked, and later provided, a “sample script” of a meeting with a department, along with a list of how we might present data to faculty members and a list of points that might need further research.

Adding Value to the DataDue to the magnitude and short timeline for the review, subject librarians also had the task of filling in data that we were unable to provide. Subject librarians brought their knowledge of departments and programs into the review, but could also provide additional information such as; available indexing of journals, detail of full text coverage, comparable resources that might meet needs of journals to be cancelled, and use statistics for standing orders. Finally, subject librarians were free to organize the data in any manner they wished for presentation to faculty.

Presenting the Data

Subject librarians who provided spreadsheets of titles to faculty usually created new spreadsheets based on those provided by the serials librarian. Subject librarians’ spreadsheets were likely to be organized by what would happen to access if a title were cut. Data presented to the faculty were stripped of extraneous information and library jargon.

Subject librarians made the following changes to the data provided them to prepare it for faculty:

• Combining formats into single line items for each title• Replacing numbers with explanations for costs per use with no use• Including use statistics for standing orders where applicable• Explicating full text – indicating type and extent of coverage• Including indexing information where applicable• Including subject librarian recommendations in lieu of ones we

provided• Removing extraneous information to reduce confusion• Removing titles where applicable• Sorting titles by outcome of cancellation

A few subject librarians who felt very in touch with the collection took a different approach to presenting information to faculty. These subject librarians forwarded only a small number of titles for faculty feedback, relying on their good relationships and extensive knowledge of the curriculum to act as “stewards” of the collection in their subject areas. Long-term good relationships with faculty resulted in this being an equally positive outcome as the highly interpreted data discussed above.

Cost-per-Use Calculations 

Cost-per-use figures were used as an indicator of demonstrated value for all resources, and integrated into the Access database. Cost-per-use was calculated across an extended use period, using 2011 estimated price. This calculation reflects the cost of maintaining a subscription to the title over multiple years, mitigating the effects fluctuations in use.

Electronic cost-per-use =

E-journal usage was gathered for the previous 3 years, or as available from the content provider. Usage was only collected if the library specifically paid for online access.

In-house cost-per-use =

In-house usage statistics for print journal and microform use was collected from reshelving counts over a 2.5 year period. For print+online subscriptions, the Electronic Resources Librarian provided both figures, and left the subject librarians to interpret them.

 No data was available for newspapers, items in the reference,

and material housed off-campus. For this project, use statistics from checkouts of items in the general collection was not gathered.

Rachel FlemingSerials LibrarianWestern Carolina University

Kristin CalvertElectronic Resources LibrarianWestern Carolina University

Budget Reduction Strategies1. Reduce duplication of content — journals available

electronically.

2. Reduce duplication of content — other formats.

3. Analyze usage and coverage of periodical subscriptions

4. Analyze database subscriptions and reduce redundant and/or low-use subscriptions.

5. Analyze journal packages to determine where cost reductions may be possible, including cuts of titles within packages or complete journal packages.

(http://www.wcu.edu/29534.asp)

Hunter Library Budget Reduction Website

adapted from UC Santa Cruz University Library website with permission.

(http://library.ucsc.edu/collections/budget-reduction-process)

Audiences for the Data Three main audiences exist for the data, each in turn: serials librarians, subject librarians, and teaching faculty. Because the database provided such a vast array of data, the presentation of data would need to be catered to each audience. Each audience interpreted data and added value for the next audience.

First Audience: Serials Librarian 

The serials librarian began review using the Access database directly in order to gather a “big picture” understanding of the data available and to determine a course of action for the review. With the approval of an advisory committee, a set of budget reduction strategies were adopted.

Spreadsheet for Subject Librarian Spreadsheet for Faculty

Spreadsheet - all data available in Access database

Database Form for Serials Librarian

Future of the Database

The database was invaluable in conducting the recently completed review. Although the library is currently implementing EBSCO’s ERM Essentials and incorporating it into e-resources workflows, we plan on continuing to use the Access database to guide subscription and retention decisions for serials. The ERM is expected to improve the overall management of e-resources, but does not have all the capabilities necessary for evaluating resources for cancellation. In particular, ERM Essentials cannot incorporate use data or perform cost-per-use calculations. The reporting and data export functionality is also limited. The Access database was designed to allow for future years of data to be appended onto existing tables.

Creating your own database provides a high return on a relatively low investment of time and no monetary investment. A home-grown database ensures access to the information you want and need while allowing for dynamic reporting and flexibility over time

Effect of the Data

Subject librarians reported that having the data as presented to them provided a solid framework for beginning the review process. While many engaged in additional research or looked up the information again to develop a stronger grasp on it, the data presented and the library recommendations emanated much research and planning that would have been necessary otherwise. Subject librarians reported satisfaction with the mix of guidance and freedom given them in the review process.

Subject librarians reported that having worked with the data and presented the results of review to faculty created a climate of trust where faculty understood both the work the library had put into the review and our budgetary need to make changes to the collection. Faculty were able to have discussions with subject librarians about required resources and curricular trends that might not have occurred without the impetus of the serials review.

Results of the Review

The review of serials was organized by the effect that cancellation would have on access and use, so cancellation goals were tentatively set for each group of “library recommendations.” While some of these goals were not met, others were exceeded, resulting in a number of cancellations that approached the amount of funds needing to be reduced.

Third Audience: Faculty MembersAlthough in-person meetings to explain the process and the data were strongly encouraged, subject librarians were free to liaise with departments as best they saw fit. Data presentation ranged from email conversations about specific titles to Excel workbooks added context and data.

Library Recommendations

See handout for details on designing

the database.

Cancellation Outcomes by CategoryCreating the Database 

Microsoft Access provided the means to collect and organize data for the review. Although some data was not available, every effort was made to be comprehensive. Access made it simple to import data from various sources into a single database without extensive manual labor. Reports combining various aspects could be easily compiled based on imported data to review all or part of the collection. Access’s form builder provided a means to visually present large amounts of information simply.  Reports based on fund codes were used for the bulk of the serials review. The Access database provided additional support for the Serials Librarian additional reports which allowed specific review of subsets of data based on material type or location codes.