OhioLINK Collection Analysis Project OCLC Members Council 21 October 2008 Preliminary Analysis Ed ONeill, OCLC Research With support and contributions from: Julia A. Gammon, University of Akron Anne T. Gilliland, Ohio State University (Formerly OhioLINK)

1987 Library Study Committee Report Key Recommendations: Create a book depository system Create a statewide electronic catalog Appoint a steering committee

OhioLINK Planning Paper Coordination in purchasing of shared collections Expanded access to electronic information Improved access to information infrastructure Promotion of scholarly communications Improved economies in purchase of electronic resources

Who is OhioLINK? The State Library of Ohio 5 ARL Institutions 11 Universities 44 Colleges 15 Community Colleges 28 Branch campuses 5 Depositories 3 Museums and other independent cultural institutions 20 Off-campus hospitals and medical centers

What is OhioLINK? Shared catalog with patron initiated borrowing 600,000+ Users 47.6 million books and other library materials Millions of electronic articles 12,000 electronic journals 140 electronic research databases 40,000 e-books Thousands of images, videos and sounds 17,500 theses and dissertations from Ohio students

Research Project Joint study by OhioLINK, OhioLINK members, OhioLINK Collection Building Task Force (CBTF) and OCLC Research Much of the planned analysis is new and untested; not all of the analysis will be successful This project is distinct from OCLCs collection analysis service

Distinctive Aspects Size and scope of collections Use of local holdings information Number and variety of institutions FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) Application of Audience Level

Project Goals To reduce unnecessary duplication To increase local collection development activities To expand the amount spent on cooperative acquisitions To strengthen the collective collection For the book collection:

Books: What we hope to learn Is the OhioLINK collection getting more diverse? Is duplication increasing or decreasing? How much is justified? What does the OhioLINK collective collection look like? What books didnt we acquire? Does the 80/20 rule apply? Are the acquisitions budgets effectively allocated? What is the average age of the books by subject?

What we hope to learn (Cont.) Does the size of core collections vary by subject? What is the half-life of books in a particular subject areas? Does circulation correlate with the strengths/specialties/programs? Are the sciences really not using books? Does circulation correlate with number of copies? With WorldCat holdings? Do usage pattern vary by institution? Are the ARLs different or just larger? What books should be in the depositories?

OhioLINK Circulation Data Item No.: OCLC No.: Title: LCCN: Location Code: Status Code: Circulation: Renewals: Accession date: Date of Last Use: ISBN: Source : i The infinite / A.W. Moore bc /3/2001 8/23/ (pbk.) Akron

Accumulative Circulation Data Makes comparison difficult; An item with high circulation may be currently be little used, i.e. Word97 To obtain current circulation rates, Pre/post images will used: The first data set of circulation data was collected in the Spring of 2007 The second data was collected this Spring (2008) From the second set of data, the circulation for the past year can be determined

Data Collection Schedule First Snapshot: April - May, 2007 Second Snapshot: April – May 2008 Validation of circulation policies: July – October 2008

WorldCat Linking For records with an obsolete OCLC No.; the obsolete OCLC No. is replaced with current OCLC No. For records without an OCLC No. which had either a unique LCCN or ISBN; that number is used to identify the corresponding OCLC No. Records lacking any standard number could not be validated and were excluded from the study The OCLC Number is used to link the circulation records to the corresponding bibliographic record in WorldCat

Validation Validating link The title from the OhioLINK circulation record was compared to the title from the WorldCat record If the title from the circ record was similar to the title in the WorldCat record, the record was validated Records with dissimilar titles were not be validated and were excluded from the study Determining material type Only books and manuscripts were included Material type was based on fixed fields codes in the WorldCat records (bib lvl = m and type = a or t)

Validated OhioLINK Circulation Data Records Received … 33,146,008 Records Validated … 30,718,454 (92.7%) Validated Books …… 27,002,190 (81.5%)

FRBR: Group One Entities Is exemplified by Is embodied in Work A distinct intellectual or artistic creation Is realized through Expression The intellectual or artistic realization of a work Manifestation The physical embodiment of an expression Item A single exemplar of a manifestation Is embodied in

Humphry Clinker Example 53 OhioLINK libraries hold the work 1 English language expression 48 Different manifestations

Lots of Different Manifestations

Most Common in OhioLINK OCLC No.: Copies 27 Libraries Not held by the University of Cincinnati University of Cincinnati does hold 9 other manifestations

Audience Level Audience level identifies the audience for which the book or other library resource is suitable Audience level is inferred from the type of libraries (ARL, Academic, Public, School) that have acquired the resource using the library holdings data from WorldCat The audience level ranges from 0.0 (Juvenile) to 1.0 (Scholarly)

Audience Level Examples 01 Octopusses and squid Audience level: 0.06 Phylogeny and systematics of the treehopper subfamily Audience level: 0.96 Fundamentals of entomology Audience level: 0.51 A collection can be characterized by average audience level of its resources.

Library Organizational Structure The large universities are complex organizations: Multiple administrative units Many different physical locations Branch campuses Depositories Independent cultural institutions Off-campus hospitals and medical centers

Library Organizational Structure Campuses, independent cultural institutions, and depositories are treated as top (first) level units Independent administrative units (if present) within the campus Separate libraries (if present) within an administrative unit Distinct collections with unique location codes

Multi Level Structure Third level units:Distinct library units. Location codes :The codes used within OhioLINK to identify to location of the individual items. Over 4,200 different location codes were found; one institution alone used 556 different codes) Top level units:Individual campus, depositories, and external organizations (Museums, Centers, Hospitals) bccco, bccct, bccir, bccm, bcgd, bcgdo, bcmu, … University of Akron Second level units:Separate administrative units [university libraries, law, medicine, etc.) or distinct library units. University of Akron University Libraries University of Akron University Libraries Bierce Library

Holdings Detail

Three Level Structure for Akron

Location Codes Mapping

Caution! The project is still in progress and the data analysis is incomplete Results are preliminary; revisions and corrections will occur

General Information

Languages Additional columns include statistics for German, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Hebrew, Polish, Greek, and Arabic

Subjects The subject analysis included 24 primary subjects; a more detailed subject analysis with approximately 500 subject areas will included in the final analysis

24 Primary Subjects Agriculture Anthropology Art and Architecture Biological Sciences Business and Economics Chemistry Computer Science Education Engineering and Technology Geography and Earth Sciences History and Auxiliary Sciences Language, Linguistics, and Literature Law Library Science, Generalities, and Reference Mathematics Medicine Music Performing Arts Philosophy and Religion Physical Education and Recreation Physical Sciences Political Science Psychology Sociology

Age Statistics on 20 different age groups are provided

Collective Collection: What Do We Have? How many items do we have? What languages do we have? How old are they? How many are unique? In what subjects? How many copies do we need?

Most Held Libraries: 68 Copies: 109 Circulations: 99

Most Copies Libraries: 12 Copies: 9,542 Circulations: 9 The National union catalog, pre-1956 imprints

Most Circulated Libraries: 6 Copies: 92 Circulations: 6,023

Holdings vs. Active Collection

Subject Distribution

Circulation by Subject

Hot Subjects Computer Science (QA 75-76) Women, Feminism, Life Skills, Life Style (HQ ) Medicine: Special Subjects (R ) Buddhism (BQ) Nursing (RT) Broadcasting (PN )

Language Distribution 24,386,814

Circulation of Non-English Materials Average per Item Circulation

Circ. Rate by Institution Type ARL Univ.Colleges CC/ Branches Circulation

Usage Distribution % of Books % of Circulation 12.86% (788,483)

Annual Collection Growth Publication Date No. of Manifestations Added Max 114,375 (2000)

Duplication Rate Publication Date Average No. of Copies 4.5

Duplication by Subject

Conclusions? Only first phase of data analysis complete Additional and more reliable statistics will be available after the next phase Preliminary results: Duplication rates are steady The 80/20 rule may be closer to 80/10 Limited use of non-English materials Books are still being used in the Sciences Circulations rates vary greatly by subject, institution To be continued ….

Since the beginning … Collaboration continues Continue the cooperative spirit in collection building through: Increased the understanding of the distribution and use of library resources in the collective collection Utilization of distribution and usage information as a guide for building collections Open and wide dissemination of statistics and analysis

Questions? Ed ONeill OCLC Research This presentation is available on the OCLC Web Site at: