1. Why Weed? “Weeding has never been as important as it is now. To keep library collections useful, relevant, and accurate, we need to constantly turn them over. Weeding an old book with outdated information is as vitally important to a user as adding a new book with the latest research on a particular subject.”(Manley)

2. The Need to Weed: Weeding the Nursing Print Collection – Justification, Marketing, Implementation Karen Gilbert & Victoria Koger Eastern Kentucky University Kentucky Library Association 2006

3. Introduction  EKU is a teaching institution.  The Health Sciences collections are not historical.  Our Collection Development Policy is in the process of being updated.  Other weeding projects.

4. Background  Liaison – Associate Degree and Baccalaureate and Graduate Nursing programs.  Review of collection – is it current enough?  ADN Program – reaccreditation.

5. Background  Outdated materials may be inaccurate, of concern when patient health is involved.  Some students may be unable “to assess the credibility of a particular volume.” (Farber)

6. External Marketing  Students and faculty now find current materials available.  Supports library relevance.  Negative feedback from faculty (ADN library liaison) now turned around.

7. External Marketing Communication! Involved faculty throughout the process:  “the weeding process requires the same degree of participation by faculty as is called for during the selection process.”(Farber)  Letters to both Nursing Department Chairpersons introducing and detailing the weed process.

8. External Marketing  Invited faculty to come to the library to personally review books.  Report of books considered for deselection sent to both Nursing departments.  Conclusion letter to both departments, including statistics.

9. Internal Marketing  Because “librarians tend to be collectors by nature and not weeders, there is a built-in resistance to weeding in most libraries.” (Harloe in Farber)  A comprehensive proposal.  Communicate objectives.  Give feedback to internal departments regarding external (Nursing Departments) preferences.

10. Implementation  Proposal.  Circulation Reports.  Weeding Criteria.  Involved stakeholders.  Time frame.  Review – Collection Development Officer.

11. Implementation  Disputed books for deselection.  New books.  Not one-for-one replacements.  Concluding report.

12. Conclusions  Template for future weeds….  ….quicker and more efficient.  Important to have up-to-date:  Collection Development Policy  Weeding Policy  Recommend next Nursing Weed in five years.

13. Bonus  Nothing helps you get to know your collection better than performing a weed!

14. Citations Farber. Evan Ira. “Books Not for College Libraries.” Library Journal 1997 122.13: 44-5. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Eastern Kentucky University Libraries, Richmond, KY. 21 September 2006. Manley, Will. “Readers Need Weeders.” American Libraries 2003 34.10 : 80. Library Literature & Information Science. WilsonWeb. Eastern Kentucky University Libraries, Richmond, KY. 16 November 2005..