1. Connecting People With Needed Resources through a Successful Print Serials Review Jared Hoppenfeld & Matt Torrence, University of South Florida Tampa Library

2. Reasoning “Do students and faculty still use print journals?” – A legitimate question in the new age of electronic journals, books, and other resources Dust in the stacks provides the first clue for some titles, but that’s not enough evidence Print journals are expensive to purchase, but also expensive to bind, store, and maintain

3. The Library Council Newly energized Library Council and their faculty representatives agreed to endorse a study of the faculty College of Education tested the SurveyMonkey- developed instrument in March, 2008 With the combined efforts of the Library Council and the Research Services & Collections Unit, the initial survey was distributed campus-wide in early April, 2008

4. Outline of Process Most core titles were exempted from the survey Survey results for each title were tabulated according to a three-point continuum of use, don’t use, and no opinion. Two usage rates were computed for each title, as follows: – Formula 1) Number Use /Total Response Count (including No Opinion) – Formula 2) Number Use/Number Use + Number Don’t Use (excluding No Opinions) 1642 faculty were contacted and 340 responded to the first survey (21% response rate)

5. Outline of Process A twenty percent (20%) usage threshold was established, but there was also much discretion available to each librarian – For small areas of study, efforts made to correlate the number of times a journal in a particular discipline was used with the number of responders from that discipline During September 2008, faculty and students campus- wide were given a final opportunity to participate in the review of print journals under consideration for cancelation by Tampa Library Instead of conducting a follow-up survey, A Print Journals Review website was constructed and populated with the journals proposed

6. Outline of Process A Print Journals Review website was constructed and populated Three lists were created, allowing faculty and (this time) graduate students to view the titles alphabetically, by format (Print Only and Print with Electronic Access), and by discipline Each title on all three lists was linked to an online Journal Retention Form. This forwarded the title to RS&C for resolution and follow-up – Ninety graduate students and faculty completed Journal Retention Forms requesting retention of specific print titles – The library honored every faculty request for retention by removing the title in question from the final review list

7. Communication and Survey Dissemination Publicity about the survey to faculty via the Library Council Each subject librarian working with Deans and Department Heads (and their Office Managers!) to distribute the cover letter, survey emails, and reminders Also used blogs, faculty meetings, and other informal opportunities to spread the word

8. Summary of Efforts: Was it Worthwhile? After final review, 223 titles were canceled and $41,810.73 saved for investment in new titles 54 new journals added, for a total of $51,363.91 Roughly a dozen Journal Retention Forms recommended purchase of one or more new journals for the library collections – Each request was sent for purchase, showing the Tampa Library commitment to faculty to reinvest the savings from these low-use titles Every effort made for objective and quantitative evaluation, but there’s still some subjectivity