1. Participant Survey Results
Summer 2018

2. One response per institution.
Desired Outcome
To identify participating libraries’ goals for shared print retention, and their expectations for participation in Scholars Trust.
To seek feedback on decision support tools such as the Journal Retention & Needs Listing [JRNL] and the functionality needed to support retention efforts.
One response per institution.

3. Survey Response 17 ASERL 4 WRLC 54% of 31 participating libraries

4. Respondent’s Roles in supporting Scholars Trust (check all that apply)
11 Decide which titles to retain
9 Recommend titles for retention
7 Research titles for retention
7 Update JRNL
7 Other [Project Oversight, Strategic Direction/Resource Allocation and Steering Committee representation]
5 Update bibliographic records

6. My library’s intent to commit titles for Scholars Trust is…
11 Sporadic – as time/resources permits
5 Unknown – not made a decision
3 Complete - no additional titles
2 Strategic – an established goal

7. Of those responding Strategic/Sporadic – 5 libraries responded their expected retention commitments were undeclared/unknown 3 responses were approximately 20 titles per year 1 expected to retain 2 titles/year 1 expected to retain approximately 25/month 2 libraries expressed their goal as a total retention commitment for 100/130 titles

8. If your library has no plans to contribute additional titles to the program, what are the determining factors for this decision?
Limited staffing - 2
Space concern –
Making space for users over retaining print
Limited storage/shelving space
Balance space needs with shared monographic holdings project
Limited backfiles of journals to contribute
In leadership transition

9. Would establishing benchmarks/standards for expectations on the number of titles committed to Scholars Trust (# of titles per year) be useful to your efforts?
Yes, 6
Help establish organizational goals; accountability to larger Scholars Trust goals; a goal to reach; might be useful if it made Scholars Trust a higher local priority; a framework is nearly always helpful; help keep a schedule so it remains a priority.
No, 8
Not convinced setting cross-regional benchmarks will encourage participation; already doing as much as we can with resources we have; expectations would detract from the voluntary nature of the program; finite number of titles in collection from which to draw; We contributed a publisher, not sure we would contribute a specific number.
No opinion, 6

10. In general, titles selected for retention are best described as…
12 A mix of rare/unique & widely held 3 Widely Held 3 Other [University Press; Based on space considerations; Not yet chosen titles] 2 Rare/unique 1 Unknown

11. My library has made space allocation decisions based on Scholars Trust titles (check all that apply)
11 Not currently, my library will address space allocation decisions in 3-5 years 7 Yes, my library has withdrawn duplicate Scholars Trust titles 3 Yes, my library has plans to withdraw titles within next 2 years 1 No, space allocation is not a priority

12. If space reallocation is not a priority for your library, what is the resource benefit for participation in Scholars Trust?
Supporting the community, and impact on the scholarly record.
We currently still bind journals that perhaps we don't need to based on scholar's trust holdings, so there are workflow implications and time savings to be investigated there.
Identifies titles that are necessary for our status as a research institution and supports the institution’s programs.
An easy addition to our participation in Collaborative Print Retention.

13. Other subject areas we should consider
STEM – 5 nominations
Accounting
Economics
Music, Latin America/Caribbean, African Studies, Education, Nursing, Geography, Law
Greek language and other languages with diacritics | visual arts based journals | poetry journals and literary magazines

14. JRNL Functionality Ranked by value as decision support tool
Registration of retained titles in JRNL by shared print programs (ASERL, BTAA, FLARE, WEST…)
Search options to facilitate selection/deselection (OCLC#, ISSN, etc)
Communication offers to fill gaps
Disclosure of retention commitments via publicly accessible title list on website
Facilities profiles (location/environmental conditions)
LC Subject classifications
Disclosure of retention commitments via PAPR
Express needs (gaps) in holdings

15. Additional functionality would you like to see in a decision support tool for selecting journals for retention?
Data visualization, holdings by geographic region/state, completeness.
Usage reports.
Easily create spreadsheets for analysis.
Batch processing of queries to generate reports for multiple title at once. Perhaps a standard report format for each title. Shared understanding of terms such as 'complete' - e.g., does this include supplements, indices, etc. Number of total commitments, completeness and volume levels.
I wish that a union title list of our needs existed so that we could plug in needs if we have them.

16. What can ASERL staff do to support your library’s participation in Scholars Trust?
Setting retention targets/goals for accountability (program growth), ensuring compliance with metadata standards.