1. Aloha Print Serials! Methods to Identify Titles for Cooperative Journal Retention or Disposal

2. Diana Reid – Serials Acquisitions Librarian diana.reid@louisville.edu Tyler Goldberg – Head, Technical Services tylergoldberg@louisville.edu

4. Print volumes in libraries Over 1 billion volumes in North American academic libraries Over 1 billion volumes in North American academic libraries Mid-size libraries add average of 20,000-30,000 volumes per year Mid-size libraries add average of 20,000-30,000 volumes per year http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/libr ary/2007/2007-01.pdf http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/libr ary/2007/2007-01.pdf http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/libr ary/2007/2007-01.pdf http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/libr ary/2007/2007-01.pdf

5. Shared print initiatives for journals Storage model Storage model Shared Shared Distributed -- “print in place” Distributed -- “print in place” Retrospective / Prospective Retrospective / Prospective Means of selection Means of selection Costs Costs Length of retention / participation Length of retention / participation Level of verification Level of verification

6. ASERL Collaborative Journal Retention - background Proposal drafted in 2009 by Shared Storage Study Group Proposal drafted in 2009 by Shared Storage Study Group Based on other retention programs, an agreement was drafted focusing on storing low- use print journals Based on other retention programs, an agreement was drafted focusing on storing low- use print journals Call for participation in spring 2010 Call for participation in spring 2010

7. ASERL Collaborative Journal Retention Program Agreement Length of participation is 25 years Length of participation is 25 years Library nominated Library nominated Facilities requirements Facilities requirements Information to be provided for each title chosen Information to be provided for each title chosen Information delivery to participants Information delivery to participants Associated costs absorbed by individual libraries Associated costs absorbed by individual libraries

9. ASERL Steering Committee discussions: Giving issues to other libraries to fill in their gaps Giving issues to other libraries to fill in their gaps Modifications to facilities Modifications to facilities Bibliographic records Bibliographic records 583 field 583 field Number of titles to be added per institution Number of titles to be added per institution

10. University of Louisville Lots of print journals Lots of print journals Crowded Robotic Retrieval System (RRS) and crowded stacks Crowded Robotic Retrieval System (RRS) and crowded stacks Budget constraints Budget constraints Participant in ASERL’s Collaborative Journal Print Retention program Participant in ASERL’s Collaborative Journal Print Retention program  What do we retain for ASERL, what do we consider discarding?

11. First steps… Created report from Voyager ILS of all serials format holdings in print Created report from Voyager ILS of all serials format holdings in print Approximately 41,000 titles Approximately 41,000 titles

13. The path not taken…

14. Identifying journals for retention, part 1 (easy) Observation Observation Knowledge of collections Knowledge of collections Bibliographic Bibliographic Other considerations Other considerations

15. What we will retain, part 1

16. Identifying journals for retention, part 2 Exported a spreadsheet of electronic holdings from SFX Exported a spreadsheet of electronic holdings from SFX Included all major publishers, Ebsco, Proquest, Free titles, JSTOR, Project Muse, Highwire, etc. Included all major publishers, Ebsco, Proquest, Free titles, JSTOR, Project Muse, Highwire, etc. Already had streamlined spreadsheet of print holdings Already had streamlined spreadsheet of print holdings  Print ISSN universal identifier for both

18. Identifying journals for retention, part 2 (continued) Established two primary categories of interest: Established two primary categories of interest: Titles (ISSNs) held in print that were not held electronically Titles (ISSNs) held in print that were not held electronically Titles (ISSNs) held in print AND only available electronically through an aggregator such as Ebsco or Proquest. Titles (ISSNs) held in print AND only available electronically through an aggregator such as Ebsco or Proquest.

19. Identifying journals for retention, part 2 (results) What do we hold in print that we do not have access to online? What do we hold in print that we do not have access to online? Theory: these would be ‘unique gems' worth saving Theory: these would be ‘unique gems' worth saving Reality: directories, proceedings, oddball titles Reality: directories, proceedings, oddball titles Exception!: Title changes; literary titles Exception!: Title changes; literary titles

20. Examples

21. Identifying journals for retention, part 2 (results continued…) What titles do we have in print, and have e-access but only through an aggregator? What titles do we have in print, and have e-access but only through an aggregator? Theory: These titles are potentially a higher risk for loss of access Theory: These titles are potentially a higher risk for loss of access Reality: There are relatively few scholarly titles that are not accessible via an established online publisher or platform. Reality: There are relatively few scholarly titles that are not accessible via an established online publisher or platform. Exception : there were a few, but… Exception : there were a few, but…

22. More of what we will retain

23. Unexpected benefits Found titles that we were not getting in electronic form but could/should be Found titles that we were not getting in electronic form but could/should be Further reduced titles currently sent for commercial binding Further reduced titles currently sent for commercial binding Cleaned up limited runs of titles we never really wanted Cleaned up limited runs of titles we never really wanted

24. Withdrawal decisions Our bound periodicals are spared… for now Our bound periodicals are spared… for now What if you must make space NOW? What if you must make space NOW? JSTOR = “easy” choice JSTOR = “easy” choice Print Collections Decision Support Tool Print Collections Decision Support Tool Perpetual access Perpetual access Publishers making more readily identifiable Publishers making more readily identifiable When can you reasonably assume? When can you reasonably assume?

25. Print Collections Decision Support Tool Print Collections Decision Support Tool Ithaka’s "What to Withdraw" report Ithaka’s "What to Withdraw" report published in 2009 – proposes a model for preservation requirements Freely available Decision Support Tool created to apply criteria described in report to JSTOR collections Designed to reveal JSTOR titles safe to withdraw without affecting preservation A quick Google search for ‘JSTOR withdrawal’ reveals many libraries have taken advantage of the tool A quick Google search for ‘JSTOR withdrawal’ reveals many libraries have taken advantage of the tool

27. Future withdrawal decisions Declining print usage (statistics or dust test) Declining print usage (statistics or dust test) Consortial agreements Consortial agreements Faculty buy-in Faculty buy-in

28. Final thoughts Easy to decide what to keep Easy to decide what to keep Hard to throw it away Hard to throw it away

29. Bound periodicals from Colorado College’s JSTOR withdrawal project enjoy one final, brief incarnation as public art… http://libraryshenanigans.wordpress.com/category/tutt-library-colorado- college/

30. The Bottom Line In 2035… We will be OLD And REALLY OLD What form will our collections take?