taking an inventory of perpetual access holdings

that title made you flinch, didn’t it?  it should.  if you manage electronic resources for your library, go make a list of titles and holdings of all the e-journals to which you have perpetual access RIGHT NOW.  i’m not kidding.  here’s why it’s critical that you do this: most of your e-journal publishers aren’t keeping track.  play the DRAMA BUTTON before you read on.

we recently proposed a print journal withdrawal project at my library, which would allow us to withdraw print volumes from the collection if we have the same volumes in electronic format in perpetuity.  “in perpetuity” means that we’ve actually purchased the content and own it forever, instead of subscribing to the content and access it only while the subscription is current.  the obvious first step in this project is to see which titles we have in print that we also own in electronic format in perpetuity.  we have a clean inventory of the print titles because they’re what display in our catalog, they have order records to show payment, and have corroborating entries in our subscription vendor’s database.  we do not have a clean inventory of the electronic journals to which we have perpetual access.  here’s why.

we generally purchase electronic content as part of a consortium, and enter multi-year deals for the best pricing.  the majority of those multi-year deals state that whatever is published during the term of the license is ours to keep forever (“in perpetuity”).  the rub is that nobody has really been keeping track of what titles and holdings were part of the package when we started the deal, or which titles have left/entered during the term of the deal.  our consortium’s not doing it because many of the title lists are customized per university; they can’t possibly keep track of 30ish title lists for each year, for each package that we enter.  the stunning part is that the publishers aren’t really keeping track either.  of the ten publishers from which i’ve requested title lists for each year of our multi-year deal, only three have been able to readily hand over the lists.  this is worrying.

over the past month i’ve been requesting title lists from the publishers and then using those lists to see if they match what i think we own.  i’ve only worked here for two years, so for multi-year deals that have run longer i’m at a loss to remember how the deal started and which were the titles associated with the package.  the title lists we have kept on a shared drive are like gold, because they’re at least some record of past purchases.

the moral of the story is this: as you enter a multi-year deal for which there is perpetual access for the content, keep a list – somewhere, anywhere – of the titles and holdings for each year of the deal.  your consortium is not keeping this information for you.  the majority of your publishers aren’t keeping this information for you.

this post begs the question: if publishers aren’t keeping track of what i own in perpetuity, how can i trust them to provide access to that content down the road?  want the drama button again?  i think so.

Posted in e-resource mgmt, library | 1 Comment

draw your own conclusions

the poll is open until october 16 at 9 AM.  http://polldaddy.com/poll/3929441/ here’s a screen shot of the results so far.
libraries and cardigans

Posted in library, titter | Comments Off on draw your own conclusions

the use of our non-current print journal collection is waning: proof provided

Retrieval requests of non-current journal articles from storage

Over the last six fiscal years requests for non-current journal articles retrieved from storage has dropped significantly.  The decline is most dramatic in the number of requests LMU patrons made: from 470 in FY2004-05 to 206 in FY2008-09.  The decline is also evident in the number of requests to fulfill interlibrary lending requests, though less dramatic: from 364 in FY2004-05 to 173 in FY2008-09.  It is clear that patrons overall are demanding less of our print collection.

* It is not yet known how retrieval requests for non-current journal articles will be affected by having that collection now stored locally (as of FY2009-10) instead of off-site.  As the collection was moved from off-site storage to in the basement storage area there was a six-month period when requests for journals were not filled.  In addition, as the collection moved on site the methods used to gather statistics changed.  To that end, the FY2009-10 period represented in the above graph is an estimate and only represents a six-month period.

Posted in library, management, usage statistics | 3 Comments

words in library conference presentation titles that ensure i won’t be in the audience:

wrangling

herding

cats

woes

2.0

adventures

what words make you twitchy?  add them in a comment below

Posted in library, titter | 1 Comment

a thorough article on how to review a manuscript

Rosenfeld, R. M. (2010). How to review journal manuscripts. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg., 142(4), 472-486. http://www.editorialmanager.com/otohns/accounts/Howtoreview.pdf

In answering the question of how much time to devote to performing a review, on p.473 he notes that, “Reviewers should not, however, devote excessive time, because spending more than three hours, on average, does not increase review quality as rated by editors and authors.”

Wondering about what to do with the awful typos or poor grammar? He suggests on p.483 that, “In general, the reviewer should not waste his or her time with extensive language corrections, which are the responsibility of the copy editors once a manuscript is accepted.” [original author’s emphasis]

This article presents a clear overview of the components of a manuscript review and offers suggestions for how to provide specific feedback to both the author and editor.

Highly recommend.

thanks to @qualintitative for alerting me to this!

Posted in articles i'm reading | Comments Off on a thorough article on how to review a manuscript