Abstract
Loma Linda University (LLU) is a small, health sciences-oriented university with a growing electronic resource collection with 5,674 e-books, over 70 databases, and more than 12,000 e-journals. In 2007, they decided to use print usage statistics compiled over several years with a goal of making sound decisions about retaining or cancelling print subscriptions and determining which subscriptions to flip from print to online only. The core title lists they developed were used to help guide the library in making decisions about weeding, maintaining print access, migrating to online, and placing bound volumes into remote storage. This presentation outlined the process used at LLU to identify core titles and explains some of the rationale behind their decisions. Some of the advantages and disadvantages in undertaking such a project are identified and a review from the practical side of the project may give some insight to other libraries considering such an endeavor.
INTRODUCTION
Loma Linda University (LLU) is a small, health sciences–oriented university with just thirty-eight hundred full-time equivalent students in eight schools including medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, public health, nursing, allied health professions, science and technology, and religion. The library system at LLU includes the Del E. Webb Memorial Library, the Jesse Medical Library, and a library at the East Campus. All aspects of serials and electronic resources management are handled at the main library. The library has a growing electronic resource collection with 5,674 e-books, over 70 databases, and more than 12,000 e-journals.
In 2007, they decided that the print usage statistics that had been kept over several years in various formats would be compiled into one spreadsheet. Ultimately, what started out as a project for a summer intern resulted in some important decisions being made. Initial goals of the project included creating a list of the core print titles that should be retained in print and online, determining which titles could be flipped to online only, and determining print titles currently held in the journal stacks that would be retained, moved to storage, or withdrawn.
This presentation provided a clear understanding of the project goals, the challenges faced in working with the data, and some pitfalls for others to avoid when considering a similar project. Rais focused on several key aspects to be considered as libraries continue to migrate to online access. For example, it is important to gather usage statistics and account for the degree of difficulty that will be faced when trying to accurately represent print usage. Once gathered, the statistics must be analyzed and interpreted in order for the numbers to translate into meaningful action. There is always the concern about perpetual access to key journals and whether access ensured by signed license agreements really means permanent access.
Besides the desire to make sound decisions about long-term access to print and the need to get the most usage from what can be acquired or accessed with decreasing budgets, there are other issues that impact decisions about retention of print within the physical library. These include limited shelf space, the need for repurposing physical space, and user preference for online journals.
LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY
Although there are three libraries at LLU, all aspects of collection management are centralized within the Del E. Webb Memorial Library. There are six departments including Administration, Technical Services, Serials & Electronic Resources, Access Services, Reference, and Archives & Special Collections. Serials & Electronic Resources manages all aspects of serials and electronic resources although some issues related to procurement and access to e-books are shared with Technical Services.
Serials & Electronic Resources includes one librarian, one library associate, one library technician III, and one library technician II in a half-time role. The department manages seventy-four databases and over thirty-one thousand unique serial titles. The library subscribes to over 12,500 titles with the remaining titles being acquired through print and title packages that are not acquired through individual subscription. The titles are made available through the link resolver and the library catalog.
EARLY PLANNING FOR THE USAGE PROJECT
This project got started when a summer intern with training in business applications was tasked with making sense of usage statistics already available at the library. The original role for the intern was to assist in compiling these into one spreadsheet. These statistics had been collected in-house and dated back to the mid-1990s. The problem was that the statistics were located in printouts and in multiple spreadsheets. With an eye toward centralizing and interpreting the data, the intern began an in-depth review and luckily was very inquisitive about the goals for the project. His motivation to really get involved and ask a lot of questions helped everyone focus on what they really needed to take away from the project. In the end the intern provided valuable findings including the fact that 68 percent of print titles decreased in usage from the year 2000 to the time the statistics were analyzed and that there was a clear correlation between the time that online usage began to increase and print usage began to decline. Through a formula developed by the intern, the project would identify core titles that should remain in print if online access was not an option.
SPECIFICS ABOUT THE PROJECT
While the usage statistics had been compiled for several years, there had been no systematic use for them in decision making for the retention, relocation, or removal of bound volumes. The detailed work and inquisitive nature of the library intern helped the progress of the project by forcing those in charge to examine the reasons such decisions were necessary and to spell out the overall goals, including creating a core list of subscribed titles that should be retained in both print and online and determining which subscriptions could be flipped to electronic only. Space issues were a major consideration and one result of the project was to identify print titles in the journal stacks that should remain accessible, while also selecting those that could be removed to storage and those to be withdrawn.
It was decided that long-term access to core print titles was necessary to ensure perpetual access. Ensuring that the library would be able to support key research even if electronic access was compromised seemed to be essential. While lists of core titles from other libraries were available they did not seem to apply at LLU.
User preference for online was documented by the usage statistics, so clearly one goal of the project was to identify the best titles to flip to online. Given the rising costs of maintaining print plus online subscriptions, some costs savings were anticipated if only online access was maintained.
Space issues always seem to be a problem and this library was looking to reduce the amount of new bound volumes to be added and wanted to identify materials that could be relocated to storage or discarded. One purpose for this was to create new space for Archives & Special Collections, which would require the elimination of one of the five journal stacks floors.
Initially there was some skepticism about identifying titles for cancellation or migration to online. LLU is not a current member of LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) or Portico and they were concerned about not continuing to add print to the nearly one hundred years of journal runs for some titles. The lack of a national print preservation plan and the whole issue of perpetual rights was also a concern. The final outcome was two lists of core titles derived from both print and online usage. The print usage was for the period of 1994 to 2006 and the online usage was for 2000 to 2006. The first list of 450 titles was identified as those that should remain accessible in the journal stacks. These accounted for 77 percent of the total usage. All other titles were candidates for remote storage or removal from the collection. The second list of 300 current subscriptions consisted of titles that should be maintained in print and online formats. All other current titles were candidates to be flipped to online only.
CHALLENGES
While identifying core title lists was difficult enough, the next challenge was to determine what would be done with non-core titles. Some non-core titles could not be withdrawn because few libraries hold the print volumes. The library staff checked for holdings at the National Library of Medicine, the University of California Libraries, and the University of Southern California School of Dentistry. Some non-core titles are not available online or patrons prefer print. Problems with license agreements or the type of online access can impede the decision to go online. For instance, some titles do not have a post-cancellation access policy, while aggregator titles do not always include all content and current issues may be under embargo. Some titles need to be housed in branch or regional libraries and some are necessary to keep because they fit in special collections. Other reasons for maintaining print holdings for non-core titles are institution-specific such as titles required for major research on campus or titles that may be needed for anticipated new discipline areas on campus. No matter the quantity of data gathered to support these types of decisions, the point is that they are subjective and so some problems will develop after the print has been flipped online or the bound volumes have been stored or withdrawn.
CONCLUSION
A recap of the goals shows that the library intended to identify core and non-core titles. The library also intended to reduce costs by eliminating duplication when titles were available in print plus online, and to save space by identifying print titles that could be flipped to online while also moving materials to storage or withdrawing them from the collection. The results were mixed in that the library did save some money in the first year by reducing duplication. However, this did not occur in subsequent years because several non-core titles had to be maintained in print.
Weeding decisions were difficult and there is always a chance that programs and emphasis areas will change on campus and titles not currently used will be needed in the future. Remote storage is still not available because there is no money to build a facility and there is no local collaborative effort to do so. In addition, a site on campus has not been identified because real estate is so valuable on the small campus. For now the bound volumes identified for storage are boxed and shelved within the library. Gaining access to these issues is difficult and they are only accessed as a last resort. The library continues to monitor print and online usage and will not add a new print title unless there is no choice or it is cost prohibitive to add online access.
Comments after this program were mostly focused on the method by which the statistics were gathered and analyzed, and interest in knowing if the decisions to this point have been correct. It should be noted that the way in which the core titles are identified will likely be institution-specific, as will decisions about weeding and storage. What is important to take away from this project is the realization that no matter how much planning goes into the decision of cancelling titles, flipping to online, moving to storage, or removing of bound volumes, academic institutions are not static and therefore some decisions made now will be regretted in the future as programs and research focus areas change.
The usage statistics clearly indicate that online usage is going up as print usage goes down. For LLU, approximately 27 percent of print titles accounted for 76 percent of print usage, resulting in concerns about the efficiency of acquiring, binding, and storing such a large amount of low-use materials. However, the mission of academic libraries may sometimes put librarians in the middle of the debate on efficiency and effectiveness. While removing or storing print may be efficient to address current space or funding problems, this action may result in the library not being very effective when programs change and students or faculty need fast access to information that is no longer housed in the library. Plans to rely on cooperative access or purchase on demand may turn out to be a real problem. It is best to move cautiously down the road of migration to online only, particularly when permanent removal or inaccessible storage is the option.