---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:15:12 -0400 From: David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU> Subject: Re: Serials Cancellation Formulas (Steve Black) The following is a very personal statement about the way I look at this problem, and I know that many librarians whom I respect disagree with me about all or most of it. I/ Decisions about WHICH journals to buy: There are two different types of approaches: 1. Determine what the facts are 2. Determine what other people think 3. doing what's easiest. Among the factors cited below, examples of type 1 include: looking at the price per use looking at JCR to see what people in the subject cite Examples of type 2 include: seeing what Katz thinks seeing what the faculty think. Additional type 1 factors that have been considered are: seeing what journals faculty cite in their research papers seeing what journals students cite in the honors theses/papers/etc. ASdditional type 2 factors are: the various types of opinion polls the many versions of quota systems all the other "authoritative" lists Type 3 factors that are widely used, but rarely admitted, include: buying whatever journals you can get on package deals with the least work buying whatever journals the most influential faculty ask for buying whatever you bought last year, eliminating the most expensive if necessary Asking the faculty will at best tell you what they think they and their their students ought to use, not what they and their students do use. Furthermore, you'll get a collection tailored to the interests of the few who speak up, not the whole group of users. Combining invalid factors into a mathematical formula does not make them any more valid. Using many measures is only relevant if the measures are valid in the first place. We buy for the patrons to use. Actual use by the actual patrons is the measure. imho, any consideration of factors other than type 1 is an admission that you lack the professional abilities to do collection development and need to let someone else do it for you. Of course, if that is in fact the case, it probably _is_ better to let someone you trust do it for you; thus, small hospital libraries appropriately rely on the MLA lists. II. Decisions about WHAT FORMAT to get them in. But, if you are considering merely substituting true full versions of journals online for the same journals in print, you need do none of this. Just make sure that all the content (including illustrations and letters) is truly there, that the campus-wide ip access really works, and that archiving arrangements are ok, and go ahead if there is a savings in cost or added convenience. I regard this as a purely technical decision. Any user who wants print, can print from the electronic version. I do not consider this is a matter which requires consulting the patrons on each title, as long as your campus has a general consensus that ejournals rather than print are a good thing when possible. Marcia Tuttle wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:03:56 -0400 > From: Steve Black <blacks@MAIL.STROSE.EDU> > Subject: Re: Serials Cancellation Formulas > > A few years ago, I did a presentation at our Eastern New York chapter of > ACRL on the topic of a formula. I presented it as core collection > definition, but it applies to cancellation projects. I must have sent this > on request to a dozen individuals by now, so since it seems to be of general > interest, here's the outline of the pertinent parts of my comments. > > If you want to see the whole thing, with charts, and you can receive Word > attachments, e-mail me and I'll send it to you. > > Steve Black > Reference, Instruction, and Serials Librarian > Neil Hellman Library > The College of Saint Rose > 392 Western Ave. > Albany, NY 12203 > (518) 548-5494 > blacks@mail.strose.edu > > GOALS FOR THIS CORE COLLECTION DEFINITION PROJECT > Involve faculty in transition to online > Define each academic discipline's core collection > Identify journals for which online access is an acceptable substitute for > print, and make > cancellations accordingly > Create decision support data for budget reallocation > Use defined core to guide future serials collection development > > MEASURES USED FOR THIS DEFINITION OF A CORE COLLECTION > Price per use of each journal derived from one-year use study (1996) > Faculty survey (each department asked to list the journals most essential > for their > students to use in their course work) > Citation impact factor and cited half-life from ISI's Journal Citation > Reports on CD- > ROM--Social Sciences Edition > Magazines for Libraries --journal scored as 3 if listed as a basic title, 2 > if listed, 1 if not > listed > > FORMULA USED TO RANK JOURNALS > 1. Inverse of price per use times Katz score PLUS > 2. Impact factor times cited half-life, > 3. Then double the departmental mean of 1 plus 2, for titles picked by > faculty as "most essential" > > RATIONALE BEHIND FORMULA > Inverse of price per use gives a high score to cost-effective titles > Katz score of 1,2, or 3 reflects librarians' input on quality, and acts as > a multiplier on > the cost-effectiveness of the journal > Impact factor times cited half-life produces a score that reflects > inclusion in Social > Sciences Citation Index, stature of journal in its field, and the long-term > usefulness of the > journal's articles > Mean times 1 gives equal weight to faculty pick vis-…-vis other factors > Additive formula allows rankings even if data are missing > > HOW THE RANKINGS ARE TO BE USED > Draw a line at average formula score for each department-starting point for > defined > core > Collaborate with faculty to move some titles above or below line, if > necessary > Identify titles below line (not part of core) that will be available online > to College of > Saint Rose students > Check for each to determine whether online version is an acceptable > substitute for print > Do not renew non-core journals covered adequately by selected online > package(s) > Use core list in future decision-making, and make available departments' > core lists > > COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THIS PROJECT > > Costs > $690 for JCR-Social Sciences > substantial time invested, including by faculty > use study costs > > Benefits > Good reference for current and future collection development > Raises comfort level for replacing print with online > Consistently applied criteria help maintain fairness > Narrows number of journals to check whether online is an acceptable > substitute for > print > Aids online package selection and journal collection budgeting [Graphic 2] > Collaboration with faculty yields important benefits > > SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS > All serials data sources have validity and/or reliability problems > Details of formula much less important than principle of ranking journals > based on as > many measures as possible > Results work within, but not between, departments > Administrators appreciate this level of analysis-very helpful at budget > request time > Any close look at a serials collection reveals errors & anomalies-good > thing, but > creates additional work > Online journals make information literacy instruction more difficult and > more > important than ever, but having a defined core print collection should help
