Journal Review suggestions Ken Siegert (07 Jul 2017 12:52 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Dominic Benson (07 Jul 2017 13:01 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Melissa Belvadi (07 Jul 2017 13:06 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Judith Koveleskie (07 Jul 2017 13:43 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Melissa Belvadi (07 Jul 2017 14:31 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Judith Koveleskie (07 Jul 2017 14:41 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Leslie Burke (07 Jul 2017 14:45 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Barbara Pope (11 Jul 2017 19:43 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Leslie Burke (17 Jul 2017 16:39 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Steve Oberg (07 Jul 2017 14:48 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Melissa Belvadi (07 Jul 2017 15:09 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Steve Oberg (07 Jul 2017 15:36 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Jill Emery (07 Jul 2017 16:50 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Barbara Pope (11 Jul 2017 19:45 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Steve Oberg (11 Jul 2017 21:31 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Susan J Wishnetsky (07 Jul 2017 14:05 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Christine Roysdon (07 Jul 2017 14:54 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Ingrid Moisil (07 Jul 2017 14:54 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Diane Westerfield (07 Jul 2017 16:48 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Diane Westerfield (07 Jul 2017 18:13 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Susan Wiegand (07 Jul 2017 19:08 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Melissa Belvadi (12 Jul 2017 16:07 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Abbigail C Gregg (13 Jul 2017 12:31 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Melissa Belvadi (13 Jul 2017 13:22 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Leslie Burke (13 Jul 2017 14:12 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Susan Wiegand (13 Jul 2017 13:35 UTC)
Re: Journal Review suggestions Susan Wiegand (13 Jul 2017 13:46 UTC)

Re: Journal Review suggestions Dominic Benson 07 Jul 2017 13:01 UTC

Good afternoon, Ken -- I also try to factor in three years where possible. Also look at the JR5 report to see how much the most recent years are being used. I also found JR5 useful to spot spikes when non-compliant usage occurred (although JR1 will also show this) -- some publishers never alert us to such episodes. If no COUNTER report is available, check usage via the link resolver / A to Z for click-thoughs.

Kind regards,

Dom Benson
E-resources Librarian, Library, Information Services
Brunel University London | T +44(0)1895 266143

-----Original Message-----
From: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG] On Behalf Of Ken Siegert
Sent: 07 July 2017 13:53
To: SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG
Subject: [SERIALST] Journal Review suggestions

Hello!

We are planning to review both our print and electronic journals. Right now we are collecting usage stats for the last 3 complete calendar years (2014, 2015, 2016) and trying to stick to just JR1 reports. We have individually subscribed journals, packaged journals, etc. Most titles are divided up by librarian liaison area.

What factors have others looked at in determining if a subscription should continue? What's your process? Any insights are welcome.

Thanks,

Ken

-------------

Ken Siegert
E-Resources, Serials & Metadata Specialist
Shadek-Fackenthal Library, Room 011
ken.siegert@fandm.edu | 717-358-4219

Franklin & Marshall College
Shadek-Fackenthal Library
P.O. Box 3003
Lancaster, PA 17604-3003

############################

To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list:
write to: mailto:SERIALST-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG
or click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list:
write to: mailto:SERIALST-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG
or click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1