5 messages, 197 lines: (1)------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:53:12 EDT From: Susan Zappen <szappen@SKIDMORE.EDU> Subject: Guidelines for Journal Usage Rose M. LaJudice recently wrote about a report that her library generates that reflects how many times a journal has been charged out or taken off the shelf. She asked what guidelines other libraries use to determine low usage. At the 1993 Charleston Conference Rolf Hasslow from the Chalmers University of Technology Library in Sweden spoke about the Institutional Cost Ratio and the Cost Per Use method as well as the method they developed to determine which journals should be cancelled. I remember being struck by the fact that if you used a strict cost of the subscription divided by the number of uses, you would cancel the majority of your subscriptions! You have to factor in other considerations such as how much does each interlibrary loan or document delivery request cost your library or institution. Rolf may have published an article with more information about the Chalmers study. At Skidmore we look at our interlibrary loan statistics each year. We look at the number of requests for a particular journal and who is requesting it --- one student working on a senior thesis or several students in the same major or students in different disciplines. Using cost per use, we have subscribed to a few new journals, but we are finding document delivery to be more cost effective. We did find ourselves in a very interesting situation this past year. We had a faculty member requesting several articles from each issue of a particular specialized medical journal. A subscription (only $200) would have been more cost effective than document delivery in this case. However, a specialized medical journal doesn't belong in our collection. We were able to resolve the situation by giving the faculty member the names of area libraries which subscribe to the title. We also suggested that he use grant money or departmental funds to purchase a personal subscription. I think he has opted for the latter. We have a new library (just opened last August) which was designed with compact shelving for bound journals. But we only planned for five years growth in the bound journals collection. We are committed to electronic access and document delivery. We are continually looking for consortial opportunities with other libraries to acquire electronic information as well as improve interlibrary loan agreements. Because we have consciously limited the growth of our journals collection, the issue of low use is important to us. We do no have the ability to generate a report --- I'm envious of Rose! We have to rely upon faculty input. During the next year I will be working with the Head of Public Services to draft a new collection development policy statement which will have to address the issues of electronic access and document delivery. I welcome any advice or sample policies! I would like to advise Rose to keep generating that report. It will be useful if she is faced with fiscal or space constraints. ***************************************************************************** Susan H. Zappen Phone: (518) 584-5000 ext. 2126 Head of Technical Services Fax: (518) 581-6079 Lucy Scribner Library Internet: szappen@skidmore.edu Skidmore College Saratoga Springs, NY 12866-1632 **************************************************************************** (2)----------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 14:51:31 -0600 From: James Huesmann <huesmanj@LHL.LIB.MO.US> Subject: Re: Trouble with usage studies I find, with more than minimal amusement, that the same faculty members who would flunk a student for not following instructions on a test, paper, etc., squeal like stuck pigs when usage studies (hated that term - prefer "reshelving studies" myself) show that their particular "pet" title was not being "used". Most (but definitely not all) faculty members at the academic institutions I worked at previously quieted down after they were shown the signs (DO NOT RESHELVE PERIODICALS) in numerous locations and the test/paper analogy was given. The fact that since most "use" studies were for deciding which titles to cancel easily brought to view that they were cutting their own discipline's throat by not complying with the rules. The ones that didn't quiet down weren't going to be rational about it, anyway. Quite obviously, I am speaking for myself above - these opinions do not represent the opinions of any of my employers, past or present. Not that it matters much in my present location (independent research library, no faculty, closed stacks)! } ;-) James Huesmann Head, Technical and Automated Services Linda Hall Library 5109 Cherry St. Kansas City, MO 64110-2498 voice: (816) 926-8704 fax: (816) 926-8790 email: HuesmanJ@lhl.lib.mo.us (3)------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 16:16:28 EDT From: Albert Henderson <70244.1532@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: Trouble with usage studies Marilee Rouillard, INTERNET:mrouilla@KEENE.EDU writes: > [snip] Browsing can be done online, anyway, so I like the idea of ignoring > browsing usage. What browsing online equals walking over to the shelf at looking through the pages of volumes of, for instance, College & Research Libraries? My understanding is that if it's not on the shelf, one must browse by interlibrary loan or "subway." Albert Henderson, Editor, Publishing Research Quarterly 70244.1532@compuserve.com (4)----------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 16:16:31 EDT From: Albert Henderson <70244.1532@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Trouble with usage studies Steve Black, INTERNET:blacks@ROSNET.STROSE.EDU writes; [snip] > I'd like to make 2 points. First, faculty statements about their > systematic browsing may or may not be valid. I would want to see this > Pitt study (anyone have the full cite?) to understand the context of the > interviews. A COST-BENEFIT MODEL OF SOME CRITICAL LIBRARY OPERATIONS IN TERMS OF USE OF MATERIALS. by Pittsburgh University Office of Communications Programs prepared for National Science Foundation Div. of Science Information. 15 Apr 1978 NTIS PB 282 059 > Second, I consider browsing and use to be different. If an > individual browses the table of contents and looks at a few abstracts, > but decides that there are no articles worthy of reading in full, then it > is justified to not count that browsing as a "use". If the individual > reads or copies an article, the volume is more likely to be left to be > reshelved, and therefore counted as a use. There is a substantial body of literature summarized by William D. Garvey in COMMUNICATION THE ESSENCE OF SCIENCE (Pergamon 1979) and Donald W. King et al SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS IN THE UNITED STATES (Hutchinson Ross, 1981). Many browses result in later readings. King has pointed out that many scientists and engineers use the library to read and/or copy articles that appeared in journals they subscribed to but discarded. > Mr. Henderson states, "A 'scientific' study of usage would probably use > some other method to assure a given level of reliability". I would be > very interested in hearing some specific, feasible suggestions for how to > do this. We all know that no use study is perfect, especially in open > stacks. However, counting volumes as they are reshelved is more accurate > than asking people what they use, and probably the best we can do with > our staffing and budgets. I also feel that even though no use study is > perfect, doing one is far better than making decisions with no use > statistics at all. OP. CIT. I have heard many complaints from scientists and researchers about how they are forced to travel to places like Washington, New York, Oxford, England, and Paris, France, in order to use adequate library collections. These more up-to-date collections are overly busy so the complaint is that permissions offices can only give you "the right to wait for a seat." The interlibrary loans of the ARL are double their borrowings, which are also soaring -- indications of collection failure at libraries with over 1.6 million volumes that spend a minimum of $2.3 million on materials. Usage studies that prevail over the opinions of members of the institution, as indicated in the Milne and Tiffany article, can harm the careers of researchers and the education of students by denying them important resources. Albert Henderson, Editor, Publishing Research Quarterly 70244.1532@compuserve.com (5)------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 16:16:34 EDT From: Albert Henderson <70244.1532@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: Trouble with usage studies Donna Lively, INTERNET:LIVELY@LIBRARY.UTA.EDU wrote: > If current issues and bound volumes of a > journal title have been browsed once and checked-out twice in a 3 > year period and the title costs over $1,000.00 per year, then I think > one has a reasonable case for cancelling that sucker. What is the > trouble with that? The question is reliability of the data. All of the university studies that I have read reveal many unrecorded uses and other faults with the methodology. A second question is quality of the data. Does a use by a senior researcher equal the value of one by an undergraduate? Is the use connected with a grant or with peer review? Is the use a browse, a citation-directed inquiry or a mistake? Is the use by a member of your institution or a visitor? Al Henderson, Editor, Publishing Research Quarterly 70244.1532@compuserve.com
