5 messages: 1)---------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Discarding bound journals...-- Buddy Pennington Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:58:22 -0400 From: Donna Sue Yanney <dyanney@mail.gcsu.edu> Some guidelines for weeding journal collections are: 1) Discard second copies 2) Discard incomplete runs 3) Discard short runs--usually 5 years or less 4) Discard longer, dead runs--which would include a 10 or 20 year runs of titles you stopped getting 10 or more years ago 5) Discard those titles that no longer support your current curriculum. If your college discontinued its home economics department two years ago, discard the home ec journals. 6) Discard titles that you don't have indexes for 7) Discard older volumes of titles if the discipline that uses those titles uses only the current issues. In other words, retain only the latest x years of nursing, computer science, current interest, etc. types of titles. The list will depend on the type of institution you are, but you'll probably want to keep all of your history or literature titles for example. You also might want to generate a hit list. Do a use study for a semester or two on those titles. If they don't get browsed, submit the list to the relevant faculty for their approval. And then host a bonfire! Good luck, Donna 2)------------------------ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Discarding bound journals... -- David Goodman Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:26:46 -0500 From: "Pennington, Buddy" <buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu> I agree with the JSTOR point, and we are gearing up to weed out those volumes. I do agree in principle with keeping what we can, but the reality is an increasing lack of space and a decline in the use of print journals, especially the older volumes of titles. Buddy Pennington Acquisitions/Serials Librarian Rockhurst University Greenlease Library buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu #816-501-4143 3)------------------------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Discarding bound journals...-- Buddy Pennington Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:14:19 -0400 From: "John D. Crissinger" <crissinger.5@osu.edu> Let me make a couple of comments here, Buddy, since this is one of the subjects close to my library heart. First: I personally believe a long run of a title adds a certain richness to a collection. It denotes length of care and longevity of operation. I admire a college by the depth of its library resources and periodicals are a vital element of that. Second: Space is a real problem. I hate to replace paper copy with microform, but with some titles that makes sense; although the economic value has decreased substantially in the past decade. Most users hate microform so be careful with this. Third: Date is only ONE criteria. Do not, I repeat, do NOT make it your only one. English, history, geology, and many other disciplines retain value in older volumes. Unless your institution has a significant "history of" component in the various science and technology disciplines, I would target them first (those which have a high degree of datedness in their materials.). Be sure to solicit faculty input on any decisions you make. Life is much easier later when you can say "WE" decided and not "I" decided. But also keep in mind faculty present their biases in the decision process too, that's why you should be making the final professional decision and not them. You are responsible for the library and its collections for this and the generations to come, they aren't. Fourth: Are any candidates housed in a nearby library such as the public library? Question the need to maintain the same materials if they are readily available nearby. Fifth: Just because a title is a short run or deceased doesn't mean it should be buried. Is it indexed?, Is it supporting a college major? Is it providing materials not easily found elsewhere"? (Life mag for example gives a very visual review of the culture of the mid 1900s; very valuable for a variety of sociology, history, anthropology, etc classes.) Sixth: Do use logic! Obvious, but I have seen some wild examples out there that are an embarrassment to the profession such as binding titles that are obvious candidates for that particular institution to discard (i.e., binding computer magazines that are only retained 5 years to begin with). Seventh (and last): Whatever you do withdraw, please offer it to other libraries through the DEU and Backserv listservs. Try your best to keep them from filling a dumpster. Many of us are looking for volumes that others regard as worthless. The old adage of "one person's trash is another person's treasure" is very true. Good luck! I don't envy you. 4)--------------------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Discarding bound journals... -- David Goodman Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:16:14 -0800 From: Phylis Slone <fnpds@aurora.uaf.edu> We have replaced some titles with microfiche. 5)---------------------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Discarding bound journals... -- David Goodman Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:40:55 -0500 From: Peter Picerno <ppicerno@choctaw.astate.edu> I agree with the idea of using JSTOR as a virtual backlog as well as the back issues available through Project Muse. If space is a real issue, many bound volumes can be replaced by microforms, but a 'safety net' step in the process might be to remove all the withdrawn stuff to "remote storage" (which could be anything from a dry basement room to an unused study carrel) for a pre-determined period of years: that way if there is a major problem with access to virtual forms of the journals, or if everyone hates the idea of computer access or using microfilm, then the situation could be returned to its original form ... and by then, perhaps there would be able to be a case made for space or funds to accomodate the restoration. Dr. Peter V. Picerno Collection Development Team Leader Dean B. Ellis Library P O Box 2040 - 108 Cooley Drive Arkansas State University State University, AR 72467 (870) 972-3078 (870) 972-3199 FAX ppicerno@choctaw.astate.edu At 12:11 PM 10/7/99 +0100, you wrote: >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Discarding bound journals... >Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:46:29 -0500 >From: "Pennington, Buddy" <buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu> > >Hey all, > >Our library, like most, is facing a serious problem with not having the >space to keep bound journals. We are thinking about discarding titles, >and >I was wondering how others are doing it and if there are any >'guidelines' to >doing it. Options that I am considering are: > >1. Discarding older volumes (especially pre-1940). I have thought >about >discarding the earliest 10 years of older runs and maybe doing that >every 5 >or 10 years. Research indicates that older articles, like older books, >aren't used as much by library users. Of course, the older volumes are >the >ones that are not available through FT databases and document delivery. >However, we were planning on checking OCLC to see how many libraries >have >the volumes we would be getting rid of. In this way, we could tell if >the >volumes were readily available elsewhere or if they were relatively rare >and >needed to be kept. > >2. Discarding short runs of titles. We have some titles were we only >one a >few years (several in the 1970's and 1980's). It seems to me to be >counter-intuitive to keep such short runs on our shelves. > >If you are faced with the same task, let me know what your library is >doing! > >Buddy Pennington >Acquisitions/Serials Librarian >Rockhurst University Greenlease Library >buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu >#816-501-4143 > >
