Shared Print Update ALA 2009

Shared Print Update:
current OCLC Research in
cooperative print management
Constance Malpas
Program Officer

ALA Annual Conference
Monday, 13 July 2009
OCLC Red Suite

OCLC Research: Shared Print Collections Program

As the availability of online scholarly resources grows, research institutions
face increasing pressure to optimize management of their print collections.
Consolidation and rationalization of holdings within and across institutions
creates economies of scale that benefit individual institutions and the
community as a whole by reducing costs and eliminating redundancies in
system-wide holdings. While there is broad interest in achieving such
economies, essential infrastructure for enabling inter-institutional
cooperation in print management is lacking.

2008-2009
• Managing Risk: Cooperative Print Preservation
• Reducing Duplication in Dual-Format Holdings

2007-2008 2009-2010
• System-wide Storage Capacity • Implementation
• Shared Collection Policy Frameworks • Infrastructure

ALA Annual, 13 July 2009
2 Shared Print Update

Shared Print Collections Coordinating Committee

 Susan Allen, Getty Research Library
 Steven Bosch, University of Arizona
 Martha Brogan, University of Pennsylvania
 Paul Courant, University of Michigan
 Kimberly Douglas, California Institute of Technology
 Nancy Eaton, Pennsylvania State University
 Sharon Farb, UCLA
 Assunta Pisani, Stanford University
 Emily Stambaugh, California Digital Library
 Michael Stoller, New York University


2008-2009
Managing Risk: Cooperative Strategies

 Prospective Journals Preservation project
 Risk-sensitive approach to investment in print serials
 Academic humanities journals with print-only distribution
channels and limited aggregate library holdings
 Goals: shared workflow for assessing and managing at-risk print
journals; improved understanding of cost/benefit of
cooperative preservation strategy

 De-duplication of Dual-Format Print Journals
 Focused on low-risk titles: widely duplicated, multiple formats
 Obstacles to implementing change


Prospective Journals Preservation Project

 Risk-aware approach to continued investment in
scholarly print journal literature
 Modeling cooperative approach to preservation of ‘at
risk’ print serials
 Focus on discrete class of active, peer-reviewed
humanities and social science journals with print-only
distribution and limited aggregate library holdings

Goals
 Shared workflows for identifying and managing sparsely-
held print serials as a network resource
 Assess institutional commitments to long-term retention and
acquisition of these resources


Prospective Journals Preservation Project (cont.)

 230+ title sample (2% of estimated 10,000 print-only
refereed journals)
 Median institutional holdings = 24 libraries
 Median age of publication = 27 years
 42% English-language publications

 Titles individually assigned for institutional review
 Coverage and condition of local holdings
 Usage as measured by ILL, circulation, etc. over 12 & 60 mos.
 Current subscription status
 Shelf location: open, closed, off-site
 Archiving and access commitments


Data Capture

 Adequacy of bibliographic
description
 Scope of local holdings as % of
publication history
 Sampling vs. comprehensive
validation
 Physical condition
 Usage data
 Shelving/storage environment
 Intent to retain and serve
 Subscription status
 Time needed to complete title
review


Scope of Local Holdings
Median 15% of
publication record

Incomplete: local
holdings represent <50%
of volumes issued

Incomplete: local
holdings represent >50%
of volumes issued

Local holdings are
complete: 100% of
volumes issued and
supplements are held

Median 80% of
publication record

Local Storage Environment

Mixed: holdings are distributed across
several locations

100% of holdings are in off-site facility
(including current issues)
~75% of titles are
held in open stacks
100% of holdings are in closed stacks

100% of holdings are in open stacks

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%


Physical Condition of Holdings

 Relatively few condition problems, despite open stacks
environment

 5-10% with loose pages or acidic paper

 84-94% with good paper and fully legible text block

 28% with unbound back files

Implication: aggressive conservation action not generally
warranted; some content suitable for digitization


Usage per title (over 60 months)
80%
Most titles (72%)
70%
had no evidence of
use over 5 years
% of titles reporting

60%
50%
40%
3 requests/yr
30%
20%
10%
0%
ce

x
2x
1x

3x

4x

5x

6x

8x

9x

14
en
id
ev
0

Requests/circulations over 5 years


Archiving Commitments & Scope of Holdings
25
25
53%
20
20
N=43
Titles inin sample
Titles sample

15 43% <50% complete
15 <50% complete
100% complete
100% complete
10 >50% complete
10 >50% complete
14%
55

00
Institution is is ...prepared to to
Institution ...prepared Institution is not is not
Institution
prepared to to transfer holdings
prepared transfer holdingsprepared to
prepared to
make an explicit to another make any
make an explicit to another make any
commitment to institution that retention or
commitment towill make thesethat transfer
retain and
institution retention or
retain and will make these
preserve this title commitments. commitment for transfer
preserve this title commitments. this title.
indefinitely; commitment for
indefinitely; this title. ALA Annual, 13 July 2009

Subscription Status

May pose greatest threat to
prospective sustainability

35%
Institution currently
subscribes to this title.
Subscription has been
cancelled.
65%


Implications

 Under current circumstances, the single greatest threat
to survivability of scholarly print journals in the ‘long
tail’ is libraries themselves
 Low visibility (and use) of print-only journals in online
environment exacerbates risk of cancellations
 Local cancellations of at-risk print journals places
economic model of scholarly publication at risk
 Creating comprehensive retrospective archives for long-
tail print journals may require significant investment and
coordination
 For at least some titles, prospective migration to digital
format may be feasible
 Further work is needed to determine which titles merit
cooperative action for long-term preservation and access


What Next?

 Exploring use of MARC21 583 (Action Note) as vehicle for
recording and disclosing print archiving commitments
 Workflows for capturing archiving and condition data as part
of routine holdings maintenance
 Use cases for how this data would support collection
management decision-making

 Preliminary conversations with ARL on sustainability of long-
tail scholarly journals; role of research libraries in supporting
non-commercial publishers

 Possible collaboration with back-file digitization partner to
identify at-risk title for conversion


Special thanks:

 Steven Bosch, University of Arizona
 Ann Fath, Getty Research Library
 Lisa German, Pennsylvania State University
 Dick Griscom, University of Pennsylvania
 Helen Look, University of Michigan
 Jake Nadal, UCLA
 Michael Stoller, NYU

 Everett Allgood, NYU
 Jeanne Drewes & Rebecca Guenther, Library of Congress
 John Riemer & Valerie Bross, UCLA
 Shana McDanold, University of Pennsylvania
 Christopher Walker, Pennsylvania State University


De-accessioning Print Back-files

 Grew out of conversations begun at the RLG Programs
Shared Print Collections Summit, November 2007
 Imagined the path from mostly print collections to mostly
digital collections
 Wondered why more libraries aren’t clearing shelf space
by de-accessioning JSTOR print back files
 Asked ourselves: “If not in this situation, when?”
 Inspired by experience of UKRR: “Just bin it!”
 Formed group to seek out low-hanging fruit

Goals
 Clear shelf space of journal back files available in dual
format
 Establish best practices


DAP-J Working Group

 ARL  Museum
Columbia University Brooklyn Museum
Bob Wolven, Jeff Carroll Deirdre Lawrence
Indiana University Frick Collection
Carolyn Walters Debbie Kempe
New York University
Metropolitan Museum
Angela Carreno
Ken Soehner
University of Arizona
Steve Bosch Museum of Modern Art
University of Michigan Milan Hughston
Bryan Skib  Special Library
 Medium Academic U of Pennsylvania Law
Binghamton University Merle Slyhoff
Susan Currie  Legal Depository
 Liberal Arts College Trinity College Dublin
Swarthmore College Margaret Flood
Amy McColl


A Microcosm of the Library Environment?

 To what extent are you de-accessioning print journal
back files?
 1 routinely, 6 dabbling, 2 have plans, 5 have no plans
 You have access to the data you need in order to de-
accession print journal back files with confidence.
 1 strongly agree, 6 agree, 3 neutral, 3 disagree
 We need to seriously rethink processes for print serials
check-in.
 4 strongly agree, 3 agree, 6 neutral, 1 disagree
 What is the most important element needed to
reconcile the urge to act according to local need with
aspirations for building a cooperative future?
 3 infrastructure, 6 policy framework, 3 funding, 2 central
coordination


Data Ranked “critical” or “important” to
Making De-accessioning Decisions

 Quality of archive 100% (76.9% “critical”)
 Quality of images 100% (42.9% “critical”)
 Use 92.8% (57.1% “critical”)
 Who else owns 78.6% (50.0% “critical”)
 Cost 78.5% (21.4% “critical”)
 Actuarial risk 61.6% (15.4% “critical”)
 Retention guarantees 57.2% (42.9% “critical”)
 Condition 42.9% (0.0% “critical”)


How to Advance the Effort

 Identify core data elements needed in hand in order to
make responsible retention or discarding decisions 1
 Gather the actual data 4
 Identify sampling tasks to shed light on hard-to-address
areas such as validation and optimal duplication 0
 Actually do the sampling tasks 6
 Produce a list of obstacles to discarding print back files of
dual-format journals 3
 Produce advice on overcoming those obstacles 3
 Decide what level of assurance is “good enough” 1
 Create a manifesto challenging current thought and
behavior regarding shared print 1
 Implement a de-accessioning project 1


Decision Tree for Journals De-duplication:

 RLG Programs Council decided a decision tree about de-
accessioning or storing print journal back files would be
best possible deliverable from DAP-J group

Goals
 Document current landscape of various scenarios for
managing print journal collections
 Create a decision tree showing the best way forward for
libraries in various circumstances


Decision Tree for De-accessioning


Play “Get a Clue!”


Print journal “wild cards”

 Internal  External
 Faculty resistance  Google Books Settlement
 Need to repurpose  HathiTrust
space
 E-availability
 Storage situation
 Still publishing vs.
 Collection use
completed run
 Discipline variance
 Confidence in persistence
 Delivery capability
 Option to do nothing  Consumers vs. suppliers
 Risk tolerance


How to win at “Get a Clue!”

 Every library draws card they need

 Work toward a shared framework for managing print
journal collections as a network resource
 Preservation commitments known
 At-risk titles protected, low risk titles identified
 Policy layer in place for delivery
 Sustainable business model to connect suppliers
with consumers


2009-2010
Infrastructure and Implementation
 Print Archiving & Network Disclosure: MARC 583
 Maximize visibility of title-level preservation data
 Use cases for collection managers
 Integration in distributed cataloging workflows
 Decision Tree for De-duplication of Print Journals
 Context-appropriate approach to managing redundancy
 Workflows adapted to different institutional settings
 Maximize incentives for participation in shared print archiving
 Toward a ‘Cloud’ Library
 Implementation framework for increasing reliance on shared
print & digital repositories, maximizing operational efficiencies
 Phased approach to rationalization of local print collection
 Joint effort with HathiTrust, NYU, ReCAP and CLIR


MARC 583 for Print Archiving

 Absence of shared infrastructure for disclosing print
preservation commitments – a critical impediment to
achieving ‘scale’ in distributed print archiving efforts
 MARC 583 proposed as vehicle for sharing preservation
data for monographic literature, ca. 2007.
 Now: extend to serials

Goals
 Test feasibility of batch updating in local system and
WorldCat
 Sample use cases for integration in collection
management workflows


MARC 583 for Print Archiving (cont.)

 Initially explored use of Action note in bibliographic
‘master’ record
 Proposal reviewed by >125 serials catalogers,
preservation officers, collection managers
 Currently exploring use of Action note in local holdings
record, CONSER’s preferred approach
 Testing against titles in Journals Preservation project

Who’s involved:
 UCLA: John Riemer, Valerie Bross, Jake Nadal
 Penn State: Christopher Walker
 NYU: Everett Allgood
 Others?

Case Study: Moving Collections ‘into the Cloud’

 NYU – motivated customer
 Acute space pressures; major library renovation
 Limited mandate to build local collection of record
 ReCAP – supplier
 Large-scale shared academic storage collection
 HathiTrust – supplier
 Large-scale shared digital repository
 OCLC Research and CLIR –consultants and convener
Goals
 Implementation framework to maximize value of Hathi & ReCAP
 Model costs and benefits of deeper reliance on extramural coll’ns
 Requirements for sustainable business partnerships


Vision

Emergence of shared digital and shared print
repositories creates new operational efficiencies for
research institutions

Collections move ‘into the cloud’
as a shared network resource

Requires development of new infrastructure for
managing, monitoring, consuming shared services


Value of partnership increases
as number of participants grows Material that NYU can
relegate with a high
Material that NYU degree of confidence
can obtain through
HT dependent on
copyright status – Material that
means of enhancing NYU can
‘local’ collection already source
through existing
N=3.4M ILL – enhance
Material that NYU may local collection
choose to relegate
based on copyright/
availability Material that NYU
may choose to
N=2.3M N = 7.4 M relegate with
appropriate service
ReCAP level agreement
ReCAP

Opportunities for Institutional Cooperation
Shared Policy Frameworks
Intersections Joint Service Agreements
Increased Operational Efficiencies

Plan of Work

 Phase I: Characterize Aggregate Collection (July-August)
Assess duplication rates across NYU, ReCAP and HathiTrust;
compare to existing data on supply and demand patterns in
aggregate academic collections
 Phase II: Model Service Expectations (August-September)
Identify core svc requirements to increase NYU reliance on Hathi
and ReCAP; draft sample RFP
 Phase III: Calibrate Supplier Service Offering (Sept.-Oct.)
Evaluate feasibility and cost requirements for meeting stated
expectations
 Phase IV: Draft Implementation Framework (October-Nov.)
Draft model service agreements and implementation plan


NYU and Hathi Collections

As of May 2009,
 NYU: 2.3 million titles in WorldCat
445K titles (19%) duplicated in Hathi
or 24% of Hathi corpus with OCLC nos.
~32,000 in the public domain
~11,000 represent public domain
titles also held by >50 libraries

 What is NYU’s risk tolerance for weeding redundant
holdings?
 Which subject areas and imprint ranges are off limits?


NYU and ReCAP Partners

As of May 2009,
 NYU: 2.3 million titles in WorldCat
1.45 million titles (63%) duplicated in
aggregate ReCAP partner collections
+200K (1%) duplicated by ALL ReCAP
libraries and Hathi

 How many of these titles are in ReCAP facility?
 How many are unrestricted?
 How many are already in NYU storage?


Subject Distribution: Hathi Public Domain

N = 400K volumes


OhioLINK Circulation by Subject
Law
Library Science, Generalities, and Reference
Geography and Earth Sciences
Political Science
Business and Economics
Language, Linguistics, and Literature
Agriculture
History and Auxiliary Sciences
Physical Sciences
Philosophy and Religion
Biological Sciences
Engineering and Technology
Education
Chemistry
Music
Performing Arts
Art and Architecture
Mathematics
Anthropology
Medicine
Physical Education and Recreation
Sociology
Psychology
Computer Science

0 1 2 3 4


Managing Risk . . .
 Lowest-risk targets for relegation: widely duplicated
scholarly print titles that are held in ReCAP and
available as public domain content in Hathi
 High redundancy rate = low preservation risk
 Digital formats support new forms of scholarly work
 Regional print repository elevates confidence in
preservation & access
 As of May 2009, nearly 12,000 such titles at NYU
 Rate of duplication increases each month as new
content is added to Hathi and ReCAP -- at a rate
faster than annual collection growth in ARL libraries


. . . Maximizing Benefit

 Much greater opportunities for space/cost savings for
in-copyright titles
 Entails much greater reliance on robust physical
delivery networks

Success of shared digital repositories [Hathi]
in creating operational efficiencies for academic libraries
is highly dependent upon reciprocal service agreements
with shared physical repositories [ReCAP] and
the emergence of joint business agreements with
institutional consumers [NYU].


Loans

Borrowing
System

Digitized
Off-Site Collections
Library Collections
Shared
ts Collections
Transfers en
tm
m mi
Retrievals Co
Aggregate holdings and joint
commitments constitute a
Disclose
Registry
shared asset
Local Holding enabling collaborative
Collections s
management strategies
Assets
Infrastructure
Withdrawals Policies
Procedures

Food for thought . . .

Institution Title overlap As % of Titles in the
with HathiTrust holdings in public domain
WorldCat
University of 647,431 20% 50,823
Pennsylvania
University of 511,614 17% 30,539
Arizona
Swarthmore 129,661 25% 14,503
College
UC Southern 524,013 21% 50,692
Regional Library
Facility
CRL 82,651 6% 8,704


Questions, Comments?

malpasc@oclc.org


Shared Print Update ALA 2009

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Mehr von OCLC Research

Mehr von OCLC Research (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Shared Print Update ALA 2009