Maine Shared Collections Strategy Collection Development/Technical Services Committees
May 23, 2013
Colby College, Roberts Union, Robbins Room
2:00 – 3:30 PM
Attendees: Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Deb Rollins, Matthew Revitt, Sara Amato (called in), Becky Albitz, Sharon Fitzgerald, Joan Campbell, Peggy O’Kane, Brian Damien, Mary Macul, Christine Coombs, Judie Leighton, Venice Bayrd, Karl Fattig, Sharon Saunders, Sarah Campbell, Toni Katz, Peggy Menchen, Lanny Lumbert, Lizanne Payne, Judy Montgomery, Linda Lord, Bob Kieft, Jeremy York, Rick Lugg, Andy Breeding (called in)
Absentees: Constance Malpas
1. Advisory Board & Jeremy York visit
a. Welcome & introductions
The MSCS Collection Development/Technical Services Committees were joined at the meeting by the Advisory Board members: Bob Kieft, College Librarian at Occidental College who helped established the Print Archive Network forum for libraries interested in shared print projects. Lizanne Payne, shared library collections consultant who has worked with a number of shared projects including ReCap in New York and WEST, consulted with OCLC and worked at Washington Research Library Consortium. Constance Malpas, Program Officer at OCLC specializing in print conversion and shared print projects was due to attend, but unfortunately transportation issues had delayed her arrival in Maine.
Also in attendance were: Jeremy York from the HathiTrust who had been invited by the Project Team to present on the institutional uses of the HathiTrust and also be on hand to answer any questions attendees had regarding HathiTrust membership (see below). Rick Lugg and Andy Breeding partners at Sustainable Collection Services were invited primarily to assist MSCS develop additional criteria for those items more widely held by MSCS partner libraries. MSCS Systems Librarian Sara Amato who phoned in to the meeting will present her investigative work concerning disclosing retention commitments and loading HathiTrust records.
b. Schedule for visit – MSCS meetings & Maine InfoNet E-Collections Summit
Constance and Jeremy will be presenting at the Maine InfoNet Collection summit the next day (May 24).
2. Project Updates
a. HathiTrust
i. Implementation investigations
Sara reported that the Project Team had decided that rather than loading HathiTrust records directly into MSCS library catalogs, they would instead be loaded into SOLAR. Individual libraries could choose to search and request in MaineCat.
A discussion then ensued regarding the request mechanism for Print-On-Demand (POD) and E-book-On-Demand (EOD) requests. For POD the use of request forms was discussed to allow users to request a physical copy of a book printed by the University of Maine printing services. For EOD users will be able to download a copy of a HathiTrust Public Domain title. ILL request for a downloaded copy will be routed through ILLiad and sent to the appropriate HathiTrust partner library to process.
Sara has been discussing with Kent State University (KSU) the loading of HathiTrust records. KSU completed authority work before they loaded the HathiTrust records into their catalog, but the Project Team have agreed that this is not required for MSCS and that the records will be accepted as is into SOLAR.
ii. Consortial membership & authentication issues
At the morning MSCS Directors Council meeting the Directors had agreed that the MSCS partner libraries would join the HathiTrust as consortial members.
b. MOU
i. Status of MOU
At the morning MSCS Directors Council meeting the Directors had agreed to the wording of the latest version of the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative (MSCC) MOU on the proviso that a ‘clean’ version (without mention of draft or track changes) is created and that a place for signatures is added. Once Matthew has done this he will send the final version to the Directors for them to get it signed.
c. Marketing
i. Articles – Library Journal, Maine Policy Review & Bowdoin Sun
MSCS was included in a Library Journal editorial piece on shared print and in the LJ Info Docket, which included a link to the SCS Preliminary Analysis slides. Matthew commented that this shows LJ is monitoring MSCS activities. Most of the MSCS mentions in various news feeds probably originate from the original LJ article.
The Maine Policy Review featuring the MSCS sidebar had been published . MSCS also featured in the Bowdoin Sun publication.
ii. MSCS inclusion in ACRL Environmental Scan
MSCS was included in ACRL environmental scan section “Radical Collaboration in Large Regional Print Repositories” alongside some pretty illustrious company.
iii. Increased website traffic & Slideshare views
MSCS publication features have resulted in an increase in MSCS website hits and views of MSCS representative presentations on SlideShare.
d. OCLC WorldCat Collections Analysis tool – proposal update
Meghan Hopkins at OCLC had produced a proposal for MSCS to receive deferred access to the OCLC analytics tool once group functionality is available in late 2013/early 2014. The Project Team are currently reviewing the proposal and Matthew will inform Meghan of any changes they decide need to be made. A few required changes have already been identified with the assistance of the MSCS Technical Services & Collections Development representatives, including correcting the OCLC Symbols listed.
e. Conferences & Events
i. Timberline Conference, Mt. Hood, May 19th, 2013 – Sara presentation feedback
Sara presented on the work of MSCS at the Timberline Conference.
ii. Library Journal Data Series Webcast, June 6th, 2013 – Matthew presenting
Matthew is part of a LJ webcast panel concerning library data analysis on June 6th. He has submitted slides for his presentation tilted “Using data in collaboration: Experiences from the Maine Shared Collections Strategy”. Matthew will be discussing how MSCS have used data in collections analysis work with SCS.
iii. ALA Annual ALCTS Preconference, Chicago, June 27th, 2013 – Clem, Matthew & Sara presenting
Matthew, Clem and Sara will be presenting at the ALA Annual ALCTS Preconference being organized by Rick Lugg.
iv. ALA Annual Print Archive Network, Chicago, June 28th, 2013 – Clem presenting & submit MSCS update report
Matthew reported that Bob Kieft has asked Clem to report on MSCS work as part of the New England Region along with (Margaret Maes (LIPA/NELLCO), Ken Peterson (Harvard) and Jay Schafer (UMass Amherst) at the Print Archive Network (PAN) session.
Matthew will also submit an adapted version of the Advisory Board report to PAN for the MSCS update report.
v. IFLA Annual Conference Acquisitions & Collection Development Section, Singapore, August 19, 2013 – Paper submitted
Matthew submitted his and Clem’s IFLA paper in time to meet the May 1st translation deadline.
vi. NELA Annual Conference, Portland, October 21st, 2013 – Submitted session plan
Matthew reported that he had submitted his and Deb’s session plan for their NELA presentation.
vii. Charleston Conference – Deb/Matthew to submit paper
The Charleston Conference has announced their call for papers for their 2013 Conference with the deadline in July. Matthew and Deb will submit a paper for consideration.
3. Collections Analysis
a. Revised collection summaries & boxplots
Matthew updated attendees on progress since the April 8th Scenario Development meeting.
Andy Breeding (SCS) distributed the revised collection summaries which incorporated:
A new worksheet titled “circ-only” which contains the circulation tallies as applied to circulating titles only.
• Revised Last Circulation Date tallies for Portland Public Library.
• Revised Internal Use Counts for the University of Southern Maine.
• Revised HathiTrust match counts based on the availability of the newest file from HathiTrust.
In terms of the overall circulation rates, the removal of non-circulating items did not greatly change the circulation rates (overall 4% difference) from the previous version. Nor was there a great difference in HathiTrust figures after SCS completed updated holdings look-ups. But it is good to know this version had corrected the issues with PPL & USM. No further issues have been identified.
Sara & SCS are still investigating the discrepancies between HathiTrust & SCS counts for MSCS overlap.
Andy had also sent boxplots with circulation data to be used for subject analysis and which may be more useful in the future when looking at allocation.
b. Working scenario one – ‘Commitment to retain’ & ‘Needs further examination’
At the April 8th Scenario Development meeting MSCS agreed to begin with titles held by only 1-2 partners. This universe consists of just under 1.5 million title-holdings (approximately 1.6 million items), constitutes 50% of all title-holdings in the MSCS data-set. The following criteria for making decisions on these titles were developed:
• Analyze and take action only on pre-2003 copies
• Retain the copies if any circulation or internal use
• Retain material that falls into local protection categories (Specific Maine items) even if no circulation
• Retain Special Collections/Archives copies even if no circulation
• Retain materials with course reserves even if no circulation
• Retain unique in OCLC (only 0-9 copies in OCLC) even if no circulation
• Compare remaining 0 circulation copies with both HathiTrust and Internet Archive
SCS ran the scenario agreed and produced corresponding retention counts for each library.
The set of resulting “Commitment to Retain” titles contained just over a million title-holdings or 73% of the eligible universe of titles. MSCS libraries will be committing to retaining at least two copies between two different institutions for 15 years.
In reviewing this table, it becomes apparent when you compare the titles and items columns that this scenario would mean retaining multiple copies of the same title. For example, if Bangor Public were the only library to have a copy of Pride & Prejudice, but had 10 copies currently all 10 copies would have 15 year retention commitments associated with them. Andy from SCS has looked into the issue and has identified approximately 87,549 items (or 7% of items on the retention list) left over that could be exempted from a retention designation. Note the 87,549 figure excludes multivolume sets.
Matthew reported that at this morning MCS Directors Council meeting the Directors had agreed to ask SCS to remove the titles with multiple items from the “Commitment to Retain” category for further review. This meant splitting the Commitment to Retain Lists (1,076,188 titles/1,258,195 items) into two parts: Titles with a single item record per bib record (about 91% of the titles and 78% of the items). Titles with multiple item records per bib record (about 9% of the titles and 22% of the items) and divide these further into multi-volume sets and multiple copies.
Using scenario 1 this left just under 400,000 title-holdings, or 27%, available as “Needs Further Examination” for those items with 0 circulations. SCS showed the overlap of these titles in the HathiTrust and/or Internet Archive. Matthew commented that it was these titles he wanted to look at first in today’s meeting to discuss whether libraries were willing to rely on digital surrogates if the item has zero circulations.
Sarah Campbell asked if it was possible to see lists of “Needs Further Examination”. Deb responded that this must be done at a higher level by category. Andy commented that if MSCS wanted to, they could see title lists. However, it was agreed that while libraries can and will be provided with lists, collections analysis decisions cannot be made at this level. There need to be retention rules which can be applied to the data en-mass.
Clem suggested that to show a title was reviewed as part of MSCS collections analysis there could be an equivalent 583 statement (which does not necessarily have to be in the MARC 583 subfield) for “Reviewed & not committed to retain”. This would show the why and what of retention. Lizanne commented that if it does not have a commitment then it is not required to be retained by the library.
Rick and Andy clarified for attendees the criteria used in scenario one and what titles were in and out of scope (see above).
Attendees agreed that MSCS will not dictate the decision whether a library decide to withdraw a “Needs Further Examination” title or copy. Instead the local libraries would decide to do with the lists whatever they so choose.
SCS agreed to complete the investigation of the discrepancy between the SCS HathiTrust public domain numbers and those reported by HathiTrust. Any HathiTrust numbers are provisional pending SCS’s decision on a final matching method for public domain titles.
c. Additional scenario development – Titles with 1 or more circulations, held by 3 or more MSCS libraries
Attendees moved on to looking at additional retention scenario development for those titles with 1 or more circulations, held by 3 or more MSCS libraries. Matthew commented that this is where the more difficult collections analysis decisions will need to be made with the remaining 50% of titles looking at factors such as: circulation rates, available storage space, subject strengths, and loan periods to assign retention commitments.
Clem suggested that perhaps libraries agree to keep 2 title-holdings and retain those items that have circulated at least once. Attendees debated whether it should be one circulation since 2000 which is a conservative number, or in keeping with other projects go with 10 years (2003). Rick commented that there might be different circulation thresholds for public and academic libraries.
Judy commented that additional criteria should be considered for titles owned more widely. Deb suggested that an additional criterion be added to more widely held titles (among MSCS) indicating whether the title is held only be Maine libraries (in OCLC).
Attendees discussed different criteria including pre-2003, OCLC WorldCat holdings greater than 100 and less than 10. Then adding to this the same criteria as for scenario one:
• Retain the copies if any circulation or internal use
• Retain material that falls into local protection categories (Specific Maine items) even if no circulation
• Retain Special Collections/Archives copies even if no circulation
• Retain materials with course reserves even if no circulation
Attendees agreed that MSCS libraries are free to make their own retention commitments in addition to those agreed as part of the MSCS analysis.
In light of the commitment to retain a million plus titles for 15 years in scenario one, attendees agreed that it was important to not over-commit. The commitment to retain titles is an investment and with space being an issue for many of the MSCS libraries, it was agreed that MSCS needs to be discerning regarding what categories of titles are assigned “Commitment to Retain”.
Attendees agreed that SCS would create a targeted Group Collection Summary for the 1,064,333 title-holdings present in 3+ libraries. This will include all of the data elements in the full Group Collection Summary plus one additional element: Circulated within the past 4 years. MSCS would also like to see OCLC WorldCat holdings greater than 100, less than 10, and overlap in the HathiTrust and Internet Archive.
Rick commented that this targeted summary will enable the group to think in more detail about what scenarios might be modeled for the more widely-held material. From this Summary and related discussions, SCS expects to derive some withdrawal and retention scenarios for MSCS to experiment with.
SCS agreed that they would get back to MSCS with this summary in the next couple of weeks.
4. OCLC Shared Print Symbol & 583/856 MARC Fields testing
a. 583 testing – Loading & display of retention information in catalogs & target link for retention copies
b. Batchloading LHRs
c. OCLC Shared Print Symbol request
Unfortunately, due to time constraints these items were not discussed. But for more information on these subjects see the May 23 MSCS Directors Council meeting summary.
5. 4th Quarter travel claims due May 31st
Matthew will be sending an email reminder that the 4th quarter travel claims are due May 31st.