MSCS Collection Development Subcommittee
April 18, 2012
Colby College, Miller Library Conference Room
10-12:15
1. Overview of policies / documents that need to be created for the grant
Valerie gave the group an overview of the policies that this committee needs to inform/contribute to the creation of. Policies include: retention policy for print and digital titles; management model using digital collections as a tool for managing print collections – this would include reviewing public domain titles in HathiTrust, as an example; a collection management and preservation model – including a preservation/stewardship model for unique and rare print materials.
Valerie also updated the group on the status of WCA data, as well as proposed development activities.
2. Discussion of questions asked via email:
When considering criteria to evaluate in developing a retention model, several questions have arisen. The group considered several of these; questions and answers are below.
Q: How should multiple copies of an item in a single library be handled? Does your library have a policy on multiple copies? Should the grant project have some kind of policy for multiple copies in one library?
A: It was decided that initially we will not consider multiple copies in one library as part of any policy. This may be revisited once some of the other collection analyses have been completed, but for now it is hard to identify those items in our current analysis system, and it has been deemed a local library decision to retain/withdraw.
Q: What number of holding libraries in WorldCat is sufficient for comparison when making a retention decision? (For low-use items? For medium-use items?)
ie, if an item is defined as low use and there are 20 copies in WorldCat vs.100, would that make a difference when making a retention decision? (20 vs. 50? 100 vs. 500?)
A: The discussion focused primarily on low-use or no-use of items; it was acknowledged that the analysis will be much harder when reviewing items with minimal use. However, for items that are not unique and have circulated 0 times since 1990, it was felt that it was ok to withdraw.
Q: How do we define low-use?
A. The discussion touched on a variety of indicators – one participant noted that low-use for one particular subject area may not be defined as low-use for another subject area.
Q: When is it acceptable to rely solely on the digital edition of an item?
A. Answers varied; some criteria included: use of the print item; the quality and permanence of digitization; is the item born-digital or a digital surrogate? How accessible is the digital edition?
Throughout the discussion, it was noted several times that it may be helpful to have subject groupings for analysis.
A short action plan was developed to cover the interim period between now and the date when the refreshed data becomes available in WCA. Valerie and Deb will develop search criteria for the group to determine what items have not circulated since 1990. They will send these criteria, including elements that need to be exported, no later than Tuesday, the 24th; group members will then create lists, export that data, and send to Valerie no later than Monday, April 30th. Valerie will consult with Sara A. regarding how to compare this data to a) holdings in HathiTrust; and b) WorldCat (with the number of holding libraries for each record, if possible).
Once the refreshed data is available in WCA, we will begin identifying unique items and making retention decisions.
It was noted that it would be helpful if we could find a way to indicate (in batch) when an item is eligible for weeding, per group criteria.
3. Upcoming meetings/future discussions
This group, along with any interested technical services/systems representatives, is meeting with the Advisory Board during their visit to Maine on May 21, 2012 at 2 pm. After some discussion, it was felt that we need to meet again (either in person or via conference call) prior to the Advisory Board visit. Valerie will set up a doodle poll & send to the group.