MSCS Collection Development Subcommittee
May 7, 2012
Colby College, Miller Library Conference Room
1:15-3:30

Attending: Joan Campbell (via phone), Brian Damien, Valerie Glenn, Clem Guthro, Tom Hayward (via phone), Toni Katz, Lanny Lumbert, Susan MacArthur (via phone), Judy Montgomery (via phone), Peggy O’Kane, Deb Rollins

The group reviewed the zero circ data set that was created following the last meeting, along with a HathiTrust comparison document. Approximately 8346 items (keywords Shakespeare and biology) were identified as having not circulated since 12-31-1995. Of those, 2798 (roughly 34%) have a digital equivalent in HathiTrust. [Note: these numbers include duplicates, when an item is held by more than one library and has not circulated in any location.]

During this discussion the group felt that the report lacked crucial data – because the list criteria limited results to only those items that had not circulated, results do not include all holdings of a given title. (For example: one of the zero circ items held by the State Library is a copy 2; copy 1 has circulated, so is not on the list.)  Any future reports should include all copies of a title, not just the ones that have not circulated.

The HathiTrust comparison chart led to a discussion about the level of access to those titles. No partner libraries are members in HathiTrust, so access is limited to the viewing (not downloading) of most public domain titles. There is some concern about whether or not we should make decisions based solely on this type of availability; other factors would include the subject discipline that the material falls into, circulation data, and ILL availability.

Additional criteria that we would like to include in our decision-making formula is the number of holding libraries in WorldCat. No maximum/minimum number was suggested; it was mentioned that it would be ideal if we could identify “trusted” or more secure holding libraries – libraries less likely to withdraw an item due to space considerations.

Action item: it was decided that biology is a “safer” category to analyze than Shakespeare, so a report will be run on all biology items (based on call number range) published prior to 1996. Circulation data will be included in the report; we will also run a HathiTrust comparison report. Valerie will send detailed instructions to the group.

Another approach to “chunking” items for decision-making was suggested – that we focus on categories of materials that we know we’re going to keep (ie, Maine authors). This may not be the best example, as we know that the State Library will keep at least one copy of these works, but other libraries may want to keep certain categories of these as well. How could we review these materials and identify copies that libraries other than MSL may want to withdraw?

The group was reminded that unique items (in WorldCat) would be good candidates for a) testing 583 retention notes; and b) easily chunking a subset of items out of the “how many copies to retain” discussion. The WCA data should be refreshed later this month, which will give us a clearer picture of how many unique items the group holds. We should also review circulation data for those items held by only one partner library, which should give us another data point for retention decisions.

Valerie reminded the group that they were meeting with the Advisory Board on May 21st. It was suggested that we present a summary of the issues/questions/challenges we have been wrestling with while considering how to proceed. Valerie will draft a summary and send to the group for additions/corrections.