Maine Shared Collections Strategy Collection Development
October 8, 2013
Colby College, Miller Library, Conference Room
1:00-4:00 PM
Attendees: Clem Guthro, Christy Coombs, Deb Rollins, Matthew Revitt, Joan Campbell, Becky Albitz, Peggy O’Kane, Lanny Lumbert, Toni Katz, Brian Damien
Sara Amato (called in), Andy Breeding (called in)
1. Project Updates
a. Disclosing retention commitments – local catalogs, OCLC & MaineCat
Local catalogs
Sara has continued to add retention commitments to the local catalogs of MSCS libraries. She has begun the process of adding commitments for multi-item bibs. A running total of commitments can be found on the MSCS website.
As a result of some negative feedback regarding the public display (in the OPAC) of the retention commitment, Sara, MSCS Technical Services Committee, and the Project Team have been working on different public display options for the MSCC retention commitment. Matthew reported that the Project Team have agreed that the wording of commitment should be “MSCC” and should be in a column labeled “Shared”. This is an example of the display in the public display of the URSUS catalog.
A discussion then ensued regarding the commitment need to be in the item record, which limits how and where the message can be displayed in the OPAC (MARC 856).
Joan commented that although she understands that to meet the grant requirements the retention commitment needs to be publically displayed, but she asked Clem to explain what the benefits of the public display are for libraries, because staff at Bowdoin in particular had been against the public display idea. Clem responded that the benefit is to make the retention commitments visible to those Maine libraries who are not members of OCLC. These libraries can take into account MSCC retention commitment when making their own retention decisions.
Matthew commented that, based on conversations with Karl Fattig (Bowdoin), the public display for Colby, Bates and Bowdoin (CBB) libraries won’t happen until the merged shared CBB catalog has been implemented. Deb reported that she had contacted the URSUS reference heads group last week, asking anyone to get in touch if they had issues or questions, so the display in the URSUS catalog should be ready soon.
OCLC
Matthew commented that he hoped the Committee would agree on the Commitment To Retain (CTR) reversals today, so Sara can proceed in batch loading retention commitments in OCLC (see below).
MaineCat
Because of the issues MSCS have experienced with the display of retention commitments in MaineCat, Sara came up with a short-term work around which is to use the OCLC API and JavaScript to perform a check of OCLC and display when an item is in shared print. Therefore, the commitments won’t be displayed in MaineCat until the commitments are first in OCLC.
b. HathiTrust membership update
The library directors of Colby and the University of Maine agreed at the August 30th MSCS Directors’ Council meeting to become HathiTrust members. The contracts have been signed and both institutions are currently in the process of working their way through the membership checklist.
Matthew commented that other MSCS libraries may decide to become members in the future. However, in the short-term to meet the cost sharing requirements of the grant Colby and the University of Maine agreed to become members. Sara is currently working on another data extract to provide HathiTrust with the holdings data they require.
c. E-book-On-Demand & Print On Demand investigations
Matthew presented a test example of a MaineCat record with links to both the HathiTrust and Google Books, and also a “Request Print Copy” link which will allow users to submit a Print On Demand request. Matthew reported that since the last Committee meeting he had asked Sara to add icons for the HathiTrust and Google Books links. Sara had also added a “Request Print Copy” link and information icon, which will take users to some guidance Matthew is working on to help users and libraries better understand the E-book-On-Demand/Print-On-Demand services. MSCS will also need to promote the services so libraries and users know the records have been added.
Albie Dunn (Maine InfoNet) is currently working on hiding the URLs in the display, but this is not as straightforward as he had originally hoped (but still doable).
There are still some elements of the POD process which need to be finalized and the Project Team will be discussing these issues at their meeting on Thursday. Essentially, the requester will fill in a form which will include the name of the Maine library they are a patron of and their library card barcode number. The requester must also have a Maine postal address that the book can be sent to. The request will generate an email which will come to Deb and Greg Curtis at UMaine, who will review the request and submit the order to UMaine printing services, who will send the printed copy back to Fogler Library ILL for shipping. The printed copy will be sent directly to the requester as opposed to going via a library first for processing.
MSCS are using grant funds to pay for the testing of the POD service and the Project Team will evaluate the demand for the service.
Sara is currently working on loading the HathiTrust records into MaineCat via Solar. Joan asked what Solar was. Peggy and Deb responded that it was a library system like other MaineCat affiliates.
d. Grant extension application & national event
At MSCS’s current rate of spending the grant is going to have underspent funds remaining when the project is due to end on May 30th, 2014. Matthew and Deb have submitted a request to IMLS (via UMaine Office of Research & Sponsored Programs) for a no-cost extension of three months until the end of August 2014. Matthew commented that because of the federal government shutdowns he expects the approval process will be delayed. Matthew will be kept on during this extended period, contributing to the production of a teaching document on shared print and organizing a national event at the ALA Annual Conference 2014. The Project Team spoke to members of the Advisory Board last week about ideas for the agenda of the event and the Project Team will be discussing it further at their meeting on Thursday.
2. Retention Scenario Step One
a. CTR reversals – removing work of specific publishers, government documents, missing or lost files and whether any additional criteria/issues identified in reviewing CTR lists
Matthew reported that the word ‘step’ has been added to the title of this work to avoid it appearing like MSCS were talking about two different options rather than different steps or stages. Although this is clear to those working directly on the project it might be confusing for others.
Deb asked whether it might be worth removing the word scenario entirely. Matthew responded that MSCS project personnel had already used the word scenario in numerous project documentation and presentations, so it would be better to leave it in there.
Removing work of specific publishers
Matthew asked the Committee to review the reversal criteria in the final version of the CTR reversal procedure (which includes the criteria Sara was working from to identify titles which should have their commitments reversed) and the list of specific publishers that the Committee wanted commitments reversing. The list was completed on September 12th, approved by the Project Team, and shared with Sara who has produced lists of titles which will have their commitments reversed. Matthew commented that the reversals haven’t actually been made in the catalogs and they won’t until the lists are approved by the Committee at today’s meeting.
Sara reported that she had created a saved search “MSCC Publishers to Remove”, based on the list of publishers from the Committee. Sara ran it against MSCS library catalogs and provided each library with item totals. She sent the Committee members a spreadsheet to review and approve with bib numbers, titles and publishers that will have their CTR reversed. Sara commented on some of the difficulties she had experienced with removing specific publishers and the search strategies she had used.
Some Committee members had questioned the inclusion of specific titles in the reversal list (particularly literature). Matthew asked whether there were any publishers which should in hindsight be removed from the reversal list. Becky responded that she thought Sara’s suggestion (made in a prior email) of removing “Houghton” and “Holt” from the publishers reversal list seemed like a good solution.
A discussion then ensued regarding CTR reversals and the fact that it doesn’t mean that libraries are saying they will be getting rid of a title because they haven’t been assigned a commitment for retaining it. Peggy commented that The Maine State Library will still be retaining travel guides even if they haven’t been assigned a CTR. Matthew commented that Sara’s guidance for proactively adding commitments was on the MSCS website.
Lanny commented that some items in the reversal spreadsheet are in special collections. Clem responded that everything in special collections should receive a CTR.
The Committee approved the lists with amendments that the publishers “Houghton” and “Holt” are removed as well as special collection items. Sara will go ahead and make those changes to the reversal spreadsheets and send revised lists for approval before making the commitments in the catalogs.
Here is a summary of reversals that will be made given the above decision:
Government documents
Matthew presented a glossary on the MSCS website which he and Sara had produced and includes definitions of terms used in MSCS that not everyone will be familiar with:
Included in the glossary is the criteria used by SCS to weed out government docs:
074 – GPO item number not null
086 – Gov document classification number not null
040 – cataloguing source has GPO
In reviewing the CTR list it appears some materials coded as federal documents in the 008 were given commitments which included both U.S. and foreign, and some that just look miscoded. Matthew had sent out some examples for the Committee to review:
Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories (U.S.) http://library.colby.edu/record=b1000397
Report on the geology of Martha’s Vineyard http://library.colby.edu/record=b1008186~S9
Another Icarus : Percy Pilcher and the quest for flight http://ursus.maine.edu/record=b1038689
Toward the prevention of alcohol problems http://ursus.maine.edu/record=b1007893~S1
Le Louvre : le musée et les chefs d’œuvre de la peinture http://library.colby.edu/record=b1084454
Mujer y– psicología http://ursus.maine.edu/record=b1021596
The Russian Opera: http://library.colby.edu/record=b1151750
Sara had initially thought that such titles should be treated the same as other government documents and considered out of scope and have their CTRs removed. However, Toni after looking at some examples of titles which fell into this category at Colby was for committing to retain Colby’s titles. Toni felt that taking out material with the 008 coded as a federal or national document is going to exclude important material that are considered monographs and would not come under the category of “gov doc”–publications of national museums, universities, etc. that are in the stacks anyway. None of these records have 074’s or 086’s.
Matthew asked the Committee whether they wanted to make a decision as a group concerning whether these 008 titles should be included, or whether each library should decide on their own policy.
The Committee agreed that CTRs for material with the 008 code for federal document should remain for all MSCS libraries. Noting that Government Documents identified by SCS will remain out of scope.
Matthew reported that Sara in looking at the CTR lists had also identified state documents that were given CTRs at UMaine. After discussing this with Mathew, Sharon, and Deb, Sara removed the commitments for UMaine because Sharon and Matthew agreed they were out of scope. Matthew asked the Committee whether they want CTRs for state documents removed from their respective lists.
The Committee agreed that CTRs for state documents should remain in any future cases where they are identified.
Missing or lost files
Sara reported that she is going to run the missing/lost lists directly before sending data to OCLC. Sara has completed 427 reversals so far for BPL.
Whether any additional criteria/issues identified in reviewing CTR lists
Matthew asked whether, having reviewed the reversal procedure and CTR lists, there were any additional criteria the Committee wanted to use to reverse commitments (that can be applied in bulk) before Sara completes the reversals and starts the OCLC batch loading process.
Joan reported that she had identified some location codes which should be considered out of scope that she will be sending to Sara, so CTRs can be reversed on items in these locations. Joan went on to say that having reviewed the CTR lists for multi-volume sets she wanted to know if there would be another chance to make reversals. Matthew responded that there would be a chance post-grant with the Collections and Operations Committee (to be formed) to look at CTRs at a more granular level.
The Committee agreed that no additional criteria will be added.
3. Retention Scenario Step Two
a. Review first iteration of scenario – agree on criteria and discuss allocation options
Andy Breeding (SCS) presented graphs and charts he had produced based on discussions at the Committee’s August 29th meeting.
At the request of the Committee, SCS had applied the same retention criteria agreed in Retention Scenario Step One to the universe of widely held titles in scope for scenario two (titles held by 3 or more MSCS libraries), which were 1,064,333 title-holdings. The thinking behind this is that it is a good starting place for possible modifications, and by starting with criteria the Committee are already familiar with, they will be in a better position to think about modifications or departures from these CTR criteria. The criteria were:
● Last item add date in 2003 or later
● Any recorded uses
● Any reserve activity
● Any protected Titles
Matthew asked Andy to also include the criterion ‘Less than 10 US Holdings (specific edition)’.
The Committee had agreed at their August 29th meeting that HathiTrust Public Domain title-sets will be pulled out of this group for further examination. They will be counted separately and can be supplied in separate lists when MSCS are ready for them. Title-sets with zero aggregate circulations will also be pulled out of this group for further examination. Special collection copies will not be considered as part of the analysis and will automatically receive CTRs. This left 746,949 title-holdings in scope.
Andy explained the concept of keeping minimum amounts of title-holding, which SCS had used with previous projects. He showed how the amounts of title-holdings in the CTR and Needs Further Examination (NFE) categories are affected depending on whether the keep minimum was zero, 1, or 2 title-holdings. He pointed out that the removal of all title-sets with zero aggregate circulations from this scenario means that, using the current commit to retain criteria, that a minimum of 1 title-holding will be retained no matter what – hence there is no difference in the retention numbers between Keep Zero vs. Keep 1 (at minimum). Andy went on to explain that all title-sets have at least one holding which circulations and thus have at least one holding with a status of Commit-to-Retain. Using the same Commit-to-Retain criteria as Scenario one yields a higher proportion of CTR title-holdings. Some of this is due to MSCS asking SCS to pull out titles with zero aggregate circulations out of the scenario.
The Committee found it difficult to see where the different numbers in Andy’s totals for CTR and NFE were coming from and why the numbers of CTRs and NFEs were the same when the minimum number to CTR was zero and one. The Committee were also confused why titles with zero circulations were being considered when the Committee had asked for them to be out of scope.
Following detailed discussions that included clarifications from Andy regarding whether he was discussing title-sets or title-holdings and examples by Clem and Matthew, the Committee understood that if MSCS were to agree to keep a minimum of two title-holdings, but only one title-holding in the title-set met the retention criteria then another title-holding (which could be in the NFE category) would also need a CTR. If there was more than one other title-holding to choose from, MSCS would need to develop with SCS an allocation algorithm to decide which one would get the CTR.
The Committee discussed possible factors to take into consideration regarding allocating retention responsibilities. Becky commented that copies with zero circulations are probably in better shape than those with multiple circulations so it might make sense to have those as the CTR copy. Deb commented that zero circulation could also just mean that the item is missing. A discussion then ensued regarding the likelihood of some CTR items beings missing and whether high circulation rates equates to valuable and therefore more copies are required. Becky commented that there must be a clean way to allocate retention.
Andy responded that once the retention criteria has been agreed SCS can work with MSCS on an allocation formula ensuring the burden is shared proportionally across the MSCS group (as was done in the Michigan Shared Print Initiative). Andy outlined allocation factors such as available storage space. But also low level allocation factors: title-holding with highest circulations (most common method), or best copy (which would require more in depth condition checking).
Matthew commented that MSCS has subject data reports which the Project Team had wanted to use as a factor in the allocation process.
The Committee agreed that they would come back to look at allocation with SCS, but that using subject as a factor in the allocation process might be too complicated.
Clem commented that in his opinion the criteria and allocation level are bound up together in this. Another allocation factor is the disparity in loan period length between CBB and the rest of the partners. Deb commented that because of this she had thought MSCS had agreed that at least one copy would be retained by CBB. Clem responded that this hadn’t actually been formally agreed.
Deb and Joan commented that they had presumed the concept of minimum holdings meant there was a maximum amount of title-holdings had to retain across the group. They asked Andy whether it was possible to have a maximum title-holding limit rather than a minimum. Andy responded that this was not something they had done before. A discussion then ensued regarding the focus of MSCS being on retention not withdrawal, which is different to other projects SCS have worked with. Clem commented that a potential issue with the maximum approach is the volume of material libraries would then need to go back and make CTRs on for titles that they weren’t allocated a CTR. Joan and Becky responded that they didn’t think many libraries will want to make additional CTRs, so it won’t be a massive process. Clem asked what would happen if material important to an institution happened not to be on a library’s CTR list. The Committee agreed that libraries know what material is important to their institutions and they won’t dispose of items solely on the basis it doesn’t have a CTR.
Matthew commented that he was unsure on what the effect of raising the maximum levels of title-holdings would have across the group.
Christy commented that ILL might be affected if other libraries see MSCS CTRs and decide to get rid of their own copies then two copies might not be enough. A discussion then ensued regarding whether circulation rates should affect the maximum/minimum title-holding levels. Brian commented that year of last circulation is important because some titles might have high circulation, but not have circulated for a number of years. Matthew commented that including the publics with their high circulation figures (compared to the publics) raises the average circulation rates.
Matthew commented that that the maximum/minimum levels are being applied to title-holdings not copies, so he asked the Committee to be careful with terminology because retention rules would be applied differently if MSCS were talking about applying the rule at the item level. It also means that some title-holdings will include multiple-copies, so if one copy was found to be missing or in poor physical condition they would still have other copies they could CTR. Clem responded that in most cases academic libraries will only have one copy.
Matthew asked the Committee what data they would like to see from SCS, which could help them, decide on maximum or minimum title-holding.
The Committee agreed that to be able to decide on a maximum or minimum title-holding they would like SCS to produce data reports to see an aggregate scale of circulation for title-sets because different maximum/minimum levels might be applied to title-sets in the different circulation ranges. The reports should breakdown the in-scope title-sets by total circulation levels of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 100 or more. The Committee would also like to see in the report totals for year of last circulation. As well as totals the Committee would also like to see a bar chart with percentages for circulation levels and a separate chart for year of last circulation.
Matthew asked the Committee whether they wanted any changes made to the retention criteria.
The Committee agreed that to be consistent with Retention Scenario Step One they would ask SCS to apply the same set of criteria to title-sets in-scope in Retention Scenario Step Two.
Toni asked Matthew whether the rule that titles with zero circulation, but 0-9 copies in OCLC are retained still applied in Retention Scenario Step Two. Matthew responded that the rule did still apply.
4. Journals/series/serials analysis
a. Data pull methodology & content of circulated lists – what titles are included in the lists, agree on focus journals vs. series & observations from review of lists
Data pull methodology & content of circulated lists – what titles are included in the lists
Sara explained how, for purposes of list creation for review of serials, the following criteria were used:
● Leader position 07 (bib level) = s (serial)
● Leader position 06 (type of record) = a (language material)
● Not electronic (usually determined by location code)
● Not suppressed
In analysis of above the following were excluded:
● Gov Doc based on position 21 of the 008 were also excluded (approx. 15%)
● Microform – based on location
Prior to the meeting Sara had circulated to the Committee lists for each library of serials which she had filtered from the list of serials to only include titles not in the aggregator vendor sets and that there are under 50 copies of in OCLC. Sara also sent a list of titles that fell into the local protected category.
Lanny and Becky reported they had seen on their respective lists electronic titles. Sara responded that she will look into this issue and make sure they are removed. Sara commented that some libraries have records that include both electronic and physical items on one record.
The Committee agreed to auto CTR titles in the protected category many of which are in special collections.
Agree on focus journals vs. series & observations from review of lists
Matthew commented that included in the serial lists are a mixture of journals, series, annual and continuations. In the grant application MSCS said the group would look at monographs and journals. However, if the Committee didn’t look at monograph series here then they won’t be receiving commitments because they weren’t included in the SCS analysis. Matthew asked the Committee to confirm that they were OK with looking at non-journal material in this analysis.
The Committee agreed that although the grant application said MSCS would only look at journals in reality because of the way the material is coded (as ‘S’) it is not feasible or advisable to separate the different types of material.
b. Retention policy – group vs. individual library decisions, retain standing orders/subscriptions, or just what libraries currently hold & agree on process for submitting CTR decisions
Group vs. individual library decisions
Although there was data in the spreadsheets concerning whether a title was held by another MSCS library, Matthew asked whether the Committee wanted to go a step further and ask Sara to conduct holding comparisons across the MSCS group as was done with monographs. So, if Bates and Bowdoin both own the same potential CTR title do they both CTR independently? Or does the Committee agree only one MSCS library needs to commit to retain and assign retention responsibility?
Toni commented that only a small percentage of Colby’ list of titles were held by other MSCS libraries.
Sara commented that she would not be able to do these sorts of comparisons in an efficient manner. But perhaps if there were a small subset, she might be able to do something (or a tiny set she could test it out).
Clem commented that it might be interesting to know what other libraries held and decided to CTR.
The Committee agreed that holding comparisons are not required and that retention decisions will be made on a library by library basis.
Retain standing orders/subscriptions, or just what libraries currently hold
Becky reported that most of the titles on Bates’ list were closed orders, but she didn’t want this work to affect her ability manage her subscriptions. A discussion then ensued regarding whether there should be date cutoff for the CTR like “holdings thru 2003”, or retains everything received as of 2013.
The Committee agreed that libraries will only CTR the titles which they currently hold with the proviso that libraries are free to cancel serials (and thus any future retention commitment).
The Committee will review their respective title lists and have their commitments agreed in time for their next meeting, which will be in mid-late November. At the meeting any issues with the lists can be discussed before Sara goes ahead and adds the commitments to catalogs (see below).
Agree on process for submitting CTR decisions
Sara asked the Committee to send back the serials spreadsheet list she had circulated filtered to only include those titles that libraries want to CTR.
Matthew confirmed for Chrissy that this work is going to require looking at the spreadsheet title by title. The feedback from the August 30th MSCS Directors’ Council Meeting (particularly from Gene) had been that libraries do not want to make blanket commitments without first looking title by title at what they would be expected to retain. For example, just because a title is unique in OCLC does not mean libraries would want to CTR. Deb commented that her analysis of the UMaine list had only taken approximately three hours.
Clem commented that perhaps any MSCS public library CTRs might be premature before the implications of the proposed Bangor Public and Portland Public periodical work is known. Chrissy responded that Barbara had asked her to review Bangor Public’s list and make CTRs. Clem commented that she should follow Barbara’s instructions.
c. Potential issues concerning disclosing retention commitments
Disclosing retention commitments for serials/journals may be more of a manual process than for monographs. Sara reported that there will need to be some Technical Services Committee discussions regarding how to efficiently make the CTRs with holdings info, and also discussion of how libraries handle their Checkin Records and if retention statements should be made there. Display of retention commitments made in checkin records will be another issue the Technical Services Committee need to discuss.
5. Date of next meeting
Matthew will send out a Doodle Poll for the date and time of the next meeting. He will try and schedule the meeting for some time towards the middle-end of November.