Maine Shared Collections Strategy Collection Development

July 30, 2013

Colby College, Miller Library, Conference Room

1:00-3:00 PM

Attendees: Clem Guthro, Barbara McDade, Deb Rollins, Matthew Revitt, Joan Campbell, Brian Damien, Toni Katz, Lanny Lumbert

Absentees: Peggy O’Kane, Christine Coombs

NFE: HathiTrust Public Doman, HathiTrust In-Copyright, Internet Archive & Not Digitized

The Committee looked at those title-holdings which were in the Needs Further Examination (NFE) category because they had zero circulations and are available digitally as HathiTrust Public Domain, HathiTrust In-Copyright and/or Internet Archive copies, or are not available digitally in either the HathiTrust or Internet Archive.

Deb, felt that as a group MSCS have sufficient trust in HathiTrust Public Domain and Internet Archive copies that for NFE title-holdings they don’t need to make group commitments to retain title-holdings which fall into these categories. Joan felt the decision was based more on the fact that there are 10+ holdings in OCLC. For Bowdoin, presence in IA is not relevant.  And while presence in HT PD is relevant, one could argue that it is only relevant for the individual institution that is a member, not all of MSCS. And even if you are a member, it does not guarantee access to the HT PD titles.

Matthew will send each library their four lists (from SCS) for: Title-holdings with a Hathi In Copyright Status (file name suffix: Hathi-IC-UND), Title-holdings with a Hathi Public Domain Status (file name suffix: Hathi-PD), Title-holdings in the Internet Archive but not in Hathi (file name suffix: IA-ONLY) & Title-holdings not electronically held (file name suffix: Not-Electronic).

The MSCS libraries are then free to make withdrawals based on these lists since they have no retention commitments. However, if individual libraries want to add local and OCLC retention statements/SP symbol to any of their title-holdings on these lists, there need to be both batch and individual workflow procedures (developed by Sara/Technical Service Committee). It is preferable that libraries do any batch changes during the grant period, well before the grant ends on May 30, 2014, so Sara can assist them in filtering the title-holdings they want to commit to retain, and also disclose the retention decisions in local, union and national catalogs.

NFE: Title holdings committed to retain at another library

The Committee agreed that MSCS are NOT committing to retain the 81,019 title-holdings which did not meet the Scenario One retention criteria, but are part of title-set that includes a title-holding commitment to retain at another MSCS library. However, Deb thinks that this decision may be contradicted by the outcome decision of next item (see below).

CTR: Is a retention commitment to a non-circulating copy sufficient?

During the meeting it seemed as if there was consensus that even when 1 or 2 title holdings in Scenario 1 were Committed To Retain (CTR) because they were located in Special Collections, the group wanted to also apply a CTR statement on additional CIRCULATING COPIES if there were any. The rationale for this is that MSCS libraries do not want to negatively affect the levels of access currently available to library users.

Deb produced the following examples with questions as to whether the Committee meant CTR in each case:

1. Bowdoin holds 2 copies of “History of the First Parish Church : founded 1633, Dover, New Hampshire” (2002), one in SpecColl, one Circ. They are the only MSCS holder. Are we saying they must retain both copies?

Joan (Bowdoin) responded, yes.

2. Bowdoin holds 2 copies of “Crusading liberal : Paul H. Douglas of Illinois” (2002), one in SpecColl, one Circ.They and Bates are the only 2 MSCS holders; Bates has 1 circulating copy. Are we saying that Bowdoin AND Bates must retain their circulating copies? Or that Bowdoin retains its two copies? Or that Bowdoin is required to retain only its Spec Coll copy, and Bates must retain its Circ copy?

Joan responded, both retain, since these are held by only 1 or 2 libs in MSCS and fewer than 10 in OCLC.

3. Bowdoin and the Maine State Library both own Spec Coll and Circ copies of “Captain Abby and Captain John” (2002 edition). Do both need to retain all copies? Does only one need to retain a Circ copy, in addition to the Bowdoin and MSL SpecColl copies being retained?

Joan responded, retain all, since these are held by only 1 or 2 libs in MSCS and fewer than 10 in OCLC.

In all of these examples would MSCS still keep a circulating copy, even if it was in the NFE category? And even if it had zero circulations?

Joan responded, if it is held by 10+ in OCLC, probably not.

Or, does it make sense to leave the Commitment to Retain 583 statements on only the Special Collection copies?

Deb thinks this is sufficient. Most of MSCS libraries will not be withdrawing second, circulating copies of Special Collections titles, unless for condition reasons.

Joan responded that it seems useful to put the statement on all retained copies.  Then it will be clear and our successors will have guidance.

CTR: Multi-copy/multi-volume – Deciding which copy to have the 583 commitment

Multi-copy

MSCS libraries are making commitments at the title-set & title-holding levels (except for special collections designation which is applied at the item level using location code). So libraries are committing to retaining ONE circulating copy and ALL special collections copies. Deb pointed out that this will depend on what the Committee decides what it meant above.

At this stage for ease of implementation, ALL copies will have retention commitments in the 583 field. However, libraries are free to decide in the future that they will only commit to retain a specific circulating copy (for example, the one in best physical condition) and remove the commitment in the local catalog for the other copies. Until we answer the questions above about special collections and circulating copies Matthew will NOT ask Sara to add 583s to the multi-item bibs CTR title-holdings.

MSCS partner library staff will need to be made aware via their own internal documents of any policy which dictates that both a circulating and special collections copy must be retained to prevent both of them being weeded.

Multi-volume

The Committee were undecided on whether to treat CTR multi-volumes differently to single-item bibs and multi-item bibs than the items that were just copies. However, the Committee did agree that MSCS will commit to retain copies of volumes that are stored in special collections. Sara will filter the SCS spreadsheet lists for CTR titles with multiple volumes to remove special collection copies. Retention commitments in the local, union, and national catalogs will be added to the special collection copies. Matthew/Sara will share Dropbox links to the filtered lists with the Collection Development Committee for them to review.

Also, included with the lists will be  the summary spreadsheet titled CTR-Multi-Item-Lists-Summary (which we looked at during the meeting) that includes totals for the multi-item CTR lists by category. There was some confusion about whether the figures in the spreadsheet referred to titles or items. After comparing the summary with the totals in the individual library’s multi-item spreadsheets Matthew confirmed that the totals refer to items NOT title-holdings. For example, there are 9,078 multi-volume items at UMaine which are in the Committed to Retain category.

The Collection Development Committee will review the spreadsheet lists of multi-volume items and make observations and recommendations whether as a group MSCS commits to retain multi-volume items. At the next Committee meeting they will agree on a retention policy.

Having reviewed Bowdoin’s list Joan thinks most of Bowdoin’s are legitimate keepers. Most of the list is collected works, mostly in foreign languages. There are a few outdated encyclopedias/directories that they may want to “appeal” though.

Recording in a note “reviewed, but not committed to retain” titles

The Committee agreed that MSCS WILL record in a note field (not in the 583) in local catalogs (not publicly displayed) that the title was ‘Not selected for MSCC retention 2013’. Although the benefit of doing adding the note is probably minimal, it’s more likely that MSCS would regret NOT doing it now (particularly while there are grant funds to pay Sara for the work) than doing it and it not needing it.

In order to be consistent Sara will also ensure that any retention commitments made say MSCC (rather than MSCS).

Appeals and pro-active processes for CTR title-holdings

CTR: Title-holdings Appeals Process

The Committee were unhappy with some of the title-holdings their libraries were being expected to retain as part of the Retention Scenario One commitments. It was agreed that the Project Team would produce a set of procedures for libraries to appeal retention commitment allocations.

The Committee suggested the following as examples of categories of title-holdings whose commitments could be appealed:

• Items deleted after SCS were provided with the collections data. Libraries at this stage should NOT be expected to replace title-holdings because they met an in-house weeding criteria. However, Deb commented that libraries have been asked to keep weeding to a minimum or halt it altogether if possible, until grant retention decisions and 583 statements are in place.
• Title-holdings which were mistakenly included in the analysis for example, government documents.
• Missing items which again at this stage the library should NOT be expected to replace.
• Single-item bibs where the only copy is in poor physical condition.
• Outdated textbooks and manuals. Joan commented that possibly outdated earlier editions, directories or science titles?
• Title-sets not originally monographs [e.g. ephemera/pamphlets, media].
• Rarity in OCLC. Deb asked whether the Committee actually means “widely held in OCLC” – because MSCS probably wouldn’t appeal a retention commitment solely because a title has few OCLC holding libraries.

The procedures may also include a process for offering the title-holdings to Collection Builder libraries to retain. The Committee agreed that the appeals process should only begin once the retention allocation process has finished. There will NOT be an adjudication process for appeals, libraries will trust that all appeals are legitimate.

Matthew asked whether MSCS: Should we wait until the appeals process is over before we disclose retention commitments in OCLC? This will also mean delaying disclosing the commitments in MaineCat because of the issues with getting the 583 to display in MaineCat and the need to use the OCLC API to flag an item as shared print this will. So if libraries were planning on using MaineCat to identify disclosures this would be in an issue in the short-term. However, Matthew’s concern is the reputation of MSCS (and its library partners) if libraries remove in OCLC what could be at least initially (in the first wave of appeals) thousands of commitments. Those commitments would have been disclosed to the world and other libraries may have chosen to weed titles based on our commitments.

Joan felt that this was a good point, seems worth waiting another few months even though with the exception of copies in poor condition,gov docs, or missing (which could be titles of interest to others),  we are assuming that these types of materials have little or no interest or value to others (outdated textbooks and manuals, test preps). Still, probably worth waiting to do all at once and correctly.

CTR: Title-holdings Pro-active Add Process

The Committee also agreed that there needs to be another set of procedures for libraries to make retention commitments on title-holdings they haven’t been allocated to retain, but actually want to make a commitment to retain. For example, this might apply when adding a gift of a rare, non-digitized volume to one’s collection.

Question: Do MSCS just mean the set of procedures for adding 583’s and shared print symbols which Sara and the Technical Services Committee will produce to allow libraries to add themselves? Or does the adding process need to be coordinated at the MSCS group level?

Deb responded that if materials are going to be identified in batches from SCS spreadsheets for Sara to add CTR before end of grant, this should be coordinated among group so she can do it efficiently all at once. She might give guidance on how we should identify such holdings. But for individual titles, during or post-grant, each library should be able to add at will. Joan agreed that this does not need to be coordinated with group.

Journals & serials collections analysis: Agree on focus & approach

The MSCS academic partners (University of Maine, USM, Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin) agreed that they are willing to eliminate commitments for complete runs digitized by publishers or aggregators participating in Portico, where one or more MSCS libraries owns the online backfiles and are Portico members. This will be recorded as a MSCS retention decision. This is for academic titles and therefore won’t affect the public libraries or Maine State Library.

The Committee agreed to the following steps:

• Sara will use collections data for serials (extracted for HathiTrust price quote) to identify and filter titles that fall into the local protected categories (that were developed for print monographs) and also titles stored in special collections. The Collections Development Committee will be provided with lists of titles that fall into these categories and will then make a decision as a group whether these titles are committed to retain.
• Sara will then compare the remaining titles against PORTICO and JSTOR (and other publishers and aggregators to be identified by Deb, Joan and Toni). Titles in these repositories will be taken out of consideration for retention because there are digital copies available and hard copies are being preserved elsewhere. Portico list of titles  http://www.portico.org/digital-preservation/who-participates- in-portico/participating-titles. Deb asked, whether each partner identifies which titles by publisher at least one of them has purchased content for? Just because a title is in Portico does not mean any of them has purchased the permanent access. Or is it sufficient that the title has been preserved in Portico regardless of whether an MSCS library has purchased the online content? This would assume partners wouldn’t discard print volumes unless they had actually purchased – but in the meantime MSCS could agree that the title might not rate a 15-year retention commitment.
• Compare the remaining titles with OCLC holdings to compare overlap in the MSCS group and U.S. If at all possible the titles should also be compared with holdings available digitally for example, in the HathiTrust.

The intention is to filter down to those titles which should be committed to retain.