← Previous Summary
Next Summary →

Summary of Collections and Operations Committee Meeting, February 8, 2024

Maine Shared Collections Cooperative Collections and Operations Committee

February 8, 2024

10:00 am – 11:00 am

Attendees: Patrick Layne, Tim Morton, Ana Noriega, Shiloh Parker, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins, Sarah Skawinski, Krystie Wilfong

Absent: Meg Gray, Jeff Eastman

1. Out of Scope Retention Removal Project Updates

Bates Review

Krystie presented the results of her review of Bates’ MSCC retention commitments using Alma Analytics to identify out of scope material that could have their commitments removed. 

Krystie’s review was based on:

  • Publisher (defined list)
    • Wiley for Computer Science only
  • Special Collections
  • No Circulation
  • Non-circulating reference
  • Keyword (defined list)

Krystie showed the query she had run in Alma Analytics, which was done in the CBB Network Zone, so it can be shared with Colby and Bowdoin. 

Krystie commented that while doing this work in Alma Analytics is easier than doing it in spreadsheets, it does still take time. But a benefit is that once the query has been built it is done and can be duplicated by institution/location for other libraries. Krystie is still wondering how to handle Wiley Computer Science and how to use the tips document Matthew shared at the Committee’s previous meeting to flag out of scope by keywords (169,453). This may need to be a manual summer project. Matthew commented that he’s aware of colleagues in CUNY and EAST who have expertise with scripting, Alma Analytics, and OpenRefine who MSCC might be able to work with.

Krystie clarified for Ana that Colby could use this query to run a similar list for out of scope items, but the work of removing commitment notes in Alma and OCLC would need to be done by Colby locally. 

Matthew also reviewed Bates’ commitments to identify out of scope material. But it was more a manual process, without Alma Analytics. Matthew used the “tips document” and out of scope publisher list. He identified about 9% of Bates’ commitments as out of scope. Krystie and Matthew are going to see if they can identify how many additional titles this work will have flagged for removal, on top of what Krystie flagged in Alma.

Bangor Public Review

Matthew also reviewed Bangor’s MSCC commitments, with the same goal of identifying out of scope material. Matthew had learned lessons from the Bates review which made the process a lot easier. Maine InfoNet had exported a spreadsheet list of 159,362 items with MSCC commitments. Of those Matthew identified 62,486 items that he didn’t think needed to be retained for MSCC, which was around 39% of items in the list! Matthew eliminated entirely:

  • Juvenile non-fiction
  • Special Collections titles, which the MSCC EC had agreed at their December meeting should be out of scope.
  • Reference material (including lots of genealogical material)
  • Publisher list works (and added numerous others to list)
  • And used the EAST Tips document to flag additional out of scope material, particularly in certain subject areas.

Matthew tried to be as thorough as possible which meant it was a time-consuming process, especially without Alma Analytics. Also, working in a large spreadsheet meant the filtering wasn’t perfect, but it was still effective in identifying so many titles. Questions remain around arts and crafts material, which the publics are likely to have more of than the academics. One suggestion from Ben Treat at Bangor was to convene a task force to look at what categories of material should be prioritized in the arts and crafts.

Matthew asked the Committee what it thought about eliminating juvenile nonfiction entirely? Matthew commented that MSCC had been kind of edging that way for a long time with its publisher list expanded to exclude publishers of juvenile fiction. Sarah was in favor of removing commitments on juvenile fiction to make it clearer and Patrick was also in favor of doing this. 

Action Item: The Committee agreed that juvenile fiction is out of scope for MSCC retention. Matthew will also share the updated publisher list with the Committee for approval. 

Windham PL

Matthew replicated the above process for a smaller public library in Minerva – Windham Public Library. Maine InfoNet exported a spreadsheet list of 1,985 items with MSCC commitments. Reviewing the list, Matthew flagged 457 items that he didn’t think needed to be retained for MSCC – around 23% of the items in the list. Trying to be consistent with the Bangor review Matthew eliminated entirely:

  • Juvenile non-fiction
  • Reference material
  • Publisher list works 

What remained was mostly popular fiction titles and local titles. Windham had proportionally fewer titles flagged as out of scope compared with Bangor, mostly because they hadn’t committed to older materials. Matthew commented that with a lot fewer titles and lessons learned from the previous reviews it was a much easier process to review Windham’s list, and the process could easily be replicated for the rest of Minerva.

Decision on when to remove commitments

Matthew asked the Committee whether it felt it was okay to remove the commitments from ILS now for those out of scope titles identified through Krystie and his work? Or whether libraries should be expected to wait four years and simply not renew the commitments?

Matthew outlined what he felt were some pros and cons of removing the commitments now: 

For Pros of removing the commitments now, rather than waiting for the expiration:

  • This material falls into MSCC’s out-of-scope category, which already per MSCC policies libraries can remove commitments on.
  • Commitments can be removed in batch by MIN and would be a straightforward process. Matthew noted that for URSUS libraries there is a May deadline of making changes in Sierra before the migration.
  • Maine InfoNet is already familiar with doing this kind of batch work in Sierra so perhaps better to do the work now.
  • Removing statements now will also make the process of loading new retention statements (with new expiration dates) cleaner in 4 years’ time if titles that won’t have their commitment renewed have already been removed.
  • As the work to flag these titles has been done now, why wait? Especially when libraries are looking to do weeding now and we have the data to hand.
  • Once this work has been done, MSCC can then move on to other areas of the MSCC collection to review next, knowing these categories of material have been taken care of
  • Removing commitments for these titles will show MSCC has heard feedback from member libraries and are taking proactive steps to address retention burden concerns.

 On the cons side of doing the work now:

  • Libraries have made a formal commitment until 2028 to retain these materials so shouldn’t they be asked to honor that commitment?
  • This work might possibly undermine the confidence in MSCC commitments (death by a thousand cuts) as commitments become more fluid.
  • Would it make sense to wait until further investigative work is complete on other categories of titles, we don’t extend commitments for first?

Shiloh commented that while the University of Southern Maine (USM) would like to remove commitments on out of scope material, it made sense for them to wait until USM had access to Alma Analytics first, which should happen this summer. Matthew confirmed that he would like the removal of commitments to be as consistent as possible with libraries following the same criteria. 

The public libraries won’t have access to Alma Analytics, but Matthew confirmed for Sarah that he would be happy to review Portland Public’s commitments if they indicated they would remain in MSCC and extend some of their commitments. Sarah commented that this work might help PPL stay in MSCC. Matthew can carry out the review for the Maine State Library’s commitments. 

Patrick reported that Bangor Public intended to use the spreadsheet Matthew provided both for removing commitments and as a weeding list. 

Matthew confirmed for Deb that it should be possible to do the work of removing commitments centrally for out of scope titles held by more than one MSCC library. However, it might be better to wait until the UMaine System libraries have Alma Analytics to do this work. In the interim, if libraries needed the data sooner, Matthew could use a Google Sheets add-on developed by Sara Amato to run a lookup of the OCLC numbers of the Bates and Bangor titles identified as out of scope to see if these titles are also committed by other MSCC libraries. 

Action Item: There was consensus approval that libraries should be permitted to remove commitments on out of scope material now, even if like at USM, the University of Maine System libraries wait until they have access to Alma Analytics to do this work. Matthew will contact the Maine State Library and the Minerva libraries to discuss this further.

OCLC data on multiple MSCC commitments

Another category of titles that has come up previously as needing reviewing are those with multiple MSCC commitments.

Andy Breeding at OCLC kindly agreed to provide MSCC with data on commitment overlap both within MSCC and with other shared print programs. As a caveat it’s only for libraries with holdings in OCLC, so won’t include Minerva and UMaine at Fort Kent commitments.

Andy also provided counts for all WorldCat shared print commitments, which MSCC commitments are a subset of. As an example, Matthew showed the below titles with between 7 and 22 commitments in total!

Matthew asked the Committee for their thoughts on an acceptable number of MSCC commitments for a given title. And what should be considered surplus commitments that can be removed? Then finally how should we factor in commitments outside MSCC? Matthew reminded the Committee that MSCC had committed to keeping more copies of titles that were rare in OCLC, local interest, and had higher circulation. 

Matthew felt it would be manageable for him to remove surplus commitments on those with 4 or more MSCC commitments and leave 2 commitments in place. Matthew could try to be equitable in this deallocation work, but could also prioritize Bowdoin and Colby, based on previous allocation rules that take into account CBB’s longer loan periods.

Ana commented that since MSCC was formed more shared print programs have been established, including larger ones like EAST and the HathiTrust (which Bowdoin and Colby are both members of), so MSCC should factor in commitments in other states and programs, and not just focus on Maine. Tim commented on the Risk Model developed by the Partnership for Shared Book Collections which had featured in College and Research Libraries (https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/26029/33943) that MSCC could consider looking at. 

Action Item: There was consensus agreement, with Krystie, that MSCC should first do the work of identifying out of scope material and then come back to see which titles are remaining with multiple commitments. 

2. MSCC and Foreign Language Titles 

A question came up from Krystie about MSCC commitments to foreign language titles. The Committee had previously agreed that translated books of popular fiction/non-fiction are out of scope and can be removed without requesting approval. But Krystie wondered whether language is something MSCC should look at when reexamining MSCC commitments, as languages go in and out of the curriculum? Krystie reported that at Bates many languages are no longer taught, but there’s still legacy material with MSCC commitments that is not being used. Both Shiloh and Sarah reported on similar issues at their libraries, where shifts in demographics has meant certain language materials are no longer being used. Krystie confirmed for Matthew she wasn’t thinking of dictionaries which are already out of scope, but books used in teaching languages. 

Deb wondered whether we are getting to a stage where the Committee was saying only things that are being used should have a MSCC commitment. Sarah felt like it should be left to the professional discretion of colleagues to make decisions about what should be kept, which is why she wondered why MSCC was needed. Matthew responded that having commitments in place allows other libraries to consider withdrawing their own copies, safe in the knowledge the material is still accessible. 

3. MSCC Journals & Serials Review

Didn’t have time to discuss this question. To be discussed at the Committee’s next meeting. 

4. Display of CBB MSCC commitments in MaineCat

MSCC commitment data is not displaying correctly in MaineCat. Summer Unsinn at Bowdoin is speaking to Innovative about the issue.

5. Next Meeting

The Committee is due to meet next in May. Matthew will send a Doodle Poll.