Immediate concern is review of proposed Annex expansion plans, and how best to maximize or optimize utilization of this space. Committee will also be examining use of other space in NB for storage purposes. The additional shelving in the Annex should be completed by Fall 2001.
Prior to this meeting Bob had e-mailed a set of principles proposed to govern the process we utilize for selecting journals for cancellation. Considerable discussion ensued. Everyone agreed with the idea of consulting the faculty about cancellation choices, but it was recognized that this is a highly individualized process that varies with selectors, with subject areas in question, with specific academic departments, etc. In short, too many variable involved to enable a one-size-fits-all procedure to be meaningful or practicable. Changes in language were proposed and accepted by the group. Document will be revised and reissued by Bob. ["RUL Policies for Serials Review" has been revised and is available on the Collection Development page. Path: About Libraries, Staff Resources, Collection Development, Policies.] One important principle that was proposed for elevation into "policy statement" concerned cancellation of print materials in favor of e-access when the publisher was a society (although we have already breached this guideline in the case of Academic) and permitted to do so by the publisher, as well as cancellation of all duplicate print subscriptions [ i.e., all but one print copy] when full-text or full-image of a title is available in a journal package such as ProQuest or ABI/Inform.
In response to a request from Marianne Gaunt, HMD had prepared a study of Rutgers current holdings of Elsevier journals which identified a pool of journals from this publisher that were demonstrated to be of minimal value and which could be cancelled to reap a substantial savings. (77 titles and estimated savings of $301,180 over a three year period). This study suggests it could be advantageous to Rutgers to delay entry into the ScienceDirect program because that action would effectively prevent such cancellations and assure that we contracted with Elsevier at a higher initial cost level.
Bob Sewell presented another study which showed several scenarios that narrow the savings gap between ScienceDirect and the print cancellation program proposed by Dess. The reasons for this are:
With the most cost-savings HMD scenario, the results in 2002/3 would be:
HMD Plan would be $39,886 cheaper in 2002/3.
The savings over the 3 years of the HMD plan over ScienceDirect would be $194,399.
The cost benefits of these two plans must be weighed to determine the best path. Cabinet will discuss at its August 22 meeting.