1. ILL Current Imprints Project
Judy provided a collection of handouts which provided a quantitative summary of activity for the current imprints project during fiscal 2000/2001.
A total of $10,560.89 was spent on this program in fiscal 2000/2001, charged to IMLX. Other statistics presented in the reports show number of orders by call number ranges, amount spent in each call number range, average amount paid per order, etc.. The data could also be sorted in various other ways, e.g., by library.
2. User Initiated Document Delivery Service via Uncover (FY 2000/2001)
A total of $4,916.45 was spent via Uncover during the prior FY to acquire 259 items out of a total of 378 ordered (overall fulfillment rate of 68.5%).
3. Initial Report on Ingenta Document Delivery Service for period July-Oct. 2001
Only $1,014.61 was spent over this period, for the acquitision of 50 documents. There was some discussion about the low volume of usage of this service to date and reasons given include:
* Insufficient publicity about the program; user awareness is very low.
* Problems in using the Ingenta ordering system; many of these problems have been documented and Judy is working with Ingenta to eliminate them, and make the system more user friendly.
4. ILL Manager Reports
These reports covering both monographs and journal article ILL requests for New Brunswick became available online only recently and have potential value for selectors as an aid to collection development. JG will start posting them quarterly for access by any interested parties.
5. Reports from Copyright Clearance Center
Judy distributed a sample report from CCC which presents ordering information for articles requested more than five times from any given title within the calendar year or more than once from the same issue, and which were published within 5 years prior to the date of the request. Data was summarized for the years 1998/99/00. Number of articles requested for those years was 188, 205, and 379 with associated royalty costs of $2,207, $2,631, and $5000. This data is also of interest to bibliographers and selectors for collection development purposes.
Full details plus all data for these reports are maintained in the Libalex T: common computer files and are readily accessibly there at:
Libalex\Vol1'(T:)\COMMON\GARDNER\Access Services Staff Resources\Reports\ (Excel files are available for downloading and sorting)
These reports are also mounted in PDF format on the RULS web site:
1. Libraries' Annual Reports:
Bob noted that the Libraries' 2000/01 annual report will appear in three different versions:
2. Collections Budget Overview as of Dec. 2001
A handout was distributed showing that state funds expenditures were proceeding at a healthy rate, but emphasis was placed on urging selectors to spend out the balance of state funds well before the end of fiscal 2001/2002 to avert the underspending of last year or the possibility of any give-backs that might be imposed by the University because of the deteriorating economic climate. Selectors are also urged to step up the rate of monograph ordering on state and non-state funds.
3. Planning for Next Year
a) Establishment of a contingency fund:
Bob is working with Nancy Hendrickson to establish in January 2002 a special contingency fund that will cover minor shortfalls in fund allocations as they develop during the year. This is being done to eliminate the situation we are continually facing now, of having to transfer small dollar amounts from one fund to another to balance our accounts.
b) Update and review research guides:
WAC is now reviewing and evaluating existing research guides to determine which subject areas require new ones or updates of old ones, and what new areas require coverage. WAC will present its findings and guidelines for Research Guides to CDC at our January meeting.
c) Faculty liaison relationship review:
Tom Glynn and Connie Wu were designated as a working team to study the current status of library liaison with the faculty and to make recommendations about ways to improve these channels of communication.
d) Core serials lists
Several members of CDC are preparing core serials lists:
General Science-Veronica Calderhead Business–Ryan Womack Nursing–Ann Watkins
e) Review of e-resources
The e-resources teams are charged with the responsibility of reviewing all currently held e-product packages for relevance to Rutgers needs and academic programs (includes both networked and CD-ROM products). The purpose is to determine whether any substantial redundancy exists between any of these products that would justify cancelling some so that the funds could be used more productively in other areas. Another purpose is to determine if there are major gaps in our current coverage where we should be acquiring additional new e-resources.
f) Budget outlook for next fiscal year
The nation is in recession and our state government officials are warning about fiscal belt tightening next year. Bob provided a summary which indicates that our chief worry is whether the $850,000 in one- time money, provided for two years running now, will be forthcoming once again in fiscal 2002. If we fail to receive this increment in the coming year, it would leave a substantial hole in our budget that could only be repaired by means of various operational cutbacks, including the possibility of reduced funding for collections. Unfortunately, we have no way of predicting in advance whether this money will be forthcoming or not. Under the circumstances we need to begin thinking about preparation of contingency plans to deal with a possible shortfall.
g) Participation of library in external departmental reviews
We hope to improve communications between Deans and the Libraries to alert us of the annual schedule of external department reviews. Frequently, the Libraries are not involved at all or are informed at the last minute. The University Librarian will be contacting the Deans about this. Bob stressed there also needs to be better coordination among the AULCDM, Directors, and selectors who are participating in departmental external reviews. A set of new guidelines is being prepared that will cover how such reviews should be handled in the future.
1. Order Backlogs
Processing backlogs have lengthened due to the volume of orders that are being submitted. There is now a four week backlog in orders and approx. a three week lag in processing. Another factor that is affecting backlogs is a change in processing procedure, which now incorporates cataloging as part of the acquisitions process (the "FastCat" procedure). This procedural change expedites cataloging but does tend to slow up movement of orders through the processing pipeline.
2. Collection Manager
The week of Feb. 11 was selected as the best time for further Collection Manager training and campus reps were asked to communicate with their local selectors to determine the best day during that week. Dana selectors are already using Collection Manager as their primary ordering tool.
3. Priority Ordering and Processing
Mary reviewed the various priority rankings for order submission and STRESSED THAT OVERUSE OF THE PRI 1 AND 2 CATEGORIES WOULD RENDER THEM USELESS. Selectors are urged to use this category sparingly, conforming to established guidelines. She will reissue these guidelines for distribution once again to selectors, as reminders of how best to apply them.
Statistics summaries were presented for:
* NetLibrary usage and turnaways during the month of Nov.
* Database usage during the month and year to date.
There was extensive discussion of this topic focusing primarily on how to improve channels of communication among all relevant parties involved in the selection process. Mary Page will issue a revised set of operational guidelines that will clarify the process and hopefully smooth out some of the "bumps" we have encountered. Points that were agreed on were:
* It is the responsibility of appropriate team leaders to inform recommending selectors if their recommendations are approved or not, and to remind selectors that money will be transferred from selectors' funds to central funds for purchase where there are print to electronic trade-off.
* "Someone" needs to inform unit technical services department of what print cancellations need to be made. In Newark and Camden, the CD coordinators will contact their technical services unit. The "someone" in New Brunswick has not yet been designated.
* When one archival print copy is retained in the appropriate research collection, those libraries with terminated runs (as a result of the central e-purchase and transfer of funds) should supply any missing volumes that may be needed to fill out the remaining archival run.
The following new e-resources were approved for acquisition:
* Women's Resources International
* Global Financial Data
* Kraus Curriculum Development Library
Others that were approved earlier and are now online or coming soon:
* IEEE is available on the Forthcoming Indexes and Database page
* NY Times Historical Files: will be purchased. Should be available in Jan. 2002.
Request for new e-resources submitted for further review by CDC: the Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA) database collection.