New Brunswick Collections Group
Friday, March 12, 2004
Present: E. Calhoun, H. Dess
(Chair), T. Glynn, B. Hancock, K. Hartman, T. Kuchi, M. Lo, J. Mardikian, R.
Marker (Guest), L. Mullen, J. Niessen, G. Smulewitz, M. Wilson (Recorder) ,
R. Womack, , C. Wu
- The minutes of the previous meeting
was accepted as amended.
Rhonda Marker informed the group
that she and Grace Agnew will apply for an NSF grant to construct a downloadable
modular metadata cataloging utility. Unlike descriptive metadata cataloging,
there are few robust platforms that include administrative metadata. This
proposal is in essence an extension of the current NSF funded project, the
Moving Image Collections (MIC). She asked selectors to contact teaching
faculty who might offer texts or still image collections they own that can
be used as "home grown" examples for this proposal. Possible examples
included: slides Libraries from the Classics Department, Geology Museum
Collections, Astronomy Department star catalogs or maps. Send ideas to Rhonda.
Selectors asked Rhonda to send a short message in plain language what information
is needed from selectors about any proposed candidates for this project.
- H. Dess reviewed the budget expenditures
to date and pointed out subject areas that are under spent and urged selectors
responsible for the under spent areas to continue to place orders. Some areas
are already spent out but not reflected in the handout.
Acquisitions will soon announce
the "turn-off" date for this FY for spending out the state fund.
A total of $114,843 was spent
from the principle of the Van Wagoner fund ytd.
L. Mullen asked for clarification
on the procedures for using RPMX, the replacement fund. It appears that
not all selectors are aware of this fund. M. Fetzer's email message dated
February, 2003 contains detailed instructions on the use of RPMX. NBL missing
book list is available in Alex T drive. Any of these missing books can be
replaced via use of the RPMX fund.
Preliminary results of the science
faculty survey about collection usage practices were summarized and shared
with NBCG attendees. 234 responses were received as of 3/11/04 (262 per
3/29 update) which is considered a remarkably strong response, e.g., if
survey had been sent to all RU faculty, numbering approximately 2500, this
would represent a 10.5% response rate; however, the mailing was restricted
solely to science faculty, a considerably smaller number, so the response
rate was well in excess of 10%. The full analysis of the returns is not
yet completed, but some tentative conclusions can be drawn even at this
- Our science users are generally
satisfied with library services. Specific praise was expressed for our
improved ILL services and Ask-A-Librarian.
- Online access is extremely
important and science users want this service expanded. The keyword here
- The convenience of online
access and remote access to needed information (primarily journal articles)
makes it less necessary for users to physically go to the library and
use print journal collections.
- Science faculty emphasized
the need for augmenting our science book collections.
- Science librarians have been working
on a large scale weeding project at LSM. A total of 11,182 items were removed
from LSM shelves (updated as of Mar. 29), either for withdrawal, or transfer
to Annex or to other RULS libraries. The target is 20% of the total circulating
collection or 35,652 volumes. Therefore, this project is currently just under
a third of the way to meeting its target.
In a separate but related project,
titles housed in the LSM Special Collections Room, including "X collections"
are being transferred to more appropriate locations including the Special
Collections Library and Archives.
- There was a brief discussion on
the idiosyncrasies or differences of cited reference search results using
Web of Science. Examples are:
- In cited author searches,
if an author is listed as a secondary author (not listed first among a
list of coauthors), then the search will not retrieve such papers unless
they were published within our years of backfile coverage (1994+ for RULS).
- For articles published prior
to 1994, even if the author is listed as the primary (or first) author,
a RULS cited reference search will retrieve that reference only if it
was cited at least once since 1994 (which puts it within the range of
our subscribed backfile). If not cited during the period 1994+, it will
not be retrieved by RULS search even if multiple cites occurred prior
- The number of hits recorded
in a cited author search (left hand column) is the number of times an
article has been cited since it was published. This is not dependent on
the size of the backfile purchased by a subscriber. However, searchers
are only able to see the full details of those cites that conform to the
restrictions noted above.
Finally, these operational parameters mean that search results from two different
institutions which have purchased different size backfiles will not yield
comparable results (e.g., UMDNJ and Rutgers).
- G. Smulewitz informed the group
that titles transferred to the Annex from other libraries are not reflected
in any statistics. For example, Douglass library transferred approximately
27,000 titles to the Annex but this change in holdings is not reflected at
the Annex. The rational behind that ruling is that the Annex is not a library
and the statistics should remain with the original library.
Selectors suggested that this
issue be reviewed or resolved at RUL CDC.
Mardikian asked the Group to
hold May 6th for Information Literacy Symposium.