Minutes of November 21, 2002 Meeting

R. Becker, J. Boyle, V. Calderhead, H. Dess, T. Glynn, A. Montanaro, K. Mulcahy, J. Nettleman, M. Page, R. Sewell (Chair), F. Tehrani, R. Womack, C. Wu.

1. AUL Report–R. Sewell

Bob distributed a chart of annual growth of print collections over the last ten years. Growth in books has dropped dramatically; more surprising, number of bound periodicals added remains flat, despite cancellations and migration to digital form. Farideh mentioned a task force on which she is serving (along with Ruth Bogan, Gracemary Smulewitz, and Christopher Sterback) which will be examining, among other issues, the workflow of monographs that are missing or being retrospectively cataloged.

The state budget is $7,711,970 (though this includes rollover of $600,000 from last year), and the non-state budget is currently $773,536. $50,000 from state funds has been set aside for a pilot Recon/Preservation project. Jeanne Boyle mentioned that the recon project can not be completed before our cataloging records are reconciled or updated with OCLC, which is a likely vendor for recon projects. Funding will be needed for that as well. The additional $300,000 in state money which Bob has set aside for contingencies, will fund the recon/preservation project, cover some immediate holes in the budget, and any new electronic sources.

Negotiations between NERL and Elsevier continue. [As of December 6, the negotiation have concluded.] The negotiations have been long and difficulty. All NERL libraries will accept only a single year contract. RUL cost will be $1,325,893 which included the AP/IDEAL titles which Elsevier now owns and are on the ScienceDirect (SD) server. This represents an increase of 5.8%. RUL and NERL hope to develop a strategy for "weaning"us from Elsevier's practice of bundling in the future–which prevents libraries from meaningful cancellation, control of the serials collection, and cost containment. The bundling of journals is a growing practice among large publishers. The 2003 contract for SD includes Elsevier journals to which RUL formerly subscribed in print as well as to Elsevier journals subscribed to by other NERL libraries (through a "Cross Access" payment). Other SD journals titles had been available even though no NERL library had subscribed, including the complete electronic backfiles to titles which we have current subscriptions beginning in 1995. These are referred to as "unsubscribed titles." With the new contract beginning in January 2003 there will be transaction fees at $22/article download –essentially payment for each use. At last year's rate of access to the unsubscrided titles, RUL would have to pay about $220,000 in 2003. This is unacceptable and access to the unsubscribed titles will be terminated in January 2003. As for the subscribed title (RUL's and other NERL libraries) will continue to be available, with backfiles for Elsevier titles to 1995 and to IDEAL titles to 1993.

Jeanne mentioned that a new Electronic Resources Configuration Group has been established and will, among other things, examine how we can most effectively use the databases to which we subscribe–for example, turning on additional features. Jeanne will send out the charge to the CDC membership, and hopes for additional volunteers to serve on it.

A proposal is being developed for a state-wide Science E-Resources package to present to the state for funding. Work is being spearheaded by the State Librarian, with cooperation from public institutions in VALE, the State Library, and the public library sector. Possible databases to be included are ACM Digital Libraries, Wiley, a package of 100 or so medical and nursing journals, IEEE, and Science Direct.

The Interlibrary Loan Services: ILL Current Imprint Project, 2001-2002 is available on the RUL home page under Access Services–Reports. The report includes the number of volumes ordered, prices, call number ranges and libraries, and individual titles ordered.

2. Acquisition Update–M. Page

Backlog is still low–a week or less. The selector notification project is going well and can be extended to any interested selectors, so that they can receive, via e-mail, a weekly report of their orders.

All reserve orders should come through the Reserves staff at the libraries–not from selectors. Reserve requests must actually be for courses, with professor and course information attached.

Priority One requests are only for reserve items (sent through Reserves staff) and for specific patron requests. Please note that a professor suggesting that the library should have a book does not mean a priority one request; only if the patron is specifically requesting an item for his/her own immediate research needs should an order be coded as priority one. Priority Two requests are only for reference materials and initial orders for serials. Everything else is Priority Zero. If selectors write "please rush" or "must spend money before end of fiscal year" the orders are still priority zero unless they fit the criteria for priority one and two–so do not bother writing "please rush." Priority Zero orders are processed on a first-in first-out basis.

Topics of interest at the Charleston Acquisitions Conference included:

3. Systems Update–A. Montanaro

Ann distributed statistics and noted that we are no longer counting "turn-aways" since the numbers are so low. Our number-of-users appears to be set correctly.

4. New Electronic Resources Priorities

Generalist Team is considering a number of proposals, including the NewsBank collection of NJ papers and the Philadelphia Inquirer. It appears that we could retain one microfilm copy of the key papers (e.g. the Star Ledger in Newark and the Home News in New Brunswick), cancel other copies, and still pretty much break even. The team will evaluate and recommend to the AUL by the first week of December. For other suggested titles, key criteria are one-time purchases (as opposed to ongoing costs) and break-even titles (where print or mform cancellations pretty much pay for the new digital version). One problem with which we are coping is CD-ROM serials that are switching to Web Access only (e.g. Philadelphia Inquirer) and jacking up the price two or three-fold. When individual funds cannot accommodate such increases, the best approach is to submit to the appropriate electronic resources team.

Respectfully submitted,
Kevin P. Mulcahy

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/cdc/minutes/cdc_02_11_21.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries