The Method Behind the Madness: Explaining the Philosophy Behind Resource Description and Access to Technical Services Staff and Nontechnical Librarians
4:35 PM - 4:55 PM
Objective: To give technical services librarians guidance on how to explain the big ideas of resource description and access (RDA) to the interested parties of the technical services staffers who need to implement the new rules and the nontechnical librarians who need to know what RDA can do for them.
Methods: By providing a framework of RDA with easy-to-understand examples in a fun style, librarians can take away from this presentation ideas for explaining the complex changing cataloging atmosphere of RDA to interested parties who might not have an intimate grasp on the philosophical underpinnings of the new standard and what benefits RDA can provide down the line.
Results: The presentation will provide an overview of important points to cover and accessible ways to present the material to staff and nontechnical librarians.
Conclusions: A sample thirty-minute RDA electronic presentation will be made available for interested parties after the presentation.
Author: Megan Curran, Head, Metadata and Content Management, Norris Medical Library, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
The Case of E-book Management: A Multiple Access Points Approach
4:55 PM - 5:15 PM
Objective: This paper overviews health sciences electronic book databases and platforms and discusses an academic health sciences library’s multiple access points approach in managing electronic books.
Methods: Medical e-books provide valuable information. However, currently there is no dedicated e-books management system, and the core clinical e-books reside on several databases using their own platforms and search engines; it is difficult for users to find and access all these resources. The health sciences library has explored multiple methods to make its e-book collection more readily accessible. A federated search engine seems an ideal solution; however, if federated search engines do not have publication title search option, this type of tool proves overall ineffective. The library has also investigated Worldcat Local for e-book search capabilities. Unfortunately, limiting to “Internet Resources” in Worldcat Local does not separate e-books and e-journals. Serials Solutions has been reviewed, and while effective for title searching, subject searching may be a problem. Employing location limits to a library’s e-book collection in online catalog is yet another way to search for e-book titles. Listing e-books by subject and alphabetical order provides another access point. E-book usage statistics are also compared, before and after implementing the multiple access points approach.
Results: The library has found there is no single method to manage the e-books, although it has explored multiple methods and approaches. The library’s e-book management approaches currently include:
1. uploading all e-books in Serials Solutions for title search
2. listing e-books by subject and alphabetically
3. using a federated search engine for across the platform content searches
4. using location limits excludes everything other than e-books on online catalog
A multiple access points approach may make our users more aware of the e-book resources.
Conclusions: Librarians desire that their users are able to search e-books by individual title or all titles in a platform, but thus far, the library has found no single, simple method to accomplish these goals. For the time being, a multiple access points approach for e-book management is the best way to serve the library patrons.
Authors: Jie Li, AHIP, Assistant Director, Collection Management; Robert M. Britton, Electronic Resources/Collection Development Librarian; Justin C. Robertson, AHIP, Assistant Director, Public Services; Andrea L. Wright, Technology Librarian; Baugh Biomedical Library; University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL
Rethinking Book Acquisitions: An Analysis of Book Usage over Time
5:15 PM - 5:35 PM
Objective: With a decline in overall usage of our book collection, we sought to understand the characteristics of the decline. Our objectives were (1) to describe the decline fully; (2) to classify books into usage categories; and (3) to understand the characteristics of the differences, such as the subject areas of the books, book selector, secular trends, and other externalities.
Methods: We collected data over a ten-year period, from 1999-2009. A usage score was calculated using circulation and in-house data. The usage score became the dependent variable for a regression analysis that included a number of variables such as year, cost, and subject area (categorical groups). As currency is felt to be an attractive book quality, analysis was repeated on books published 2006-2010. Each librarian as selector was considered an independent variable, and data such as experience in the book subject areas and training were examined. Usage was also considered over two-year intervals to consider the impact of secular trends, library physical changes, and variables such as number of library patrons who have access to the books, library hours, and library physical changes. Analyses were both quantitative and qualitative.
Results: Our study showed that there has been a significant decline in use of our monograph collection. There was a 62% decrease in check-outs over the 10-year time frame, 1999-2009. Years 2006-2008 showed 62% of the books purchased were checked out only once, and 27% of these titles were checked out 2 or more times. In comparison, books purchased upon specific recommendation from library users had more substantial use, with 6 check-outs per book.
Conclusions: Which leads to a question: Are librarian selectors choosing what is most relevant to our users? Our survey of librarian subject selectors showed that the majority gave low priority to selecting books. This may be one factor explaining why our monographs show a decline in circulation. A need to reconsider our current model of librarians choosing books for the collection led us to conduct a pilot study on patron-driven acquisitions.
Authors: I. Diane Cooper, AHIP, Informationist; Karen G. Smith, Informationist; NIH Library; National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
Rethinking Collection Development: A Case Study of Purchasing a Bioinformatics Software Tool
5:35 PM - 5:55 PM
Objective: This case study describes the steps involved, from faculty request to licensing to access set up, for purchasing bioinformatics software tools and how rethinking collection development and traditional funding models can lead to robust services and relationships with users. Challenges and benefits will be discussed. A collaborative funding model employed will be described.
Methods: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Libraries purchased a commercial bioinformatics software tool using a collaborative funding model. The library handled price negotiation, fund finding, licensing, and access set up of the tool. Almost every aspect of the acquisition process was different when compared to traditional library resources. Many internal procedures had to be rethought, and new steps were included. After one year of access, use statistics were analyzed and shared with funding partners. New funding opportunities were examined, and access renewal was completed.
Results: Institute wide access to a bioinformatics software tool was provided. Community members valued the ability to depend on the libraries to handle acquisition, licensing, price negotiation, access set up, and training. Procedures were modified to provide successful access to these new types of resources.
Conclusion: Sometimes the most valuable service you can offer is one you already do, but just in a different way. Rethinking what the library traditionally purchases and satisfying your community needs ensures a more successful collection service. Acquisition of bioinformatics tools is a successful component of the bioinformatics support program in the libraries.
Author: Courtney Crummett, Bioinformatics Librarian, Bioinformatics and Biosciences Libraries, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
