1. Serials Price Fluctuation Report.
Lydia described the new Voyager version of the SPFR, which appears immeasurably more legible, useful and accurate than the old NOTIS version. Including electronic serials was not easy, but Lydia has found a way to do that. The report will contain a few items that should not be there, but there will not be many of these, and their prices will be insignificant. All historic NOTIS information has been lost, so the information we have now in the SPFR is limited to the past two years. Thomas and Allen noted that serials received through the LC OvOps program will not show up on the report, because there are no records in Voyager for those serials. I will check back with the Area Team on this. We decided that in general it would be good to have this report run in the spring, in time for budgeting--and possibly again in the fall in time for cancellation/retention decisions. This year, we would like it run in early August, since cancellations need to be sent to CTS (and presumably the other processing units) no later than 15 September. Given the size and complexity of the report, it will be distributed in paper. We thanked Lydia for creating this very useful report.
2. Dissertandi.
We spoke briefly about the list of students finishing doctorates that was distributed to selectors earlier this month. The aim, as we have discussed in the past, was to contact as many of these students as we could, in order to ask questions about the quality of the collections in their subject areas and how those collections might be improved. The list was partial, and was clearly much more difficult for the Graduate School to generate than we expected. In addition, it is also now evident that as many--or more--students complete doctorates in August and January as do in May. So we need to continue to work on how we might obtain and develop this list--or these lists. Lenore suggested that it would be much more effective to approach individual departments and programs than to go through the Graduate School, since the Graduate School may well receive this information only at the last minute. I have received some responses from John Saylor [and since this meeting I have received some from Mary Ochs]. Marty emphasized that we need a process for collecting and evaluating what has been gathered in this initial round. I asked that the teams take care of that. Since nearly all of the students on the list were from the sciences, I expect most of this work will be done on the Science Team.
3. Olin New and Noteworthy.
Lance Heidig reported on the IRIS project to improve the value and use of what was previously called the Fourteen Day Collection. He said the collection is to serve as "an intellectual reader's browsing collection of 'must-reads.'" It is aimed at users as readers, rather than users as researchers--so it may be more like a public library collection. Books ordered for Olin and Kroch will continue to be moved into the collection, where they will probably remain for a year, as is now the case. They will likely be arranged differently on the shelves, perhaps by broad subject area--more like the arrangement of items in a bookstore. Books will be added to the shelf in support of hot topics on campus, or as they relate to specific campus lectures or activities. There is a possibility that a Web page will be created that would list the items on the shelf and would provide readers with the opportunity to comment on those books; the idea may be to create a kind of virtual reader's club. There will be separate funding set aside in the materials budget for the purchase of duplicates on hot topics. Some OKU selectors felt that they would still want to be asked whether the items they had ordered could be put on the New and Noteworthy shelf, since the selector may have had plans for particular items. Mary Ochs noted that the Mann new books shelf rotates every two weeks. If the Olin shelf is to be new and not only noteworthy, there should be some way to help users identify which are the most recently added items.
4. CTS Update.
Scott explained that, two years on, most of the migration work from NOTIS to Voyager has been completed, but some work remains. Pattern records have still not been created for some 2,000 standing order series and some 3,000 serials--however most of the enormous work of pattern creation has been completed. (This was done in part by assigning pattern creation to 7 FTE staff from Cataloging for eleven months.) Workflow is being constantly reviewed, Scott said, so that short cuts and efficiencies can be created. While serials with patterns are now being claimed, CTS does not have the capacity to claim standing order series or monographic orders, except those for reserve or with requestors. Scott said that selectors can request individual monographic claims in moderation, and CTS will try to accommodate those within the confines of available resources. Julie pointed out the hard and creative work Scott and Acquisitions have done to make the acquisitions process function with maximum effectiveness in an environment of very tight resources. I know everyone at the meeting was in full agreement with this. From my perspective, it does indeed appear that we are acquiring more than we can process in the normal way. If that is the case, we will either need to acquire less, or we will need to be prepared to compromise in some areas of processing. It is also important to recall that we knew from the outset that Voyager was not especially strong in acquisitions, and that Voyager acquisitions would likely be more labor intensive than NOTIS acquisitions was. We decided nevertheless to go with Voyager, because of the clear advantages it provided in other functional areas. As always, collection development and acquisitions will work closely together as two inseparable parts of the same service.
Scott asked all selectors to look at the special Old NOTIS Unfilled Orders report they have been sent, and to send the report back to CTS with instructions on what should be done with the individual orders. Many of these orders are very old and will never be received.
5. Elsevier.
I provided a summary of the three packages Elsevier is currently offering for the next three year period: the Limited, the Complete, and the E-Choice. The Limited would allow us to cancel, but would cost 125% for paper and electronic (or 112.5% for e-only). The Complete is basically what we have now, but would represent a 13% price increase and would not allow us to cancel. The E-Choice would provide us with e-only for a 10% discount, but (like the Compete) would not allow us to cancel for the next three years. The NERL negotiation with Elsevier needs to be completed by 1 September. At this point, some NERL members are inclining strongly toward E-Choice, and it is clear (from the pricing) that this is the direction in which Elsevier is also pushing.
6. 2002/03 Budget.
Our decisions on the budget for next year are being driven by two stipulations. First, we need to protect the central funds, notably the central database line (519), the central approval plan line (521), and postage (999). Second, we need to take into account the very high priority the Master Plan is placing on maintaining and increasing access to digital resources by privileging the selection of electronic materials when appropriate. In order to respond to these needs with a budget increase of only 3%, we are not going to be able to increase individual subject lines. Even if we were prepared not to increase the central database line beyond inflation, the amount available to spread among subject lines would amount to only ca. 1%. We are expecting monographs to increase by ca. 5%, databases by ca. 8%, and serials--especially in the sciences and social sciences--by ca. 10%. The budget we have available will therefore not permit us to maintain the same collection next year that we have had this year.
If things work out as I expect, we will have only about $30K of discretionary funding. We talked about the possibility of using this to encourage or assist electronic resources in subject areas, since subject e-resources are not fundable through the central database line. One option would be to provide one-time start-up assistance, and the other would be to help pay for increases in database subscriptions being paid for from subject lines. The ensuing discussion indicated to me that these particular options might not be very helpful. Sarah How pointed out the payment methods and options that different selectors have used for different electronic resources vary widely, so finding one way to encourage or ease the selection of subject e-resources would be very difficult. Phil suggested that the $30K (if it does turn out to be available) be set aside in a contingency fund until the fall, by which time it may be clearer how that funding might best be used. Yoram urged that the $30K be allocated to a few lines that could truly benefit from it. Which lines those might be would be clear from the budget hearings. Yoram also emphasized that the Library should be putting more of its funding raising effort into materials, since there is clearly not enough money available through the University to build the kind of quality collections of digital and traditional resources that are needed by our students and faculty.
Because of the budget situation, there will need to be some substantial serials cancellations and other changes in selection behavior next year. As always, these adjustments will be the responsibility of individual selectors in response to the special needs of their individual subject areas. Selectors should make whatever changes are necessary to ensure that they spend all of their 2002/03 budgets--but no more. It will be essential for all selectors to meet with their faculty user communities early in the fall to review the current condition of the collections and to obtain input on adjustments. In the course of the summer, we will work on defining and gathering background on some of the issues that might be raised in the course of those faculty discussions.
Minutes recorded by Ross Atkinson.
CUL Staff Web Site | Committee Index | General Selectors Meeting Index
06/14/02 vwb