Cornell University Library Staff Web Page
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to General Selectors Index
28 September 1998
RWA Notes
1. ProQuest Data. David Block distributed sample sheets of a report he receives from UMI on ProQuest use. This report apparently prints every article title (but usually without the journal title, because of lack of space) retrieved by Cornell users--in the order, in which those articles are retrieved. It also notes in each case whether the article was viewed as a citation, abstract, image or full text. The general feeling of the group was that such a huge list of individual article titles is not very useful. We asked David to ask UMI whether we could have this information in cumulative form--and, if not, whether we could at least have this information as a file, so that we could manipulate it ourselves.
2. Materials Budget. I provided a rapid review of the budget, and reminded everyone about the basis for the 1998/99 allocation. We spent 97% of the materials budget by the conclusion of 1997/98, with 101% spent and committed. This is an excellent outcome--as usual. Only 66% of the endowments were spent. I assume that the new dependence upon endowments for routine selection will cause the expenditure of endowments to increase significantly this year.
I reviewed the various sources for the 1998/99 allocation. We had 4.9% ($351,008) available for allocation, although 1.5% of that ($104,500) went to the central database line (fund 519). The final (appropriated, endowed library) base budget for this year is $6,761,167. It is important to remember that 1.3% of this is one-time funding from Sarah, amounting to $90,000. This means that, if we receive a 5% increase from Day Hall next year, that will amount to only a ca. 3.7% increase, because we will have to include funding to replace the $90,000. We have asked Day Hall for 6.5%, rather 5%, next year, in order to cover this additional amount.
3. CPCRs. I reviewed the rationale for creating CPCRs. They provide us with an overview of the selection effort, and define who is primarily responsible for which subjects. By defining who is selecting the original, and who is buying the duplicate, the CPCR system makes certain that we are not purchasing two copies of the same item for purposes of collection continuity rather than potential use. The CPCRs also provide us with a basis for claiming that we have a system in place that helps define needs for duplication.
Linda Stewart is chairing the CPCR Design Task Force. She provided an update on the work of that group. The Task Force has merged all of the information received from the teams into a single database on the Web. Ultimately the goal is to make the CPCRs a searchable database, so the Task Force has retained all of the detail originally provided by the teams. The CPCRs are based on a series of LC classes, that are modified by individual exceptions. This base level description represents the CPCRs proper, while the supplemental information provides much more detail. The Task Force is also assigning selectors responsibilities for areas upon which CUL does not select, so that specific individuals will now have the responsibility for explaining that we do not select in these areas; such selectors can also be the individuals to whom gifts in these areas are sent for decisions. Linda noted that there are still a number of subject overlaps. These will need to be resolved before the instrument is ready for use. Also, Allen Riedy noted, the relationships between humanities/social sciences and the area responsibilities still need to be reviewed and defined. A question arose about updating or correcting the CPCRs. We still need a process for doing this; Linda suggested that we might decide to do such updating through the teams, which certainly makes sense to me.
4. DRC. I explained that the Database Review Task Force would now become a standing committee, the Database Review Committee. Yoram will chair this Committee for the next two years, which will be responsible for tracking, evaluating and recommending subscription databases, both bibliographic and full text (including journal packages), that are centrally funded. The DRC will be responsible for staying on top of the different consortial options for purchasing access to the desired databases. This work with consortia may entail some negotiation--with consortia or with vendors. Don was concerned that this kind of negotiation is best left to acquisitions. We noted that Scott Wicks and Bill Kara are ex officio members of DRC; it may be, therefore, that DRC will recommend such negotiation, but that Scott or Bill would actually carry it out. Patricia O'Neill will continue to be responsible for gathering data and producing the spreadsheets necessary for the Committee to complete its work. Selectors who want to recommend a database for central funding consideration should make that recommendation through their team representative on the Committee: Ali will continue to represent the Area Team, Janie Social Sciences, John Saylor Sciences, and Yoram the Humanities. All funding issues relating to the databases, including the allocation of Fund 519, as well as any arrangements for pooling funds to purchase special packages (e.g., e-journals) will remain the responsibility of CDExec.
5. Gift Procedures. David Block Michael Esposito distributed a copy of the large gift selection form, which is to be used for any expected gifts consisting of more than 250 volumes. Before accepting such a gift, the form should be completed, and the necessary agreements (for space, processing, etc.) obtained. If the gift is less than 250 volumes, selectors need not complete the form, although Michael said that he would appreciate hearing about larger groups of gifts that may be coming, even if these do not add up to 250 volumes. The large gift form is mainly for CTS customers. Selectors whose units have their own processing centers need not use the form, although it would be worthwhile for them to look at it, as an aid to coordinating any larger gift acquisitions in their units.
Martha asked about plating. Yoram noted, and Michael confirmed, that we not longer plate gift materials--except in very special circumstances. There is a space on the form to note such exceptions. The form is now available on the Web. We agreed that it would also be useful to have a copy of the current gift policy easily accessible on the Web, possibly connected to the form. Donors should always be provided with a copy of the policy, prior to our acceptance of their gift. Linda Westlake mentioned the various other rules relating to gifts in kind--especially with respect to assessments and taxes. David agreed that information on this should also be written up and put on the Web.
6. South Asian Monographs. Now that we are finally paying the full costs of all Indian materials, we have put in place new procedures for South Asian monographs. EMPS and Music will not longer obtain monographs through the LC program, but will rather firm order the few materials they need. Law and Mann will establish separate acquisition arrangements with LC, so that they will now receive their own invoices, and will establish their own profiles. Ved noted that Mann will in future receive all materials on agriculture, life sciences, veterinary science and entomology; Law will receive materials on law, including industrial labor law. (Phil will therefore now receive such materials through Law, rather than through CTS.) All other units will continue to receive their South Asian materials through Ved's office, as in the past. All serial subscriptions will also continue to be received through Ved's office.
Ved noted that he is now receiving a large number of solicitations from LC by e-mail. I agreed that some procedure needs to be devised that will ensure that these are routed to the appropriate selectors. Also, Ved noted that selectors are not taking South Asian materials relating to environmental studies. It may be that we should remove this subject from the OKU profile, so that Mann would become primarily responsible for it.
I asked selectors who have still not transferred funds to Ved for the supplemental invoice to do so as soon as they can.
7. Approval Plans. As we begin to focus more on reallocation and how we spend our money, an interest is growing in the possibility of expanding approval plans and blanket orders. The purpose of such an increased use of these plans would be to save time (and therefore money) in both acquisitions and selection. Clearly this would not be possible for the sciences, since they are now already receiving most of their monographs through the Yankee plan. Don noted that JGSM is in generally the same situation as the sciences. Martha reported that humanities selectors are looking into the possibility of creating an approval plan with Harrassowitz, based on a combination of publishers and subjects. Five humanities selectors have put together a list of ca. fifty German publishers, along with some nine subjects. Martha said that the next step will be to contact Harrassowitz, in order to try to estimate what such a plan might cost. She also noted that care would need to be taken to eliminate from such a plan all standing order series. Phil said that some social science selectors might also be very interested in the possibility of participating in such a plan, if it proves successful. Yoram noted that one value of such a plan is to ensure that the Library is receiving core materials, which can be defined on the basis of a combination of publisher and subject. There was some concern that, if such a plan were put in place, there may be pressure to centralize funding (as was done with Yankee) in order to save further time and work in acquisitions; this would indeed be an issue that will require careful discussion. David Block noted that Harrassowitz may be something of an anomaly: there may be few, if any, other vendors with whom we spend so much on firm orders. We need, in any case, to look next at other European vendors--and then generally at other possibilities to build collections more automatically that nevertheless are tailored to meet the needs of our particular user community.
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to General Selectors Index
rev. 9/30/98 peo