Social Science Selection Team Meeting

December 2, 2002

Attending: Phil Dankert (Chair), Pam Baxter, Charlie Finger, Janie Harris, Sarah How, Greg Lawrence, Lee LeFleur, Don Schnedeker, Pat Viele, Anna Korhonen (Recorder)

1. NERL Proposal for Sage Journals Online:
   As background for the discussion, Phil had sent two e-mails: a proposal from NERL for Sage journals online and a list of 81 Sage journal titles. NERL was asking us to search and mark the titles currently subscribed to and add those we are interested in. The journal titles fall into four subject categories. Phil volunteered to search our online catalog for titles in Sociology, Janie in Political Science, Lee in Communications, and Charlie in Criminal justice. Phil would like to receive the search results by next Monday (Dec. 9) and talk to Ross Atkinson about the next step.

   Janie wondered if Sage pulled contents from other providers like ProQuest, and noted that there seemed to be a difference in coverage for files content. Sage collections are historical, going back to 20 years versus current contents. Don commented that Sage has currently a contract with ProQuest. Phil will check the ending date of it. Don also suggested a strategy “the longer we wait the better” in this situation.

2. Individual reports/updates:
   • Charlie: Westlaw Campus is now available via E-Reference on fund 519. It is easier to use than Academic Universe.

   • Lee commented on the database World Development Indicators that Michael Engle has arranged on trial basis and thought that it looked interesting and easy to download, but who would cover the high subscription price? Don wondered if the data was duplicated somewhere else and in that case, is the information worth the price? Pam thought that it was good for patrons.

   • Don told about EIU City Data database that includes 180 cities around the world. He thought that the price is steep, but there is lots of detail. He thought that David Block and the Area Team will make a DRC request to acquire it, and suggested that selectors contact David to support this purchase. He also reported on his latest CD-ROM acquisitions including commodities database, MediaMark research data and Simmons global market research data. He expects to overspend his budget and will look for cancellations later in the year.

   • Anna introduced the current challenge of managing the new electronic titles for depository items. This is brought about by the strong trend of format change from tangible to online for current titles. Most new titles on deposit are issued online only. Since nothing arrives on review shelves, the selection process is different from physical formats. The current workflow includes checking the format changes and new titles manually title by title once they have been announced each month. It involves searching and taking printouts from OCLC and the Web site, sending them for selector review and waiting for their response and electronic resource form, and then researching OCLC again in order to import a record into Voyager. If the paperwork is not returned, the electronic title is neither added nor deselected and this situation poses problems for administering the depository plan, maintaining our database, and of loss of free remote access to most recent government information. Funding or licensing is not an issue. However, if these format changes and new electronic titles that are sent to us based on our previous selections could be downloaded with PURLs into Voyager weekly or monthly by using vendor supplied aggregate records, the paperwork and other processing in CTS could be substantially reduced or eliminated. The subscription to loading electronic records only would cost $1,325 annually and would include URL/PURL changes as well. Do we need to reselect these format changes when the title is only published in electronic format? When the title continues to be published in both tangible and electronic version but only the electronic version is supplied on deposit, then it would be up to a selector to decide if a tangible version is funded and acquired. Government information is directed to the American people and therefore, the contents of all titles are not scholarly. Since we have three depository plans and one integrated database, coordination would allow a mix of formats.

   • During the discussion, Sarah noted that a few years ago, there was a similar trend from print to electronic with the European Union depository plan. Janie said that it would be real public service to people to give access to free government information via the Internet and suggested that we load the GPO records into Voyager for all new titles. Phil noted that since this information covers more than just Social sciences, some coordination is required campus wide and suggested to take this issue to CDExec. Janie said that since this is information from the government to the public, it has intrinsic value. The contents are not a concern - something may not be scholarly, but it has historic value. Greg was concerned about how to maintain the links. Mann would prefer the option to decide whether to include a print or electronic version into the collection.

3. Update on Grey Literature Project:
   Greg Lawrence, Pat Viele, and Phil Dankert Greg presented an update on the Internal Grant Proposal Project. The project has three components: 1) to define Grey literature, 2) to establish a network within Cornell colleges to identify Grey literature, and 3) to establish selection guidelines for Grey literature as a proactive document.
   • Greg reported that the first component included finding out what Grey literature might be and who produces it in order to define it. He suggested a broad definition: anything that is not commercially published or recorded in abstracting or indexing service. The goal “is to help CUL selectors define gGey literature within a context suitable for this University”. The team is also trying to understand how this information is recorded in our colleges, where it resides and how to get the information administratively.

   • For the second component, they are investigating how to develop a sustainable reporting network within Cornell departments to identify grey literature. It could be an archive to be adopted by CUL that could be introduced to the faculty and then recruit the faculty to use it. This initiative would need metadata standards but there are no recommendations yet. Greg noted that some scholars have started uploading their work to networks outside Cornell. The team is also aware of other archive initiatives within CU, e.g., D-Space.

   • The third component is to establish selection guidelines for grey literature’s useful lifecycle, for each college has different values.

   Phil stressed that this is a pilot project and thus cannot cover everything. He is concentrating his efforts on the ILR Schools institutes/programs/centers. One of the important types of literature they produce is the training manual which, in certain situations, is done for a target audience and thus proprietary in nature.

   Pat is interested in creating an archive for the papers they have and that are open to the public. Phil has similar concerns for ILR reports: what the report is called, where it is, who is the author? There is a need for a network so as to record all this grey literature.

   Charlie commented that they have audios and videos in Law, but who owns them? They cannot be included in the Voyager database unless we know who owns them or have a signed release form from the author.

4. Phil noted that this was the last meeting this year and will announce the next meeting for 2003 later.

Minutes submitted by Anna Korhonen, 12/16/02.

CUL Staff Web Site Page | Committee Index | Social Science Selection Team Index

01/02/03, vwb