Shared Print Update ALA 2009

50 %
50 %
Information about Shared Print Update ALA 2009

Published on July 20, 2009

Author: RLGPrograms



Overview of selected OCLC Research projects in Shared Print management, focused on print journals preservation and shared infrastructure.

Shared Print Update: current OCLC Research in cooperative print management Constance Malpas Program Officer ALA Annual Conference Monday, 13 July 2009 OCLC Red Suite

OCLC Research: Shared Print Collections Program As the availability of online scholarly resources grows, research institutions face increasing pressure to optimize management of their print collections. Consolidation and rationalization of holdings within and across institutions creates economies of scale that benefit individual institutions and the community as a whole by reducing costs and eliminating redundancies in system-wide holdings. While there is broad interest in achieving such economies, essential infrastructure for enabling inter-institutional cooperation in print management is lacking. 2008-2009 • Managing Risk: Cooperative Print Preservation • Reducing Duplication in Dual-Format Holdings 2007-2008 2009-2010 • System-wide Storage Capacity • Implementation • Shared Collection Policy Frameworks • Infrastructure ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 2 Shared Print Update

Shared Print Collections Coordinating Committee  Susan Allen, Getty Research Library  Steven Bosch, University of Arizona  Martha Brogan, University of Pennsylvania  Paul Courant, University of Michigan  Kimberly Douglas, California Institute of Technology  Nancy Eaton, Pennsylvania State University  Sharon Farb, UCLA  Assunta Pisani, Stanford University  Emily Stambaugh, California Digital Library  Michael Stoller, New York University ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 3 Shared Print Update

2008-2009 Managing Risk: Cooperative Strategies  Prospective Journals Preservation project  Risk-sensitive approach to investment in print serials  Academic humanities journals with print-only distribution channels and limited aggregate library holdings  Goals: shared workflow for assessing and managing at-risk print journals; improved understanding of cost/benefit of cooperative preservation strategy  De-duplication of Dual-Format Print Journals  Focused on low-risk titles: widely duplicated, multiple formats  Obstacles to implementing change ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 4 Shared Print Update

Prospective Journals Preservation Project  Risk-aware approach to continued investment in scholarly print journal literature  Modeling cooperative approach to preservation of ‘at risk’ print serials  Focus on discrete class of active, peer-reviewed humanities and social science journals with print-only distribution and limited aggregate library holdings Goals  Shared workflows for identifying and managing sparsely- held print serials as a network resource  Assess institutional commitments to long-term retention and acquisition of these resources ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 5 Shared Print Update

Prospective Journals Preservation Project (cont.)  230+ title sample (2% of estimated 10,000 print-only refereed journals)  Median institutional holdings = 24 libraries  Median age of publication = 27 years  42% English-language publications  Titles individually assigned for institutional review  Coverage and condition of local holdings  Usage as measured by ILL, circulation, etc. over 12 & 60 mos.  Current subscription status  Shelf location: open, closed, off-site  Archiving and access commitments ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 6 Shared Print Update

Data Capture  Adequacy of bibliographic description  Scope of local holdings as % of publication history  Sampling vs. comprehensive validation  Physical condition  Usage data  Shelving/storage environment  Intent to retain and serve  Subscription status  Time needed to complete title review ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 7 Shared Print Update

Scope of Local Holdings Median 15% of publication record Incomplete: local holdings represent <50% of volumes issued Incomplete: local holdings represent >50% of volumes issued Local holdings are complete: 100% of volumes issued and supplements are held Median 80% of publication record ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 8 Shared Print Update

Local Storage Environment Mixed: holdings are distributed across several locations 100% of holdings are in off-site facility (including current issues) ~75% of titles are held in open stacks 100% of holdings are in closed stacks 100% of holdings are in open stacks 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 9 Shared Print Update

Physical Condition of Holdings  Relatively few condition problems, despite open stacks environment  5-10% with loose pages or acidic paper  84-94% with good paper and fully legible text block  28% with unbound back files Implication: aggressive conservation action not generally warranted; some content suitable for digitization ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 10 Shared Print Update

Usage per title (over 60 months) 80% Most titles (72%) 70% had no evidence of use over 5 years % of titles reporting 60% 50% 40% 3 requests/yr 30% 20% 10% 0% ce x 2x 1x 3x 4x 5x 6x 8x 9x 14 en id ev 0 Requests/circulations over 5 years ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 11 Shared Print Update

Archiving Commitments & Scope of Holdings 25 25 53% 20 20 N=43 Titles inin sample Titles sample 15 43% <50% complete 15 <50% complete 100% complete 100% complete 10 >50% complete 10 >50% complete 14% 55 00 Institution is is ...prepared to to Institution ...prepared Institution is not is not Institution prepared to to transfer holdings prepared transfer holdingsprepared to prepared to make an explicit to another make any make an explicit to another make any commitment to institution that retention or commitment towill make thesethat transfer retain and institution retention or retain and will make these preserve this title commitments. commitment for transfer preserve this title commitments. this title. indefinitely; commitment for indefinitely; this title. ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 12 Shared Print Update

Subscription Status May pose greatest threat to prospective sustainability 35% Institution currently subscribes to this title. Subscription has been cancelled. 65% ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 13 Shared Print Update

Implications  Under current circumstances, the single greatest threat to survivability of scholarly print journals in the ‘long tail’ is libraries themselves  Low visibility (and use) of print-only journals in online environment exacerbates risk of cancellations  Local cancellations of at-risk print journals places economic model of scholarly publication at risk  Creating comprehensive retrospective archives for long- tail print journals may require significant investment and coordination  For at least some titles, prospective migration to digital format may be feasible  Further work is needed to determine which titles merit cooperative action for long-term preservation and access ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 14 Shared Print Update

What Next?  Exploring use of MARC21 583 (Action Note) as vehicle for recording and disclosing print archiving commitments  Workflows for capturing archiving and condition data as part of routine holdings maintenance  Use cases for how this data would support collection management decision-making  Preliminary conversations with ARL on sustainability of long- tail scholarly journals; role of research libraries in supporting non-commercial publishers  Possible collaboration with back-file digitization partner to identify at-risk title for conversion ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 15 Shared Print Update

Special thanks:  Steven Bosch, University of Arizona  Ann Fath, Getty Research Library  Lisa German, Pennsylvania State University  Dick Griscom, University of Pennsylvania  Helen Look, University of Michigan  Jake Nadal, UCLA  Michael Stoller, NYU  Everett Allgood, NYU  Jeanne Drewes & Rebecca Guenther, Library of Congress  John Riemer & Valerie Bross, UCLA  Shana McDanold, University of Pennsylvania  Christopher Walker, Pennsylvania State University ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 16 Shared Print Update

De-accessioning Print Back-files  Grew out of conversations begun at the RLG Programs Shared Print Collections Summit, November 2007  Imagined the path from mostly print collections to mostly digital collections  Wondered why more libraries aren’t clearing shelf space by de-accessioning JSTOR print back files  Asked ourselves: “If not in this situation, when?”  Inspired by experience of UKRR: “Just bin it!”  Formed group to seek out low-hanging fruit Goals  Clear shelf space of journal back files available in dual format  Establish best practices ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 18 Shared Print Update

DAP-J Working Group  ARL  Museum Columbia University Brooklyn Museum Bob Wolven, Jeff Carroll Deirdre Lawrence Indiana University Frick Collection Carolyn Walters Debbie Kempe New York University Metropolitan Museum Angela Carreno Ken Soehner University of Arizona Steve Bosch Museum of Modern Art University of Michigan Milan Hughston Bryan Skib  Special Library  Medium Academic U of Pennsylvania Law Binghamton University Merle Slyhoff Susan Currie  Legal Depository  Liberal Arts College Trinity College Dublin Swarthmore College Margaret Flood Amy McColl ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 19 Shared Print Update

A Microcosm of the Library Environment?  To what extent are you de-accessioning print journal back files?  1 routinely, 6 dabbling, 2 have plans, 5 have no plans  You have access to the data you need in order to de- accession print journal back files with confidence.  1 strongly agree, 6 agree, 3 neutral, 3 disagree  We need to seriously rethink processes for print serials check-in.  4 strongly agree, 3 agree, 6 neutral, 1 disagree  What is the most important element needed to reconcile the urge to act according to local need with aspirations for building a cooperative future?  3 infrastructure, 6 policy framework, 3 funding, 2 central coordination ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 20 Shared Print Update

Data Ranked “critical” or “important” to Making De-accessioning Decisions  Quality of archive 100% (76.9% “critical”)  Quality of images 100% (42.9% “critical”)  Use 92.8% (57.1% “critical”)  Who else owns 78.6% (50.0% “critical”)  Cost 78.5% (21.4% “critical”)  Actuarial risk 61.6% (15.4% “critical”)  Retention guarantees 57.2% (42.9% “critical”)  Condition 42.9% (0.0% “critical”) ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 21 Shared Print Update

How to Advance the Effort  Identify core data elements needed in hand in order to make responsible retention or discarding decisions 1  Gather the actual data 4  Identify sampling tasks to shed light on hard-to-address areas such as validation and optimal duplication 0  Actually do the sampling tasks 6  Produce a list of obstacles to discarding print back files of dual-format journals 3  Produce advice on overcoming those obstacles 3  Decide what level of assurance is “good enough” 1  Create a manifesto challenging current thought and behavior regarding shared print 1  Implement a de-accessioning project 1 ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 22 Shared Print Update

Decision Tree for Journals De-duplication:  RLG Programs Council decided a decision tree about de- accessioning or storing print journal back files would be best possible deliverable from DAP-J group Goals  Document current landscape of various scenarios for managing print journal collections  Create a decision tree showing the best way forward for libraries in various circumstances ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 23 Shared Print Update

Decision Tree for De-accessioning ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 24 Shared Print Update

Play “Get a Clue!” ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 25 Shared Print Update

Print journal “wild cards”  Internal  External  Faculty resistance  Google Books Settlement  Need to repurpose  HathiTrust space  E-availability  Storage situation  Still publishing vs.  Collection use completed run  Discipline variance  Confidence in persistence  Delivery capability  Option to do nothing  Consumers vs. suppliers  Risk tolerance ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 26 Shared Print Update

How to win at “Get a Clue!”  Every library draws card they need  Work toward a shared framework for managing print journal collections as a network resource  Preservation commitments known  At-risk titles protected, low risk titles identified  Policy layer in place for delivery  Sustainable business model to connect suppliers with consumers ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 27 Shared Print Update

2009-2010 Infrastructure and Implementation  Print Archiving & Network Disclosure: MARC 583  Maximize visibility of title-level preservation data  Use cases for collection managers  Integration in distributed cataloging workflows  Decision Tree for De-duplication of Print Journals  Context-appropriate approach to managing redundancy  Workflows adapted to different institutional settings  Maximize incentives for participation in shared print archiving  Toward a ‘Cloud’ Library  Implementation framework for increasing reliance on shared print & digital repositories, maximizing operational efficiencies  Phased approach to rationalization of local print collection  Joint effort with HathiTrust, NYU, ReCAP and CLIR ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 29 Shared Print Update

MARC 583 for Print Archiving  Absence of shared infrastructure for disclosing print preservation commitments – a critical impediment to achieving ‘scale’ in distributed print archiving efforts  MARC 583 proposed as vehicle for sharing preservation data for monographic literature, ca. 2007.  Now: extend to serials Goals  Test feasibility of batch updating in local system and WorldCat  Sample use cases for integration in collection management workflows ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 30 Shared Print Update

MARC 583 for Print Archiving (cont.)  Initially explored use of Action note in bibliographic ‘master’ record  Proposal reviewed by >125 serials catalogers, preservation officers, collection managers  Currently exploring use of Action note in local holdings record, CONSER’s preferred approach  Testing against titles in Journals Preservation project Who’s involved:  UCLA: John Riemer, Valerie Bross, Jake Nadal  Penn State: Christopher Walker  NYU: Everett Allgood  Others? ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 31 Shared Print Update

Case Study: Moving Collections ‘into the Cloud’  NYU – motivated customer  Acute space pressures; major library renovation  Limited mandate to build local collection of record  ReCAP – supplier  Large-scale shared academic storage collection  HathiTrust – supplier  Large-scale shared digital repository  OCLC Research and CLIR –consultants and convener Goals  Implementation framework to maximize value of Hathi & ReCAP  Model costs and benefits of deeper reliance on extramural coll’ns  Requirements for sustainable business partnerships ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 32 Shared Print Update

Vision Emergence of shared digital and shared print repositories creates new operational efficiencies for research institutions Collections move ‘into the cloud’ as a shared network resource Requires development of new infrastructure for managing, monitoring, consuming shared services ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 33 Shared Print Update

Value of partnership increases as number of participants grows Material that NYU can relegate with a high Material that NYU degree of confidence can obtain through HT dependent on copyright status – Material that means of enhancing NYU can ‘local’ collection already source through existing N=3.4M ILL – enhance Material that NYU may local collection choose to relegate based on copyright/ availability Material that NYU may choose to N=2.3M N = 7.4 M relegate with appropriate service ReCAP level agreement ReCAP Opportunities for Institutional Cooperation Shared Policy Frameworks Intersections Joint Service Agreements Increased Operational Efficiencies ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 34 Shared Print Update

Plan of Work  Phase I: Characterize Aggregate Collection (July-August) Assess duplication rates across NYU, ReCAP and HathiTrust; compare to existing data on supply and demand patterns in aggregate academic collections  Phase II: Model Service Expectations (August-September) Identify core svc requirements to increase NYU reliance on Hathi and ReCAP; draft sample RFP  Phase III: Calibrate Supplier Service Offering (Sept.-Oct.) Evaluate feasibility and cost requirements for meeting stated expectations  Phase IV: Draft Implementation Framework (October-Nov.) Draft model service agreements and implementation plan ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 35 Shared Print Update

NYU and Hathi Collections As of May 2009,  NYU: 2.3 million titles in WorldCat 445K titles (19%) duplicated in Hathi or 24% of Hathi corpus with OCLC nos. ~32,000 in the public domain ~11,000 represent public domain titles also held by >50 libraries  What is NYU’s risk tolerance for weeding redundant holdings?  Which subject areas and imprint ranges are off limits? ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 36 Shared Print Update

NYU and ReCAP Partners As of May 2009,  NYU: 2.3 million titles in WorldCat 1.45 million titles (63%) duplicated in aggregate ReCAP partner collections +200K (1%) duplicated by ALL ReCAP libraries and Hathi  How many of these titles are in ReCAP facility?  How many are unrestricted?  How many are already in NYU storage? ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 37 Shared Print Update

Subject Distribution: Hathi Public Domain N = 400K volumes ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 38 Shared Print Update

OhioLINK Circulation by Subject Law Library Science, Generalities, and Reference Geography and Earth Sciences Political Science Business and Economics Language, Linguistics, and Literature Agriculture History and Auxiliary Sciences Physical Sciences Philosophy and Religion Biological Sciences Engineering and Technology Education Chemistry Music Performing Arts Art and Architecture Mathematics Anthropology Medicine Physical Education and Recreation Sociology Psychology Computer Science 0 1 2 3 4 ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 39 Shared Print Update

Managing Risk . . .  Lowest-risk targets for relegation: widely duplicated scholarly print titles that are held in ReCAP and available as public domain content in Hathi  High redundancy rate = low preservation risk  Digital formats support new forms of scholarly work  Regional print repository elevates confidence in preservation & access  As of May 2009, nearly 12,000 such titles at NYU  Rate of duplication increases each month as new content is added to Hathi and ReCAP -- at a rate faster than annual collection growth in ARL libraries ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 40 Shared Print Update

. . . Maximizing Benefit  Much greater opportunities for space/cost savings for in-copyright titles  Entails much greater reliance on robust physical delivery networks Success of shared digital repositories [Hathi] in creating operational efficiencies for academic libraries is highly dependent upon reciprocal service agreements with shared physical repositories [ReCAP] and the emergence of joint business agreements with institutional consumers [NYU]. ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 41 Shared Print Update

Loans Borrowing System Digitized Off-Site Collections Library Collections Shared ts Collections Transfers en tm m mi Retrievals Co Aggregate holdings and joint commitments constitute a Disclose Registry shared asset Local Holding enabling collaborative Collections s management strategies Assets Infrastructure Withdrawals Policies Procedures ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 42 Shared Print Update

Food for thought . . . Institution Title overlap As % of Titles in the with HathiTrust holdings in public domain WorldCat University of 647,431 20% 50,823 Pennsylvania University of 511,614 17% 30,539 Arizona Swarthmore 129,661 25% 14,503 College UC Southern 524,013 21% 50,692 Regional Library Facility CRL 82,651 6% 8,704 ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 43 Shared Print Update

Questions, Comments? ALA Annual, 13 July 2009 44 Shared Print Update

Add a comment

Related pages

Configure a Shared Printer Item

Configure a Shared Printer Item. ... then the Replace action creates a new shared printer connection. Update. Modify a shared printer connection.
Read more

Update and Manage Printer Drivers

Update and Manage Printer Drivers. Applies To: Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2. ... To update or change printer drivers for a printer Open Print Management.
Read more - free file sharing and storage

Integrate file storage into your websites or mobile applications by building apps with 4shared API. More info »
Read more

Inserting SharePoint List data into a PDF document using a ...

Home > Blog > Inserting SharePoint List data into a PDF document using a workflow. ... Update: This article ... e.g. ‘subsite/shared documents/PDF Files
Read more

Upgrading and Uninstalling the Xerox Global Print Driver ...

At the ‘Xerox Global Print Driver’ window make note of ... At the ‘Printing Sharing’ window you may choose to share the printer or ... © 2009 ...
Read more

Windows 7 Network File Sharing Fix | Tanner Williamson

2009-10-01: Changed the ... these tips about Windows 7 network file sharing. ... version of windows using Windows 7 – Cannot use a shared printer from an ...
Read more

network printer shows offline - Microsoft Community

In windows vista my cable network printer shows offline now. ... 2009 ... (presumably changed by way of automatic update of the ...
Read more

How to use Group Policy Preference to dynamically map ...

How to use Group Policy Preference to dynamically map printers when using Roaming Profiles ... Create New Shared Printer. ... Update: Hyper-V ...
Read more

American Library Association

The ALA is the oldest and largest library association in the world. Includes association information, news, events, and advocacy resources for members ...
Read more

Installing and sharing an HP Laserjet 1020 on Win7 x64 ...

Installing and sharing an HP Laserjet 1020 on Win7 x64. ... Click update drivers, then ... Now you’re ready to install the shared printer from the ...
Read more