WEB Edition Published at Duke University:
HTML coding by Eric Albright, maldacht@duke.edu
Masthead design by Dan Barkey, d-barkey@nwu.edu
| About BLAB |
|---|
Current Subscribers: 405
48.1 CALLING ALL COLLECTION DEVELOPERS AT KANSAS CITY
From: The Editor
One of the last projects undertaken by Dan Richards on behalf of the Medical Library Association was his leadership in planning for a collection development symposium to precede the 1996 MLA Annual Meeting in Kansas City. In the wake of his untimely death, the planning committee that Dan assembled is redoubling its efforts to ensure that the symposium is a fitting realization of Dan's vision. Some excellent speakers and workshop leaders have been lined up, and I hope that as many of you as possible will be able to attend. Registration information will be included with the Annual Meeting preliminary program that MLA members will be receiving soon. Feel free to email me if you have any questions about the symposium.
What follows is the description that Dan submitted for the preliminary program:
Saturday, June 1, 1996, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Lunch included) $275 Limited to 100 registrants. Sponsored by the Collection Development Section. This workshop has been approved for 8 MLA CE credits.
In 1985 the Postconference on Collection Development in Medical Libraries was held in conjunction with the MLA Annual Meeting in New York City. The focus of that 1st symposium was the nuts and bolts of collection development practice, policy and procedure in the medical library. The many changes in the health sciences library and in medicine over the past ten years have had a series of profound effects on collection development as it is practiced today. The 2nd MLA Symposium is aimed at any health sciences librarian involved in selecting, evaluating, and making available information resources in an environment that is increasingly electronic and infinitely more complex than it was ten years ago. The program is designed to stimulate futuristic thought, while providing participants with relevant "take-home" applications.
This all day event will begin with an opening session titled "The Context for Information Resource Planning" which will feature three expert speakers who will outline the emerging healthcare environment and changing information needs from the perspectives of the clinician, the researcher and the medical educator. Following a question period, attendees will divide into small facilitated groups which will discuss issues raised in the Opening Session.
The afternoon will feature a series of concurrent workshops on "Collection Development Principles in a Changing Information Environment." Designed as 90-minute educational experiences, the workshops will focus on "The Virtual Library & Resource Development;" "Cooperative Resource Development;" "Collection Evaluation & Assessment;" "Financial Issues & Challenges;" and "Adapting the Selection Process." Registrants will each be able to take two workshops of their choice. A concluding summary session, led by a distinguished medical librarian, will include an overview of program highlights, a synthesis of discussion group and workshop experiences, and a provocative analysis of health sciences library information resource management in the next century.
From: Anne_Prussing@UCSDLIBRARY.ucsd.edu
The shock of losing Dan Richards so suddenly is beginning to diminish, but the pain continues and grows. This man lived the good life in every fine sense. He was full to the brim with enthusiasm for all he did, and his enthusiasm spread. Although he moved to the directorship at Dartmouth, he never lost his passion for collection development issues, trends and problems. Dan called forth from us a love of our profession, and inspired us to strive to measure up to his faith in us, as librarians and as individuals.
Over 20 years ago, Dan and I agreed in jest to set up a pact: I would take $100 of his monthly paycheck and put it into a savings account he could not access without my permission. He would take $100 of my check and "force" me to spend it on some of life's more frivolous pleasures. We never followed through on the idea (which would probably have done us both some good at the time!) but his generosity in sharing his knowledge, his talents, and his goods over many, many years will serve as a model that will not soon be matched.
48.3 ARTICLE: SERIALS BUDGET ANALYSIS
From: Lenny Rhine, University of Florida <LENNY@library.health.ufl.edu>
[Editor's Note: Lenny Rhine's submission below outlines a very useful methodology for analyzing cost-benefit ratios of serials subscriptions. I hope BLAB readers will consider submitting brief reports of other useful methods in collection development and assessment.]
In recent issues of BLAB, numerous librarians contributed to the "SYMPOSIUM ON SERIALS BUDGET ANALYSIS." I was one of the respondents. When I read my comments along with the others, I realized that I did not properly explain our use of the broad (MESH) subject categories. In a Microsoft ACCESS table, we used the MESH categories to sort lists of journals for faculty review.
Background:
During 1995, the staff of the Health Science Center Library (HSCL) evaluated the use of our journal subscriptions. Our objective was to identify the least valuable titles, cut approximately 15% and add 2-3% new subscriptions. We used the MESH "Outline of Schedules" [National Library of Medicine Classification. 5th Edition, 1994, p.xxvii.] as the basis for the categories that we sent to various faculty departments and as a means of comparing cancellations across disciplines. In Microsoft Access, the broad MESH subject categories became one of the fields in the table.
In developing the "Weighted Journal Evaluation Formula," we made several assumptions. Total journal worth is the weighted sum of three factors: usage, relevance and availability elsewhere. With journal citation rankings such as the SCI impact factor, there is a statistically significant correlation between ranking of journals by citation and use counts. Highly cited journals are more likely to be the ones frequently used. Journal literature in every field follows a curved distribution. Most articles relevant to a given subject will appear in relatively few journals. Finally, cost (per article) must be linked to productivity (usage, relevance).
Goal/Objectives:
Our goal was to develop a formula for the evaluation of each title. The objective was to add together several worth factors that demonstrate journal productivity. To compute the benefit ratio of the journal (BRJ), we multiply the worth factors (WJ) by the cost per journal article (CJA). Also, we wanted to devise a formula that is easy to compute and explain. We chose Microsoft ACCESS, a software package that is a relational database manager with internal calculating capabilities and a desk top publishing component.
A related objective was to develop a table of current subscriptions that would form the basis of multiple, ongoing collection development analyses and reports. We wanted to develop a table where we could sort different fields and add new fields. We were unable to produce the collection analysis reports needed on the local level via our OPAC (NOTIS). While realizing that we would need to input considerable duplicate data, we concluded that the ongoing use of the ACCESS table justified the duplicate work.
Formula:
The formula for each subscription is:
Benefit ratio of journal (BRJ) = annual cost of journal divided by # of full articles per year (CJA) multiplied by the worth factors (WJ)
In this formula, lower scores equal better rankings.
We used five worth factors and a scale of "1" to "5". The factors were in-house use, indexing, interlibrary loan incoming requests, Science Citation Index impact factor and faculty input. We gave the in-house use and faculty input a double weight. For each factor, we ranked every journal on a "1" to "5" scale. For each worth factor, a "1" score meant heavy use or ranking, a "3" score meant moderate use or ranking, and a "5" score meant minimal use or low ranking. For the SCI factor, "1" was equated to a highest 20% ranking, "3" score equaled a 41-60% score, and "5" was the lowest 20% score. For titles not ranked in SCI, we used an average score of the other four factors. To obtain faculty input, we forwarded the titles sorted by broad MESH subjects to the departments.
In terms of the formula, the BRJ = (annual cost of journal / # full articles per year) x (2x in-house use + indexing + ILL income requests + SCI impact factor + 2 x faculty input)
Examples:
For JAMA, the benefit ratio was:
BRJ= ($230/732) x (2+1+1+1+2) = $.38 x 7 = 2.66 Due to the minimal cost per article and extremely low (good) factor rankings, this was a title we would never consider canceling.
For Brain Research, the benefit ratio was: BRJ=($10181/1659) x (2+2+1+3+4) = $6.13 x 12 = 73.56 This was an extremely expensive title. We justified the subscription with the average cost per article and low (good) factor rankings.
For Child's Nervous System, the benefit ratio was: BRJ=($800/104) x (10+4+1+4+8) = $7.69 x 27 = 207.63 With a high (bad) cost per article and high (bad) factor rankings, we canceled this title.
Note: For each example, we doubled the first (in-house use) and last (faculty input) factors . Also, a low score is good and a high score is bad. The benefit ratio of journals (BRJ) ranged from 1.66 to 1330 with a mean score of 70. The cost per journal article (CJA) ranged from $.23 to $73.75 with a mean score of $4.76. Worth factors (WJ) ranged from 8 to 33 with a mean score of 18. We found that some factors were more useful than others. At one point, we eliminated the ILL incoming requests element from the analysis.
Conclusion:
Using Microsoft ACCESS, we built a table that can be sorted differently and easily. We use the desk top publishing component to create unique reports. We adopted the National Library of Medicine's "Outline of Schedules" as the basis for one of the critical fields. Each month, we produce sorts and reports that were not part of the original journal evaluation project. For example, we have developed lists of different library collections and specific subject areas for acquisitions selectors. Each report contains a unique package of information from different fields.
We have developed a PC-based table of journal and standing order subscriptions table with dynamic, user-friendly software package. The Library staff has a tool that is quite valuable for collection development and budgetary purposes. We plan to use the data for ongoing analysis of the collection. In conclusion, the table gives us access to data that we could not obtain from our OPAC.
For further information, contact Lenny Rhine at Lenny@library.health.ufl.edu or (352) 392-4014.
Bibliography:
Bostic, Mary J. "Serials deselection," Serials Librarian, 9(3): Spring 1985, 85-101
Deurenberg, Rikie. "Journal deselection in a medical university library by ranking periodicals based on multiple factors," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 81(3): July 1983, 316-319
Hunt, Richard K. "Journal deselection in a biomedical research library: a mediated mathematical approach," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 78(1): January 1990, 46-48
Miller, Edward P. and O'Neill, Ann L. "Journal deselection and costing," Library Acquisitions Practice and Theory, 14: 1990, 173-178
Smith, Thomas. "The journal citation reports as a deselection tool," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 73(4): October 1983, 387-388
Triolo, Victor A. and Bao, Dachun. "A decision model for technical journal deselection with an experiment in biomedical communications," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44(3): 1993, 148-
160
48.4 NOTICE: FAULKNER & GRAY: CAVEAT EMPTOR
From: The Editor
The folks at Faulkner & Gray are engaging in the thoroughly annoying practice of sending out copies of the 1996 Health Network & Alliance Sourcebook along with a "Subscription Invoice" on the strength of the library's having ordered the 1995 edition. I spoke to them by phone, and they told me that it had been sent as a "review" copy. After I explained that I had no intention of either returning it or paying the invoice, they said that they would send their delivery service to pick it up. I suppose I should have told them to go pound sand, but I agreed to let them pick it up. Incidentally, the 1995 edition was a singularly unimpressive piece of work.
| The BIOMEDICAL LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS BULLETIN (ISSN: 1064-699X) is published
by
the Medical Library Association's Collection Development Section with the
cooperation of the University of Southern California Norris Medical Library.
BLAB is published more or less monthly, and includes items of news and opinion
contributed by its readers concerning biomedical library acquisitions.
Editor: David H. Morse: dmorse@hsc.usc.edu. Paper mail: USC Norris Medical Library, 2003 Zonal Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90033. Telephone: (213) 342-1134. The BULLETIN is distributed free of charge, in electronic form only. Back issues of BLAB are available at http://colldev.mlanet.org/BLAB/.
Requests for subscriptions and all editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor <dmorse@hsc.usc.edu>. | |