Monthly Archives: November 2014

Charleston conference: Return on investment: new strategies for marketing digital resources

top activities publishers can do to raise awareness about their content to end users

  • publisher-library workshops (77%)
  • quarterly newsletters (73%)
  • free access months (65%)

publisher hosting an open access talk during open access week — this could be an interesting idea

  • Methods of distribution: email blasts, CD website, digital signage, marketing of library resources at other meetings and venues on campus, expressing library needs
  • Advantage of service on Library Advisory Boards of major publishers to develop strong ties
  • Collaborate with faculty to address  funding needs and develop technology fee grant programs
  • Weekly distribution of collection focused items- something every week about new items in the libraries or resources
  • Subject librarians send out e-newsletters at the beginning of each semester with major library purchases – graphic artist has developed a template
  • Emphasis on subject librarians being more mobile


  • video post for quick communication on updates
    • December or January, perhaps review instruction stats, a few quotes from instruction sessions about student feedback, and highlight instruction methods available (assignment/rubric creation, asynchronous module development, in-class instruction, online synchronous instruction, and feedback/grading).  this could also include some links to latest publications of interest about nursing/health education.

Charleston conference: The punishment for dreamers: big data, retention, and academic libraries

Background resources regarding academic libraries

Murray State Study

  • data elements
    • checking out an item
    • logging into library computer lab
    • logging into e-resources
    • logging into ILLIAD
    • participate in instruction
    • enrollment in credit-bearing information literacy course


  • library users are 2x as likely to be retained as non-users
  • checking out items increased likelihood of retention by 36%
  • logging into e-resources later in the semester increased odds of retention by 24%

Second study of library deans about ways library collections, library instruction, and library facilities were aligned with high-impact practices

  • library instruction = high correlation wtih learning communities and collaborative assignments
  • library facilities = high correlation with diversity and global learning
  • collaborative assignments = correlation with all of the library components
  • while we are doing these things, we are NOT documenting this impact, few knew how to document, few could communicate beyond the Annual Report, continued overreliance on student learning outcomes as an indirect measure of impact

Key take-aways

  • enough with indirect measures
    • what do door counts mean?
  • conduct an assessment audit to align data, outcomes, and institutional priorities
  • develop visualizations of your different services/resources, assessment strategies, and their connections to outcomes and institutional priorities
  • stop confusing student learning outcomes with measures of retention or graduation
  • instruction is a gateway to library use

Other areas of work

  • restructure student worker lines to internships (with credit) for higher levels of engagement


On a small scale example, is there a relationship between anatomy resource use and anatomy course performance?

OMG this could also totally help/influence my research leave project

Charleston conference: Successful library curriculum integration

What are you doing to develop faculty-library collaboration? And how does is it going?
– reaching out, being present, and being responsive
– research therapist
– Gale launched a curriculum alignment service

What are some of your failures or challenges?
– lack of time, both librarians and faculty
– librarians lack control over the curriculum
– getting students to follow through with referrals to librarians
– maintaining relevancy

Charleston conference: A fund allocation process: employing a use factor

– historical allocations – the same it has always been
– size or proportion – ratio of dept size to allocation amount; good for smaller places
– weighted multiple variable: generally enrollment, cost, circ/use, and faculty
– other variables can be price per book, FTE faculty, number of majors, number of courses; William & Mary also factors in private/endowment funds
– different departments preferences for print or ebooks many mean pulling circ/use/download data from multiple sources
– circulation-based allocation
– Bonn’s use factor: percentage of holdings divided by the percentage of holdings
– average price paid per piece (ILS generated)
– what to count? Print monographs for 4 year span; count by title, not items; regular and in-house checkouts
– what to count with ebooks? Firm order ebrary ebooks; DDA ebooks; # of user sessions (at least 2, as 1 session was assumed to be a library staff use); map titles to LC
– added print and eBook data together
– divide circ over holdings
– average them over 4 years to get an overall use factor
– added use to avg price paid and expressed as percentage
– before and after the change: Business had 8% but dropped to 2.31%, others like Nutrition shifted from 2 to 4.6%
– adding ebooks helped with depts that use that format, like Psychology, but hurt others like Classics
– political implications
— 2k rule: no more than 2k fluctuation per fund per year

Things to consider
– ILL stats – percentage of borrowing to holdings ratio

Charleston conference: Subject librarian’s guide to tech services

– moved to liaison model 12 years ago
– CD, upper level instruction, reference
– Collection advisory committee advises on budget cuts/overages, continuing resource advising
– only 21% of library school programs require collection development and even fewer with real understanding of Acquisitions
– benefits of understanding: more efficient/effective/speedier, clarifies expectations

Budget and funding
– need to know different parts of the budget (Western Carolina =75% continuing, 15% monographs)
– allocation models, historical precedent
– key dates for the budget cycle
– sources: main, one-time, end of year funds, grants

Submitting orders
– processes (format, mediation, default settings, approval plans, DDA)
– information (pub info, codes, justification, platform)
– special or unusual situations (standing orders, unusual formats, replacement copies)
– timing (deadlines, rush orders, rollovers)
*we need to talk about replacement copies methods for missing items

Acquisitions ordering process
– when and how?
— submissions weekly or daily?
— avg turn around time? Vary by item type?
– updates
— status, delays
— notification routines and who initiates
– problems
— out of print, out of stock, invalid format, price problems, duplicates
— decision making processes

Processing & cataloging
– who does what how often?
– different processes by type
– locations
– cataloging – who, what, regular/special/automated
– records customization

I wish list….
– university fiscal policy
– can I follow the life cycle of acquiring/activating/loading an item to our system (book vs eBook vs media vs continuing)

Charleston conference: To boldly go beyond downloads: how are journal articles shared and used?

– Babe Hughes, Elsevier rep who is also on the Mendeley team; had previously bed at Google for head of attribution
– downloads has been best proxy for reading behavior, but technology changes are providing other opportunities
– 65% of researchers access or share articles via shared platform or folder
– 48% shared with working group, 21% dept
– easy access is biggest reason for sharing and motivates behavior (remote access problems)
– things like Mendeley are lower on the list of tools, but Dropbox is higher
– sharing happens on many levels: to self, to small group, to dept, to public
– Dr. Carol Tanopir – expert on academic usage behavior – conducting independent research (will complete next year)
– COUNTER downloads don’t account for sharing after downloads or sharing without downloads
– formal methods for sharing include Blackboard, RefWorks, Dropbox – these are used because they fit the normal workflow of researchers
– informal methods are part of a life, like FB, Twitter, email, etc – basically items not solely focused
3 pronged project
– interview/focus groups in US and UK, international survey
– 2 main types of sharing: sharing citation/link or sharing document (PDF)
– link sharing more common – could increase published downloads, but not library downloads
– focus groups – those that share also upload their own work to IRs
– motivations to share: to further discovery, to promote work
– “bootleg” sharing via email, ppl know that they maybe they shouldn’t do this, but do it anyhow
– Dropbox, Twitter, and email are top 3 for sharing with collaborators
– share with lots of folks for many different reasons
– almost all viewed sharing their own work positively
– sharing others work altruistically, trumping questions of discomfort of ethics
– some reservations about sharing
– format distinction for books vs articles since the books have monetary value/motivation for authors
– over 500 responses in 2 days with survey so far
– goal: develop calculator for downloads and life beyond, and determining value

Charleston conference: What faculty want librarians to know

Physicist at UofMD
– anti-matter researcher
– all journal publications, no books
– arXiv – first stop to see what is going on in the world of physics (10-100 new papers per day for each subfield)
– arXiv is transformative because it is accessible (free)
– new OA journals have popped up in the field, but $2k costs to publish are still a barrier
– arXiv saves time, so quick access than waiting for 5-month delays in journal review and publishing (Physical Review Letters=5 month delay,
– most bleeding edge information is at conferences
– researchers not reading journals, other than to catch things possibly missed

Literature search
– arXiv, Google Scholar, Web of Science, APS
– NOT library ewe site – too much other, useless information like books
– books are cited primarily for specific equations or maybe a well written paragraph – however, not breaking new ground and only used for a quick minute
– given limited book use, Google Books is first choice, then Amazon for look inside feature

– about 100GB per year
– burden of data documentation would restrict physics data from making data sets available for collecting
– libraries don’t necessarily have a role in data archiving
– when asked about NSF mandates, he says he might need librarians then but that this is just a bureaucratic issues that has no real value for other researchers

Classicist at College of Charleston
– has only online PHD program in Classics
– students are ineffective in developing search rubrics
– prefers to have librarians curate collections, not so much PDA
– prefers physical copies of books
– students struggle to know where books are available
– because of search challenges, students are mostly using articles, JSTOR, and ebooks and ignoring others
– although nearby, he doesn’t go to the library
– lack of connections between libraries is problematic
– ILL is not a workable solution for long term research
– he appreciates how other librarians are bending the rules to scan books and emailing them to him via PDF
– online program students was limited to just online resources since there are no links with other libraries that are near the students themselves

– he wants space in the library to work, particularly alone
– he wants more database projects designed for his projects, like Homer multi-source text project or Palace of Nestor project
– more money (grant and institutional resources)
– students are shutdown due to institutional technology

Social Sciences (research area in South Asia, particularly Pakistan)
– needs books
– academics lack awareness or sense of time’s value; RAND did a better way
– multiple fields: bang for buck regarding military ads, military training, etc
– librarians were co-collaborators
– no way to value the transaction with the librarians
– not loving Georgetown’s libraries, partially due to mismatch of their resources and her research areas
– she understands that it may be economically inefficient for matching collections to research needs
– Since no one wants her books, she buys her own books since it is WAY cheaper to get them from Amazon instead of going through the “jackass parade” to get to Georgetown’s library
– public library access vs private libraries has led to weird McGuyvering
– what is the point of Special Collections? It is like the special petting zoo. These need to be digitized or made in a way that is useful. You can’t read a whole book in Special Collections
– students are learning how to do a literature review
– feels like librarians are inconvenienced by her students

Audience interaction
– embedding librarians in online course is valuable but not enough to go around

Charleston conference: whenever possible, library collections should be shaped by patrons, instead of by librarians

Instead of a single talk, this is a debate between Rick Anderson from the University of Utah and David Magier from Princeton University

Pro (Rick)
– a collection is not collecting for collecting space
– it’s purpose is to serve information needs of faculty and students
– it’s absurd to try and anticipate the needs of the future, so collecting for now is more appropriate and useful
– for those afraid that PDA is more like giving kids Twinkies for breakfast, this is a red herring since we don’t put Twinkies in the PDA pool of options

Con (David)
– PDA is like a screwdriver — it is A useful tool, but not the ONLY useful tool
– librarians have the fuller picture: license or purchase? Single-year or multi-year? Purchase or borrow when needed?
– research needs and profitability are not the same
– commercial profitability may marginalize less used but still valuable items like data sets, maps/GIS
– patrons can only access what they can discover
– patron-driven librarians are best way to collect, not patrons

Audience questions
– usage is not clear data point
– PDA is document-focused, excluding other formats
– over assumption that libraries are for long tail of scholarship, but there are more public and community college collections

Opening vote: 58% agree, 42% disagree
Closing vote: 94 people agree, 95 people disagree
In short, more people moved to disagree

Personal note:
If the debate is about having patrons be involved in shaping collections, why are we oversimplifying the debate to just PDA options? Patron shaping goes well beyond this one type of collecting. What about journal review/purchasing after X number of ILL requests?

Charleston conference: What’s the big idea? Mellon, ARL, AAU, University Presses and the future of scholarly communication

– UofMichigan press: everybody coming with digital scholarship and many authors needing something like a companion website with publications. Could libraries’ IRs be monograph/data platform to meet this need.
– ARL scholcomm task force: universities provide subventions fees to first-time authors
– AAUP director: peer review is a big value of UPs and need to continue this. There is some scholarship where we can’t make the numbers work
– Mellon Foundation: no good peer review for multimedia items. Shift from pay for use to pay to publish model. Uncertain if the new model is feasible or not. Grants might pay for publishing but won’t necessarily address longer lifespan of materials.

– discoverability problem, monographs haven’t been given much of a chance
– open access monographs should be integrated through same workflows as non OA titles. How will jobbers do this with systems like shelf-ready titles? Are librarians willing to pay for the self-ready setup for an OA title?

Charleston Conference: Evolution of mobile device use in clinic settings

Wolters Kluwer – Hob Brooks
– 55% use tablet for work
– mostly used for lookup activities, not reading or research
– mobile used more during a day than computers
– 3 screen users are accessing more content more often than 1 or 2 device users
– platforms are not cannibalizing
– journals is main way to stay on top of new research/developments
– 65% save PDF for later, 50% print for later
– 8-10 journals – avg number of journals professionals are using to stay on top of info
– full results will be in Against the Grain and be available from Wolters Kluwer as well
– Ovid app just released as more of a reading app, but not widely available yet

St. Peter’s University Hospital, Jeannine Creazzo
– mostly familiar items such as EMRs, Google preferred source, etc
– Difficulty getting feedback from patrons, as she found in the literature

Personal notes
– this conference is providing a lot of conversation about resources, how they are used, how they are paid for, how they are made, BUT not how they are taught or integrated into curriculum to inform or shape future information behaviors/habits