Collections Committee September 21, 2009

AGENDA ITEMS:

1. Dates of October and subsequent meetings
2. Audit of serials - update
3. Discoverarchive collection policy
4. Books in Print renewal
5. Wall Street Journal - update
6. Digital Dissertations upgrade
7. Project Muse upgrade

Members present: Bill Hook, Hilary Craiglow, Sue Davis, Jared Ingersoll, Lee Ann Lannom, Julie Loder, Mary Prince, Carlin Sappenfield, Holling Smith-Borne, Roberta Winjum, Mary Ellen Wilson

1. The Committee agreed to meet October 26 (fourth Monday), November 16, and December 21, 2009
2. Bill reported that some libraries have completed their serials audit and that others have not. Bill asked everyone to send him a status report by the end of September. He asked everyone to focus on whether titles requiring purchase of print in order to get electronic would suffice as electronic only (that is, can we stop checking in, claiming and binding print and rely on the electronic version). Jared mentioned that there were some instances in which he would not feel good relying on electronic only, and Bill said that Jared’s reason for keeping print could be that the electronic versions were not sufficiently reliable to forgo retaining the print version.
3. Bill reported that we have been asked to reconsider the VU E-archives Collection Policy, available on the Collections wiki and last reviewed in 2008. Dean Dowell asked that a subcommittee be formed, and Bill said that he, Jody Combs, and Cathy Smith were proposed members at present. Bill asked if others were interested, and Sue Davis said that she was. A charge time line for the committee will be forthcoming.
4. Bill distributed the spreadsheet of databases charged to the Shared Electronic Fund and asked the Committee whether Books in Print should be fully paid out of the shared fund since usage statistics indicate it is a staff resource. There was discussion that Ulrich’s is also a staff rather than patron resource, and Bill asked us to consider the purpose of the shared fund. BIP, Ulrich’s, and other tools were purchased by individual library budgets as print resources. Statistics indicate BIP’s rate of use by staff is less than half of what it was a year ago. Bill asked us to discuss with staff the value BIP and Ulrich’s currently provide. There was mention that Central ILL uses it and that Central Circulation uses it for replacements. Carlin and Mary Ellen had no objection to cancelling BIP.
5. Bill spoke about his effort to acquire a system-wide purchase of the Wall Street Journal Historical Backfile. The one time purchase cost was $30,444, of which Law offered to pay $10,000. Bill had asked the ProQuest representative what the purchase option included and why the on-going access fee ($4382) was so high compared to the subscription option ($7951). The representative indicated the $30,000+ one time purchase was for the backfile of out of copyright material (pre 1926) and explained that the access fee was high because for each year of access our “ownership” moved forward one year into the copyrighted material. The rep said the run began in 1851 and that our purchase would cover the 1851-1926 interval. Bill concluded and the rep confirmed that we would have to subscribe for over eighty years before we would own the 2009 material, with each year’s access moving forward a year in our ownership coverage rather owning current content effective immediately.
   
   In order to take care of a pressing faculty need, Law proceeded on its own and subscribed for one year. Hilary called the ProQuest rep who agreed to piggyback Owen onto Law’s subscription for the year.
   
   Bill asked the Committee to consider whether we need access to the historic collection. Jared indicated that there is a real need in Central.
6. Bill reported that the text for VU digital dissertations costs only $8000. All dissertations would cost about $32,000. ILL spends $10,000 to $11,000 a year for dissertations which cannot be borrowed from UMI. At present, funding distribution of dissertations does not include all libraries. We will gather more information and determine whether we can come up with more money.
7. Bill distributed a spreadsheet providing both current allocation of charges for Project Muse and projected cost for upgrading to the Premium Collection. He reported that current allocation appears to be based on the number of titles falling within the purview of the individual libraries. Jared said that he is becoming less enthusiastic about the upgrade because the titles he has researched cost less as individual subscriptions than when purchased through Project Muse. Jared added that other titles in other disciplines are more expensive when purchased individually. This is a pending possibility for the Committee to explore.