While I agree with the sentiment that appeared in library committee minutes at our sister institution -

that is, if the choice is between periodicals and staff, obviously the staff need to be preserved -

I’m beginning to wonder, are serials always the first to be cut from academic library budgets during difficult times?

The academic library where I work is cutting

-staff positions (currently and hopefully only through attrition)

-computer footprint (college-wide cut of 11% of machines)

-some electronic resources (based on usage statistics and cost)

-all print journals that can be subscribed to in online format

-some memberships through which we receive serial publications

-almost all journal and monograph binding

-and they’re investigating moving some of our online journal subscriptions to a pay-per-view model

A moderate reduction to the book acquisitions budget will also be made.

You’ll begin to notice that the sub-department of serials (2 FTE), while we’ll likely be keeping our jobs, will bear the brunt of the cut in materials budgets.

So, we’ll have our jobs (I hope), but what exactly will we be doing when our job responsibilities are so reduced?

Is this similar to what’s happening at other libraries?

Ex Libris is in beta with a new e-serials service called bX:

“a first-of-its-kind service to provide library users with article-level recommendations based on collective usage data amassed from research communities around the world.”

The new application, which harvests usage data from Ex Libris’ link resolver SFX software, is in testing in sixteen institutions worldwide.

It’s very exciting that usage data will work directly to help researchers discover sources in addition to its use in collection development planning.

Follow the buzz at:  http://bxbeta.blogspot.com/

See the press release at:  http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/category/bXOverview

While I’ve already posted about journals check-in, I’m wondering how other library systems with multiple library sites manage serials in general.

I work in the ‘central’ branch at a college where there are two additional branch libraries.  A few years ago the decision was made to decentralize much of the serials administration, such that subscriptions, renewals, binding, and cataloging continued to be administered by the ‘central’ library staff, but check-in was managed by the branch libraries for titles which were shelved there.

This decentralized serials administration model poses problems for claiming missing issues, updating the cataloging for title changes and mergers (etc.), updating the frequency of the publication, and collecting journal issues for binding – all among the other exciting things that the world of serials throws our way.

These problems may all become non-issues as we move progressively towards an electronic-only serials collection, but in the meantime, it is a collection management mire.

Do you work with serials in a multi-site library system?  How does your library system handle serials administration?

Some of you may remember the posts “End of an Era: LWSI disbanded as consortium restructures library technology management” and “LWSI reconvened as technology management discussion continues”.  It’s ultimately come to pass that LWSI is dissolved in favor of a new experimental structure of technology administration for the Trico consortium.  While I’d hoped to become more active with the Library Web Services Integration working group, that’s no longer an option -

So here are some professional resolutions for 2009.

1)  Begin a graduate program in library and information science

I’ve been accepted into a program and could start classes as early as March 2009, pending a final financial aid decision and my husband finding stable employment.  More information to come when I enroll.

2) Clean up our Union Listings

This will be a large, ongoing project involving updating our institution’s Local Holdings records in WorldCat.  This project is the outcome of a continuing education course that I took through Palinet (see “You think you know, but you have no idea: Local Holdings”).

3) Create a system for processing journal price increases, title and publisher changes, etc. during renewals season

Renewals season is a harried time of shot-from-the-hip emails as this kind of administrative information is provided on a title-by-title basis by our primary subscription agent.  I’d like to create a system, modeled on one developed by a colleague, of blogging or otherwise listing subscription changes in a central place for our collections, branch, and public services librarians to access and comment on, rather than herding the barrage of emails I receive regarding susbcription renewals and changes.

4) Coordinate training for staff communication tools

Our library staff uses a collection of blogs and wikis to record and discuss everything from committee minutes to application user documentation.  The skill and comfort levels across the staff in using these tools are varied; I’m in the process of working with colleagues to coordinate a series of orientations to blogs and wikis to promote the use of these tools by all levels of library staff.

5) Be considered for inclusion in technology projects coming through the new management pipeline

There’s a number of people in line in front of me, but I know a graduate program will be more meaningful if I can put theory into practice in my professional life.

6) Stay active in the professional debate

Keep reading, thinking, and writing

Do you have professional goals for the new year, or suggestions for a paraprofessional working towards the goal of a professional library career?  Please comment!

Be sure to check out Wired Magazine’s review of Jay Walker’s ‘library’.

While I would prefer these treasures to be conserved in the public domain, what, truly, is the difference between access to Jay Walker’s private collection and the content of many special collections libraries?

The post “Ex Libris URM – IGeLU’s proposals for ‘New CKB’” was removed per request from IGeLU.

The user group is not ready to have drafts of its proposal in the public domain.

I apologize for any confusion caused by the post, which simply sought to expand discussion of the URM product(s) in development by Ex Libris.

On Tuesday, December 2nd, a National Broadband Strategy Call to Action was submitted by an unlikely coalition of

“prominent communications providers, high technology companies, manufacturers, consumers, labor unions, public interest groups, educators, state and local governments, utilities, content creators, foundations, and other stakeholders in America’s broadband future” (quoted from the New America site)

to President-elect Barack Obama and the 111th Congress.

The call to action implores the President-elect and Congress to make the development of a National Broadband Strategy a top priority for the country in 2009.  It describes ‘advanced communications capabilities’ as ‘essential for the 21st century’ and credits the broadband-enabled Internet with enhancing everything from

“innovation, economic growth, job creation, educational opportunity and global competitiveness”

to

“public safety, homeland security, health care, energy efficiency, environmental sustainability and the worldwide distribution of millions of products, processes and services”.

The call to action also references the web’s role in increasing civic engagement and economic revitalization in urban, rural, and other under-served areas.

Finally, the proposal cites a broadband strategy as a national infrastructure project akin to the construction of roads and canals in the 19th century and highways, electricity and phone services, and space travel in the 20th.

The National Broadband Stratgey call to action has all the makings of an economic stimulus package that would create jobs, increase opportunities, and improve the standard of living of citizens now and for decades to come.

I wonder how it will be considered alongside out-going FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s plan to deliver ‘free, pornography-free wireless Internet service to all Americans’ and the American Library Association’s appeal for a $100 million library stimulus package.

A study by James Evans, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, suggests that rather than democratizing access to and creation of information, the internet serves to ‘tighten consensus’ in a way that has a ‘narrowing’ effect on research.

In her Boston Globe article ‘Group Think’, Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow cites the ranking systems of search engines, preferential treatment for new web content over older content, the effects of ‘consumer’ behavior (ie the selective circulation of content in the blogosphere and on listservs), and the difficulty of ‘browsing’ online the same way one would in library stacks or bookstore shelves as characteristics of digital research that may contribute to the shallowing of academic research.

In an age when Ithaka and the Association of Research Libraries are including blogs, discussion forums, and e-only journals in their  ‘Current Models for Scholarly Communication’ (see also ‘Scholarly Blogs as Serials?’), I view studies like these as a call to action for librarians to be more pro-active in developing ways to organize and provide access to information in the Web 2.0 environment.

I’m trying to dig up any information I can about what was revealed at ELUNA 2008 about Ex Libris’ new project, the

Unified Resource Management (URM) System.

Our consortium uses SFX/MARCit! and Verde, and I’m exicted by the prospect of a system that would bridge the divide (read: redundant data entry) between ERM systems like these and the traditional ILS we utilize.

This is why I’m excited, courtesy of JRochkind:

“This is indeed a vision for an ILS that makes sense…. supporting staff workflow in an integrated way that actually makes sense, modular and componentized, full of APIs and opportunities for customer-written plugins, talking to various third-party software (from vendors (of various classes) to ERP software etc.), etc etc.”

Also, the vision of network-level metadata control, as JRochkind points out, comes as a timely challenge to OCLC’s new Policy on the Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records.  Has the gauntlet been thrown?

Also, what does this mean for the OLE (Open Library Environment) Project?

Please, add comments with links to new information!

I just completed Palinet’s ‘Local Holdings Basic Maintenance’ online workshop.

Since I was given a basic orientation to creating local holdings in WorldCat, I wasn’t sure how useful this workshop would be.  My pragmatic brain was expecting to form a better foundation of the basic skills in composing local holdings records, such that my ILL Coordinator colleague would not receive so many ‘unfillable’ requests.

I was impressed beyond my expectations by the quality and depth of the workshop.  Two of my favorite outcomes were learning about the Strategic Union List file and the Local Holdings Offline Product.

The Strategic Union List file is a file one can query from WorldCat that contains all ILL requests received and requests filled by title for a calendar month.  Basic analysis will tell you whether you are filling a reasonable number of ILL requests.  If your unfilled requests are reaching the ‘unreasonable’ point, this probably has something to do with the information contained – or not contained – in your Local Holdings.  Making your local holdings complete will allow patrons to better request materials based on their actual availability and related lending policy.

The Local Holdings Offline Product is a list of all of your institution’s local holdings and is available for free upon request once a year from OCLC.  I’m a masterlist kind of gal, so this peaked my interest.  Going through this list to clean up erroneous or incomplete LHRs is a rainy-day project I’ll keep tucked away.

I highly recommend the Palinet online workshops to anyone looking to brush up on their skills or to develop more confidence in using OCLC Connexion.  Now that I know what all those toggle buttons are for, my LHRs will never be the same!