Duke University Medical Center Library Archives Sweeping It

Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives Sweeping It All Away A Case Study in the Elimination of an On-Site Journal Collection Barbara Dietsch Acquisitions & Cataloging Manager Duke University Medical Center Library

Importance of Print Collections: • Preservation • Loss of Online Access

Libraries as Service Points vs. Curators of Physical Collections

Print Retention Programs aka Single Copy Programs

TRLN Collaborative Print Retention Program Was it considered during our weeding/storage projects? 2008 – journals and monographs the program had yet to be formed 2011 – journals and monographs timing although TRLN holdings were considered 2014 – journals only timing although TRLN holdings were considered

Buy-in • • Administrators Faculty Students Staff

Methods

Data were collected: • • • Title of journal ISSN Print holdings LSC holdings Online coverage Online Platform

• Usage

• Usage • Available online and coverage

• Usage • Available online and coverage • Perpetual access to archival content

• Usage • Available online and coverage • Perpetual access to archival content • Print/online overlap

• Usage • Available online and coverage • Perpetual access to archival content • Print/online overlap • Rarity

• Usage • Available online and coverage • Perpetual access to archival content • Print/online overlap • Rarity • Image quality

• Usage • Available online and coverage • Perpetual access to archival content • Print/online overlap • Rarity • Image quality • Importance to Duke Medical Community

The Physical Preparation and Move

Scanning of Barcodes

Journals and monographs withdrawn or moved: 2008: 54, 596 2011: 23, 293 2014: 24, 538

Problems and Difficulties

• Journals not on shelf when patron or library staff needed them • Barcodes were placed in different positions and hampered scanning • Movers’ pace was too fast • Work and other projects were held up as staff worked on the move • MCL had network trust issues with the main library because of HIPAA regulations so batch processing in the ILS was held up

Impact on Labor

Before the project: Travel time to and from the LSC = 1 hour/day, 3 days/week Time spent scanning journals = 2 -3 hours/day, 5 days/week

After the project: Travel time to and from the LSC = 1 hours/day, 5 days/week Time spent scanning of journals at the LSC = 2 -4 hours/day, 5 days/week

Rush Requests

Number of Scanned Articles Time Frame Month Year July 2013 - June 2014 548 6579 July 2014 - Feb 2015 395 4740 * * 3156/8 months 28% decrease in items scanned or retrieved from the LSC

How to have a successful weeding and moving project?

• Objectives and goals

• Objectives and goals • Communication and marketing

• Objectives and goals • Communication and marketing • Planning

If your library is considering a similar project: • Do you have the remote storage space? • Can you dedicate long-term funding for storage? • Do you have scanning facilities at the remote location? • Do you have the staff time for going to the remote facility to pull journals and/or scan for document delivery or interlibrary loan?

This project was a concerted team effort which included staff from: Administration Collection Development Acquisitions Technical Services Interlibrary Loan Access Services Reference

Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives Questions? Contact Info: Barbara Dietsch Acquisitions & Cataloging Manager Duke University Medical Center Library (919) 660 -1110 barbara. dietsch@duke. edu