June 2003

C. Shelton, CDC/JSC liaison (UCLA), L. Snowhill, CDC (UCSB), S. Pritchard, University Librarian (UCSB)

[Since we moved around the agenda with wild abandon, it was a challenge to determine exactly where we were at any given point in the afternoon. These notes, therefore, reflect the flow of the conversation rather than the order presented on the agenda]

Welcoming remarks – Sarah Pritchard, UCSB

Sarah spoke about several initiatives underway at the UL, SOPAG, SLASIAC, and UCOP levels, including:

? Two SOPAG white papers covering issues of shared collections and resource sharing in a “nuanced” manner. All ULs, including Greenstein, see the local collections as extremely important but also understand the necessity/importance of sharing where it is appropriate – both existing collections and new collections that UC might not have otherwise acquired.

She also touched on the concept of “layered services” – core services provided through CDL while letting local campuses make local decisions. This is seen as enabling local decision making.

? Sarah then went into a bit more detail about the 2 papers:

o Collection Management and Coordination (covering shared collections, resource sharing, database licensing). This will touch on the philosophy and mechanics of developing a shared collection (addressing such questions as what that actually means, what are the characteristics and behaviors of a shared collection). The paper will also look at shared collections in a tiered way, including prospective new purchases (Elsevier) as well as retrospective (JSTOR). Examines how this would enable best local decision making.
o Governance/ownership paper. This one harder to write. Dan Greenstein working on paper using his “layered model” theory.

The ULs want to encourage collections groups to provide feedback and advice, locally and consortially.

Minutes of the joint UL/SOPAG meeting are about to come out. They will have more information about the papers, including the date of release.

? Project “grid”

ULs are trying to develop a grid to keep track of the numerous projects managed by SOPAG, ULs, CDL.

? SLASIAC

Sarah reported that a SLASIAC subcommittee is writing the next revision of the Library Planning and Action Initiation (LPAI) in an effort to get more money for libraries and to insure that library issues stay on the front burner for both the UC System and the legislature. They will be doing a “vision thing” paper emphasizing strategies for supporting research and teaching.

Consortium welcome, introductions, logistics

We went around the table and introduced ourselves, explaining our permanent, temporary, interim, acting, and sometimes position. The highlight of this part of the meeting was the introduction of John Bloomberg-Rissman who will be assuming a number of Nancy Koller’s collection development responsibilities, including U.S. and British History and Women’s Studies upon her retirement (in 3 weeks?) from UC Riverside. Prior to accepting this position, John was Assistant Director of ESTC.

Along with the logistics of what is where in the UCSB Library, we decided to change how we rotate note taking at the meetings. We will keep (or attempt to regain) our campus alphabetical order but on a day by day rather than meeting by meeting basis. This will prevent campuses with single representatives from being burdened with sole responsibility for 2-day meetings. Thus far the schedule is June 5: UCLA, June 6: UCSB, December meeting: UCSC.

Campus reports
[all reports distributed electronically; below are updates, additional info., discussion. This agenda item led to wide-ranging conversation about impact of serials cancellations and other issues related to the budget]

UCI: revised version of campus report distributed.

UCD: Library decided to call their cancellation project “Library collections in transition.” The euphemism caused some problems for line librarians. Total number of journals suggested for cancellation was 1975, approximately 1/3 in the humanities and social sciences. All but 250 of the 1975 are available electronically. Faculty commented on 315 titles of which 189 were humanities and social sciences titles. Total number of faculty commenting was 142, with 69 of these in humanities or social sciences. The comments went directly to the AUL. Members of the History Department wrote directly to the UL articulating concerns about the long term integrity of the collection; the need to maintain print runs of journals in the event the company producing the electronic goes bankrupt. There were also qualitative comments about instruction needs of undergraduates (importance of getting hands on a journal, some assignments specifically requiring use of print journals), differences in the ways one uses print and electronic. Some UCD English faculty suggested keeping print and canceling electronic.

The final decision will be made in the next two weeks. At Davis (as elsewhere), selection of proposed titles for cancellation driven by packages – although selectors had opportunity to exclude titles. Diana is compiling a list of titles she thinks should be saved, based on faculty comments. The department head will convey the list to the AUL.

Dan mentioned that Davis librarians asked to tell faculty that the electronic version was just as good as the print. He also said that librarians deliberately did not protect journals edited on campus.

UCSB: Lucia mentioned that at the moment Santa Barbara does not appear to be under as much pressure as some other campuses. Some UCSB Women’s Studies faculty have posed questions to Sherri about materials not available electronically.

The new reliance on electronic versions sparked a brief discussion about the inadequacy of workstations and printers to absorb the increased demands. Davis is particularly concerned about this due to restrictions on access to MyUCD and e-mail at public terminals in the library.

UCLA: Ellen reported on the library’s participation in the Ralph Bunche Centenary Celebration being held throughout LA (as well as at the United Nations). YRL will be mounting both a real and a virtual exhibit.

Before leaving the campus reports part of the agenda, Joan asked whether the technology UCLA used to develop its list of proposed serials cancellations and comment mechanism is sharable. She also expressed an interest in discussing dynamically-generated web pages.

CDC/JSC Reports – Cindy and Lucia

? JSC “Unsurvey”

Lucia explained that this year JSC would not be asking selector groups for lists of new titles. The budget situation is not great; concentration will be on cost-shared databases and major negotiations at CDL for new databases.

She provided an update on how JSC is approaching the next fiscal year:

o Working with CDC to develop framework for how to review SCAP databases. The shared resources funding is down $1 million. CDL/JSC/CMC asking questions about whether there are a) databases suitable for cost-sharing and/or b) databases we no longer need.
o CDL is renegotiating some large packages
o JSC would like selector groups to let them know about free titles (journals, mono collections) that we would recommend for shared cataloging. JSC is particularly interested in indexed journals.
o There is a systemwide review of resources – some databases might have better platform/access alternatives. JSC is also interested in SCAP databases are doing.

? Cindy distributed the list of SCAP databases

o JSC is not eliminating the option of selector groups recommending new databases but unlike previous years, there will be no single call and no deadline. Selector groups can let JSC know throughout the year. Elliot asked about status of databases that appeared on past surveys.
o In response to Elliot’s question, Cindy commented that CDL, etc. won’t go after anything new unless it comes up from a selector group. If there are still things remaining on our lists that are still important to us, let JSC know.
o CDC comes up with its workplan based on materials that are still priorities. NewsBank and APA just went to CDC from JSC.

? Taylor and Francis

Taylor and Francis package has been on our lists (and as well as lists of other groups) for some time. Cindy said that it was still on the workplan but that negotiations were very difficult. The publisher is not being cooperative in terms of doing a consortial deal. There is a push to have campuses cancel T&F or not subscribe to new titles. Another option might be to cancel all but one or two subscriptions. Several consortium members voiced frustration with this approach as T&F journals are core in a number of disciplines and canceling would pose quite a challenge for campuses. Beth asked about the possibility of alternative business models for dealing with T&F.

Sage is another publisher of core materials with whom CDL is having difficulty negotiating. Cindy urged individual bibliographers to let CDL know their concerns.

In the general discussion that followed Joan suggested that CDC make some decisions centrally about Sage and T&F cancellations. Nancy raised issues of Copyright Clearinghouse charges and the possibility that we could end up paying more in copyright fees for these core titles than we do in subscriptions.

Davis has a policy against activating electronic access to T&F and Sage, even when free, based on its understanding of CDC policy. We all agreed that we needed clarification.

? HarpWeek

HarpWeek reared its head again with a bill for a $3,900 “access fee.” The Consortium tabled discussion of this for the Friday session.

? CDC report

Cindy reported on a May 1 CDC meeting with Dan Greenstein and Bev French. The strategy for the next Elsevier contract was a major discussion topic. What happens with Elsevier could have an impact on shape of future contracts. CDC is slated to have a conference call with ULs and AULs in July. There is a possibility that Elsevier contract may devolve to campuses.

CRL will no longer allow consortial memberships after 2007. CDC is once again looking at the value of CRL membership. ULs aren’t particularly concerned about coordination – all campuses, some campuses, or no campuses can join CRL. Decision may/will devolve to the campuses.

? UC Shared Print Collection

At the UL level there has been a breakthrough in collaborating to develop retrospectively and prospectively owned UC collections. Cindy provided a timeline:

o October 2002: SLASIAC recommends that shared collections concept be applied to print
o November 2002: ULs endorse the idea; work on developing definitions – “collectively managed and accessible universitywide’. At the same time, CDC decides on Elsevier and ACM as pilot for shared print collection.
o [Cindy distributed a report on the pilot project approved by SOPAG]. There are procedures for acquisitions, cataloging, preservation, etc. Cindy stressed the importance of our groups in helping to shape the nature of this archive and contribute to answering questions about whether the archive is dim, dark, light; how many copies should be archived; what should the records say and should they be loaded locally, etc.
o In December, CMPG raised all of these questions. They created a list of characteristics for the shared print archive and these were discussed at CDC in May. CDC will want feedback from selector groups on these characteristics.
o The ULs “brainstormed” about the next level of shared collections.
o At the last CDC, JSTOR came up as another example of a potential “retrospective” shared print collection. Important to deal with the issue of “repatriation” rights for JSTOR titles deposited at an RLF. CDC will submit a proposal to SOPAG on JSTOR.

Bottom line of all of this: we can no longer build print collections the way we have in the past.

Some issues and concerns about electronic and shared collections:

o Access to the archival record if we turn from print to electronic-only
o How we count – if we have a true shared print collection, who “owns” it? How will this impact ARL statistics. Tom Leonard is drafting a paper on stopping the conversation about ownership and beginning a new one about access.
o Is building a shared print collection a basis for how we might build electronic and other collections?

CMI Update – Cecily Johns

Cecily reported on the CMI Journal Use Study that took place between 10/2001 and 9/2002. During that study, 300 titles were removed from campus libraries. She then did an overview of the User Preference Survey conducted in winter quarter 2002. This information is slated to go into a final report that Cecily plans to have available sometime this summer. Cecily will solicit feedback from librarians (she will send out draft of final report through campus CMI liaisons).The survey instrument is currently up on the CMI website. Consortium members also asked about obtaining copies of the Powerpoint presentation she shared with us.

? Highlights

o Invitations to participate in survey went to 20,000 faculty, postdocs, students. 6,094 responded.
o High number of respondents said that there were many relevant journals available electronically in their areas
o Attitudes towards e-journals showed that faculty were slightly more conservative – but attitudes were generally favorable.
o Convenience was the leading advantage of e-journals
o Respondents raised content and coverage concerns, especially lack of availability of older issues, usability, limits of computing technology.

CMI does have demographic and disciplinary breakdowns so reports by specific campus and/or discipline will be possible. If we have specific questions based on the data, e-mail these to Cecily. Joan raised the question of whether the data could show differences between use in teaching and use in research. Another, more general question, was about the connection in practice between the CMI project and the current journal cancellation projects.

The CMI project started in SLASIAC – see the Resolution A on the SLASIAC site for additional background information.

Cecily mentioned that JSTOR has approached UC about creating a dark archive of JSTOR journals. This is currently under discussion by the ULs.

Consortium discussions about issues raised by CDC/JSC/CMI updates

[This part of the meeting contained some of the most substantive conversation but it was also the most freewheeling. I was able to capture so but by no means all of it in these notes]

Project Muse

Several people endorsed the idea of applying the Elsevier model to Project Muse journals. In this instance, however, we would want at least one print copy in a dark archive and one in a dim or light archive. We discussed various models of acquiring the print copies including campus adoption of particular titles or a proportional division of the cost of subscriptions to all titles available via Muse. Cindy suggested that the consortium develop a list of characteristics of how the archive might behave.

CDC coordination

CDC coordination of various projects, including serials cancellations, was a major topic of discussion (see list, below). There is some concern about lack of resources and who might actually be in a position to undertake a major coordination effort. The CDC just hired a Director for Digital Preservation (Trish Cruse). She will probably concentrate first on MELVYL, OAC, and Counting California – but she may also look at licensed content. CDL pulled back the posting for Director of Shared Print – a position that might have taken responsibility for a number of the projects in need of coordination. Joan asked whether the coordinator role could be filled by a campus librarian with a partial assignment to CDL – as has been done in other instances.

The consortium developed a list of issues for CDC, most having to do with coordination. These include:

o Coordination of cancellation projects and the development of technology to assist with this coordination
o Coordination to insure that at least one print copy, ideally two, remains in the system – at a campus or an RLF
o Identification of digital packages (content, licensing, restriction) prior to any local cancellation projects
o Creation of master list of proposed cancellations and then of canceled titles
o Assistance in organizing other consortial groups and development of guidelines (expectations) for activities of these groups

[Please add any others who have in your notes or think would be worthwhile to communicate to CDC]

Assorted comments and concerns

o Licensing agreements address issues of access but things like “unavoidable” cessation of access – if, for example, the producer or vendor of the online product goes bankrupt
o Preservation becoming an increasingly significant concerns in the digital age. Ohio consortium (Ohiolink?) made decision to load Elsevier data on their own servers
o Cost of digital does not take into account the cost of preservation and archiving
o Preservation of print is critical; this may be the only format we can turn to if digital becomes unavailable
o What happens to content when publishers stop supplying print?
o What happens to digital content when technology changes?

Friday June 6, 2003
Submitted by Sherri Barnes

In attendance: Joan Ariel, Sherri Banes, Ellen Broidy, Dan Goldstein (Chair), Phoebe Janes, Elliot Kanter, Diana King, Nancy Koller, John Bloomberg Rissman, Beth Sibley, Vicki Williamson (incoming Chair).

Related handouts: CDL/JSC letter to Bibliographers Groups (Draft 5/23/03); Dan’s 15 points on improving system wide shared collections; UC Women’s Studies Consortium Journals Project June 2003; UC Women’s Studies Consortium Journals Project December 2002; U.S. History Journals Project May 2003; Last Copy British History Titles: Five or Fewer Titles.

HARPWEEK

The CDL received a $3,900 bill from Harpweek for user access fees. For CDL negotiations with Harpweek, they would like our assessment of the product, it’s value and whether we should keep it. The group felt that the original deal gave us ownership of the content, maybe the interface, and no user fees was supposedly part of the agreement. All agreed that we don’t want to lose access; the product is valuable; and enhancements to the database continue. Options considered in handling the situation included attempting to hold Harpweek to the original agreement of no user fees; CDL hosting the database, thus not having to pay such fees; and lastly, paying a usage fee of only $150 per campus, amounting to a total of $1,350, rather than the invoiced $3,900. Agreeing to pay a fee would open the door to increased user fees in the future and is not favorable.

EEBO-TCP (Early English Books Text Conversion Partnership)

The group discussed whether the CDL should consider participating in EEBOs TCP at $50,000 per campus. All agreed the product is a very valuable research tool and necessary to keep UC faculty, from various disciplines, academically competitive. The group recommends that CDL purchase access for a southern campus and a northern campus, so that each region has access within a reasonable traveling distance (traveling to use archival materials is common and generally accepted) rather than no access at all, which would disadvantage UC researchers. This model is in keeping with the one university one library philosophy that is espoused and should be explored for other big-ticket archival type products. Furthermore, it was noted that the UC system already owns EEBO’s content in a number of formats, including film, page images, and in print, whether original texts or reprints. Paying for 10 more copies in yet another format at $50,000 each is ludicrous, especially during the current budget crisis.

ACTION: Diana will draft a statement regarding the group’s recommendations concerning UC wide participation in the EEBO TCP. Rob of the lit bibs group should be copied for support and to keep them in the loop.

CDL SURVEYS

What we want to reaffirm from the previous survey: Women’s studies - Design and Applied Arts (recently purchased by CSA, whom we have established contracts with).
History - Heritage Quest from Proquest.

New Alerts: Women’s Studies - Alexander Street Press’s Women and Social Movements; Adam Matthew’s Defining Gender. History – Black Thought and Culture; and Alexander Street’s Immigrant Letters and Diaries. There were concerns about document display in Alexander Street Press products. In particular that results lists often contain multiple items from one document. Two lists would be preferable, one for individual items and one for sources. ACTION: Members will let Sherri, the resource liaison for NAWLD, know of other display problems to make ASP aware of.

Note: We didn’t discuss the new aspects of the surveys outlined in the “CDL/JSC letter to Bibliographer Groups” which asks bibliographers to identify freely available resources that have enough value and stability to merit cataloging for inclusion in, or identification through, the CDL collections. Resources in the following 2 categories are of interest: freely available e-journal titles that are indexed in our core A&I databases and open access collections of monographs.

LAST COPY AGREEMENTS

LT at CDL is interested in having copies of the journals last copy agreements the group maintains. ACTION: Joan and Ellen will forward copies to her with project descriptions and status by the 6/26.

Communication regarding the acquisition of microfilm purchases was discussed. There needs to be more communication to prevent the unnecessary duplication of resources and folks are aware of new acquisitions in a timely manner. Nonetheless, acquisition decisions are based on a number of factors – faculty request and immediate access to resources; curricular needs; and available funds. ACTION: When new film sets are purchased members will notify the group via email. Acquisitions should also be noted in campus reports.

How do we define last copy in the age of Project Muse and other e-journals? Historically, last copy has meant last print copy. Do we count the e-copy as a copy? None are comfortable relying on the perpetuity of the e-copy, thus, we will continue to count only print copies and note e-copies.

Joan distributed two women’s studies journals lists – a 12/02 list without recent updates and a 6/03 list with a “cancel print?” column to indicate whether print copies were cancelled. ACTION: Joan plans to merge the two lists.

In reviewing the WS journals project list we discovered that, as a result of serials review/cancellation projects, the holdings of titles in e-journal packages are at risk of not only dropping to 4 or fewer, but dropping to zero print copies in the system. These titles have never been at risk before, because most campuses have held copies. Women’s Studies International Forum from Elsevier is an example. Sherri offered to retain a last print copy Women’s Studies International Forum at Santa Barbara.

Other problems associated with the journal agreements in the age of e-journals is that titles from interdisciplinary fields, especially women’s studies, are often managed under a subject guideline and bibliographer other than women’s studies or history.

ACTION: In the meantime, all WS and history bibliographers will send a list of the titles that their campus is canceling, whether print or electronic, as well any targets they have to Ellen, Joan or Phoebe, the WS, U.S. history and British history journal project managers. Because cancellation/review projects are progressing at different rates, it may not be possible to keep a print title within the system. NOTE: It’s probably time to identify agreement titles in e-journal packages and assign campuses to retain such titles or assign a campus to retain titles, rather than those with 4 or fewer holding campuses.

The current timeline for serials review/cancellation projects are:

LA - prelim 6/17; final 6/30
B - 5/31
SD - ?
SB - 6/30, but will reoccur annual with different journal packages
D - 6/30 phase 1
I - Elsevier TBA
R - no cancellations

ACTION: Each campus will send the URL for their serials review information to Elliot for posting on the group’s Web page.

U.S.HISTORY FILM PROJECT

ACTION: Each bibliographer will identify U.S. history microfilm sets in their collection and forward the list to Elliot who will then merge them. NOTE: No date, deadline or guidelines were given for this enormous task.

MELVYL-T PROBLEMS

Known problems include the inability to use the request function on Macs, and even its inconsistent functionality with Pcs. The music and lit bibbers early identified uniform title problems. The inability to limit to microforms is a also a problem. ACTION: Diana, who is also a member of the lit bibbers will fet a copy of that groups Melvyl problem list for our awareness and support.

ILL PROBLEMS

Inability to acquire microfilm for a specific amount of time and runs of journals on film. Apparently, it’s a Davis thing, but there should be consistent system wide policies regarding lending materials so these battles don’t have to be fought locally.

CDL AND SYSTEMWIDE LIBRARIES STRUCTURES

ACTION: Based on his handout of 15 points that need to be addressed by “CDL/CDC/JSC/UL’s or whoever might have the power to act”, Dan will compose a memo outlining what it will take to make system wide shared collections work. The memo will be circulated to other bib groups for support and comment before forwarding up.

NCRW (NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON WOMEN) ARCHIVES PROJECT

Joan and Ellen gave an overview of the NCRW’s early initiative to collect the papers of women’s organizations and promote usage among researchers. The project is in the early stages of development. Currently the group is interested in getting the word out about who collects what and what can be collected; they have a very nifty informational brochure: Guide to Donating Papers, geared toward organizations. More talks will happen at ALA. UC WS bibliographers may take a roll in ensuring that there is adequate CA representation.

Next Meeting is Monday December 8 at UCB!