- Email: [email protected]
ALCTS SS interest group on serials automation meeting
ALA MidwinterConference 1992
419
LITA/ALCTS SS Interest Group on Serials Automation Meeting.
“The Processing of Electronic Journals” was the topic for the meeting of the LITAlALCTS SS Interest Group on Serials Automation on Sunday, January 26, 1992. Marcia Anderson, Arizona State University, chaired the meeting, and Margaret Mering, University of NebraskaLincoln, served as Vice-Chair. The overflow crowd amply demonstrated the high level of interest in the subject: the meeting was eventually shifted to a ballroom to accommodate all who wished to attend. Peggy Johnson, Assistant Director of Public and Technical Services at the University of Minnesota-St. Paul, presented an overview of the topic. Electronic communication is generally seen as appealing due to the impression that it is new, cheaper, and faster. Parallels can be drawn to the effect of the introduction of movable type between 1400-1600 in terms of the enormous cultural and societal impact of the distribution of knowledge, standardization, legal concerns, etc. Global issues to be addressed beyond the institution include the following: standards (p~icul~ly for scientific notation, tables, plates, half-tones, etc.); bibliographic description; citation/indexing; national cooperation for storage, retention, archiving, and preservation. Within the institution, the local issues parallel those for print items: budgeting (subscription only, or including hardware/software costs); selection; service implications (local storage, printing, distribution); ownership (multiple copies vs. central location with multiaccess); user training; retention; and development of local m~agement software. Marilyn Geller, Serials Cataloger at MIT, outlined the activities of her institution’s Electronic Journals Task Force. The Task Force first reviewed all the available literature on the subject, and then located and examined various e-journals. Subscription patterns were found to vary between subscribing through the editor and subscribing through a list. Delivery mechanisms included delivery of an entire issue to an e-mail account, delivery of the table of contents with ~stru~ions for further access, and the delivery of articles as published rather than bundled in an issue. Some journals were fully arehived on the host computer, others partially archived. Many technical and philosophical problems for e-mail access remain to be resolved, and there is a need for archiving standards to address long-term access needs, methods of and responsibility for archiving, and copyright issues. The Task Force agreed on the need to develop the expertise and skills of other librarians, to widen the exposure to the MIT community, and to introduce users to e-journal capability, Gail McMillan, Serials Maintenance Team Leader at Virginia Tech, discussed the tremendous potential value of the electronic journal in terms of rapid delivery and ready access, and noted that “mark it and park it” is still a valuable philosophy, albeit in a somewhat different context. At Virginia Tech the Task Force on the Electronic Journal decided that storage and access for e-journals should reside with the University’s mainframe due to the existence of local and wide-area networks, space considerations, and user/staff f~ili~ity. McKay presented a series of screen displays to demonstrate how campus users access the e-journals and discussed the three separate stages of technical processing (request/receipt, serials cataloging/maintenance, and public access) decided upon by the Task Force. Serials staff request entire issues and, upon receipt, check the text cursorily to verify that text conventions are m~nt~ned and that the text is readable. The receipt process is the same as for conventional issues, with provision for missed-issue noti~cation and claiming. E-journals receive fuI1 cataloging treatment, as would any serial, and the bibliographic record includes a description of the means of access to the journal. Title changes are handled through electronic transfer to
420
ALA Midwinter Conference 1992
cataloging: public access is not impeded while the bibliographic record is being updated or corrected. Each speaker emphasized the tremendous potential of the electronic journal, the need to provide access as part of the library’s routine delivery of services, and the importance of taking an active role in facing the challenges presented by e-journals. Questions from the audience touched on such issues as the work being at other institutions, measurement of e-journal use, collection development, standards, bibliographic description, and cost factors. Lawrence R. Keating II Head, Serials Department University of Houston Libraries Houston, TX 77204-2091
ALCTS SS Research Libraries Discussion Group, January 25, 1992. 1992 Chair Mary Bushing of Montana State University opened the meeting with the introduction of guest speaker, Beth TenHave of Michigan State University (MSU). The topic-“Exploring Organizational Models for Serials Processing”- was selected “to generate discussion about the changing nature of the processes, work flow, and personnel necessary and appropriate for serial processing in the nineties and beyond.” Michigan State is an ARL library using the Innovative Interfaces’ INNOVACQ system for acquisitions and serials control. The entire Libraries’ staff totals 204 individuals including 69 in technical services. In FY91, the materials budget was approximately $4 million with $2.6 million expended on serials. In FY91, 16,885 subscriptions were received throughout the library system. Central technical services excluding two branch libraries and government documents processed 181,824 serial pieces through check-in. Serial titles cataloged in FY91 totaled 2,255. TenHave identified four trends leading to the examination of the structure of technical services. The first trend related to personnel and staffing changes. Specifically, five of eleven technical services librarian managers were lost. Skilled staff was being under utilized. Lack of staff turnover resulted in little flexibility in reorganizing. The second trend concerned the funding of the library materials budget. Although the budget had not been cut, it had not been growing fast enough to meet price increases either. As a result, the mix of materials purchased had been shifting from monographs to serials. The third trend was found in the university administration’s Nineties Strategy. This planning process began a refocusing of resources in 1987. The 1990s theme was “doing more with less.” The fourth trend focused on automation efforts. Although MSU was one of the first libraries to use INNOVACQ serials check-in, subsequent automation efforts had stagnated. Over the course of the past two years, MSU has been examining its organizational structure for technical services and recommending specific changes to the library administration. A planning team with broad representation was appointed to develop an action plan with a timeline for implementation. This team included seven professional staff and seven paraprofessional staff. Public services staff were included as well. Individual subgroups were appointed to address specific issues and each forwarded a report to the planning team. For example, the work flow subgroup was charged with documenting all work flows, making recommendations, and submitting a final report. In mid-1991, a design team was appointed to implement a reorganization of technical ser-
419
LITA/ALCTS SS Interest Group on Serials Automation Meeting.
“The Processing of Electronic Journals” was the topic for the meeting of the LITAlALCTS SS Interest Group on Serials Automation on Sunday, January 26, 1992. Marcia Anderson, Arizona State University, chaired the meeting, and Margaret Mering, University of NebraskaLincoln, served as Vice-Chair. The overflow crowd amply demonstrated the high level of interest in the subject: the meeting was eventually shifted to a ballroom to accommodate all who wished to attend. Peggy Johnson, Assistant Director of Public and Technical Services at the University of Minnesota-St. Paul, presented an overview of the topic. Electronic communication is generally seen as appealing due to the impression that it is new, cheaper, and faster. Parallels can be drawn to the effect of the introduction of movable type between 1400-1600 in terms of the enormous cultural and societal impact of the distribution of knowledge, standardization, legal concerns, etc. Global issues to be addressed beyond the institution include the following: standards (p~icul~ly for scientific notation, tables, plates, half-tones, etc.); bibliographic description; citation/indexing; national cooperation for storage, retention, archiving, and preservation. Within the institution, the local issues parallel those for print items: budgeting (subscription only, or including hardware/software costs); selection; service implications (local storage, printing, distribution); ownership (multiple copies vs. central location with multiaccess); user training; retention; and development of local m~agement software. Marilyn Geller, Serials Cataloger at MIT, outlined the activities of her institution’s Electronic Journals Task Force. The Task Force first reviewed all the available literature on the subject, and then located and examined various e-journals. Subscription patterns were found to vary between subscribing through the editor and subscribing through a list. Delivery mechanisms included delivery of an entire issue to an e-mail account, delivery of the table of contents with ~stru~ions for further access, and the delivery of articles as published rather than bundled in an issue. Some journals were fully arehived on the host computer, others partially archived. Many technical and philosophical problems for e-mail access remain to be resolved, and there is a need for archiving standards to address long-term access needs, methods of and responsibility for archiving, and copyright issues. The Task Force agreed on the need to develop the expertise and skills of other librarians, to widen the exposure to the MIT community, and to introduce users to e-journal capability, Gail McMillan, Serials Maintenance Team Leader at Virginia Tech, discussed the tremendous potential value of the electronic journal in terms of rapid delivery and ready access, and noted that “mark it and park it” is still a valuable philosophy, albeit in a somewhat different context. At Virginia Tech the Task Force on the Electronic Journal decided that storage and access for e-journals should reside with the University’s mainframe due to the existence of local and wide-area networks, space considerations, and user/staff f~ili~ity. McKay presented a series of screen displays to demonstrate how campus users access the e-journals and discussed the three separate stages of technical processing (request/receipt, serials cataloging/maintenance, and public access) decided upon by the Task Force. Serials staff request entire issues and, upon receipt, check the text cursorily to verify that text conventions are m~nt~ned and that the text is readable. The receipt process is the same as for conventional issues, with provision for missed-issue noti~cation and claiming. E-journals receive fuI1 cataloging treatment, as would any serial, and the bibliographic record includes a description of the means of access to the journal. Title changes are handled through electronic transfer to
420
ALA Midwinter Conference 1992
cataloging: public access is not impeded while the bibliographic record is being updated or corrected. Each speaker emphasized the tremendous potential of the electronic journal, the need to provide access as part of the library’s routine delivery of services, and the importance of taking an active role in facing the challenges presented by e-journals. Questions from the audience touched on such issues as the work being at other institutions, measurement of e-journal use, collection development, standards, bibliographic description, and cost factors. Lawrence R. Keating II Head, Serials Department University of Houston Libraries Houston, TX 77204-2091
ALCTS SS Research Libraries Discussion Group, January 25, 1992. 1992 Chair Mary Bushing of Montana State University opened the meeting with the introduction of guest speaker, Beth TenHave of Michigan State University (MSU). The topic-“Exploring Organizational Models for Serials Processing”- was selected “to generate discussion about the changing nature of the processes, work flow, and personnel necessary and appropriate for serial processing in the nineties and beyond.” Michigan State is an ARL library using the Innovative Interfaces’ INNOVACQ system for acquisitions and serials control. The entire Libraries’ staff totals 204 individuals including 69 in technical services. In FY91, the materials budget was approximately $4 million with $2.6 million expended on serials. In FY91, 16,885 subscriptions were received throughout the library system. Central technical services excluding two branch libraries and government documents processed 181,824 serial pieces through check-in. Serial titles cataloged in FY91 totaled 2,255. TenHave identified four trends leading to the examination of the structure of technical services. The first trend related to personnel and staffing changes. Specifically, five of eleven technical services librarian managers were lost. Skilled staff was being under utilized. Lack of staff turnover resulted in little flexibility in reorganizing. The second trend concerned the funding of the library materials budget. Although the budget had not been cut, it had not been growing fast enough to meet price increases either. As a result, the mix of materials purchased had been shifting from monographs to serials. The third trend was found in the university administration’s Nineties Strategy. This planning process began a refocusing of resources in 1987. The 1990s theme was “doing more with less.” The fourth trend focused on automation efforts. Although MSU was one of the first libraries to use INNOVACQ serials check-in, subsequent automation efforts had stagnated. Over the course of the past two years, MSU has been examining its organizational structure for technical services and recommending specific changes to the library administration. A planning team with broad representation was appointed to develop an action plan with a timeline for implementation. This team included seven professional staff and seven paraprofessional staff. Public services staff were included as well. Individual subgroups were appointed to address specific issues and each forwarded a report to the planning team. For example, the work flow subgroup was charged with documenting all work flows, making recommendations, and submitting a final report. In mid-1991, a design team was appointed to implement a reorganization of technical ser-