Attended by: Elizabeth Byrne, Chuck Eckman (chair), Gail Ford (recorder), Jim Gordon, Mary Ann Mahoney, Scott Miller, Barclay Ogden, Gary Peete, Margaret Phillips, Theresa Salazar, Kathryn Wayne, Beth Weil, Jill Woolums, Susan Xue. Guests: Beth Dupuis, Jim Spohrer
Agenda
1. Announcements / Updates
2. EBSCO/GALE Report
3. Assessment Initiatives
a. Composition of Collections Data Working Group
b. Feedback on JUR, Scholarly Stats, etc.
4. Review of CDL and SCAP Funded Resources
5. Collections Integrity Task Force (CITF) Report
Action Items
• Chuck will work with Tom and Beth Burnside to send the announcement about BRII to all faculty
• Chuck will be sending out the final charge for the Collections Data Working Group. He asked CC to recommend members and/or to volunteer themselves for this important group.
• Beth and Chuck will formulate specific questions about the CITF Report, to use in guiding discussions in Council meetings.
Meeting Contents
1. Announcements / Updates
• Budget: Campus administration has asked all units to discuss the outcomes if we were given a 7% cut to 19900 funds. For the Library, this would include cuts to both operations and collections. A second request was for a description of what would happen if we also took a 4% tax on carryforward funds. Either outcome would be very serious for the library. The Collections budget is built on last-year’s proposal for a 4-year compact with the campus. The proposed cuts and taxes would disrupt this thinking. The Library’s response is due back to campus by Feb 15.
• Berkeley Research Impact Initiative (BRII): BRII formally began January 21. It was announced via the Deans & Directors mailing list. A second email will be going to all faculty soon. As of today’s meeting we’ve had 3 formal applications and a few inquiries. BRII funds author requests for publication in truly open access journals (articles immediately free to readers AND author retains copyright) up to $3000. BRII funds up to $1500 in fees for journals which allow immediate readership, but still retain copyright.
2. EBSCO/GALE Report
CC commented on the report entitled, EBSCO-Gale Database Evaluation Task Force Report to the Collection Development Committee University of California Libraries, December 4, 2007. CC agrees that this is an important decision and endorses the report’s core recommendation. It’s likely that a lot of smaller databases may move to this platform and CC likes the idea of a good single user interface. There is some concern that the industry is headed for “monopoly”, and that we may suffer financial repercussions from that in the future, but there’s no obvious alternate course of action at this point. Other possible competitors haven’t made enough progress to be considered at this point.
Chuck invited selectors who haven’t had a chance to do so yet, to send him comments before the next CDC meeting on February 15.
3. Assessment Initiatives
a. Composition of Collections Data Working Group – Chuck will be sending out the final charge for the Collections Data Working Group. He asked CC to recommend members and/or to volunteer themselves for this important group.
b. Feedback on JUR, Scholarly Stats, etc. – Gail reminded CC that the JUR trial is underway, that Scholarly Stats is available for use on Tier 1 titles, and that we’re hosting a demo of OCLC’s WorldCat Analysis Tool on Feb 12. CC offered good advice on how to engage people in providing feedback so that trials are meaningful.
4. Review of CDL and SCAP Funded Resources
Chuck mentioned that the UL’s may mandate a review of SCAP-funded resources. This may result in cancellations of central funding for resources that we want to continue – with local financial consequences. This process is akin to our local undertaking to review Dilib titles.
Some comments:
• some SCAP-funded resources are important and we should argue that they be protected
• it would be useful to look at some existing products and see how/whether there is a lot of overlap in titles with other products that are currently under license (…can we drop any current subscriptions according to the same model/thinking used when we dropped Current Contents?)
• a title-by-title review would be much easier if the spreadsheet also included information about price, use, cost/use, cost/view.
• it might be useful for someone to review/talk with University of Washington, who has recently dropped lots of databases.
5. Collections Integrity Task Force (CITF) Report (http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Staff/CDP/citf_final_report.pdf)
Chuck commended the Task Force for producing a very good report. Beth reported that Doe/Moffitt is taking the document very seriously and that discussions have begun on many items.
CC made comments on those items that struck them:
• a very low number of records should be “missing” at any one time; do we need to set a standard?
• a physical inventory is very appealing to some, and seems unrealistic to others
• the issues of storage for medium-rare books is very important and not so easy to resolve – where would such a facility be located? where would users read the material, and how would supervised reading be staffed?
• it was agreed that we really need to be billing patrons the actual cost (rather than a minimum default price) of replacing books.
• the estimate that 300,000 items in the circulating collection are damaged was startling and this needs to be addressed.
The discussion resulted in a recommendation that the report be discussed in Subject Councils – and that the discussion might be more focused and fruitful if Beth and Chuck formulate specific questions to use in guiding discussions.
Go to Collections Council minutes
Copyright © 2008 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
Server manager contact