Collections Advisory Council Meeting
Agenda
February 10, 2005
1:30 - 3:00
102 Main Library

1. Bracken's updates on recent CIRM, especially SCOPUS.
   
   
   
2. I'd like CAC to vote on the following (pasted below) and have the vote be binding. We could discuss it forever in a CMF and still not everyone would be happy.
   
   

   Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:11:55 -0500
   From: Patricia McCandless [mccandless.1@osu.edu]
   Subject: serial issue for Collection Managers' Forum
   
   

The issue of showing withdrawn for serial volumes that have been withdrawn was a topic at Public Services last month. They feel strongly that withdrawn should show in the catalog record, but the MLRRS people think the withdrawn volume should be deleted from the holdings. There was a suggestion that the issue be considered at a Collection Managers' Forum. Do you have any other ideas about how to reach consensus?

In the meeting of October 19th we agreed to show withdrawn serial volumes as withdrawn. Here's some background from the 10/19 minutes:

Our current policy is that a serial volume long missing is eventually withdrawn and suppressed from public view. The problem for users is the contradiction between the lib-has statement (start date followed by hyphen), the check-in display of pieces, and the skipped volume number in the list of holdings. Suggestion: rather than suppress, let's show the no-longer-owned/withdrawn information for serials and msets. This will tell the users that a volume is positively not on site and that the gap is not an oversight. It may also help collection managers to identify missing pieces needing replacement.
Vote:

1. Leave withdrawn volumes in serials and mono sets unsuppressed? yes
2. Tech Services encouraged to revise the documentation (policies and procedures) for greater clarity and direction? yes

However, participants in a recent MLRRS meeting differ, feeling that the change in practice will be a disservice to users and will prompt more queries. They suggest that it needs more discussion--take it to a Collection Managers' forum also.

3. Discussion of the Kluwer/Springer and Blackwell cancels (email below). Quite frankly, I expect that this sort of thing to repeat often in the future. It may happen to Wiley next. It could have happened with Elsevier two years ago, but didn't.

Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:44:27 -0500
From: Jennifer Kuehn
Subject: OhioLINK cancellation of Springer and Blackwell ejournals

Trisha and Jim-

Although Trisha had told us this would be happening, this is the first time I've seen the actual list of ejournals that we no longer will be getting through OhioLINK publicly announced:

http://www.ohiolink.edu/supportohiolink/didyouknow.htm

Should we be informing our library that we will no longer be getting these titles in the EJC, reminding them that the EJC will continue to have issues through 2004 since the data is possessed by OhioLINK EJC and we don't lose access to the years we acquired?

Will S/er be doing a libhas for the closed titles so that patrons will see without going to the EJC that we won't have current issues?

Isn't there a CIC project for the Springer and Kluwer titles where they will be received too? Is that access to the ejournals as well as paper archival subscriptions?

I'm barely keeping up with the paper journals we have cancelled; so its very new to me that we are having ejournals cancelled now too! How many of these titles had OSU owned in paper and cancelled? Just curious about whether we will be losing access entirely to titles we had subscribed to at one time in paper.

4. Preparation for 2.16.05 Collection Manager Forum related to spreadsheets, discipline groups, sub-committee on funding formula info gathering.