Coordinating Committees
Untitled Document
CUWL-CDC MEETING
January 8, 2001
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
MINUTES
Present:
Jan Bogstad (UW-Eau Claire)
Carr, Jo Ann (UW-Madison-CIMC)
Cecchini, Linda (UW-Eau Claire)
Docken, Lorie (UWSA)
Finnegan, Brian (UW-LaCrosse)
Huang, Joyce (UW-Whitewater)
Huebschen, Cynthia (UW-Oshkosh)
Le May, Curt (UW-River Falls)
Nordgren, Deb (UW-Superior)
Palmini, Cathy (UW-Stevens Point)
Payson, Evelyn (UW-Colleges)
Pitschmann, Lou (UW-Madison)
Rieder, Mary (UW-Colleges)
Robb, Joan (UW-Green Bay)
Strehl, Sue (UW-Stout)
Tobin, James (UW-Milwaukee)
Wurtzler, Judy (UW-Platteville)
Guest: Axel Schmetzke (UW-Stevens Point)
I. I. Introduction and approval of minutes
Chair Joan Robb called the meeting to order at 10:05. Members introduced themselves.
The minutes of the September 25-27, 2000 meeting were approved.
II Ejournals
Lorie Docken distributed a progress report on negotiations with vendors for
electronic journals. This report noted that the CIC is still in negotiations
with Blackwell.Sage titles are not available directly from Sage but from other
products including Ebsco Academic Search Elite. There are only three Sage titles
to which we do not have access. APA is still developing a pricing structure
for institutional access to their PsycArticles product-information on this should
be available for the next CDC meeting. BioOne provides access to 32 journals
with little overlap with Jstor. The quoted price of $54,816.75 does not reflect
credits due to UW Madison and UW Milwaukee as charter members of the BioOne
consortium. Nature has a 12 issue embargo on access to their content-an item
of concern to UW Madison and many other institutions across the country. Many
of the high demand Highwire titles are not available to consortia. ACM includes
one set of print titles with each consortium subscription to their 25 journals
and 15 years of conference proceedings. AIP requires a commitment to retain
print subscriptions as well for a period of three years. After a brief discussion
of this information, a decision on which titles to recommend for purchase was
deferred until we had discussed the status of the budget.
III. Budget review of Shared Electronic Collection currently and for next year.
Lorie Docken distributed a spreadsheet detailing the current years expenditures
and our commitments for 2001-2002 if we renew all present subscriptions. The
projection for next year includes $150,000 from the UW System Library Automation
Fund, an amount that is not yet recommended. Current projections for 2001-2002
are for a deficit of $93,700 if no new funds are available.
Joan Robb noted that we must communicate the critical need to Directors for
central funding of shared electronic collections and the impact of these shared
collections on our ability to meet the needs of our clients. We must also develop
a contingency plan for the shared electronic collections if the Library DIN
in the Regent’s budget is not approved. Potential components of contingency
plans include cost sharing or group purchasing. If the pool of funds is static
then we need to recognize that our clients will go to information vendors which
market to individuals (e.g. Questia).
Committee members recognize that movement of funds to a central collection does
impact the local collection because what is core to the group is not always
core to the individual campuses. However, there are major benefits received
from the shared electronic collection and group purchasing. These benefits include
a decrease in faculty politics pitting one group of faculty against another
and success is serving the needs of our clients for electronic resources.
Our strategy should be to develop a shared list that represents our true core
resources, determine which can be covered by our shared funds and coordinate
group purchases from campus budgets for items of interest to a limited number
of campuses. If sufficient funds aren’t available centrally we will need
to determine what resources to cur and communicate to campuses that they will
need to pay for access to products that are cut centrally. We also need to look
closely at overlap in holdings.
In order to improve our ability in building our collections and to move towards
an environment in which we are in a better position to negotiate for a shared
ejournal collection, we recommend that the Directors instruct the LAM’s
to create a single list of print standing orders for 2001 by June 1, 2001.
Further, Joan Robb should communicate to the Directors that we have begun to
develop options for a shared electronic collection dependent on the amount of
funding in the state budget. We recognize that without an increase in funds
for a shared electronic collection the quality of our shared and/or local collections
will decline.
MOTION: CDC recommends that we expend $85,000 for ejournals plus a portion of
the the unexpended funds of $75,000 to add BioOne, ACM and AIP to the shared
electronic collections. Jan Bogstad moved, Sue Strehl seconded. Motion carried.
IV. IV. Group purchase opportunities
UW Green Bay, Parkside and Eau Claire are among the campuses interested in exploring
the group purchase of titles not of interest to the entire group. Joan Robb
will collect information on interest in group purchases in order to construct
a spreadsheet. A minimum of five institutions is needed to request that Lori
Docken explore the potential for a group purchase. If there are fewer than five
institutions, campuses should work with Cheryl Bradley at WILS. The process
for group purchases should be:
-Share interest with CDC list
-Determine if WILS or UWSA can assist
-Sign licenses at the campus level
V. V. Re-examining the “Guidelines for an Electronic Collection”
A reexamination of the guidelines was prompted by the Directors rejection of
a proposal that UW Madison be excluded from a central license with Bell &
Howell for MedLine at a savings of $26,000. The Directors indicated that the
purpose of the shared electronic collection is to provides the same resources
and the same interface throughout the state. The differences in interface and
in full text coverage in Bell & Howell and Ovid would negate this purpose.
If we recommend that the guidelines be revised to provide an option for a campus
not to participate in a group purchase we need to address issues of equivalent
coverage; the impact of multiple interfaces for the same product on public services
staff; the impact of multiple interfaces on shared help and tutorial materials;
and the lack of a common interface for distance learners. We would also need
to guarantee that the financial impact of opting out is beneficial to the system.
This reexamination of the guidelines is related to agenda item IV. A subcommittee
could include an examination of the implications of systemwide agreement in
their review of products. The need for a shared interface may be an aspect of
our shared collections that we need to monitor.
VI. VI. NetLibrary
A. Ordering update/campus balances: This information is not available at this
time. WILS tracks the entire netLibrary consortium budget not the spending of
individual libraries.
B. Collection development policy: The Directors have asked that we have a policy
statement to address the question of the purpose and use of our collection.
Although a full collection development policy cannot be articulated until we
have use statistics we do support this policy statement:
Since the netLibrary collection is being developed to facilitate the testing
of electronic books as one method of developing collaborative collection development
methods and to support resource sharing and distance learning, we select netLibrary
titles on the basis of their subject and the reputation of their publishers
and authors.
C. C. Improvement of the ordering process: There is a need for each campus to
keep
track of its own allocations but this is difficult because of lack of knowledge
of which campus is responsible for the purchase of a title which has been purchased
by one than one campus. If CUWL needs our expenditures tracked more closely
we need better central reporting. Joan Robb will speak with Kathy Schneider
about this issue and determine the funds remaining in 2001-2001 as well as how
WILS is tracking and responding to duplicate requests. Joan will attempt to
clarify all procedures used in the netLibrary ordering process.
D. Additional access to electronic books: UW Madison has spent $2600 for access
to UW Press titles for UW system libraries. As we clarify our ordering procedures
for netLibrary we will need to include procedures for monitoring orders so that
we are not purchasing electronic books available from other sources (e.g. National
Academy Press).
VII. VII. Development of a committee to more closely examine proposed products
Joyce Huang, Cynthia Huebschen, Brian Finnegan and Deb Nordgren volunteered
to serve on a CDC subcommittee that will examine new products and provide an
indepth analysis of these products including system-wide implications of purchase
to the entire CDC.
VIII. VIII. Disability issues in regard to electronic resources.
Axel Schmetzke of UW Stevens Point addressed the issue of accessibility for
electronic resources supported by UW System. His presentation reviewed issues
in accessibility of electronic information resources for users with print disabilities.
The presentation defined print disabilities, the concept of universal design
for physical and virtual environments and illustrated differences between accessible
and inaccessible web pages. He also stressed that the UW system has a legal
obligation to provide access. The impact of Section 508 that requires that all
products that the federal government buys comply with accessibility standards
may impact the accessibility of products that we buy. However, we should include
access for those with disabilities in our consideration of items that we purchase.
The slide program is available at: (http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/Accessible_CDC/title.htm)
IX. IX. Electronic journal connections
A. A. Progress reports from campuses on links from indexes to ejournals: UW-Eau
Claire
reported that some departments only want access in electronic format. UW-Green
Bay has asked its serials vendor, Faxon, to provide a list of titles available
free in an e0format. They have made connections to titles from Carfax, Oxford
University Press, University of Chicago Press, Cambridge, Springer Verlag and
Catchword. Establishing these hooks requires extensive communication with the
serials department. UW Stout has some concerns about the compatibility with
the proxy server and the time frame when electronic access is available. UW
Stevens Point has provided hook for approximately 150 journals. We need to encourage
vendors to work with publishers of indexes to establish these links in a timely
manner.
B. B. Endeavor Science Direct: Availability of this product resulted from the
merger of Voyager and Elsevier. Science Direct can be set up as another Voyager
catalog with access to the full text of titles to which a campus subscribes
in print or to which Science Direct can have access through WebVoyage.
X. X. PsycInfo Update
Brian Finnegan reported on his work on developing a title list for PsycInfo
and comparing with other titles. His work to date indicates that two thirds
of the titles are included in other indexes that we have.
In a related matter, Linda Cecchini reported that Academic Press will not sell
access to individual titles.
XI. XI. LAMS Journal List Project:
Linda Cecchini reported that Steve Elfstand has about ten files in a database
and is working with the other campuses to contribute records. Campuses could
then add their print holdings extracted from Voyager with the display up to
each campus. This information would be updated twice a year. Consult your local
Lam for more details.
XII. XII. Update on digital projects across the UW System
UW Madison is working on a project on digitizing pre 1902 content to develop
a resource on Foreign Relations of the United Stated. Other projects include
historical texts of interest such as the Irish Famine and _____________ Bremer,
a 19th century traveler to the U.W.
XIII. XIII. Other
1. A. Academic Library Survey: In counting the cost of current versus the backfile
for resources like Jstor in which the fee for the backfile can’t be distinguished
from the fee for current access, count the fee as for current expenditures.
2. B. There is no new information on Bell/Howell’s Literature online.
3. C. We should obtain and review statistics on products as part of our renewal
decisions
4. D. There is not enough interest in purchase of the Biosis backfile to support
a group purchase.
5. E. The next meeting is scheduled for April 6 in Madison.
XIV. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4:15.
Respectfully submitted
Jo Ann Carr
CUWL CDC Secretary