BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
that the students could do the work that had not been done the day before; thus the likelihood of absenteeism would be reduced. The maximum number of students in any one class was ten. If there had been more than ten, it would be difficult to hold discussions and give each the attention needed. Also, the participants were chosen for each class according to their status (laboratory assistants together, secretaries together, and so on) and also according to their knowledge of the library, as determined by a pretest, which helped immensely in deciding how to teach each group. The content of the course could be debated. Naturally, any course should be geared to its participants and the goals which the instructor aims for. One thing about a course given on basic library skills should be stressed: the channels of communication are being given the chance to be opened and to stay open. The discussion and the exercise sections at the end of each day's activity gives you the chance to communicate with the students without their having to worry about disturbing you. This is good public relations and will make it easier for them to come back to the library, confident in the knowledge that if they cannot find what they are looking for, they have someone they can go to. A course like this strives to develop basic library skills upon which allied health personnel can build, while improving library relations and library services to the health-care field and the academic community. REFERENCES 1. BORDA, EVA, AND MURRAY, MARY E. Introduction to library services for allied health personnel. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 62: 363-366, Oct. 1974. 2. MAINA, WILLIAM. A class in library use for allied health personnel. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63: 226-228, Apr. 1975. APPENDIX I
BASIC LIBRARY SKILLS
Library orientation (Class 1) A. Tour of the library B Medical library organization C. Medical library terminology D. Library services E Library policies F. Discussion G. Exercises 2. Reference materials (Class 2-3) A. Card catalog B. Reference books 1.
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 65(2) April 1977
C. Discussion D. Exercises E. Indexes and abstracts (Class 3) F. Verification of book and journal references G. Discussion H. Exercises 3. Finding factual information (Class 4) A. Reference question B. Ready reference C. Manual literature search D. Computerized literature search E. Discussion F. Compilation of a bibliography
Journal Evaluation Study at the University of Connecticut Health Center* BY JOAN ASH, Associate Directorof Libraries
JAMES E. MORGAN, Director of Libraries
University of Oregon Health Sciences Center Portland, Oregon
THE
Lyman Maynard Stowe Library at the University of Connecticut Health Center was founded in 1964 and moved to its present location in Farmington, Connecticut in 1974. The library serves the schools of medicine and dentistry directly and is the primary resource for the schools of nursing, pharmacy, and allied health, located forty miles away at the main campus in Storrs. In addition, the library serves, along with the Yale Medical Library, as a resource library for the state of Connecticut; it is therefore committed to serving health professionals throughout the state, mainly through their hospital libraries. The current journals and backfiles originally selected during the library's infancy were of a high quality and served user needs more than adequately. Circulation statistics indicated that basic science materials received more use than clinical materials. More recently, especially after the Dempsey Hospital opened on campus in January 1975, circulation statistics indicate a greater emphasis on the use of clinical materials. Because of a perceived changing emphasis on collection use, budget constraints, and space problems, a journal evaluation project was begun in January 1976. Although the library has continuously monitored the quality and cost of journals, and lists of possible cancellations were
*Joan Ash was Assistant Director for Technical Services and James E. Morgan was Director of Libraries at the University of Connecticut Health Center when this study was conducted. 297
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
published in the library's New Acquisitions alerting tool on occasion, the time had come for a more concerted weeding effort. Little was available in the published literature on cancellation methods until an article by Bourne and Gregor [1] appeared in late 1975 at just the critical point in our planning process. A number of options were discussed with the Library Committee, and the end result was a multifaceted approach based first on faculty evaluations and then on coverage by indexing and abstracting services, price, citation studies, and availability elsewhere. Language was not a major concern because most foreign language titles had already been cancelled. Before the evaluation project, the library was subscribing to approximately 3,000 serial titles (the term serial is used loosely to describe anything issued in parts that is not a set). The goal of the evaluation was to list about 1,000 titles, or one-third of the collection, which could be considered for cancellation. These titles would be ranked from least to most needed and cancellations would begin at the least-needed end of the spectrum, moving toward the other end over the next five-year period. The possible cancellations list, which turned out to contain 1,300 titles, was generated in two ways. First, all titles only partially covered by Index Medicus were listed, since these were deemed peripheral to Health Center needs. This list was reviewed by library staff to eliminate titles like Science and Nature from inclusion. The second step in producing the list was to request a printout from the data services department in the Health Center of all journals not photocopied in the past two years. This was possible because: (1) all journals were noncirculating and photocopying had been offered free up to this time, so nearly all use of the journal collection involved copying and was therefore representative; and (2) for statistical purposes, the data services department had developed a program and the circulation department had programmed the data to analyze each photocopy request by type of user, date of article, journal title, and so on. Knowing what titles had been used, it was a simple matter to generate a list of those that had not been requested. The combined list was reviewed by library staff to eliminate indexing and abstracting tools (important, but rarely photocopied, so many had been listed on the printout) and already dead or cancelled titles. The resulting list of 1,300 titles was then sent to 298
each of thirty academic departments. We decided not to divide the list into separate subject lists. The Library Committee strongly agreed that there would be so much overlap due to interdisciplinary interests that separate subject lists might well contain nearly 1,300 titles anyway. The committee also stated that faculty members would not mind reviewing a long list for such a worthwhile purpose. Actually, with departments vying for space and funds at this particular time, we suspected that the enthusiasm occurred because they thought there was something to gain. We had predicted no excess funds as a result of the study, because inflation and new purchases would eat into recouped funds, but not all the faculty were convinced. We requested that each faculty member in each department be consulted, although we sent the list to department heads. In most cases, all faculty members were consulted and we received a 98% response within a month. A review of the results indicated that the evaluated list was divided into three sections. The first section included 590 titles which were important to four or less respondents. The second section of somewhat more important titles numbered 512 (five to eight departments requested that we keep them). The last section of titles, which nine or more respondents wanted to keep, included 96 titles. The first and second sections were the most vulnerable, then, for cancellations. Although they included 1,102 titles, 380 were received free. The average unit cost of these 1,102 titles was only $26.03, or less than half of the library's overall unit cost for all 3,000 titles of $55.00. The cost for the 722 paid subscriptions in the first two sections was $28,691. Even for these, the unit cost was only
$39.74. Since the cost saving was lower than anticipated, we proposed that all 722 titles be cancelled, after one more review. The third and most important 96 titles could be considered for cancellation in later years if funding levels remained static. The final review by library staff resulted in the addition of some titles for cancellation, particularly indexes and abstracting tools, and deletion of other titles. Deletions were based on cost factors, reference use and requests, and examinations of all questionable, unfamiliar titles to assess quality. Citation studies, including Journal Citation Reports [2], were consulted in other questionable cases. The Yale Medical Library, our partner Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 65(2) April 1977
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
resource library in the state, was also contacted tion is of the highest quality possible under present fiscal circumstances. for input. The final list of 505 titles to be considered for cancellation was published in New Acquisitions REFERENCES and most titles were cancelled. The total saving was about $20,000 and the unit cost per title, 1. BOURNE, C. P., AND GREGOR, D. Planning serials cancellations and cooperative collection develop$39.60. Binding savings will be about $3,000 each ment in the health sciences: methodology and year. Although binding costs are not a significant information. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. background portion of the serials budget, the savings will help 63: 366-377, Oct. 1975. the tight budget situation somewhat. Of equal im- 2. ISI Journal Citation Reports. Included in Science Ciportance is the staff's confidence that the collectation Index annual or available separately, 1975-.
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 65(2) April 1977
299
that the students could do the work that had not been done the day before; thus the likelihood of absenteeism would be reduced. The maximum number of students in any one class was ten. If there had been more than ten, it would be difficult to hold discussions and give each the attention needed. Also, the participants were chosen for each class according to their status (laboratory assistants together, secretaries together, and so on) and also according to their knowledge of the library, as determined by a pretest, which helped immensely in deciding how to teach each group. The content of the course could be debated. Naturally, any course should be geared to its participants and the goals which the instructor aims for. One thing about a course given on basic library skills should be stressed: the channels of communication are being given the chance to be opened and to stay open. The discussion and the exercise sections at the end of each day's activity gives you the chance to communicate with the students without their having to worry about disturbing you. This is good public relations and will make it easier for them to come back to the library, confident in the knowledge that if they cannot find what they are looking for, they have someone they can go to. A course like this strives to develop basic library skills upon which allied health personnel can build, while improving library relations and library services to the health-care field and the academic community. REFERENCES 1. BORDA, EVA, AND MURRAY, MARY E. Introduction to library services for allied health personnel. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 62: 363-366, Oct. 1974. 2. MAINA, WILLIAM. A class in library use for allied health personnel. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 63: 226-228, Apr. 1975. APPENDIX I
BASIC LIBRARY SKILLS
Library orientation (Class 1) A. Tour of the library B Medical library organization C. Medical library terminology D. Library services E Library policies F. Discussion G. Exercises 2. Reference materials (Class 2-3) A. Card catalog B. Reference books 1.
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 65(2) April 1977
C. Discussion D. Exercises E. Indexes and abstracts (Class 3) F. Verification of book and journal references G. Discussion H. Exercises 3. Finding factual information (Class 4) A. Reference question B. Ready reference C. Manual literature search D. Computerized literature search E. Discussion F. Compilation of a bibliography
Journal Evaluation Study at the University of Connecticut Health Center* BY JOAN ASH, Associate Directorof Libraries
JAMES E. MORGAN, Director of Libraries
University of Oregon Health Sciences Center Portland, Oregon
THE
Lyman Maynard Stowe Library at the University of Connecticut Health Center was founded in 1964 and moved to its present location in Farmington, Connecticut in 1974. The library serves the schools of medicine and dentistry directly and is the primary resource for the schools of nursing, pharmacy, and allied health, located forty miles away at the main campus in Storrs. In addition, the library serves, along with the Yale Medical Library, as a resource library for the state of Connecticut; it is therefore committed to serving health professionals throughout the state, mainly through their hospital libraries. The current journals and backfiles originally selected during the library's infancy were of a high quality and served user needs more than adequately. Circulation statistics indicated that basic science materials received more use than clinical materials. More recently, especially after the Dempsey Hospital opened on campus in January 1975, circulation statistics indicate a greater emphasis on the use of clinical materials. Because of a perceived changing emphasis on collection use, budget constraints, and space problems, a journal evaluation project was begun in January 1976. Although the library has continuously monitored the quality and cost of journals, and lists of possible cancellations were
*Joan Ash was Assistant Director for Technical Services and James E. Morgan was Director of Libraries at the University of Connecticut Health Center when this study was conducted. 297
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
published in the library's New Acquisitions alerting tool on occasion, the time had come for a more concerted weeding effort. Little was available in the published literature on cancellation methods until an article by Bourne and Gregor [1] appeared in late 1975 at just the critical point in our planning process. A number of options were discussed with the Library Committee, and the end result was a multifaceted approach based first on faculty evaluations and then on coverage by indexing and abstracting services, price, citation studies, and availability elsewhere. Language was not a major concern because most foreign language titles had already been cancelled. Before the evaluation project, the library was subscribing to approximately 3,000 serial titles (the term serial is used loosely to describe anything issued in parts that is not a set). The goal of the evaluation was to list about 1,000 titles, or one-third of the collection, which could be considered for cancellation. These titles would be ranked from least to most needed and cancellations would begin at the least-needed end of the spectrum, moving toward the other end over the next five-year period. The possible cancellations list, which turned out to contain 1,300 titles, was generated in two ways. First, all titles only partially covered by Index Medicus were listed, since these were deemed peripheral to Health Center needs. This list was reviewed by library staff to eliminate titles like Science and Nature from inclusion. The second step in producing the list was to request a printout from the data services department in the Health Center of all journals not photocopied in the past two years. This was possible because: (1) all journals were noncirculating and photocopying had been offered free up to this time, so nearly all use of the journal collection involved copying and was therefore representative; and (2) for statistical purposes, the data services department had developed a program and the circulation department had programmed the data to analyze each photocopy request by type of user, date of article, journal title, and so on. Knowing what titles had been used, it was a simple matter to generate a list of those that had not been requested. The combined list was reviewed by library staff to eliminate indexing and abstracting tools (important, but rarely photocopied, so many had been listed on the printout) and already dead or cancelled titles. The resulting list of 1,300 titles was then sent to 298
each of thirty academic departments. We decided not to divide the list into separate subject lists. The Library Committee strongly agreed that there would be so much overlap due to interdisciplinary interests that separate subject lists might well contain nearly 1,300 titles anyway. The committee also stated that faculty members would not mind reviewing a long list for such a worthwhile purpose. Actually, with departments vying for space and funds at this particular time, we suspected that the enthusiasm occurred because they thought there was something to gain. We had predicted no excess funds as a result of the study, because inflation and new purchases would eat into recouped funds, but not all the faculty were convinced. We requested that each faculty member in each department be consulted, although we sent the list to department heads. In most cases, all faculty members were consulted and we received a 98% response within a month. A review of the results indicated that the evaluated list was divided into three sections. The first section included 590 titles which were important to four or less respondents. The second section of somewhat more important titles numbered 512 (five to eight departments requested that we keep them). The last section of titles, which nine or more respondents wanted to keep, included 96 titles. The first and second sections were the most vulnerable, then, for cancellations. Although they included 1,102 titles, 380 were received free. The average unit cost of these 1,102 titles was only $26.03, or less than half of the library's overall unit cost for all 3,000 titles of $55.00. The cost for the 722 paid subscriptions in the first two sections was $28,691. Even for these, the unit cost was only
$39.74. Since the cost saving was lower than anticipated, we proposed that all 722 titles be cancelled, after one more review. The third and most important 96 titles could be considered for cancellation in later years if funding levels remained static. The final review by library staff resulted in the addition of some titles for cancellation, particularly indexes and abstracting tools, and deletion of other titles. Deletions were based on cost factors, reference use and requests, and examinations of all questionable, unfamiliar titles to assess quality. Citation studies, including Journal Citation Reports [2], were consulted in other questionable cases. The Yale Medical Library, our partner Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 65(2) April 1977
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
resource library in the state, was also contacted tion is of the highest quality possible under present fiscal circumstances. for input. The final list of 505 titles to be considered for cancellation was published in New Acquisitions REFERENCES and most titles were cancelled. The total saving was about $20,000 and the unit cost per title, 1. BOURNE, C. P., AND GREGOR, D. Planning serials cancellations and cooperative collection develop$39.60. Binding savings will be about $3,000 each ment in the health sciences: methodology and year. Although binding costs are not a significant information. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. background portion of the serials budget, the savings will help 63: 366-377, Oct. 1975. the tight budget situation somewhat. Of equal im- 2. ISI Journal Citation Reports. Included in Science Ciportance is the staff's confidence that the collectation Index annual or available separately, 1975-.
Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 65(2) April 1977
299
