Creating a Statewide JSTOR Repository: Initial Steps Taken by the Florida State University System

Walker, Ben; Schoonover, Dan; Margjoni, Raimonda

doi:10.1080/1072303x.2010.490493

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In practical terms, these CCD considerations often generate consortial purchasing relationships for cost-sharing or savings ( Pan & Fong, 2010 ; Scigliano, 2002 ). These consortia often develop around similar demographics, location, academic standing, or collection needs ( Booth & O'Brien, 2011 ; Davis, Jin, Neely, & Rykse, 2012 ; Neal, 2011 ; Walker, Schoonover, & Margjoni, 2010 ). Other CCD approaches transform collection selection and management approaches to impact multiple libraries.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative collection development: current perspectives leading to future initiatives

Levenson

Hess

2020

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As academic libraries continue to face acquisition budget challenges, collaborative collection development (CCD) offers greater opportunities to fulfill the core role of library collecting and collection management, namely, to provide enhanced access to the widest variety of relevant resources in the most cost-responsible manner possible. Libraries have successfully implemented CCD projects of various types, and as a result, have achieved these needed cost savings. The authors conducted survey research to investigate current CCD activities and librarians' perceptions of its benefits, drawbacks, elements contributing to successful CCD programs, and possible obstacles to success. Library collections consist of a variety of material formats and librarians have applied CCD models to maintain needed access to these resources, shifting from ownership to access, all in support of building collective collections. The survey results found that, although challenges can exist, application of CCD activities have realized substantial benefits, financial and otherwise, for academic libraries overall.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative collection development: current perspectives leading to future initiatives

Levenson

Hess

2020

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This does not necessarily reflect that serials are easier, and complications of holdings validations and cataloging are often noted. Serials do, however, have the advantage of releasing -more space per decision‖ than is the case with monographs (Sandler et al, 2012, 257;Walker, Schoonover, & Margjoni, 2010;Bird & Ashougian, 2012). Although Downsview ultimately succeeded in the practical goal of freeing physical space at Robarts without compromising accessibility to high-use material (less than 2% of Downsview material circulates annually), the process was not without controversy.…”

Section: Concerns From the Academic Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As more collaborative storage facilities develop, the challenges and -lessons learned‖ show similar trends (Wright, Jilovsky & Anderson, 2012;Renwick, 2013;Walker, Schoonover & Margjoni, 2010;Bird & Ashoughian, 2012;vanDuinkerken, 2012). Reviewing the literature identified several common themes:…”

Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When attempting to create a statewide JSTOR repository in Florida, faculty in the arts and humanities expressed concern about the usability, reliability, and quality of some online materials (Walker, Schoonover & Margjoni, 2010). research value, be clean and in good condition, and there is a preference for bound volumes over loose issues.…”

Section: Concerns From the Academic Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Making Shared Print Management Happen: A Project of Five Canadian Academic Libraries

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five academic libraries in Ontario (Canada) are collaborating in a shared last print copy repository project. The project, called Keep@Downsview, aims to consolidate and rationalize low-use print materials held by the partner libraries and ensure long-term preservation of these important scholarly materials in Ontario, while still providing access via document delivery and ILL. In doing so, each of the partner institutions demonstrates its commitment to the stewardship of print collections for future generations while repurposing valuable space on campus. This paper describes the background, rationale, challenges, and lessons learned for this unique Canadian project that leveraged funding from the province of Ontario, the University of Toronto's high density preservation facility at Downsview, and the commitment of all partners to preserve the scholarly record in Ontario.

show abstract

“…24 Further articles address intellectual completeness verification for JSTOR print backfiles. 25 The thorny issue of shared ownership is treated through establishing an appropriate legal framework for "an ownership system called tenancy in common . .…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Marking Heuristic for Materials in a Shared Print Agreement

Anderson¹

2017

LRTS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S pace is at a premium in research libraries. More institutions and their governing bodies look to repurpose footprints once devoted to stacks and to find ways to allow for the maintenance of retrospective physical collections in a time of increasing emphasis on social collaboration and reliance on digital technologies. The lack of space is coupled with tightening budgets, a growing realization of the costs of maintaining print materials in open stacks, and the growing acceptance of digital surrogates (and born-digital resources) across academic disciplines. As such, academic libraries are turning to more cooperative forms of collection management, particularly for large print serial runs but also for low-use monographic collections. There is a growing corpus of literature describing these plans, their ontologies, organizational structures, and primary considerations for institutions considering initiating such projects. However, despite the robust literature and online program documentation available for review and emulation, many practicalities are rarely covered, articulated, or even defined.One such practicality is the need for additional marking of items identified in a shared print agreement. Minimal information exists on basic benchmarks or best practices or even a minimum standard proposed in the literature, and there is a corresponding lack of recommendations or descriptions in program documentation from many regional and national shared print agreements. This paper advocates for the need to consider marking in shared print agreements and establishes a heuristic to guide decision makers when crafting or amending policies in shared print agreements. Using a systematic analysis of the needs of shared print programs and rationales for marking, this paper demonstrates that traditional marking concerns are still relevant, if not more so, in an era of electronic resources and last-resort copies; it highlights the major considerations for such additional marking, proposes possible explanations to account for the lack of practicalities in both the literature and in project documentation, and poses areas for further consideration and research.

show abstract

Creating a Statewide JSTOR Repository: Initial Steps Taken by the Florida State University System

Cited by 5 publications

References 15 publications

Collaborative collection development: current perspectives leading to future initiatives

Collaborative collection development: current perspectives leading to future initiatives

Making Shared Print Management Happen: A Project of Five Canadian Academic Libraries

A Marking Heuristic for Materials in a Shared Print Agreement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About