Serials: Issues and TechniquesFall 2007

Position Paper Presentation

Mike Rybak

“Your director has returned from a meeting where she heard a presentation from a library which no longer checks-in their

current periodicals. They simply shelve them and deal with any missing issues

when it comes to bind. What do you think of this idea?”

Rick Anderson and Steven D. Zink

“Implementing the Unthinkable: The Demise of Periodical Check-in at the University of Nevada.”

Library Collections, Acquisitions & Technical Services, Vol. 27

(Spring 2003).

Zink/Anderson article

• University of Nevada Reno Library:– 15,000+ journal titles– 2,700 in print– Approx .5 reshelvings per issue for print– 12,500 items checked in per quarter– 2,200 claims per quarter (including 2nd and 3rd

claims)

Zink/Anderson article

Is routine journal check-in really necessary?

Zink/Anderson article

• Why check-in journals?– Record whether an issue has arrived– Monitor changes in publication frequency– Detection of title changes– Allows routine claiming of missing isues– Management mechanism for binding process

Zink/Anderson article

• Record whether an issue has arrived– Status vs. Availabilty– Process vs. Impact– Process centered or patron centered?– “Any status other than right here, right now

does little to help the patron…”

Zink/Anderson article

• Monitor changes in publication frequency– Documenting changes in frequency does little

to enhance patron access– Frequency decreasing in significance as

journals move into online formats– Time and effort not justified

Zink/Anderson article

• Detection of title changes– More significant to patrons than frequency

changes– Other less time consuming processes can be

implemented to track title changes

Zink/Anderson article

• Claiming– Is routine claiming of all missing issues really

necessary?– “The eighty-five percent” calculation

Zink/Anderson article

• Claiming– Is routine claiming of all missing issues

really necessary?– “The eighty-five percent” calculation:

• About 85% of expected items arrive on time• Out of the remaing 15%, some will eventually

arrive regardless of claiming• Some will never arrive despite repeated claims• The remaining number represents the benefit of

claiming

Zink/Anderson article

• Claiming– At U of Nevada Reno, print makes up about

20% of the journal collection– Usage declining in favor of e-journals– Is it logical to use staff time to claim the least

used 20% of the collection?

Zink/Anderson article

• Binding– Expensive– Disruptive– Most items do not require the protection

Zink/Anderson article

University of Nevada’s alternative procedures:

1. Incoming print periodicals are shelved immediately in the Current Periodical stacks

2. Any issues without a spot in the stacks are quickly checked by a clerk for title changes,etc.

3. Remaining titles checked by selectors

Zink/Anderson article

University of Nevada’s alternative procedures:

4. Select list of high-use titles processed for security

5. A few high-use/high-value titles are claimed

6. Most titles are not bound, back issues are labeled and placed in a box

7. Enhanced document delivery procedures

Zink/Anderson article

University of Nevada’s Results:

• Patron reaction– None. Online check- in status does not appear to

have been commonly used by patrons

• Speed to stacks– 48 hours or more, down to same day

Zink/Anderson article

University of Nevada’s Results:

• Bindery savings• Shift in staff time and focus

– 75% of one full-time employee shifted to e-journal and database management

Is check-in worth the trouble?

• Anderson/Zink’s conclusion:– Close management of information that is not

useful to patrons– Check-in can be replaced with faster, less

exacting processes– Staff time can be shifted from low-use to high-

use resources

Is this approach appropriate for every library?

• Anderson and Zink concede that it is not

• Overdue for careful consideration

Is this approach appropriate for every library?

• Collection size and composition– Ratio of e-journals to print– More appropriate for large library?

• Institution– What type of library?– Archival requirements– Complete runs of titles

Is this approach appropriate for every library?

• Users

• How collection is used

• Staff size – How much time spent on check-in– How can this time be redirected?

Is this approach appropriate for every library?

It is not a “one size fits all” solution.

However, there may be an alternative to “the way we’ve always done it”.