There are many challenges when attempting to understand the current open access environment, and the frameworks and best practices that are driving the movement forward. Collection development and scholarly communications have become a partnership of blurred lines, as paid subscriptions must be managed in parallel with open access content. Given the rapid pace of change, the coverage of the past 20 years of open access is the most relevant to grasp present conditions and the trajectory of the future of open access initiatives. Within that time frame, important milestones, advocacy groups, open access models, and sprouting enterprises will illustrate what is meant when open access is discussed.

As a result of continual resource inflation and a decreasing budget, Kansas State University Libraries were required to conduct a large-scale electronic journal cancellation project. The current organizational model does not require librarian subject specialists to perform comprehensive collection development duties; therefore, content development librarians developed a methodology of collecting quantitative and qualitative statistics to collaboratively evaluate journals. This article will demonstrate the methodology of assessment, and serve as a working model for libraries operating under circumstances of labor shortages, budget cuts, and leadership restructuring.

Purpose Despite its growing popularity, there is a noticeable absence of references to the inclusion of genealogy and family history studies within the field of digital humanities. New forms of inclusiveness, particularly in production-coding and cultural analysis, closely align genealogy and family history with the core tenants practiced among humanities computing and digital humanities. This paper aims to prove that genealogy as family history should be formally recognized within this cohort, as it can serve as a valuable and innovative partner for advocacy and technological advancement of the field. Design/methodology/approach By examining the literature, genealogy will be defined according to its use in the digital humanities, as well as its use in family history studies. The core tenants of humanities computing and digital humanities will be identified and compared against the research methodology and technological tools used in genealogy and family history research. The comparison will determine how closely the fields align, and if genealogy defined as family history should be used, and included within the field of digital humanities. Findings The progression of genealogy and family history from production to cultural analysis corresponds with the transition of production and coding (influenced by humanities computing) to the inclusion of experimental cultural research adopted by the digital humanities. Genealogy’s use of technological tools, such as databases, text encoding, data-text mining, graphic information systems and DNA mapping, demonstrates the use of coding and production. Cultural analysis through demographic study, crowdsourcing and establishing cultural connections illustrates new methods of scholarship, and connects coding and cultural criticism, serving as a bridge between digital humanities and the humanities at large. As genealogy continues to create new partnerships of a collaborative nature, it can, and will, continue to contribute to new areas of study within the field. As these practices continue to converge with the digital humanities, genealogy should be recognized as a partner and member in the digital humanities cohort. Originality/value Despite its growing popularity, there is a noticeable absence of references to the inclusion of genealogy and family history studies within the field of the digital humanities. The term genealogy resonates differently within the digital humanities, primarily articulating the history of the field over the study and research of family lineage. This study seeks to demonstrate how genealogy and family history can fit within the digital humanities, providing a new perspective that has not yet been articulated in the scholarly literature.

Significant cuts to the collections budget and a fire in the main library at Kansas State University transitioned the Libraries toward an increased focus upon electronic resources management. As electronic resource discovery continues to be hampered by market competition between Ex Libris and EBSCO library vendors, difficulties were identified in obtaining accurate usage statistics for resource renewal reviews, particularly EBSCO products. Kansas State University Libraries use the ALMA URM in combination with Primo discovery service, which experiences known resolver complications when paired with EBSCO resources. Technical services librarians and information technology staff tested several workarounds, but the question remains whether any proposed resolutions can be truly effective in avoiding collection usage biases and analytical discrepancies, resulting from exclusive indexing. Crunching the numbers, monetarily and analytically, the Ex Libris and EBSCO rivalry is an onerous battle on the budget and resource renewal process.

No abstract