RecorderTroubleshooting electronic resource linking issues can seem to be an insurmountable task-so many resources, so little time. Using interlibrary loan (ILL) data on requests for materials available online, the electronic resources staff at the Samford University Library detected problems with the implementation of their new link resolver. This data also provided a window into some systemic issues within the metadata of certain sources and the link resolver knowledgebase. In addition to helping us improve linking for our users, the establishment of a workflow for communicating cancelled ILL transaction data on an ongoing basis has also improved the communication between electronic resources staff and the ILL department regarding the overall linking process.

In recent decades, the composition of academic library collections has shifted toward electronic formats, resulting in a more complicated publication landscape to be navigated by selectors. Additionally, the workload of public services librarians has become more weighted toward instruction and research support, putting more pressure on the time of liaison librarians tasked with collection development responsibilities. These shifts have prompted academic institutions, including University of Wyoming Libraries, to consider a restructuring of collection development responsibilities. This article describes the evolution and implementation of a centralized model of selection at UW Libraries.Since the latter half of the twentieth century, the traditional model of collection building in academic libraries has relied largely on the work of multiple subject bibliographers, whose responsibility for selecting materials in specific areas of study has typically been "tacked on" to their primary duties. In recent decades, the composition of academic library collections has shifted toward electronic formats, resulting in a vastly more complicated publication landscape to be navigated by selectors; at the same time, the workload of public services librarians has become more heavily weighted toward instruction and research support, putting considerably more pressure on the time of liaison librarians tasked with collection development duties. This shift has prompted numerous institutions, including University of Wyoming (UW) Libraries, to consider reorganizing collection development responsibilities according to a more centralized model, with the intention of focusing and streamlining the work of selecting library materials as well as better integrating these tasks with ongoing processes of collection management. This article discusses the evolution of thinking about organization of selection work and electronic resources management (ERM) in academic libraries and describes the implementation of a centralized model of selection at the University of Wyoming. Literature ReviewNearly a century ago, Bascom (1922) wrote that selection "…should be accepted as a regular part of the day's work, not considered an added burden to be postponed until necessity forces it into the schedule, to the detriment of other duties" (p. 11). At the time, Bascom was talking about selection as it related to public libraries. In 2015, we're still trying to articulate selection's evolving role in libraries, especially academic libraries. Where centralized selection is 3 concerned, there's a limited amount of scholarly work on the topic as it relates to academic libraries. A good deal of existing scholarship focuses on the ways in which public libraries have put centralized selection to use. For instance, Sullivan (2004) discussed the Phoenix Public Library system's implementation of a centralized model. She noted, "Ultimately, we have found that centralized selection promotes diversity of materials because the selectors have the funds, the perspective, and ...

While electronic resources now constitute a major component of most academic library collections, and the Electronic Resources Librarian (ERL) position has become commonplace, the field of Electronic Resources librarianship is still not entirely standardized.Responsibility for the various tasks associated with electronic resources management (ERM) may fall on a single specialized professional, or be divided up among positions in the organization; responsibility for a given task may or may not be shared by multiple personnel.This article presents the results of a survey of academic librarians in the US who work with electronic resource collections, asking them about the range of tasks for which they are responsible, whether these responsibilities are shared, and how this work may be combined with other areas of responsibility. The results indicate that librarians who work in the field of ERM are responsible for a roughly similar workload whether or not they hold the title of ERL, though certain tasks are more likely to be the responsibility of ERLs. ERM responsibilities in general are frequently shared by multiple personnel within academic libraries. At institutions that spend more on electronic resources, certain specialized responsibilities associated with ERLs are much more frequently shared with paraprofessionals. IntroductionAs we approach the end of the second decade of the 21st century, online electronic information resources can no longer be regarded as a new phenomenon for academic libraries. Electronic resources (ER) are now firmly in the mainstream of academic library collections, and may even predominate over physical items in some institutions; at the same time, the position of Electronic Resources Librarian (ERL), or some variant of this title, has become commonplace. Research and discussions published over the past twenty years indicate that the evolution of the technical characteristics of ER, and the growth of the relative importance of these resources in academic library collections, has been accompanied by changes in the kinds of tasks associated with managing them, and in the ways organizations have organized the efforts of professionals and paraprofessionals to perform this work. While the early days of ER librarianship were characterized by attempts to deal with the challenges of managing new formats, the field has now settled to the point where a certain practical understanding exists regarding the kinds of work normally associated with ER. This is reflected, for example, in the widespread acceptance of the ER lifecycle model (Pesch, 2009), as well as in the programming of specialized professional forums such as the Electronic Resources & Libraries (ER&L) and NASIG conferences. Nevertheless, it is still not altogether clear to what extent individual ERLs

No abstract

No abstract