From Collaborative Purchasing Towards Collaborative Discarding: The Evolution of the Shared Print Repository

Clement, Susanne

doi:10.1080/01462679.2012.685413

Cited by 22 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also notable that the recent extension for the CARM Centre (CARM2) depended on a business model based on the leasing of space for storage rather than the further development of the repository-style CARM Collection (Wright, Jilovsky, and Anderson 2012). This shift in focus within Australia in the post-DNC era is in line with developments in cooperative collection management of print elsewhere, which has seen the focus shift from the beginning of the life-cycle (selection and acquisition) to the end (storage and disposal) (Clement 2012).…”

Section: Australiamentioning

confidence: 78%

A Distributed National Stored Collection: Testing the Possibilities

Genoni

2013

Australian Academic & Research Libraries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on a study of the holdings of a single discipline (Design) by a single institution (RMIT University Library) in order to test for the possibility of a form of distributed national storage in Australia. The study was undertaken using OCLC Collection Analysis software and the WorldCat database. The collection of RMIT University Library is compared with two "groups" of libraries, the first consisting of seven Victorian academic library collections, and the second of three Melbourne-based non-academic libraries considered to have strong Design collections. Conclusions indicate that for this discipline a form of distributed storage is already in place, with the RMIT University Library collection making a considerable and complementary contribution to the state-wide holdings.

show abstract

Section: Australiamentioning

confidence: 78%

A Distributed National Stored Collection: Testing the Possibilities

Genoni

2013

Australian Academic & Research Libraries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Initially, most storage facilities were operated locally, but some libraries started collaborating for opening shared storage facilities. Built in 1942, the New England Deposit Library was the first shared storage facility, which served Harvard University, Boston Public Library, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Clement, 2012). Reporting on the context and status of library storage facilities, Lizanne Payne (2007) points out that of the 68 high-density storage facilities existing in the USA and Canada in 2007, 54 were operated by individual institutions and 14 were cooperative facilities.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shared print repositories can be distributed or centralized and "can allow libraries to coordinate what they are keeping and what they are discarding" (Clement, 2012).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Damned if you do, damned if you don't: Texas A&M University Libraries' collection assessment for off‐site storage

Tabacaru

Pickett

2013

Collection Building

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to discuss the Texas A&M University (TAMU) Libraries' policies that effectively reduced the size of onsite print collections, with minimal impact on the library user community. The paper also aims to examine some of the challenges encountered during the underlying collection assessment process. Design/methodology/approach -Investment in electronic resources, digital preservation initiatives and local print repositories are reasonable solutions for academic libraries that need to responsibly relocate legacy print collections from their open stacks. Findings -Balancing trust issues with local needs and embracing the opportunities offered by digital archives and local print repositories are key elements for successfully implementing collection management decisions. Originality/value -This article examines local best practices for downsizing local print collections and recommends strategies applicable to any large academic library for addressing collection assessment challenges.

show abstract

“…10 Clement extends this issue of ownership and governance to one of utility and trust by arguing that "it would be more useful for libraries to pool their resources than to compete with each other for material." 11 He echoes the financial, space, and preservation motivations advanced by Smith. 12 Lawrence argues for "deep collaboration" in multiple aspects of librarianship including shared print at the University of California (UC) system of libraries to account for these same constraints.…”

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

From Collaborative Purchasing Towards Collaborative Discarding: The Evolution of the Shared Print Repository

Cited by 22 publications

References 16 publications

A Distributed National Stored Collection: Testing the Possibilities

A Distributed National Stored Collection: Testing the Possibilities

Damned if you do, damned if you don't: Texas A&M University Libraries' collection assessment for off‐site storage

A Marking Heuristic for Materials in a Shared Print Agreement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About