FY06 Serial Review Process

General Information | Roles & Responsibilities | Timeline | Three Tiers

General Information

• All serial subscriptions (print journals, electronic journals, databases, newspapers, standing orders for mongraphs and microforms) will be evaluated to identify lesser priority serial titles for all subject areas.
• The implementation of the process will be managed by the subject collaboratives.
• The Collection Management Team will coordinate the process and review it after its completion.
• The process will be fair and open with all faculty having an opportunity to make recommendations
• The evaluation process will balance specific needs and more interdisciplinary needs.
• The process will respect the Libraries' charge to manage the library materials budget in a responsible manner.
• The process will identify 25% of serials expenditures, arranged into three ranked segments of roughly equal size (in dollar amount), as lower priority .

Faculty

• Faculty will receive information from the librarian assigned to their department.
• Information will include project goals and timeline as well as a list of titles to be evaluated. Title lists will include price information and use data (when these are available).

Subject Collaboratives

• Manage the process by reviewing all titles, meeting deadlines, meeting targets, and coordinating their work with other interested library groups (e.g. other subject and relevant functional teams.)
• Develop final organized lists for all funds managed by the team or team members.
• Submit lists of lesser priority serial titles for distribution campus-wide.

return to top

Selectors

• Contribute to the review processes within their collaboratives.
• Contribute to the reviews managed by CMT for general resources.
• Contact their departments and work with departmental liaisons and others as needed to ensure that all faculty have an opportunity to participate in the review process.
• Work with their departments to develop prioritization of the targeted list into three tiers.
• Work with departments to explore any desired substitutions of existing serial subscriptions for purchase of new resources.

return to top

Collection Management Team

• Provides a framework, guidelines and a schedule.
• Arranges selector orientation, kickoff meeting, the FYI announcement and other general communications as needed.
• Provides information about the scholarly publishing arena, open access initiatives, DRUM.
• CMT members from subject collaboratives will function as resource people as needed to clarify the process for selectors and their collaboratives.
• Calculates the 25% targets for the various funds.
• Generates lists of current subscriptions including price and in some cases price histories.
• Shares use data for electronic journals, print journals and databases as available.
• Reviews lists of lesser priority serial titles from the three subject teams before they are distributed to the campus for final feedback.
• Reviews general funds for serials and databases to identify lesser priorities in those funds.
• Conducts a final review of the process to ensure that it met its stated goals.

return to top

Timeline

August 2005

CMT provides fund reports to selectors for initial review and clean-up.

Selectors make fund line assignment corrections as needed.

CMT begins database review.

September 2005

CMT gathers data, develops targets and review framework.

CMT adds current and recent price and use data to cleaned-up title lists as available.

CMT develops and announces training regarding usage statistics, using Excel, searching Aleph.

October 2005

Selectors receive enhanced title lists and target calculations.

Mid month, selectors briefed on process at selector orientation sessions.

Training (in usage statistics, using Excel, searching Aleph) held.

Selectors begin reviewing subscriptions to identify lesser priority serial titles to meet target.

Invitations to the kickoff meeting for faculty liaisons are issued.

November 2005

Lists of lesser priority serial titles prepared for distribution to faculty for discussion and prioritization.

End of month, kickoff meetings for faculty liaisons; announcement to campus FYI describing the review project.

Following kickoff, subject team members distribute lists of lesser priority serial titles to faculty for discussion.

December 2005

Faculty begin work with their librarians to provide feedback to prioritize lists of targeted serial titles.

January 2006

January 31, final prioritized lists of lower priority databases, with descriptions, submitted to CMT.

CMT compiles prioritized lists of any general serials.

February 2006

February 28, individuals submit final prioritized lists of serials to CMT for general distribution campus-wide.

February 28, collaboratives submit final prioritized lists of collaborative's general serials to CMT for campus distribution.

Initial discussion of renewal decisions for electronic resources will be occurring.

March 2006

Early March, composite list is posted on the web, announcements go out to faculty with deadline for final justification for retention.

End of the month, deadline for faculty to offer justification of reprioritization.

Final renewal decisions on electronic resources will begin.

April 2006

Budget planning for FY07 occurs.

Candidates for cancellation may be identified.

Remaining renewal decisions on electronic resources finalized.

May 2006

As needed selectors prepare paperwork for cancellations.

Any cancellations are submitted to Acquisitions.

return to top

Three tiers of the 25% serial titles

The UM Libraries believes that any cut to the Libraries' materials budget or any failure to provide funding for serials inflation will seriously reduce the value and effectiveness of our collections. The Libraries have regularly reviewed serial subscriptions with the result that we believe our subscriptions are currently serving campus needs and priorities. Since the last serial review (in FY03), the Libraries now have more data to assist decision-making and a number of advances have been made in library services and in alternative publishing ventures. Serial price increases have varied by title, but overall prices have increased between 8% and 11% per year. The Libraries have received supplemental funding from the Provost to meet much of this increase in recent years, and have only had to cancel 5% of serial expenditures since FY01. But as responsible collection managers, we have to be prepared to act if funds fall short of the annual serials price increases.

Recognizing these realities, the Libraries are prioritizing serials expenditures amounting to 25% of current spending into three categories of roughly equal size (in dollar amount). The level reflects the priority for continuation of the subscription, i.e. Tier 1 has the highest relative importance and use for the campus, Tier 3 the lowest. 75% of subscriptions (in dollars) will not be placed in these categories.

Tier 3

Titles might be assigned to this tier if documented use of these titles is low, the price has increased at too rapid a rate, quality has declined, cost per use is too high, the title is duplicated on campus, or campus needs have changed. A lower-price acceptable alternative has been introduced. Some researchers will be inconvenienced, but the title is not often used. Other access options (e.g. Interlibrary Loan, Ingenta) are acceptable.

Tier 2

Titles might be assigned to this tier if documented use of these titles is relatively low, the price has increased beyond its perceived value, or cost per use is relatively high. A greater number of UM researchers may be inconvenienced but other access options are acceptable.

Tier 1

Titles might be assigned to this tier if use of these titles is higher, but not among the highest. The price may be too high for its value to campus, cost per use is unusually high. Loss of these titles would adversly effect Library services - inconvenience for greater numbers of UM researchers would result. Alternative access options are less acceptable.

return to top