University Library Committee

Ask a Librarian

March 9, 2005

Attending: Elsa Althen (minute taker), Jim Baughman (chair), Phillip Braithwaite, Terry Burton, JoAnn Carr, Deborah Helman, Ken Frazier, Jean Gilbertson, Sandra Guthrie, Susan Hellstrom, Lee Konrad, Carrie Kruse, Ann Lundin, Lis Owens, Nancy Paul, Ken Potter, Richard Reeb, Marc Silberman, Teryl Roper, Ed Van Gemert

1. Introductions.

Members introduced themselves. Each person said what one book they would choose to take with them, if they were on a spaceship in outer space.

2. Reports from Directors.

Frazier reported that the Governor's budget did not include the Regents' request for 6 million dollars for collections for 2005-2007. This means that the budget contains no increase for collections. Most of the governor's cuts for the system are in the administrative category which includes libraries. Ken reported that he has started to provide feedback intended to remediate the damage and yield some increase in the acquisitions budget.

Frazier noted that an advertisement has run in the Alumni Newsletter seeking contributions for a capital campaign for libraries. Athletic department coaches are working with Libraries to endorse the campaign. We are seeking to build an endowment of $10-15 million dollars.

3. Faculty Senate Resolution.

Baughman reported that on March 7, the Faculty Senate passed the “Resolution in support of Accessible Scholarly and Scientific Publication” which was submitted by the University Library Committee. Approximately one half hour of debate preceded passage of the resolution. Since the resolution passed, the issue now becomes focused on publicity and implementation. Other “pieces” could now be to have the divisional committees communicate with their Deans about the resolution and to list alternative publishers. A discussion ensued which included 1) the importance of impact factor in selecting a journal in which to publish, and 2) the potential of joining forces with other universities in promoting this resolution across campuses.

Frazier and Richard Knolls will write a letter to the Chancellor to defend the continued use of university money to support library acquisitions. Ken stated that we still acquire approximately 100,000 books and 58,000 serials per year.

Burton announced that he would be attending a meeting of American Medical Publishers and planned to quote the faculty resolution there.

4. Report on Article Delivery Pilot Project .

Van Gemert credited Gilbertson will the success of the pilot project to deliver free copies of articles from cancelled journals through Library Express.

Gilbertson reported on the “canceled titles/rush LibExpress” project started in January. The project includes 379 Elsevier titles and 101 Wiley titles. If we were still subscribing to these titles in 2005, subscription costs would total $1.4 million.

The cost to libraries to deliver articles is $30.00 per Elsevier article and $25.00 per Wiley article. To date, the requests filled were:

January: 256 articles @$7,500

February: 290 articles @$8,500

Most requests are being filled in one half day. Feedback has been positive, with faculty in the sciences saying that they like the superior quality of the digital copies. Although too early to tell if this is a cost-effective alternative, early signs seem positive. Data collected will be analyzed by title to determine if any journal reinstatements are necessary.

5. Update on the Middleton Storage Facility.

Reeb reported that volumes have not yet begun to be transferred to the facility. Among the first materials to be transferred will be archival back files of journals archived in JSTOR, Science Direct back files, and pre-1965 PhD and Masters theses. Van Gemert added that compact shelving was being constructed on the 8th floor of Memorial and in the Kohler Art Library.

6. Innovation Center Library.

Frazier reported that the Library is developing a library presence at the MG&E Innovation Center, located in the University Research Park. The Innovation Center is home to two dozen university-sponsored start-up research ventures. The Center wants a relationship with the library. We are constrained by our licenses, however, walk-in users are permitted to use licensed products. One possible solution would be to create a branch library in the Innovation Center. Currently, we have a very small outlet with 2 computers with remote services, e.g., reference. We believe this conforms to the terms of our licenses.

7. ULC Annual Report.

The Committee will produce an annual report. The report will make a case for an increase in support for the collection budget. It will include the faculty senate resolution and discussion of library as place on the Madison campus.

The Meeting was adjourned.

My Accounts arrowarrow