Loading…
This event has ended. View the official site or create your own event → Check it out
This event has ended. Create your own
View analytic
Sunday, May 15 • 2:00pm - 3:00pm
Poster Session 1: Poster Board Number 105

Sign up or log in to save this to your schedule and see who's attending!

Poster Board Number: 105
Title: (Trying to) Rethink the Reference Collection
Objective: To rethink the provision of a traditional, print reference collection in a health sciences library system that serves a dispersed user population and to investigate the possibility of creating an electronic, clinical reference collection.
Methods: To better serve our multisite medical center with geographically dispersed hospitals, as well as health sciences faculty and students, we explored the feasibility of creating an electronic, clinical reference collection. First, we examined the titles classed in Q and R in our print reference collection as a potential benchmark for the online collection, gathering data about the titles (usage statistics and if it appeared on standard lists including the former Brandon/Hill list and the current lists from Doody’s Review Service). Then we investigated the potential of using the Doody’s 2009 Essential Purchase Titles (EPT) list as a benchmark for this electronic collection and analyzed it against our existing print reference collection to determine overlap between the two. Finally, we determined the percentage of books in both the EPT list and our print reference collection that were available in an electronic format.
Results: Among print reference titles classed in Q and R, 15% were on the EPT list and 40% were available in electronic format. Only 34% of the EPTs classed in Q and R were in our print reference collection (however, we owned 79% of the EPTs in some collection or format). Only 52% of these EPTs were available in electronic format. Our analysis spanned 2 releases of the EPT list; comparing the 2009 and 2010 lists, we found a turnover rate of about 51%.
Conclusion: Our print reference collection would not be a useful benchmark due to its size and lack of electronic versions available. The EPT list is also not feasible because it is too fluid year-to-year and only half of the EPTs are available electronically. Given the low percentage of e-books available, we will need to devise a different strategy for creating an electronic, clinical reference collection.
Authors: Jeffrey Husted, Acquisitions Manager; Leslie J. Czechowski, Assistant Director, Collections and Technical Services; Health Sciences Library System; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA


Sunday May 15, 2011 2:00pm - 3:00pm
Exhibit Hall A - Minneapolis Convention Center

Attendees (33)




Privacy Policy Disclaimer and Notice of Copyright About MLANET