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 141

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

Poster Board Number: 141
Title: Revising, Improving, and Using a Locally Developed Worksheet for Multiple Journal Requests to Simplify the Review Process
Objective: To implement trial revisions to a previously developed worksheet used to aid in more effectively and expeditiously making collection development decisions by committee. The worksheet as developed was used effectively, but subsequent questions and further input encouraged the original developer to identify additional parameters to measure, thus improving on the original worksheet.
Methods: Sixty-four new journal requests from twenty departments were received through a faculty survey. Microsoft Excel was used to determine the review order based on the number of current subscriptions by department versus MEDLINE-indexed journals in that department’s corresponding Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). This evaluation metric was originally based on journals per faculty in each department. Departments were listed on the spreadsheet in order of lowest to highest department coverage to prioritize departments with weaker journal coverage. Survey return rate was included for reviewers’ reference. Departmental journal requests were listed on the worksheet with entries for price, vendor, indexing, Eigenfactor, and other notes that were essential to making a sound collection development decision. Journals that were requested by multiple departments were prioritized at the top of the list and relisted again for reference under each individual requesting department.
Results: Analysis of the revised worksheet indicated that the majority of parameters used in the first version remained useful for review. Use of the MEDLINE-indexed metric moved the review prioritization of ten departments higher and nine lower than in the initial review based on journals-per-faculty ratio. Further assessment of changes noted that twelve departments changed position five places or less. Not all departments matched up well with MeSH terms, resulting in inaccurate journal counts for some departments.
Conclusions: Both metrics provide valuable options for reviewing large batches of journal requests, although for purposes of review prioritization, the MEDLINE-based metric better indicates the degree of subject need. The collection development worksheet can be updated easily for expedited committee discussion and departments more accurately represented using both measurements. Both ratios can be used with departments who do not make title requests for further assessment internally by the serials department.
Authors: Steven W. Brown, Serials and Systems Librarian; Kathe Obrig, Associate Director, Collections and Access Services; Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library; George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC


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

Attendees (13)




Privacy Policy Disclaimer and Notice of Copyright About MLANET