TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008

www.PosterPresentations.com

Imagine more space in your library!

Weeding bound periodicals

Susan Andrews Susan.Andrews@tamuc.edu

Sandy Hayes Sandy.Hayes@tamuc.edu

Background Process (cont.)

Recommendations

Problems

OPTIONAL

LOGO HERE

OPTIONAL

LOGO HERE

What we would do differently

Determined usage of title

From 1999-2009, we tracked usage with

dot stickers placed on the spines when re-

shelved

Color and/or shape changed every two

years

In 2009, we changed to using generic

bound volume records in the ILS and

counted all use on that record

In 2010, we changed to a new ILS with

three in-house usage fields:

In-house or internal use

ILL for our patrons (document delivery)

ILL for other libraries

Also began entering individual volumes as

bound, and/or as re-shelved, and counted

which type of use before shelving

Identified titles with archival online access

Including JSTOR, MUSE, etc.

Identified titles with online access

Title was available in 3 or more reliable full-

text databases, preferably from different

providers

Indexing

If a title was not indexed, it was not

findable and was reflected in usage

Determined criteria for weeding

Took our list and visited bound volumes

and made our initial decisions

Using decisions list, created weed report

which was checked for current use and

type of use

What do you do when your library is running out

of space, you need room for an ambitious new

computer lab, other departments are taking

over library real estate at a rapid rate and study

dens are popping up like mushrooms? Not to

mention, bound periodicals were already

running out of space?

Our answer was to weed the collection, but

how to start?

There were several things to consider before,

during and after this project. The primary areas

were:

What criteria to use to determine

whether a title should be retained or not?

Who makes these choices?

Where do we get the data (both titles

and usage) from?

How do we indicate which titles are

chosen for de-selection?

Who pulls them and how do they

document them for statistics?

What to do with the bound volumes that

are de-selected?

Using dot stickers for usage

Dots fell off (or wound up in hair)

Shelvers forgot dots

Decision-making about when dots were

applied and interpretation of usage dots

Offering out

Had a shrinking time frame and offering out

took too much time and manpower.

Old cataloging rules made the list

problematic

e.g. Bulletin of the American… shelved as

American …, Bulletin.

Recycling Major space issues

Had to find a recycler for books

Here are the things we absolutely recommend

for anyone having to undertake this project:

Do usage!

And make it as detailed as possible

Do have two people de-selecting

It helps to have two viewpoints (and

someone else to blame)

Do check online availability and

archival access

Remember, there is always ILL

Try to be as objective and unemotional

as possible

If there is time, and you have their

cooperation, please give your subject

librarians a chance to veto weeds

Archival online access – De-select

Usage

No usage – De-select

Low usage – De-select or compact

Three or more uses – Keep

If all use was ILL (other libraries) –

De-select

Online access –

Three or more sources - De-select

Core titles or accreditation titles – Keep or

compact

Would like to offer out titles with high ILL

usage

Do not use a list that someone else created

Process

Created master list of periodicals

Pulled periodical title list

Exported periodical data from ILS

including:

Title

Publication information

Publication year

Author

Imported data into Microsoft Access

Added fields that would be useful for weed

Criteria for Weeding

Process (cont.)

Made final weed list and sent it to

Circulation for pulling

When pulling, Circulation noted number of

volumes de-selected for statistics

Initially offered out weeded volumes then

switched to recycling

Cleaned-up records in ILS and OCLC