Number of journals 2012300286213182990501001502002503003502009 2010 2011 2012 2012
Baseline of 300 Journals in 20091473318399RetainedCancelled in 2010Cancelled in 201115%cut in 201231%cut in 2012Total of 201 cancelled titles in 3
So. How come ourusers are stillspeaking to us?
Literature Search• Budget reductions are a primary driver forlibraries in undertaking a journals review.• Cancellations can damage the relationshipbetween users and their library ifcommunication is poorly or incompletelyexecuted.• Libraries are keen to include users in thereviews to safeguard good workingrelationships with users and ensure therelevance of collections
The Journal ReviewProject Meet the budget target Protect good relationship with staff Retain the most relevant, valued and usedjournals
CommunicationStrategy• Open a dialogue with our users• Use the Project to market the Library• Target group: doctors, senior clinicalstaff and managers, and theManagement Team• Key message: You have a great Library• Channels: Paper, email, website, face toface
Informed DecisionsBuild datasets of metrics and evaluations
Identify the journalsCore1%Package8%Secure funding9%For review82%286 journals in total236 for review
Conduct the userevaluationsRating scale:1. Essential2. Cancel only ifnecessary3. May be cancelled4. Cancel• Identify the survey group• Survey method: paper or online• Decide what titles asking to evaluate
User evaluation surveyformColumns:Journal titleRating scaleDepartmentFormat of journalSubscription status
Decision-makingcriteria• Principles– departments would have equitable coverage– The most used and most valued would beretained• 2011 - 1 title per dept to cut• 2012– 15%: 2 journals per department to keep– 31%: 4 core titles and aimed to retain 1 journalper department
nmnmmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnnmnmnmnmConsider all these titles as core readingTwo specialist journals is a minimumTwo [...] journals for a teaching hospital is adisgrace
Midpoint of 2012 Project Report back to hospital staff inJune 2012 Meet with stakeholders Leverage staff advocacy fortheir information needs to bemet Survey staff about their use ofthe published literature,discovery methods and theirexperience of the researchpublishing process
Stakeholder meetings• May– Pharmacy,– Health & Social Care Professions– Laboratory• June– Clinical Specialities– Nursing– Other
Why do they need thelibrary?• Clinical practice• For the care of a specific patient to answer aclinical query about their treatment• Guiding practice and keeping up to date• Provide teaching and internship to MSc &PhD students/trainees• CPD points for maintaining registration
Communication: stayingout front• Be available, start discussions, support yourdecisions with evidence, and listen andrecord what your users are telling you, andreflect it back to them• Raised the Library’s profile and credibilitywith clinicians: they value research and findprestige in being published, and presentingat conference• No drama, just calm building of evidence andpersistence in making the case
Our users are talkingwith us because weactively engaged withthem and continue to doso, and we are visibleand accessible.The alternative isclosure.
Hospital photographs by kind permission of Tommy Walsh, Clinical Photographer, Tallaght
Further readingCarey R, Elfstrand S, Hijleh R, An evidence-based approach for gaining faculty acceptance in aserials cancellation project, Collection Management, 2006, 30(2), 59-72.Gallagher J, Bauer K, Dollar D M, Evidence-based librarianship: utilizing data from all availablesources to make judicious print cancellation decisions, Library Collections, Acquisitions, andTechnical Services, 2005; 29, 169-179.Sinha R, Tucker C, Scherlen A, Finding the delicate balance: serials assessment at the Universityof Nevada, Las Vegas, Serials Review, 2005, 31(2),120-124Haley P, Analysis of print and electronic serials’ use statistics facilitates print cancellationdecisions, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2006, 1, 57-59.Day A, A look at librarianship through the lens of an academic library serials review, In the librarywith the lead pipe [serial on the internet]. 2009, p.3 (accessed 18 October 2010). (http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2009/a-look-at-librarianship-through-the-lens-of-an-ac)Ward R K, Christensen J O, Spackman E, A systematic approach for evaluating and upgradingacademic science journal collections, Serials Review, 2005, 32(1), 4-16.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Murphy, A, An evidence-based approach to engaging healthcare users in a journal review project,Insights,2012, 25(1), 44–50, doi: 10.1629/2048-7718.104.22.168Murphy, A, An evidence-based approach to engaging healthcare users in a journal review project.Presentation at 35th UKSG Conference, Glasgow, 26th-28th March2012.http://river-valley.tv/an-evidence-based-approach-to-engaging-healthcare-users-in-a-journals-review
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.