The British Library/The Natural History Museum
Natural History Serials Project
Workshop Report
Tuesday 21st March 2000
The Natural History Museum
Ray Lester, Jane Secker, Geoff Smith
1
1 Introduction
The Natural History Serials Project is a joint project between The British Library (BL) and The
Natural History Museum (NHM). It was launched in November 1999 with the aims of
comparing the overlap between the two institutions in current serials collection policies.
Alongside The British Library and The Natural History Museum, approximately 50 libraries with
important collections in the field of natural history were invited to participate in the Project.
Libraries were asked to send a list of their current serial acquisitions to the Project Officer to
enable natural history serials collection to be mapped on a nationwide scale. The Project was not
intended to create a union catalogue at this stage; however, a mapping exercise would enable
serial collections at the BL and NHM to be seen in a national context. The lists could also be
used to identify titles that are not held at these two institutions.
Once the statistical data had been analysed, various strategies for possible collaboration and
rationalisation of holdings would be devised and recommendations made to senior management
of the BL, the NHM and the participating libraries. The workshop provided an opportunity for
the project participants to review progress to date and for the other libraries to have input into the
direction of the project. It was anticipated that possible collaboration scenarios could be
developed based on the discussions during the workshop.
2. Workshop Timetable
10.00 Coffee
10.30 Welcome (Ray Lester / Geoff Smith)
10.40 Presentation of preliminary results (Jane Secker)
11.15 Introduction to the break-out groups (Ray Lester)
11.25 Break-out group 1: the natural world - what is included?
11.55 Report back from break-out group 1
12.30 Buffet Lunch
1.15 Break-out group 2: strategies for collaboration and partnership
2.00 Report back from break-out group 2
2.30 General discussion
3.00 Tea
3.30 Optional tour of the NHM library's special collections
3. Participating Libraries
A wide range of large and small, specialist and non-specialist libraries had been invited to
participate in the project and they were all subsequently invited to the workshop. The list of
representatives who attended the day appears in Appendix 1. Almost all the libraries invited were
keen to participate in the project at some level. The number of people attending the workshop
also reflects the high degree of interest in the project.
4. Summary of Results from Project Officer's Presentation
The Project Officer presented preliminary results from overlap comparisons that had been
undertaken at the time of the workshop. A summary of these results appears below.
2
Serials at the NHM
The project collected and collated a large amount of data about the NHM serials collection.
Several problems with this data were found that caused some difficulties when comparisons with
other collections were attempted. Initially, identifying current titles in the collection was not a
straightforward process. A serials file was created using the online catalogue and all titles
recorded as 'open' were downloaded. Holding information revealed that of the 9,700 titles, an
issue had not been received in two years for 5,500 titles. Therefore, further investigation of these
'non-current' titles was required to establish if a publication had ceased or was simply infrequent.
The NHM library is currently discussing what to do about these ‘non-current’ titles.
Identifying individual titles for comparison was also problematic. ISSN is the only unique and
reliable identifier, given similarities in serial titles and cataloguing variations. However, not all
library catalogues include ISSN data and not all serials have an ISSN. More than half the serials
records at the NHM did not have an ISSN recorded. Therefore, using ISSN Online it was
necessary to establish if an ISSN existed but was missing from the catalogue, or if certain titles
just did not have an ISSN. An ISSN could not be located for approximately 3000 of the records.
These were mainly very local publications or publications originating from less developed
countries.
The NHM records also had some subject information in them. The serials could be roughly
categorised using the library at the NHM in which they were held. The records were divided into
the following subjects: zoology, mineralogy, ornithology (held at the NHM library in Tring,
Hertfordshire), palaeontology, entomology, botany, anthropology and the general library.
Comparison with the British Library
When this project was launched, the British Library was in the process of creating one file with
all their serials records in. Prior to this, the information was held in four separate files, but a
project is underway to merge these files, which was well advanced at the time of the workshop.
Special software to match titles and ISSN was being developed for the purpose of this project.
Identifying natural history serials at the BL was not possible, as subject information in their
records is very limited. Therefore, it was decided that the best way of proceeding would be to
match titles held elsewhere with those at the BL. The overlap between collections could be
measured in this way, although it would not be possible to identify natural history titles only held
at the BL.
A trial comparison of the NHM data and the BL data was undertaken just before the workshop
and Sharon Johnson from the British Library, Boston Spa (who undertook the comparison)
presented the results. These appear in Appendix 2. ISSN matches were first undertaken and then
the non-matches were compared by title. A number of problems were encountered when
matching by title, which may have reduced the number of matches achieved. The problems were
primarily caused by cataloguing differences between the BL and NHM including:
 Punctuation (ideally this should be stripped from both the NHM file and the file to which it is
to be matched)
 Use of articles (a, the) at the beginning of titles. These were included in the NHM title but are
not used by the BL
3

Use of "&" instead of "and"
Comparing NHM with other libraries
At the time of the workshop, 39 libraries had provided a list (in various formats) of their current
serials holdings. Manually adding this data to the spreadsheet would be time-consuming;
therefore an automated method was investigated. The BL comparison suggested that automated
matching was more successful using ISSNs rather than titles. Unfortunately, many of the lists did
not include this data.
Therefore, given the data available, it was decided to undertake some comparison using sampling
techniques. Two methods were used: sampling by libraries and sampling by titles. The results
were quite surprising and suggested that the overlap between different collections is not as
extensive as initially might have been thought. Further analysis is to gain results that are more
valid statistically.
(a) Sample comparison of libraries
A sample comparison between titles held at the NHM and two institutions was undertaken. A
large specialist collection, Oxford University Plant Sciences Library and a smaller specialist
Library, the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, were chosen. Oxford was chosen because ISSN data
was available and so a match on this field could be undertaken. The Institute of Terrestrial
Ecology was chosen because it was a relatively small collection and the titles could be compared
manually with the NHM collection. A simple comparison between the number of current titles
received at each library revealed that the NHM collection was by far the largest.
The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology takes a relatively small number of serials compared to some
of the other organisations. However, over half their collection is not held at the Natural History
Museum. Of the 252 titles taken at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, 106 (42%) of these titles
are also taken at the NHM. However, 146 (68%) of the titles are unique titles that the Museum
does not receive.
A proportionately greater number of titles not taken at the NHM are held at the University of
Oxford Plant Sciences Library than at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. The figures are based
on matches with ISSN and some limited manual searching, therefore they are only an estimate.
However, they reveal that out of the 1,939 titles taken at Oxford, 322 titles (17%) are also
received at the NHM, but 1617 (83%) are not taken at the Museum.
These results were quite surprising and suggest that the total number of natural history serials
may be far greater than anticipated. However, they also raise the obvious question of which
subjects are included in the definition of ‘natural history’ (discussed in Break-out group 1).
(b) Sample comparison of titles
A sample of titles from the NHM collection was chosen to identify which libraries also received
those titles. The NHM titles were arranged alphabetically and those beginning with the letters K
and W were selected for comparison. This was equal to 230 titles. Each of the 39 lists of titles
was searched and the number of matches recorded.
4
The study revealed that 95 of the 230 titles were taken by one or more library, although 135
(59%) were ONLY taken at the NHM. Of those titles taken elsewhere, most were only received
by one other library. Nine of the libraries (approximately 25%) took none of the NHM titles in
the sample, although 30 libraries did have one or more title. Seven libraries, the National
Museums and Galleries of Wales, Oxford Plant Sciences, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Institute
of Freshwater Ecology, English Nature, Oxford University Zoology Library and Cambridge
University had 10 or more matching titles. The greatest overlap was with Cambridge University
and Oxford Zoology library. Cambridge took 30 titles; Oxford had 28, which is equal to
approximately 12-13% of the sample collection.
The title starting with the letters 'k' or 'w' taken by the greatest number of libraries was Watsonia:
the journal and proceedings of the Botanical Society of the British Isles. This was taken by 14
out of 39 (36%) libraries. Kew Bulletin was the second most popular title, taken by 9 of the 39
(23%) libraries.
These results suggested once again that the overlap between collections was perhaps not as
extensive as anticipated, except amongst certain core titles
5. Break-out Group 1
The workshop participants were divided into three break-out groups with a balance of
representation from the different types of organisations. During the first session the groups
discussed the types of subjects that might be included in the definition, 'the natural world.' A list
had been prepared prior to this session, but this was hidden from the participants until the end of
the session. Subjects were then crossed referenced to see where they appeared more than once.
The results from this focus group appear in Appendix 3. One of the groups took a quite different
approach to the topic and their subject classification was more hierarchical. They had also
approached the problem more from the perspective of the users. This hierarchy also appears in
Appendix 3.
This exercise was partly undertaken to demonstrate that a variety of subjects could be included in
this project and that it was not restricted to what traditionally might be thought of to be natural
history. Participants were asked to undertake this exercise with a view to the second break-out
group, where they would consider if there were particular subjects that might be more 'ripe' for
collaboration than others, or if serials collection might be better studied in a more closely defined
overall subject area.
6. Break-out Group 2
During the second break-out session the three groups were asked to consider the following
questions and report back to the main group:
 What types of collaboration and partnership do you feel worth pursuing in the area of current
serials?
 How should such types of collaboration and partnership be organised so that they are
sustainable?
 What types of collaboration and partnership should not be pursued?
 What other messages do you have for the British Library (and The Natural History
Museum)?
5
This second break-out group led into a general discussion about the options for collaboration and
attitudes towards co-operation.
7. Conclusions and Follow-up to the Workshop
The purpose of the workshop was not to achieve an overall consensus of opinion, but to explore
the various possibilities that collaboration offered. It was also to establish the range of opinion
that might exist about the subject. The workshop provided a valuable opportunity for Project
staff to meet with participants and allowed the discussion of a variety of issues. Possibilities for
the future direction of the Project were discussed and collaboration was explored in detail.
At the end of the workshop, it was not appropriate to obtain a firm commitment from the
participating libraries towards collaboration. However, the following day, all participants were
sent a letter. In association with other members of staff at their organisation, they were asked to
consider a range of questions and to provide a written response. In this way, representatives were
able to provide a more considered response to many of the issues raised during the workshop,
after discussion with colleagues. Using the notes from the workshop discussions and the written
responses to the follow-up letter, the Project staff will produce a summary document. This will
discuss the range of options for collaboration and will form an important component of the
Project's final report.
The follow up letter asked:
a.
What form will collaboration/partnership comprise? At one extreme, exists the idea of a
simple 'compilation' of the serials each library is continuing to take, which could then
help actions on the ground at each library. At the other, a sharing and re-balancing of
collection development policies. All sorts of ideas were mooted in between.
b.
How might membership of any group engaging in some sort of collaboration/ partnership
be defined? A firm conclusion seemed to be, irrespective of the type of
collaboration/partnership, that it would be best to use a bottom-up 'approach' of a group
or groups of us - and others - relevant to a or a number of more specific subject area(s)
(e.g. 'Botany'/'Plant Sciences'). That would be better than trying to tackle the whole area
at once.
Participants were also asked:
a.
Is your Library interested in participating in one or another collaboration/partnership
initiative in this broad subject area?
If YES:
b.
What type of collaboration/partnership would you Library find potentially most fruitful?
Maybe ideas will have occurred to you not discussed yesterday.
6
c.
What 'subject area' (or other defining parameter) would you suggest such collaboration/
partnership is applied to? Which Libraries (whether or not represented yesterday) would
you suggest are approached and asked if they were willing to join in?
d.
Would your institution be prepared to lead any such group(s)?
7
Appendix 1: List of Representatives
Ray Lester (NHM)
Chris Mills (NHM)
Jane Secker (NHM)
Geoff Smith (BL)
Neil Thomson (NHM)
Moira Bent, Robinson Library, Newcastle University
Linda Birch, Department of Zoology, Oxford
Kate Bould, The Geological Society
Stella Brecknell, Oxford Museum of Natural History
David M Carroll, Darwin Library, University of Edinburgh
Liz Clarke, University of East Anglia
Gill Cooper, Radcliffe Science Library, Oxford
Barbara Costello, Bristol University
Tim Cullen, University of Greenwich
Stephen Dale, Cambridge University Library
Linda Dorrington, Central Library, Imperial College
John Flanagan, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Helen Hathaway, Reading University Library
Jane Hutcheon, Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh
Sharon Johnson, (BL BS),
Claire Leedham Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
Beryl Leigh (BL, Science Technology and Business)
Janet Milne, University of Liverpool
Roger Mills, Plant Sciences Library, Oxford
Michael J Palmer, Zoological Society of London
Berit Pederson, Royal Entomological Society
Frances Perry, Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Dennis Pilling (BL, BS)
Zina Sabovic, Wellcome Trust
Sheila Scobie, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology
Pauline Simpson, National Oceanographic Library
Adrian Smith, University of Leeds
Christine Smith, MAFF
Ingrid Walton, John Innes Centre, Norwich
Helen Ward, Royal Horticultural Society
Natalie Woodrow Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
8
Appendix 2: Initial Results of NHM match against BL Serial Files
Table 1 Results of File Match BL DSC File
Current
Holdings
Not Held/Non
Current
Holdings
Total DSC File
Total No
NHM
Records
Matched
ISSN
% Hit
Rate
ISSN
9707
2116
21.8%
Matched
Title
(after
issn)
118
9707
2033
20.9%
0
9707
4149
42.7%
118
% Hit
Total
Rate Title Matched
(after
issn)
1.6%
2234
1.6%
Total %
Matched
Not Matched
% Not
Matched
5440
56%
23.0%
2033
20.9%
4267
44%
Table 2 Results of File Match BL H&SS File (Current and Non Current)
Current and
Non Current
Holdings
Total No
NHM
Records
Matched
ISSN
% Hit
Rate
ISSN
9707
212
2.2%
Matched
Title
(after
issn)
54
% Hit
Total
Rate Title Matched
(after
issn)
0.6%
266
Total %
Matched
Not Matched
% Not
Matched
2.8%
9441
97.2%
9
Table 3 Results of File Match BL SRIS File (Current and Non Current)
Current and
Non Current
Holdings
Total No
NHM
Records
Matched
ISSN
% Hit
Rate
ISSN
9707
1796
18.5%
Matched
Title
(after
issn)
360
% Hit
Total
Rate Title Matched
(after
issn)
4.6%
2156
Total %
Matched
Not Matched
% Not
Matched
22.2%
7551
77.8%
Table 4 Success Rate All BL Files
Total No Current
NHM
Records
Records Matched
% of Total
NHM
Records
Non
Current
Records
Matched
% of Total
NHM
Records
Non stock
Records
Matched
% of Total
NHM
Records
9707
26.7%
1556
16.0%
484
5.0%
2596
(of which
60 titles
are rec’d
on Legal
Deposit
only)
Total
number of
NHM
records
matched
4636
% of Total
NHM
Records
Not
Matched
% of
Total
NHM
Records
47.8%
5071
52.2%
S Johnson BL 17/3/00
10
Appendix 3: Results from Break-our Group 1
(No.) Cited by more than one group
Plain text - term devised by project staff
Italics - term devised by group
Agriculture (2)
Anatomy
Animals
Anthropology (2)
Aquaculture
Astronomy
Bacteriology (2)
Behavioural science
Biochemistry (1)
Biogeography
Biology (2)
Biomedicine
Biophysics
Botany
Chemistry
Climatology (1)
Conservation (1)
Cytology
Earth science (2)
Ecology (2)
Embryology
Entomology (2)
Environmental science (2)
Epidemiology
Ethnology
Evolution
Food science (1)
Forestry (2)
Genetics (1)
Geography (1)
Geology (2)
Horticulture (1)
Land Management
Land Use
Legislation
Marine Sciences (2)
Meteorology (1)
Microbiology (1)
Mineralogy (2)
Molecular biology (1)
Mycology
11
Natural History (2)
Natural resources
Oceanography
Ornithology (2)
Palaeontology (2)
Parisitology
Pest management
Physiology
Plant sciences
Pollution
Sociobiology
Soil
Taxonomy
Toxicology
Veterinary Science
Virology
Waste management
Water supply
Zoology (2)
12
Group 1 Subject Terminology
Plant sciences
Horticulture
Taxonomy
Geological Sciences
Mineralogy
Fossil Sciences
Climatology
Hydrology
Meterorites
Zoology
Taxonomy
Ornithology
Pollution
Toxicology
Waste management
Bio-remediation
Conservation
Animal Behaviour
Climate change
Land management
Legislation
Agriculture
Soil
Forestry
Water Supply
Land use
Fisheries resources
Pest management
Ecology
Marine
Oceanography
Freshwater
Limnology
Terrestrial
13