Making it Work:
The Nuts and Bolts of Policies
and Maintenance
Sara A. Bushong – sbushon@bgsu.edu
Dean, University Libraries
Bowling Green State University
ILF Annual Conference - November 17, 2014,
Overview
 OhioLINK and the five regional depositories
 Timeline 2009 through 2014
 Organizational structure
 Policies and procedures
 Pilot programs to inform policy/procedures
 Shared catalog – OHDEP
 Elsevier De-duplication project
 Conclusions and next steps
OhioLINK
 90 college and university libraries, plus the State
Library of Ohio
 Collaboratively purchase about $40 million of digital
content
 Every $1M spent as a group saves us $3-4M
 Share more than 50 million print items
 Expert negotiators – lower prices than others
OhioLINK Resources
 Electronic Journal Center
 OhioLINK Central Catalog
 Electronic Book Center
 Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center
 OhioLINK Music Center
 Digital Resource Commons
 Discovery Layer Resources
Northwest Ohio Regional Depository
Holdings of Bowling Green S U; U of Toledo
Northeast Ohio Regional Depository
Holdings of U of Akron;
Cleveland S U; Kent S U; NEOUCOM;
Youngstown S U
Central Ohio Regional
Depository
Holdings of Ohio State University
Southwest Ohio Regional Depository
Holdings of
Central S U, U Cincinnati, Miami U, Wright S U
Southeast Ohio Regional Depository
Holdings of Ohio University
Northwest Ohio Regional Book Depository
Order Picker - Eleanor
Regional Depositories Administrative Council
 Five Deans/Directors
 Bowling Green State
University
 Miami University
 Northwest Ohio
Medical University
 The Ohio State
University
 Ohio University
 Major responsibilities
 Oversight of
depositories




Budget
Facilities
Capital Projects
Staffing
 Members of the larger
governing council
Serial Sets
Coordinator Appointed
-Articulate Scope of Project
-Determine Opportunities
-Identify Challenges
-Make Recommendations
2009
2010
Time in searching across multiple catalogs
Variety cataloging traditions
Inconsistent enumeration
Workload limitations and location
Create Governance Structure
Common OPAC for depositories
Pilot of 27 reference serial titles
2011
2012
2013
Regional Depositories Governing Council
 BGSU
 Ohio University
 Central State
 University of Akron
 Cleveland State
 University of Cincinnati
 Kent State
 University of Toledo
 Miami University
 Wright State University
 NEOMED
 Youngstown State
 OSU
 OhioLINK assistance
Formed in 2010, charge annually revised
https://www.ohiolink.edu/content/regional_depositories_home_page
De-duplication Pilot Completed
-27 Reference Serial Titles
-Superseded Electronically
-Detailed Process Articulated
-Recommendations
Additional Temporary Staffing
Standardizing Circulation
Ongoing Archiving
Purchased Dedicated III OPAC
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
“Maintain one copy of the longest run
of each serial title across all five
depositories. The most complete run
may be stored in one or more
depositories.”
Preservation Policy for Serials Contained in the Ohio Regional Library
Depositories, 2011
Serials Preservation Policy Approved
-Last Copy Defined as One Copy of Each
Title be Maintained
-Last Copy Volumes Must Circulate
Second Pilot De-Duping JSTOR A&S IV Initiated
Policy Limiting Duplicate Submission Approved
Record Migration to Depository OPAC
Policy Depository OPAC Circulation & ILLOAN
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Shared Catalog - OHDEP
 Northeast Depository Shared Catalog Implementation
Project
 OHDEP Cataloging/Serials Working Group
 OHDEP Circulation/ILL Working Group
 Additional of Northwest, then Wright State
 Central Catalog – OhioLINK
 Consultations with OhioLINK Committees – CIRM,
DMS, ICS
Elsevier De-Duplication Project
 Concentrating on titles that have large number of




volumes and are in all 4 depositories
101 titles completed; 7,296 linear feet released – as of
September 22, 2014 – average of 72 linear feet per title
List of titles shared with OhioLINK membership
regularly
Have completed all the “large” titles
Decided to move to another publisher
De-Duplication Procedures
 One title at a time
 Identify keeper copies
 Includes a detailed coding document
 Withdraw non-keeper copies
 Discards at the keeper level
 Ongoing maintenance of de-duped titles
Policy – Handling of new journal volumes sent to
depositories – 10/31/11, revised 8/22/12
 First check Central Catalog for total number held
state-wide
 If two copies, do not send to the depository
 Keep locally or recycle
 Exception
 Elsevier Titles – OSU participating in the CIC
depository. Dedup among the remaining four
depositories.
Policy – Bound Journal Circulation – 2/13/12
 OhioLINK InterCampus Services Committee
 Depository journals – low use
 All bound journals in OHDEP (shared catalog) circulate
for 3 weeks, 4 renewals
 Eliminated inconsistent loan periods
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Print Serials De-duping Guidelines – February 2013
 One print copy held; fullest run maintained
 Retained copy counted as local holdings by all who





owned a de-duped copy
Retained items identified as de-duped and retained
Retention statement in OCLC record
Circulate – same loan as OhioLINK books
Circulate – via regular ILL to non-OhioLINK
Exception
Agreement February 2014: to keep one copy of the print
journal titles until June 30, 2036
OhioLINK OCLC Depository Duplication Study
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2013 – 5 years of effort
- Highly functioning governing system
- Major policies in place
- Shared catalog – OHDEP
- Policy preventing duplicates
- Routine – de-duping 2 titles weekly
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Challenges Because of …
-Number of Volumes
-Cataloging Traditions
-Coding Practices
-Shared OPAC
-Labor
-Number of Partners
-Centralized Governance
-Policies on Retention (Last Copy)
-Policies to Standardize Services
-Practices to Standardize Processes
-Loss of Autonomy
Working together to develop a monograph pilot - 2014
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Working together regionally
 Northwest – BGSU and





University of Toledo
Fundamental principles
General operating
assumptions
Day-to-day projects
Regional projects
State-wide projects
Conclusions
 Gather appropriate stakeholders
 Agree on overall goal; agree to disagree at times
 Set initial objectives and draft policy documents
 Review those annually and change them as the greater
library environment changes
 Communicate often with constituents and
stakeholders