REPORT OF THE BOBST LIBRARY STRATEGIC PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION TEAM--SERIALS TEAM
MARCH 31, 1998

Serials Team: Beth Jacoby, Chair; Everett Allgood, Suzanne Fedunok, Carol Hutchins, Bill Jones, Arno Kastner, Rebecka Lindau, Ann Snoeyenbos, Marie Cimino Spina

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

      The Serials Team has discussed several issues relating to the barcoding, circulation, physical arrangement, location and OPAC display of Bobst serials. Although complete consensus was not reached on some issues, the Team offers several recommendations in its report. To improve catalog access to serials, the report recommends specific changes to screen displays, a serial title index , related works option, additional Help screens, TSD clean-up of remaining problem records, and on-going staff and user education programs. For purposes of inventory control and maximum access to serials, all bound serials should be barcoded and existing circulation policies should be maintained. Before the library can move forward with plans for compact storage, we should undertake a collection use study and collection analysis to identify categories of materials appropriate for this type of shelving. Results of these studies would help determine the location of our bound serial collection. The report recommends that with the exception of science and music titles, current serials should continue to remain together, but be arranged by call number.

Committee Charge:

      In a letter dated December 10, 1997 from Nancy Kranich, Associate Dean of the Division of Libraries, the Serials Team was issued the following charge:

      Solicit, consider, and recommend suggestions for improving bibliographic and holdings displays for serials in BobCat [and BobCatPlus*]; develop user-education programs and tools for interpreting BobCat [and BobCatPlus*] serials displays and accessing serials; recommend ADVANCE serials module enhancement requests and forward to Acquisitions Unit; review and recommend policies on barcoding and circulating bound serials; plan rearrangement and location of bound and current serials.

* NOTE: While the charge did not specifically mention BobCatPlus, the team considered it along with the text-based BobCat in its deliberations.

The Serials Team divided the charge into three components, each of which is addressed below.

Charge Component #1: Solicit, consider, and recommend suggestions for improving bibliographic holdings displays for serials records in BobCat [and BobCatPlus]; develop user-education programs and tools for interpreting BobCat [and BobCatPlus] serials displays and accessing serials; recommend ADVANCE serials module enhancement requests and forward to Acquisitions Unit.

      The Serials Team believes that much is needed by way of an improved system design in the Geac ADVANCE system in order to make its use more intuitive and less dependent on instruction by library staff, particularly for the growing number of remote users who do not have the opportunity to ask informed staff for assistance. In the meantime, we recognize that improvements in training and documentation are necessary to bridge the gap between the current system which is not intuitive and a futuristic intuitive system. With that in mind, the team makes the following recommendations.

Recommendations for Serials Bobcat Displays/Retrieval:

1. Efforts should be undertaken by the OPAC Committee and any necessary systems personnel to establish consistency between Bobcat and BobCatPlus displays. Toward the goal of simplifying OPAC displays while also supplying relevant information, the following recommendations about specific bibliographic fields in serial records are given:

   1. Remove 321 field (Former publication frequency) from the brief and detailed displays. The field currently appears in both displays separated by a comma, which creates a confusing public display. The field would remain in the MARC display. [DONE OCTOBER 1998]
      
      

   2. Display 515 field (Numbering peculiarities note) in the detailed display. The field currently displays in the MARC record only. It contains peculiarities in numbering or publishing patterns (e.g. if a title has changed its numbering system) which may be helpful to users. [DONE OCTOBER 1998]
      
      

   3. Display 770 field (Supplement/Special issue entry) in the detailed display. The field currently displays in the MARC record only. It contains links to separately cataloged supplements and/or issues which may be of interest to users. [DONE OCTOBER 1998]
      
      

   4. Display 772 field (Parent record entry) in detailed display. The field currently displays in the MARC record only. It contains the link from a Supplement/Special issue bibliographic record back to the Parent entry, and may be of interest to users. [DONE OCTOBER 1998]
      
      

   5. Display 856 field (Electronic location and access) in both the brief and detailed displays. The field currently displays in the brief and MARC records, but not the detailed display. This field contains the path to an electronic version of a title and represents an increasingly important link within catalogs today. [DONE OCTOBER 1998]
   
   
   

2. Create a separate index for serials records in ADVANCE to allow the retrieval of only serials records in combination with other searches (title, subject, etc.) The Serials Team expects that ADVANCE release 6.9 (due sometime in 1999) will allow for creation of separate indexes and lists, which would allow searches by format prior to entering a search string. This feature has long been requested by both library staff and patrons and would facilitate searching for serials in the online catalog. In the event that this feature does not materialize in release 6.9, the team recommends that a search option be implemented as soon as re-indexing of the database can be done, as the capability for this functionality to restrict searches by serials already exists in the currently installed version of ADVANCE. [DONE SEPTEMBER 1998; Journal title (J=) and Journal word (JW=) indexes added and will be retained even with future releases of Geac ADVANCE]]
   
   

3. Geac should improve the Related Works option for serials. Although the Related Works option now works appropriately for monographs, the capability of searching preceding and succeeding serial titles from the Related Works option is lacking at this time. This functionality is expected to be available with release 6.9; however, should it not be available then, an urgent enhancement request should be submitted for it on the next ADVANCE enhancement ballot. This critical feature would permit users to search for preceding and succeeding titles without having to re-type the search. [DONE SEPEMBER 1998; RELATED WORKS OPTION RETRIEVES EARLIER AND LATER SERIAL TITLES]
   
   

4. Serials receiving and cataloging staff should continue working on various data clean-up projects, which are already in progress. These include:
   
   

   1. Elimination of serials ALL CAPS records in BobCat. These records were caused by the serials GLIS-to-Advance migration, creation of circ-on-the-fly records, and the inadvertent transfer of series records from the Acquisitions module to the OPAC. [IN PROGRESS]
      
      

   2. Consolidation of ALL CAPS check-in records for both print and microform versions whenever possible. This results in one check-in record for both versions. ADVANCE release 6.9 is expected to allow for multiple publication patterns (e.g., one for print, one for microform) on the same bibliographic record, which will facilitate this consolidation process. [IN PROGRESS]
   
   
   

5. All libraries using the BobCat database and integrated modules should adhere to the same set of standards for serials receiving and cataloging. Adherence to standards provides greater consistency in public displays and therefore clarity of serials records. [ONGOING TRAINING]
   
   

6. The OPAC Committee should look at the inconsistency between the text-based BobCat and BobCatPlus in terms of the placement of the "non-circulating" message. In BobCat, "non-circulating" appears in the STATUS field, whereas in BobCatPlus it appears behind the call number. [ON OPAC COMMITTEE'S AGENDA]
   
   

7. The OPAC Committee should continue its work on developing help screens for serials displays. [IN PROGRESS]
   
   

8. The OPAC Committee should ensure that the functionality of the "Last rec'd" field in the BobCat display is fixed (as expected) with release 6.9. [SHOULD BE FIXED IN RELEASE 6.8]
   
   

9. The OPAC Committee should continue to pursue with Geac through the enhancement request process the suppression of inactive copy sets from the OPAC. The display of inactive copy sets (due to canceled or ceased titles, office copies, etc.) makes it look like the library has an active subscription when it does not. [INCLUDED IN 1999 GEAC ADVANCE ENHANCEMENT REQUESTS]

Recommendations for Staff and User Education:

1. Serials cataloging staff should develop a "help sheet" covering the MARC tags appearing in BobCat serials displays. The sheet should be mounted on the INTRANET via the Cataloging homepage for use by all staff as well as be distributed in print format to public services staff. The document should be updated as necessary when ADVANCE enhancements or others reasons require it. [PLANNED; WILL PROBABLY DEVELOP FROM USER EDUCATION SESSIONS--SEE NEXT ITEM]

2. Serials acquisitions staff should schedule periodic sessions on "everything you ever wanted to know about serials acquisitions" for all Bobst and branch/consortium staff. In addition, similar sessions should be offered and tailored to public services staff to explain OPAC serials displays. A handout for public services to explain OPAC serials displays should be created and distributed. [SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 2 AND 3, 1998]

3. Technical services staff should work with public services staff on revisions of user guides (no matter what the format of the guides). [TO BE DONE]

Charge Component #2: Review and recommend policies on barcoding and circulating bound serials. [UNDER CONSIDERATION]

Current Policies

A review of current Bobst policies on barcoding and circulating resulted in the following findings:

1. Bound serials are not barcoded under any circumstances.
   
   

   EXCEPTION: Titles on the circulating serials list have been barcoded but not linked in BobCat. It is unclear at which point the barcode is being or should be applied for these titles.
   
   

2. Bound serials do not circulate, with the following two exceptions:
   
   

   1. The title is on the circulating serials list. (Approximately 300 titles, mostly annuals, on this list.)
      
      

   2. Faculty, or graduate assistant with faculty authorization, requests a special loan for a non-circulating title.
   
   
   

3. Unbound/current periodicals do not circulate under any circumstances.

Literature/Peer Institution Review

      The serials team searched the library literature for reasons to barcode or not barcode bound serials. Most of the literature, including the ARL SPEC Kit: Barcoding of Collections in ARL Libraries (1986), focuses on the nuts and bolts of barcoding monographic collections during the 1980's when libraries were just beginning to install systems utilizing barcoding technology. There is either no mention of barcoding serials or just brief mention that they are somewhat more difficult to barcode because they are multi-volume. The most relevant article is "Implementing a Serials Barcoding Project" by Lennertz and Conway dated June 1997. The only reason cited by the authors for barcoding their serials is to provide easy access to and status information about the individual pieces, (i.e., on shelf, missing, at bindery, etc.). (See Appendix C for bibliography on barcoding.)

      Seven peer institutions were queried to ascertain whether they barcode and/or circulate their bound serials. Of the three institutions that responded, all barcode their bound serials. Circulation policies for bound serials vary. University of Chicago and Trinity University (San Antonio) circulate their bound serials. The various libraries at Columbia each have their own circulation policies, some of which allow circulation while others do not. (See Appendix A for a summary of their responses.)

      Johns Hopkins University responded to a query posted to the COLLDV-L listserv concerning circulation policies on bound journals. Their journals circulate on a title-by-title basis. The respondent indicated that complaints about the circulating titles are occasionally received and there was a desire to move to a non-circulating policy for all titles.

Barcoding Bound Serials

The Serials Team developed the following list of pro's and con's for barcoding bound serials in Bobst Library:

Pro's

1. To provide better item-level control for inventory purposes, location, and status of each bound volume, especially if some volumes are in compact shelving.

2. To facilitate patron and staff access by giving item-level holdings, location, and status of each bound volume, especially if some volumes are in compact shelving.

3. To eliminate circ-on-the-fly records for special serial loans and problems resulting from these records.

4. To provide an opportunity to clean up BobCat serial records while linking items to bibliographic records.

5. To prepare the library for circulating all bound serials if that is desired in the future.

6. To aid in-house use studies of bound serials.

Con's

1. A serials barcoding project would be an enormous task requiring much labor and years to complete.

2. During the project, there would be inconsistencies in how serials display in BobCat (i.e., barcoded versus unbarcoded titles).

Recommendations for Barcoding Bound Serials:

1. All bound serials in Bobst, including non-stack locations such as the reference centers, should be barcoded and linked to the appropriate bibliographic record in BobCat.
   
   

2. A serials barcoding committee composed of staff from serials acquisitions, serials cataloging, collection development, circulation, and public services should be appointed to plan and implement the barcoding project, as well as develop procedures to barcode/link new serial receipts. One component of the project would be a serials inventory and simultaneous updating of serials holdings in BobCat, similar to the monographic HICUP project now underway.
   
   

3. Additional funding for temporary project staff should be sought to handle the barcoding project. It is a known fact that not all bound serials have been converted to MARC records. The task of linking the estimated 400,000 bound serials, therefore, would include some recon as well as significant record clean-up for missed title changes, etc., creating a workload that could not be handled by existing Bobst staff. With temporary staff, such a project could be expected to take 3-5 years to complete.
   
   

4. The creation of items for each serial title should take advantage of the MARC Format for Serials Holdings, which is expected to be available with Geac ADVANCE release 6.9.
   
   

5. The Barcoding Committee should experiment with the limit of items which can be linked to one bibliographic record, as other ADVANCE sites have reported problems with response time when the number of linked items exceeds 1000.
   
   

6. All NYU and consortial libraries using ADVANCE should adhere to the same method of item creation for serials to create consistency in how serials display in BobCat.

Circulation of Bound Serials

      The Serials Team recognizes that a non-circulating policy for serials creates inconveniences for library users. It may also cause the theft and mutilation of materials which in some cases cannot be replaced or are too expensive to replace, resulting in a permanent loss of that information. Even so, the team believes that the non-circulating policy benefits the greatest number of users, some of whom want access to different articles in the same volume at the same time. Unlike monographs, which tend to be considered as one coherent unit of information, serials are "packages" of multiple, discrete units of information in the form of articles. By allowing a volume to circulate, the entire package becomes unavailable to all other users until it is returned to the shelf.

The team makes the following recommendations concerning circulation of bound serials.

Recommendations for Circulation of Bound Serials:

1. Maintain the current policy of not circulating bound serials with the current two exceptions.
   
   

2. Investigate the possibility of re-establishing a copy center (self-serve and/or full-serve) in Bobst to alleviate some of the inconvenience users experience concerning the non-circulating policy. The copy center could be outsourced to a commercial company like Kinkos, thereby eliminating the need for Bobst staffing, but also earning revenue from rental of space.
   
   

3. Continue to maintain photocopy machines on each floor to maximize convenience of users not wanting to travel to a different floor to get to the copy center.
   
   

4. The policy of stamping serials with "Does not circulate" or "Circulation Approved" should be examined. The Serials Team believes that the physical stamping of serials should no longer continue since the circulation policy for a particular item can change over time, and the policy for a title is indicated in BobCat. It is easier to change a circulation policy in BobCat than to white out the ink from a stamp on the printed page.

Charge Component #3: Plan the rearrangement and location of bound and current serials. [REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF OTHER STRATEGIC PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS]

      The following recommendations were made about periodicals in the Bobst Library publication "Library Service for the 21st Century: Recommendations for Upgrading NYU's Elmer Holmes Bobst Library" (Draft Report, November 1997), which the Serials Team considered in its deliberations:

Bound, current, and microforms would be shelved together in the same area, with the exception of current science periodicals. Some duplicate titles may be housed in the Educational Information Center. The periodicals department on level A will require a full time periodicals staff who can provide patrons with assistance in periodicals and technology questions. This department would provide control over the general environment, materials availability, small exhibit space, a document delivery center, a photocopy center, and staff work area. (pp. 13-14)

Bound periodicals would be relocated to the A level, which would free up approximately 25% of existing shelf space. .... The A level would receive approximately 40,000 linear feet of compact shelving for periodicals. It would also house the microform area and provide seating for those working with these materials. .... The B level would provide 24 hour workstations for students and 60% of a new compact shelving facility located below ground level (60,000 linear feet). (p.10)

      In its deliberations, the Serials Team operated under the assumption that the use of compact shelving to store a portion of Bobst collections is necessary to alleviate crowded conditions in the stacks and to avoid the less feasible option of remote storage. The team also recognized that, while electronic access to serials may eventually alleviate some of the physical space problems currently plaguing Bobst Library, it is too early to judge the impact of Project Muse, JSTOR, and other electronic serials options on the current physical needs of print serials.

Data Gathering and Analysis

      A DIALOG search of LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts) on the topic of compact shelving yielded a bibliography of 35 items. A similar search in Library Literature yielded a bibliography of 11 items (See Appendix D for a select bibliography.) The most interesting article was the experience of the University of Mississippi, which was positive, overall. They reported much advance planning on the selection of materials to be relocated to compact shelving, and user satisfaction surveys were conducted after materials were relocated to that shelving. Stanley Slote's book Weeding Library Collections has some useful information on methods for selection of materials to be relocated.

The following message was posted to the COLLDV-L listserv for collection development and the ALA LARGEPSD listserv for heads of large university public service departments:

      Does anyone out there have any experience with public-access compact shelving of a large research library collection comprised of bound periodicals? NYU-Bobst Library plans to consolidate all of its bound periodicals onto public-access (i.e, browsable) compact shelving. How was the collection organized -- by title? by call number? Since titles will grow, how did you manage leaving room? There is also some concern about moving what could be medium- to high-use items like recent science journals onto compact shelving. Will users need to "take a number" to browse? Any advice to the small task force investigating this would be most welcome. Thank you.

Replies were received from:

• Texas Woman's University,
• Universite de Quebec a Hull,
• Marston Science Library at the University of Florida
• University of Pennsylvania
• Colorado State
• Michigan State
• Princeton University
• Los Alamos National Laboratory
• University of Connecticut
• Mississippi State University
• St. John's University, University of Cape Town
• University of Scranton

      Problems were reported when medium to high-use "live" or growing collections such as periodicals were moved to compact shelving.

      Representatives of two compact shelving companies, Spacesaver and Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems of America, were interviewed at ALA Midwinter and asked for the names of customers with large installations of public access periodicals collections. These leads were followed up by telephone calls to Pennsylvania State University, the University of Pennsylvania, and American University. Other libraries with compact shelving were also contacted, including Northwestern University, the University of Maryland at College Park, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne, the University of Kentucky, and UCLA. Most libraries use compact shelving for low-use monographs and periodicals. Reports of problems with public access to more heavily used collections were not uncommon. The University of Kentucky's new building will house its entire collection except for current periodicals and reference materials in compact shelving. (See APPENDIX B for a summary of responses.)

      The libraries of eleven universities identified as peer institutions were contacted by phone concerning arrangement and location of their serials. None of the respondents had unified periodicals collections, the explanation being the existence of branch libraries, or in the case of Johns Hopkins, a science center within the main library. There was no majority regarding the arrangement of periodicals collections.

      Two committee members made a site visit to the NYU Law Library to view the Elecompack compact shelving installation, which houses little-used legal serials and monographs. The Law Library cautioned about mechanical problems with compact shelving.

      Because of the reported difficulties with "medium to high use" materials in compact shelving, information was sought from Joan Grant, Director of Collections, on the use of the collection to find that there is no data on the use of bound periodicals in Bobst. Bobst stacks staff did a month-long count of bound periodical reshelving in February 1998 tabulated by LC call number, but the time period of the study was too short to provide meaningful data.

      Data was also sought on the rate of growth of bound periodicals. The linear footage of the collection in Bobst stacks was established in summer 1997 by Collection Services. Bound serials were measured by range number resulting in approximately 42,000 linear feet, but there is no data on the size or growth of bound serials by LC call number. We may be able to extrapolate from the amount of binding done, however. NYU reports to the North American Title Count, but the LC subject ranges there may not be appropriate, and the Count does not give information about bound periodicals. An ALA SPEC kit on compact shelving was informative about how to plan an installation, but it had little to say about serials.

      Two further leads on use of the bound serials collection were briefly discussed but not pursued. The possibilities of commissioning a "Local Journal Utilization Report" from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), and retrieval of the use data from an ARL/SUNY study [S. Fedunok, "Proposals for interinstitutional serials cooperation at the SUNY Centers" Serials Librarian 29(3/4) 67-77 (1996)] were identified by the team as two potential methods for gathering further data on the Bobst journal collection. The ISI data would be more useful for science and social science disciplines than for the humanities.

      Based on the information gathered, the Serials Team identified six viable options for relocation of Bobst collections to compact shelving. Several other options were also considered but deemed unfeasible and eliminated from consideration. Those included: 1) the conversion of bound serials to microform, 2) moving collections to remote storage, and 3) moving bound serials to respective reference centers. The results of the peer institution and literature survey strongly warn against placing medium- to high-use items in compact shelving. Since at least some of Bobst journals would fall into the high-use category, the Serials Team offers below both journal and non-journal options for materials to be relocated to compact shelving. All options require use studies, subject breakdowns, and linear measurements before an informed decision can be made.

      The first two options serve to create a periodicals center, as described in "Library Service for the 21st Century", but they raise the problem of inclusion of high-use items. Option three gets around the high-use problem by selecting older journals, but negates the concept of a consolidated periodicals center by dispersing bound serials in the same subject area throughout the building. The remaining options also negate the concept of a periodicals center, but could create the growth space needed for Bobst.

OPTION 1: Move all bound journals to compact shelving

PRO's

1. Easier to establish on day one: fewer records to change, fewer titles to shelve

2. Easy to explain to patrons and easy for patrons to remember

3. Big step toward the creation of a Periodicals Center, which some patrons seem to want/expect to find

4. Easy to maintain: reshelving of serials is easier/faster than monographs

5. Resolves location anomaly in BobCat: no location shown for Coles serials now

6. Improved service to patrons, if trained Periodicals Center staff available to offer reference help

7. Improved service, if microforms and current periodicals are arranged in same way and are closer to the bound volumes than they are now

CON's

1. Hard to browse in compact shelving: patrons haul bound volumes to tables

2. Subjects will be separated by format, making it harder to do research

3. Shelving of medium or high-use materials on compact shelving causes problems for users

4. High-use/ medium-use materials on compact shelving may result in shelving backlogs

5. High-use/medium-use materials on compact shelving damages the collection

6. High-use/medium-use on compact shelving may result in equipment breakdowns

7. Public access to high-use/medium-use materials on compact shelving may result in reader safety problems: books tumble, patrons get squashed

8. Stack maintenance on a "live" and growing collection is a problem

9. Science faculty do not like this option

OPTION 2: Move all but science journals to compact shelving

PRO's

1. Science Center works well as is (i.e., reference, collection, staff together); removal of science periodicals may cripple service to this clientele

2. Separation of bound from current periodicals is bad for service

3. Retention of Coles periodicals on "normal" shelving goes long way to resolving the high/medium use problems associated with compact shelving of bound periodicals

CON's

1. The Science Center would be an exception, and all exceptions are problems: reader service, stacks maintenance, public relations

2. There may not be room for growth of Coles bound periodicals on regular shelves for next 20 years

OPTION 3: Move older journals, with a cutoff date (e.g. pre-1970) , to compact shelving

PRO's

1. Offers solution to problems associated with compact shelving of a high/medium use collection

2. Will require less space; offers flexibility about use of B level in future

3. Less expensive in short run: fewer shelves needed, fewer volumes to shift

4. Less wear and tear on collection

CON's

1. Introduces an exception

2. Harder to do research if journal runs are split

3. How to decide what is "older"

4. May not address library space problems adequately

5. Requires more work to maintain: shifting bound volumes from stacks

OPTION 4: Move monographs by imprint date(e.g. pre-1920) to compact shelving

PRO's

1. Offers solution to problems associated with compact shelving of a high/medium use periodicals

2. Easy to explain to patrons and easy for patrons to remember

CON's

1. Subjects will be separated by format, making it harder to do research

2. May not address library space problems adequately

OPTION 5: Move selected monographs (criteria to be decided by Collection Services) to compact shelving

PRO's

1. Offers solution to problems associated with compact shelving of a high/medium use periodicals

CON's

1. Subjects would be separated by format, making it harder to do research

2. Slower, more costly process to implement

3. May not reach goal of freeing up linear footage in stacks without moving titles that will be used.

OPTION 6. Move a mixture of both journals and monographs (criteria to be decided by Collection Services) to compact shelving.

PRO's

1. Offers solution to problems associated with compact shelving of a high/medium use periodicals

2. Less wear and tear on collection (if low-use materials selected)

3. Shelving location of items can be explicitly displayed in catalog.

CON's

1. How to decide what to move may be a lengthy and difficult process

Recommendations for Space Planning:

1. Bobst Library administration should examine carefully the options presented above for the location of bound serials.
   
   

2. No decision should be made regarding which collections are transferred to compact shelving until a well designed use study is done for any materials being considered for placement into compact shelving. A journal use study should last at least one full semester (i.e., fall or spring). The results could then be compared against the characteristics of the user population -- number of students/faculty in programs, etc.
   
   

3. More data should be gathered on the NYU Bobst Library collection to inform the decision-making process. A collection analysis project, where criteria such as imprint dates, subject ranges, language of publications, should be undertaken in order to determine which portions of the collection would fall into a low-use category, and therefore, be viable for relocation to compact shelving. Circulation statistics derived from ADVANCE for monographs could prove useful for such an analysis if broken out by such categories. More precise information on the growth of the collection, particularly periodicals, must be collected. Data on the size of the periodicals collection by subject must be compiled.

Recommendations for Current Serials Location:

1. Leave current periodicals where they are, i.e., consolidated with the existing exceptions of science and music. Those two disciplines are distinct and discrete disciplines and warrant keeping them with their respective centers.
   
   

2. Conduct a systematic updating of the appropriate fields in the catalog record for science and music journals so that BobCat will show that the latest issues are in those locations rather than in the stacks or on A level.

Arrangement of Serials

For the size of Bobst's serials collection, the benefits of a call number arrangement for both current and bound serials outweigh any other arrangement, including an alphabetical arrangement by title. A call number arrangement:

1. facilitates browsing by subject

2. eliminates relabeling and shifting when titles change

3. facilitates shelving and re-shelving of titles for staff since they do not have to figure out how to file foreign language titles and others where the title is more obscure.

4. creates consistency of arrangement for all serials, whether bound or not.

      A disadvantage to a call number arrangement is that users need to look up the call number in BobCat in order to locate a title. When current periodicals on A level changed from a closed stacks to an open stacks situation, the title arrangement was predicated by the integration of the Stern Library into Bobst as an appeasement to Stern faculty who wanted all their current journals shelved together. Under a call number arrangement, the current journals for each subject area would be located more closely together than under a title arrangement.

Recommendations for Current Serials Arrangement:

1. Change the arrangement of current periodicals from title to call number arrangement.

2. Publicize the change in arrangement to library users.

APPENDIX A: QUERY TO PEER INSTITUTIONS ON SERIALS BARCODING/CIRCULATION POLICIES

Respondents: Columbia University, University of Chicago, Trinity University (San Antonio)

1. Does your institution barcode bound serials?
   
   

   All responded yes. Columbia went on to say that there have been various projects through the years attempting to barcode back issues in the stacks, but they were not able to attest to the success or completeness of those efforts. The University of Chicago on the other hand, has never made such an effort. They have been barcoding bound volumes since the mid-1980s. As far as the back issues, they are barcoded as they come up, either for circulation, rebinding, location changes, etc. Trinity has been barcoding serials for only the past 18 months.
   
   

2. Do you circulate any (or all) serials? If so, please explain the specific policies adopted by your institution.
   
   

   The individual libraries at Columbia each have differing policies regarding circulation. Carroll knows that many of them do circulate bound serials, though with differing policies among the libraries.

   At the University of Chicago, bound serials within the main library's general collection circulate. Those in the Reference Collection and other Reading Rooms do not. There are also some titles within the general stacks that are "building use only."

   Trinity faculty may check out bound serials for three days (usually); students may check them out overnight (beginning 1 hour before closing and due the next morning 1 hour after opening). Certain "popular" titles do not circulate at all.
   
   

3. Please discuss any positive or negative consequences you have experienced as a result of these decisions. Have there been specific problems? Benefits? If so, please explain.
   
   

   Neither Columbia nor Univ. Of Chicago were aware of specific problems. They both went on to extol the inventory value of having item-specific information attached to each serial title (e.g. the value of being able to trace the location of items within a title run at all times.)

   The University of Chicago explained a bit more about their circulating policy. It works for them primarily for two reasons: 1) a very stringent recall policy. Patrons with charged serials have a very brief window of opportunity to return a recalled title before significant fines accrue ; and, 2) an exemplary InterLibrary Loan Department which can obtain needed titles quickly.

   Trinity reported no serious problems with missing or unreturned journals, although some faculty abuse the privilege. Only a small number of serials actually circulate. Students seem to rely heavily on full-text online articles and don't use the print collection very much.
   
   

4. Which integrated library system does your institution use?

   Columbia and Trinity use NOTIS; the University of Chicago uses Ameritech Horizon.

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF COMPACT SHELVING SURVEY

      The American University in Washington, D.C. was one of the earliest academic libraries to use cs (1967). Currently, only gifts and archival materials are stored in cs. They had previously housed science monographs on compact shelves, but felt it inconvenienced the public; however, they added that they may consider placing some of their non-circulating serials in cs since the installations have developed and improved greatly in the past twenty years.

      University of Illinois, Urbana-Champagne, has both bound journals and monographs in compact shelving (ca. 2 million volumes). Their collection is closed to undergraduate students. At an earlier date, undergrads also had access to the cs, but because of the problems with lines forming, this service was discontinued. The cs are located on 7 floors; 70 ranges on each floor; each range is 45 feet wide and 14 columns long. They stressed the importance of placing only a small collection in each section to cut down on the waiting time. Univ. of Illinois had decided to transfer a straight call no. (Dewey) range for simplicity rather than a split by publication date, format or the like.

      University of Kentucky has built their new research library with compact shelving on which their entire collection will be housed except for current periodicals and reference materials. They conveyed no apprehension, but emphasized the importance of fixed aisles interspersed with movable ones, e.g. in a series of one fixed to two movable. Both Kentucky and Urbana-Champagne used SpaceSaver.

      Northwestern University is placing bound journals up to 1980 or 1985 (depending on how many linear feet of shelving they can install) into compact shelving, shelved by classification number. For some special collections such as the Africana and Transportation Libraries, monographs have also been placed in cs. They are further putting older government publications (about 8,000 linear feet) in cs. (At Duke University they placed all Congressional hearings up to 1976 in cs.) Northwestern has been negotiating with several vendors such as White (which did a multi-million dollar installation at CRL) and SpaceSaver. They urge us to use at least 9" shelves. They are also going with shelves of various depths: 18" deep for shelving on both sides; 24" for Hollinger boxes on both sides; 18" for boxes with archival records; 24" for folios. In addition, to the above they have had boxed microfilm and bound and wrapped newspapers in cs (non-public access).

      UCLA has transferred some of their material to remote storage to free up space in their research library. The transfer of materials was not altogether uniform, but the following can be said. Monographs pre-1900 that had not circulated more than 3 times since 1987 were transferred; monographs between 1901-1925 that had not circulated more than 2 times since 1987 were transferred; and monographs between 1925-1976 that had not circulated more than once since 1987 (this was in 1997) were transferred. Many bound periodicals (pre-1950) were also transferred, and practically all serials that had ceased publication. An easily remembered date for public and staff was viewed as an advantage, but use was also taken into account. A specific date, it was also felt, would create less continuous shifting around than a transfer of materials from the past 10 years or so. Their situation is of course quite different from ours since we will retain our materials within the same building. The UCLA community has to page their material, and in some cases it takes 1-2 days to obtain them.

      University of Mississippi conducted a survey in 1987 of 21 academic libraries with cs. Subsequently, they placed ca. 70,000 volumes of circulating books in cs. Their mechanical-assist installation consists of 24 thirty-foot ranges with four aisles. The collection is made up of circulating books in a group of classifications considered to be low-use: A, C, G, L, M, S and Z. Circulation statistics showed no significant change before or after the transfer to compact storage. During the busiest year in the study (1990) the collection housed in cs had circulations at the average rate of seven per hour. The users' responses showed that a majority (76%) did not have to wait for an aisle to become available and the ones who did, less than one minute, and the same percentage reported finding the shelves easy to use. The shelvers' notes revealed that most shelvers did not experience more than one or two interruptions per hour. UM concluded that a large shelving installation with seven circulations per hour or more than 600 per week is not too heavily used for satisfactory public access. The perceived wait for a user's access to an aisle was very brief (less than one minute in most cases). Installation of cs has no effect on the level of circulation of the collection housed within it; each shelver might work on two trucks of books at a time so that one will be available if a user causes an interruption in shelving from the other (C&RL News (January 1993): 11-12).

      In their section "When is the use of compact shelving feasible?" (Planning for a Movable Compact Shelving System by Franklyn F. Wright, ALA 1991, p. 5), it is concluded that "if the collection is only moderately used; if more than one person needs simultaneous access to the books shelved in the same module only infrequently; if the reshelving load is moderate; if the collection rarely needs to be shifted, then movable compact shelving may be a good choice."

      Re. placing monographs rather than journals, see Michigan State University's response to Suzanne. They elected to do so because they felt journals would be more heavily used. The response from Colorado State University may also be worth noting since their situation is similar to ours. They placed all bound journals in cs in the basement of their building (because this was the only floor that could hold them). The result was not a success because of long lines and flooding.

      The responses from the Classics dept. including Dean Santirocco, very much favor placing all bound journals together with the current ones on the A-level (I neglected mentioning the compact shelving since I'm not sure that they would know what that means -- I'm not sure myself considering the many variations currently out there). Anyway, these professors expressed annoyance with having to move back and forth between floors when they need different issues of a particular journal. Responses from the Chemistry and Physics faculty to an email message also favor keeping bound and current journals together, in the Science Center with the science books.

APPENDIX C: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ON BARCODING

• Barcoding of collections in ARL libraries, SPEC Kit, 124. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Studies Association of Research Libraries, 1986.
  
  

• Davis, Betty Bartlett. "The Great barcoding project: barcoding 400,000 volumes in 13 days at Indiana State University Libraries." Library Hi Tech 3, no.3 (1985): 67-69.
  
  

• Gatten, Jeffrey N. "Bar Coding projects: preparation and execution." Library Hi Tech 29, no.1 (1990): 21-27.
  
  

• Lennertz, Lora L. and Cheryl L. Conway. "Implementing a serials barcoding project." Information Technology and Libraries (June 1997): 82-86.
  
  

• Spalding, Helen H. "Planning considerations for barcoding a collection." Show-Me Libraries 37 (July 1986): 11-15.
  
  

• Spalding, Helen H., Rolf H. Erickson, and Bruce A. Miller. "Behind bars in the library: Northwestern University's bar code project." Information Technology and Libraries 6, no. 3 (Sept. 1987): 185-89.
  
  

• Weas, Andrea T. "Planning for collection barcoding in a medium-sized library." Information Technology and Libraries 8, no.3 (Sept. 1989): 310-16.

APPENDIX D: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ON COMPACT SHELVING

• Armstrong, H. J. "Compacting your collection: innovative strategies in map storage." Geography and Map Division Bulletin 167 (March 1992).

• Arunachalam, Ravindran et al. "Optimal storage of books by size: an operations research approach." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 25 (6), (November/December 74): 354-357.

• Conger, L. "The annex library of Princeton University: the development of a compact storage library." College & Research Libraries 31 (3), (May 1970): 160-168.

• East, D. "User views of compact shelving in an open access library." Collection Management 18 (3/4) (1994): 71-88.

• Goldberg, Beverly. "Compact shelving mishap traps Harvard library patron." American Libraries 22 (January 1991):7+.

• Gorman, Michael. "Compact shelving: the current answer." Library Hi Tech 5 (4), (Winter 1987): 23-26.

• Grossl, Karl F. "Movable shelving in book stacks and in the open access area." LIBER Bulletin 36 (1990): 68-72.

• Hanna, Herbert L. & Knoght, Nancy. "Issue devoted to movable compact shelving: a survey of U.S. suppliers." Library Technology Reports 17 (1), (January/February 1981): 7-109.

• Hariss, Charlotte. "A race against time: the California State Library's collection shift: circulating collection reorganized and rare books relocated as a result of compact shelving." California State Library Foundation Bulletin 33 (October 1990): 11-15.

• Hyman, Ferne B. "Collection evaluation in the research library." Collection Building 9 (3-4), (1989): 33-37.

• Jeffs, Joseph E. "Library space planning." Edited by K. Nyren. New York. Library Journal (1976): 38-40.

• Kountz, John & Hirsch, J. "Automated storage and retrieval systems of the past: why they fail?" Library Hi Tech 8 (3), (1990): 87-91.

• Lor, P. J. "The management of less used materials: local options." South African Journal of Library and Information Science 52 (3), (August 1984): 75-81.

• Meikle, C. et al. "Compact shelving in the reading room." International Journal of Information and Library Research 2 (1), (1990): 35-49.

• Meyboom, Leen. "The Randtriever at Erasmus University, Rotterdam -- 1969-1990: two decades of change in mechanical books storage." Library Hi Tech 8 (3), (1990): 83-85.

• Merkle, Kathryn G. "Compact shelving for MLC's service for the handicapped." Dikta 7 (4), (Winter 1983): 140-142.

• Molyneux, Robert. "Growth at ARL member libraries, 1962/63 to 1984/85. Journal of Academic Librarianship 12 (4), (September 1996).

• Morris, Leslie R. & Webster, Frank M. "Public use of compact shelving: at Niagara University Library." Collection Management 10 (1/2), (1988): 121-130.

• Olum, Paul. "Myths and realities: the academic viewpoint." College & Research Libraries 45 (5), (September 1984): 362-366.

• Poole, F. G. et al. "Running out of space: what are the alternatives?" Proceedings of the pre conference, June 1975. Edited by Gloria Novak, Chicago, ALA (1978), San Francisco: 47-75.

• Rowse, Dorothea E. "The storage of science journals at the University of South Africa." South African Journal of Library and Information Science, 52 (3), (August 1984): 105-108.

• Ryan, Ken & Galli, Marilyn. "Adapting non-library facilities for periodical collections at Brookhaven National Laboratory." Science and Technology Libraries 3 (4), (Summer 1983): 31-41.

• Sam, S. & Major, J. A. "Compact shelving of circulating collections: at the University of Mississippi." College & Research Libraries News 54 (1) (January 1993): 11-12.

• VanBrimer, Barbara et al. "The Randtriever: its use at the Ohio State University." Library Hi Tech 8 (3), (1990): 71-81.

• Wheat, Valerie & Genett, Mary E. "From curiosities in cabinets to compact shelving: special collections." Science & Technology Libraries 9 (Summer 1989): 23-39.

• Whelan, J. A. "Public access compact shelving in an academic branch library." Colorado Libraries 22 (Spring 1996): 29-31.