Thursday, November 4, 5:45 PM Beth A. Callahan - Wayne State University Cynthia H. Krolikowski - Wayne State University

1. Journal Review Benefits
Beyond the Budget:
Dollars and Sense at
Wayne State University
Beth A. Callahan
Assistant Director for Acquisitions & Serials
Cynthia H. Krolikowski
Public Services Librarian

2. Wayne State University
• One of the nation’s leading urban research
universities with a demonstrated commitment
to teaching and learning excellence; 350
schools, colleges, & programs
• Carnegie-ranked Research University with
Very High Research Activity
• Library System includes 5 libraries:
undergraduate, 2 graduate, Law & Medicine
plus School of Library & Information Science
• All libraries participated in the Review

3. WSU Collections in General
• Volumes in Library 3,660,642
• Current Serials 45,400
• Microform 3,896,048
• Manuscripts & archives 74,000
• Graphic materials 2,159,539
• Film & video 30,565
• Expenditures (total) $9,007,142
• Monographs $1,181,664
• Current Serials $7,495,718
• Total electronic budget (88.5%) $7,971,488
ARL Statistics 2007-8

4. Journal Review Beginnings
• Team began meeting in Nov 2008
• New President was just elected
• Before the housing market collapse
• Before Wall Street’s “bailout”
• Before automakers’ bailout

5. Serial Review Team
• Team composition
• Department representation
• Subject representation
• Data & survey savvy
• Acquisitions – all levels
• Serials – all levels
• Helped by:
• Library Communications/PR
• Electronic Resources Librarian
• Acquisitions Librarian
• Website support
• Access staff (gathered shelving stats)

6. Team’s Goals, Outcomes
& Implementation
• Spring 2009
• Review and align current serial and standing
order subscriptions to support the teaching
and research missions of Wayne State
University
• Develop procedures for future serial and
standing order subscription review and
alignment
• Timeline

7. Journal Review Plan
• Plan for the evaluation of all journal
subscriptions that would involve as many of
the stakeholders on campus as possible
• Stakeholder identification
• Team held brainstorming session
• University Library Committee
• Faculty
• Students (while identified as important stakeholders,
were not actively solicited for this review)

8. Serials Review Team’s Plan
• Highlights
• Length of time: November completes 2 years, predict
completion by end of 1st quarter 2011
• Brainstorming sessions, lots!
• Liaison buy-in, everyone participated
• Butcher paper circled the room with the timeline
during meetings as reminder
• Where are we now
• Liaisons have final list for review & distribution
• Liaison Survey to guide recommendations for future
Reviews to the Dean
• Acquisitions and Serials implementing decisions

9. Activities Supporting the Review
• Dean presented at Academic Senate
• Dean discussed Review at Council of Deans
• Provost openly supportive
• Dean’s encouragement and visible support
by meeting with Liaisons
• Meeting with Library committee (composed of
appointed faculty of University at large)

10. Training for Liaisons
Team recognized Liaisons might benefit from
training opportunities before meeting with faculty
• Immersion Day
• Communication skills and strategies to
convey information to faculty
• Creating customized journal list
– Training offered in Excel and other software as needed
– Group and individual consultations

11. Communication Tools
Team recognized Liaisons would need multiple ways of effectively
communicating and tried to provide flexible tools to help
• Introduction letter to departments
• Handouts
• Why the Library Buys Bundled Packages of Journals
• FAQ
• 4 Things You Need To Know About Journal Price Inflation
• 4 Things You Need To Know About ILL
• PowerPoint: complete version for web, Liaison could select slides most
appropriate to their circumstances
• Website
Letter from the Dean Goals & Objectives
Team Members Timeline
Handouts PowerPoint slides
Links to Liaisons Industry reports
Cost History Grouped by LC chart Link to fulltext Library Journal article
Link to CPI Final list

12. WSU Journal List
• List of journal titles for reviews
• 6,053 titles including bundled titles, e.g., Sage
• Journals defined - current subscription, no
standing orders, includes all bundled
orders, Big Deals as well as small
packages, e.g., AARP
• Canceled
• 1,114 individual titles
• 18% of titles on list; 25% of available titles

13. Journal Review List
• Complete list with all Data sent to Liaisons
• Liaisons used a variety of indicators to create
customized ranked lists for faculty
• Lists were not driven by current or historical
funds codes
• Extremely interdisciplinary
• Much less restrictive than previous reviews
• Data will be retained for future Reviews

14. Journal Review List
• Advances in technology contributed to the
creation of the Journal Review list
• Tagging allows Liaisons to “own” titles,
transcends LC subject headings and
historical fund codes

15. Initial Liaison Contact
with Faculty
• Promoted coming Review in informal
situations and conversations with faculty
and other Liaisons
• Introduction letter
• Majority of Liaisons set up formal
appointments with departments

16. Faculty Input
• Agree or disagree with Liaison rankings
• New titles suggestions were encouraged
• Review of Liaison selected
interdisciplinary titles was encouraged
• Faculty knowledge of state of the
discipline

17. Limitations of Customized List
• Need a better way to communicate journal
package information
• Need to find a better way to include
aggregator use data
• Guessed what data Liaisons and faculty
needed to make decisions
• Chose to not attach subject headings to
encourage unrestrained selection

18. Limitations of Customized List
• Incorporate document delivery statistics
& information
• Incorporate journal use data from student
and faculty written output
• Faculty publications
• Dissertations and theses
• Capstone class papers

19. Unintended Consequences
A cadre of Librarian Liaisons who possess
more than just superficial knowledge
about the departments for which they
are responsible.

20. Unintended Consequences
Be mindful of the technological capabilities
of users when involving departments
in library-related surveys or projects &
when purchasing or recommending
electronic resources!

21. Unintended Consequences
Be mindful that each department is unique
& old labels may not be relevant anymore.

22. Unintended Consequences
Liaison activities need to be tailored to the
tolerance level of the department.

23. Unintended Consequences
The old model of impersonal title list transfers to
faculty has seen its day.
The review of data rich journal title documents
with interested faculty seemed to go better when
small groups were assembled (faculty meetings,
appointments with interested faculty) and face to
face contact was made.

24. Unintended Consequences
Liaisons agree:
Technical Services People Rock!

25. Thank You!
Cindy Krolikowski
Public Services Librarian
ac4979@wayne.edu
Beth Callahan
Assistant Director for Acquisitions
ay8078@wayne.edu
http://www.lib.wayne.edu/sites/journalreview/fy2009/