ARL Statistics Revision Task Force Final Report

Library Investment Index – Why is it Important?

In 2007, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Joint Task Force on Library Support for E-Science issued its report outlining five goals to guide research libraries' burgeoning endeavors in offering e-science services and initiatives [1]. Since 2007 and the ARL report, the library scholarly literature, including recent communications from ARL e-science task force member James Mullins and task force liaison Neil Rambo, has contained a number of discussions on roles for librarians and libraries pursuing e-science initiatives [2–,6]. The ARL report included strategies and actions for libraries to take to prepare and position themselves to support this emerging process of scholarly communication. The report's third outcome states that librarians should seek to become “knowledgeable and skilled research library professionals with the capacity to contribute to e-science and to shape new roles and models of service.” Although the scholarly literature discussing e-science collaboration is growing [7–,10], few articles exist that have actually addressed how and where current and future health sciences and science and technology librarians should turn to develop the specific e-science capacity prescribed in the ARL report. In the summer of 2009, the Lamar Soutter Library at the University of Massachusetts Medical School applied for and was awarded funding from the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, New England Region (NN/LM NER), to begin the construction of an e-science educational web portal specifically for librarians wanting to develop this capacity. The motivation for the portal came from feedback and conversations with librarians attending a regional e-science symposium and subsequent science boot camp, jointly sponsored by the Boston Library Consortium (BLC), the University of Massachusetts Libraries, and the NN/LM NER.

For centuries, libraries, archives and museums from across Europe have been the custodians of our rich and diverse cultural heritage. They have preserved and provided access to the testimonies of knowledge, beauty and imagination, such as sculptures, paintings, music and literature. The new information technologies have created unbelievable opportunities to make this common heritage more accessible for all. Recently, the European Commission commissioned a ‘Comité des Sages’ to make recommendations on ways and means to make Europe's cultural heritage and creativity available on the Internet and to preserve it for future generations. In the United States the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) endorsed a number of principle recommendations to its members regarding the digitisation of cultural heritage. Both the Comité des Sages and the ARL emphasize the added value of digitisation. The Comité underlines that the digitised material can in itself be a driver of innovation and can be at the basis of new services in sectors such as tourism and learning (Comité des Sages 2011) and the ARL stresses the added value for researchers (ARL Principles July 2010). For over a century, libraries have participated in successful resource sharing cooperatives that have made content widely accessible. According to both the ARL and the Comité, the same spirit should govern commercial digitisation activities. In the best of all possible worlds, there would in our view be some level of free access to all content, with only special value-added services restricted to a subscription model. A landmark in the discussion about Open Access to information is the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Referring to this Declaration, people often put emphasis on recent research publications. But the following is also one of the objectives of the Declaration: “encouraging the holders of cultural heritage to support open access by providing their resources on the Internet” (Berlin Declaration 2003). Therefore, in the spirit of the Berlin Declaration, the ARL encourages its members’ libraries to grant all non-commercial users “a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship”. And: “If fees are to be assessed for the use of digitised public domain works, those fees should only apply to commercial uses” (ARL Principles July 2010). In our view, cultural heritage institutions should make public domain material digitised with public funding as widely available as possible for access and reuse. The public sector has the primary responsibility to fund digitisation. The involvement of private partners, however, is encouraged by ARL as well as the Comité des Sages. Private funding for digitisation is a complement to the necessary public investment, especially in times of economic crisis, but should not be seen as a substitute for public funding. As we can see from these reports there are a number of arguments in favour of digitisation and also of providing maximum accessibility to the digitised cultural heritage. In this paper we will investigate the legal aspects of digitisation of cultural heritage, especially public domain material. On the basis of these we will make an inventory of policy considerations regarding reuse. Furthermore, we will describe the conclusions the National Library of the Netherlands (hereafter: KB) has formulated and the arguments that support these. In this context we will review public-private partnerships and also the policy of the KB. We will conclude with recommendations for cultural heritage institutions concerning a reuse policy for digitised public domain material.

Objective – To investigate whether libraries achieve strategic credibility by assessing if strategic planning goals match the achievements described in annual reports.
 
 Design – Content analysis of annual reports and strategic plans from a sample of Association of Research Libraries (ARL).
 
 Setting – Academic libraries in Canada and the United States of America. 
 
 Subjects – A random sample of 12 Canadian and 16 American academic libraries. All libraries were members of ARL.
 
 Methods – The researcher contacted the directors of 28 ARL libraries and asked for copies of their strategic plans and annual reports. She also visited the websites of libraries to obtain the reports. The contents of the strategic plans and annual reports were analyzed, and trends in the Canadian and American strategic plans were identified.
 
 Main Results – This study found that only 39% of ARL libraries produce annual reports, making it difficult to assess if libraries have strategic credibility, as their strategic plans cannot be assessed against annual reports. The strategic plans gathered in this study were analyzed and emerging themes were identified. These included physical library space (renovations, expansions or new buildings); offsite storage; assessment (both of the libraries’ services, and of information literacy training); development activities such as fundraising and marketing; and personnel issues. Cultural differences also were found in the strategic plans, with American libraries being more focused on trends such as digitization and institutional repositories, and Canadian libraries’ plans being more focused on users’ needs. Trends in annual reports were not reported due to the small number of annual reports in the sample.
 
 
 Conclusion – This study gives a snapshot of the trends in strategic plans of ARL members. It shows that many ARL members do not produce an annual report, and that it is therefore difficult to assess if their strategic plans are implemented successfully. The article hypothesizes that the communication of achievements may now be part of development and marketing efforts, rather than traditional annual reports.

Academic and research libraries are joining together to identify and better prepare the next generation of library directors. The Research Library Leadership Fellows (RLLF) Program takes a new approach to succession planning by engaging a select group of sponsoring libraries, approximately 20 emergent leaders, and the membership of the Association Research Libraries working collaboratively over a 2-year period. This approach assumes a well-developed set of management and leadership skills on the part of the fellow. The program focuses instead on deepening the fellow's understanding of core strategic challenges facing senior library leaders in a wide variety of campus settings. The RLLF embraces 3 5-day, on-campus institutes, 1–2 site visits to sponsoring libraries, and participation in the semiannual Association of Research Libraries (ARL) membership meetings. The program also provides network-building among the fellows, Web-based sessions on key issues, and access to ARL member–library directors as colleagues and potential mentors. To date, more than 60 librarians from ARL member libraries have participated in the program. This article describes the context for the development of the program, its operation, the experiences of the first 3 cohorts, and suggestions for the future of succession planning in research libraries.

Cronenwett, Philip N., Kevin Osborn, and Samuel Allen Streit. Celebrating Research: Rare and Special Collections from the Membership of the Association of Research Libraries . Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 2007. 312p. $135 ($115 ARL member libraries) (ISBN 159407769X). LC 2008-295721.

Brief of Minutes, Association of Research Libraries, July 6--7, 1951, Chicago; Report of the Committee on the Use of Manuscripts by Visiting Sholars Set up by the Association of Research Libraries

Using multiple means of data collection, this study identifies the attributes that present and future directors of the academic libraries in the Association of Research Libraries need to possess. Present-day directors must possess a wide variety of attributes and are less likely to remain in the same position for as many years as their predecessors did. With the aging population of academic librarians, matching the right individual with the right institution is likely to be increasingly difficult in the future.

Delivering Research Management Services: Fundamentals of Good Practice. Edited by Graham Pryor, Sarah Jones, and Angus Whyte. London: Facet, 2014. 242 p. $99.95 softcover (ISBN 978-1-85604-933-7). Delivering Research Management Services proposes to build awareness of the need for a research data management (RDM) service infrastructure and explain how to set up such a service (including technological and human resources as well as securing institutional support). It accomplishes this through five chapters authored individually by the three editors, all currently or formerly affiliated with the United Kingdom's (UK) Digital Curation Centre (DCC). It discusses three case studies from institutions that have successfully launched RDM services in the United States, UK, and Australia; and two case studies from national programs in the UK. book provides in-depth information about high-level considerations for RDM services; it does not provide instruction in best practices for managing data. An earlier publication by the same lead editor, Managing Research Data, may prove more useful for those seeking best practices information. (1) Since this book demonstrates the value in planning ahead through advocacy and capacity-building before tackling the preservation and provision of access to research data, it may be a good first read. authors have extensive knowledge of and experience on this subject, yet write clearly enough for novices to comprehend. readers need to have a high tolerance for acronyms, since every agency, service, and tool seems to have one. Each chapter provides enough context to stand on its own, but this reviewer would have preferred that the book had been more tightly edited to facilitate cohesion across chapters. For instance, the authors recommend that Case Study 5 (chapter 10) be read in conjunction with chapter 5, begging the question of why Case Study 5 was not positioned as Case Study 1 (chapter 6). Such sequencing would have naturally achieved the authors' suggestion. book lacks a concluding chapter summing up the best practices, but it is left to readers to draw their own conclusions based on their institutional settings. Indeed, institutions in the UK seem to have an advantage in terms of governmental funding and shared infrastructure. In contrast, US institutions must either step up advocacy and coordination efforts at a national level or find smaller-scale solutions to the challenge of research data management. Examples of US universities' current and emerging practices relating to RDM services can be found in the Association of Research Libraries' SPEC Kit 334: Research Management Services. (2) We can learn much from our UK counterparts and their advancements. Many of the institutions cited in this book developed RDM services incrementally, starting with pilot projects and repurposing existing resources while advocating for the allocation of additional resources. Several authors advised including the costs and risks of doing nothing in that advocacy. In chapter 5, The Range and Components of RDM Infrastructure and Services, Sarah Jones describes DUDs, or Data centers Under Desks, created by research groups attempting to do their own data management at low cost. She notes, However, while the upfront costs may be only a fraction of those quoted by central services, the risk of data loss and security breaches are significantly higher, potentially leading to far greater costs in the long run (98). …

Collections and acquisitions staff at Virginia Tech and The University of Alabama presented two very different models for structuring fund codes and discussed the benefits and difficulties inherent to each method. Both groups share their philosophy and approach for allocating appropriate fund codes for budgeting, reporting, and analytical purposes, and highlight important considerations to be made when creating a fund code structure. Where Is the Fun in Fund Codes? At the heart of it, fund codes are a financial reporting and collection development tool used to align appropriations with expenditures and encumbrances. Creating them may seem like basic stuff with little need for consideration or creativity. However, the way fund codes are structured can have major consequences and it is extremely important to put much thought into their configuration before implementing new fund codes. The creative aspect of budget allocation lies in the diversity of options in structuring fund codes. How a library chooses to structure its fund codes is determined as much by accounting and budgetary obligations as it is by the ILS, staff, and workflow processes, and the libraries preference and philosophies for meeting these challenges. Libraries of all types are constrained by budget shortfalls that make robust fiscal management an ever more important aspect of collection management and acquisitions. Fund codes are in essence a financial tracking mechanism for acquisitions, connecting purchases with the appropriate account. They provide an accounting outline and schema for aligning appropriations with expenditures and encumbrances and thus can provide details about a library’s material budget spending with more specificity. Depending on how fund code allocations are constructed, internal library operations can be streamlined to improve accounting and to better anticipate spending obligations for all resources. Different Fund Code Structures The degree of complexity built into a fund code structure depends on the scale of manual versus automated processes built into the workflow, the type of reports required, and the level of reporting granularity desired by the library. As with other Association for Research Libraries (ARL), reporting drives fund code structure at The University of Alabama and Virginia Tech. ARL requires its members to compile and report each year on various metrics, such as the number of volumes added to the library, the number of journal and database subscriptions, and the number of e‐books. Additionally, both schools report each year to publications like the US News & World Report Best Colleges edition, and to regional and academic program accrediting bodies. These reports typically need library resource data at the subject level. Internally, carefully crafting fund codes can help with better financial management. An opportunity exists for institutions to consider various ILS acquisition fund designations and to align their funding structures in meaningful ways and facilitate easier analysis. With this in mind, Virginia Tech and The University of Alabama compare their various style and approach to structuring fund codes. The differences between the two universities’ structures are quite evident when comparing fund codes for the academic subject/discipline of History. These differences are significant as they Copyright of this contribution remains in the name of the author(s). http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315600 Management and Administration 369 affect workflow processes at the beginning and end of the acquisition process. Virginia Tech utilizes the Sierra ILS platform and has a relatively flat fund structure with very broad subject categories. This type of structure facilitates ease of use for selector and greater flexibility. To elicit granular details, queries must be written within the ILS to obtain information from the order record fixed fields. However, III Sierra’s “Create Lists” function within each ILS module makes for relatively easy access to those details in a user‐friendly interface. Collections, acquisitions, and technical services staff with even the most basic understanding of ILS record relationships can create lists on the fly.

The process of consolidating science and technology branch libraries in academic institutions is not new, but with ease of access to electronic resources, and with shrinking budgets and interdisciplinary research the norm, the idea of consolidation has become more attractive in the past decade. This article reports on the results of a 2005 survey of Association of Research Libraries (ARL) institutions and the status of their chemistry-related library resources and facilities. The past, present, and future of these chemistry collections will be discussed with emphasis on those having consolidated in the last ten years or those who plan to consolidate in the next ten years. Funding sources, characteristics of the physical facilities, and reasons for consolidation are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electronic Access to Agricultural Journals: An Agronomy Case Study

Index to Volume 62 Justine Carson Page references in boldface indicate major treatments of a topic. Italic locators indicate photographs. Italic t, f, or n indicates tables, figures or notes. A A-series paper formats, 485–486 Abbate, Janet, 706 Academic libraries, Chinese. See Chinese academic libraries Access to Learning Award (Gates Foundation), 210, 212 Acknowledgments, by W. Boyd Rayward, 289–290 ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), 761 ACLU (Wisconsin) Civil Libertarian of the Year Award, 727 Action Plan for Agricultural and Rural Informatization in China, 49 Activism antigay, 735–736 library, 730–739 Adams, Scott, 690 ADI (American Documentation Institute), 689 Administrative surveillance, 644–645, 646. See also Surveillance Advertising etiquette books, 672–676, 675–676 relationship to Die Brücke, 479–480 source of commercial information, 637 AEG (Allgemeine-Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft), 479 Age of Reason. See Enlightenment Ai Hua Libraries, 164 AIBO Youth Center, 174 Air conditioning systems. See HVAC systems ALA. See American Library Association (ALA) Alingh Prins, Jan, 329–331, 383 Alkalimat, Abdul, 145, 255 All the World’s Knowledge: The Paper Internet, 285 Alle Kennis Van de Wereld, 285 Allgemeine-Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft (AEG), 479 American Association of Museums, 604, 607 American Bibliography (Evans), 461 American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, 726–727 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 761 American Civil Liberties Union (Wisconsin) Civil Libertarian of the Year Award, 727 American Documentation Institute (ADI), 385, 689 American Family Association, 731, 735–736 American Institute of Higher Learning, 534 [End Page 773] American Library Association (ALA) attacks by social conservatives, 731–733 Code of Ethics, 742, 772 definition of censorship, 744 Library Bill of Rights, 742, 761, 771 WBCML controversy, 726–727 American Library Association (ALA). Office for Intellectual Freedom, 761, 763 “American Practice in Information Science” (Vormelker), 385, 389 American Society for Information Science and Technology. (ASIS&T) Special Interest Group. History and Foundations of Information Science, 305 Americans for Truth about Homo- sexuality, 749n Americans with Disabilities Act, 571 Amory, Hugh, 457 Amsterdam, Netherlands, 635–636 Amway (China) Co., Ltd., 165 Analogous Spaces: Architecture and the Space of Information, Intellect, Action, Ghent, 2008, 308 Andersen, Hendrik Christian, 531 Anderson, Augusta, 502n Anderson, H.C.L., 543, 546 Announcement for the Standardization of Commercial Activities in Cybercafes and the Strengthening of Security Management, 124 Annuaire de la vie internationale, 316 Annual Meeting of German Librarians (Bibliothekartag), Göttingen, 1928, 351 Anonymous scientific publications, identifying authors, 451–452 Anschluss, 380 Anthropometric classification, criminals, 446–450 Anthropometry, relationship to scientific bibliography and classification, 442–455 Antigay activism, 735–736. See also “Ex-gay” books Apers, René, 533 Appadurai, Arjun, 509–510, 512 Apprenticeship programs, museum, 597, 605–607, 609–610 Apres le Congrès Mondial (Otlet), 380 Archaeological Data Bank Conference, 601–602 Architectural elements. See also Library architecture basements and underground spaces, 537–538 books used as, 536–537 brickwork, 569, 578 historic library buildings, 556–559 terracotta, 568 towers, 532–536 Architecture of Knowledge: The Mundaneum and European Antecedents of the World Wide Web, Mondeneum, Mons, 2002, 308 The Architecture of Knowledge: The Mundaneum and European Antecedents of the World Wide Web, 323 Archives. See also Cultural heritage organizations functional integration with libraries and museums, 613–614, 615–616, 619, 621 of Otlet and La Fontaine, 319–320 Aristocracy, marketing of, 674 ARL (Association of Research Libraries), 689 Armstrong, Edmund La Touche, 544, 546 Armstrong, Henry Edward, 448 Art.sy, 438 Asbestos, 562 ASIS (American Society for Information Science), 696 ASIS&T SIG HFIS, 305 Aslib. See Association of Special Libraries and Information Bureaux (Aslib) Aslib-FID joint conference, Oxford, 1938. See Joint Conference of FID and Aslib, Oxford, 1938 Aslib Information, 383 Association des Amis du Palais Mondial, 318, 319–320, 321 Association of American Publishers, 727 Association of Research Libraries (ARL), 689 Association of Special Libraries and Information Bureaux (Aslib), 371, 396, 689 collaboration with BSIB, 468–469 [End Page 774] joint conference with FID, Oxford, 1938, 378–401 Association of the Friends of the Palais Mondial, 318, 319–320, 321 Astrographical Catalogue, 686 Astronomy, bibliographies, 686 Atheneums. See Mechanics institutes Atherton, Pauline, 431–432. See also Cochrane, Pauline Atherton Austin, Derek, 436 Australia federation period, 1880–1900, 542...

A Review of:
 Engel, Debra, and Sarah Robbins. "Telephone Interviewing Practices within Academic Libraries." Journal of Academic Librarianship 35.2 (2009): 143-51.
 
 Objective – To investigate the use of telephone interviews in academic libraries and identify best practices when conducting telephone interviews.
 
 Design – Survey and open-ended questions.
 
 Setting – Academic libraries in the United States.
 
 Subjects – Academic institutional members of the Association of Research Libraries.
 
 Methods – A fifteen-item survey (Appendix A, 150) concerning telephone interviewing practice was sent to 112 institutional members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). The survey contained multiple choice-type questions as well as open-ended questions.
 
 Main Results – The response rate was 66% (74 of 112 research libraries; 56 public institutions and 17 private). Of the respondents, 90% used telephone interviews to screen applicants for professional positions (ranging from occasionally to always) and only 10% never used telephone interviews. The main reason for holding telephone interviews was to “screen candidates in order to narrow the pool of applicants who will be invited for in-person interviews” (146). Other reasons given included minimizing expenses involved in interviewing out-of-town candidates (39% respondents), shortening the length of time to complete the search process (27%) and meeting library or campus hiring requirements (3%).
 
 On average, the majority of libraries (51%) hired between 2-4 professional positions each year. For each open professional position, the number of candidates telephone-interviewed varied from less than 3 to 9 depending on library and position.
 
 Interviews typically lasted between 16 and 45 minutes (77% respondents) with all the search committee members (staff involved in the recruitment process) being present (75%) and taking turns to ask questions to the candidates (90%). Questions were most often the same for all candidates applying for a particular position (91%) and candidates were nearly always allowed in return to ask questions of the committee (96%).
 
 In answer to the open-ended question, “In your opinion, what best creates a collegial and effective environment for conducting telephone interviews?”, the dominating responses included: all search committee members being present and participating actively, using a script and taking notes, introducing all interview participants, and giving candidates adequate notification and documentation.
 
 The majority of respondents “would not change anything about their institution’s current (telephone interview) practice” (147). Some thought that “training and/or a need for consistency in procedure for all interviews conducted” (147) would be relevant changes in practice. 
 
 The results of the survey were compared to the findings in the library, personnel management and human resources literature.
 
 Conclusion – From the survey and responses to open-ended questions, a number of best practices when conducting telephone interviews emerged (148–150):
 1. Properly train the search committee (e.g., in knowing about the position, organization and protocols for conducting interviews properly)
 2. Involve the search committee throughout the recruitment process
 3. Help the interviewee be prepared (e.g., by sending institutional information packages)
 4. Maintain and use suitable technology (e.g., by choosing suitable conferencing facilities with the interviewee situation in mind)
 5. Put the candidate at ease (e.g., by explaining who will be present, how long the interview will last and how many questions there will be)
 6. Provide introductions (e.g., both in the beginning of the interview and even before individual questions)
 7. Listen and take notes during the interview
 8. Discuss the interviews immediately afterwards
 
 Engel and Robbins suggest that further research could include looking into job candidate and search committee experiences of the telephone interviewing procedure.

PurposeThis study aims to evaluate 125 research libraries in North America to identify whether they incorporate reference and social networking tools in their library's website.Design/methodology/approachA content analysis of 125 library websites is conducted to determine whether libraries who are members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) incorporate and promote reference and social networking tools in their website. For the purpose of this study, a list of reference and social networking tools was chosen and each library's website was visited to determine first, which reference and social networking tools from this list appear on their library's homepage and, second, which tools appear elsewhere on the library's website.FindingsThe results show that even though most of these reference and social networking tools are incorporated into their library's websites, their presence is lower on their library's homepage.Practical implicationsAcademic and research libraries should incorporate reference and social networking tools on their library's homepage to make these services more visible and more easily accessible to their users.Originality/valueThis study demonstrates the importance of the right placement for reference and social networking tools on ARL websites.