Collections Review Update - November 18, 2015
Attached is the on our review of the Cambridge, Oxford, Wiley and Springer journal packages. After several months of analysis and consultation we have arrived at a list of journals classed into three categories:
Journals we are retaining, R
Journals we are retaining in full text aggregators. We currently subscribe to a number of these databases, through which we get access to the full text thousands of titles, however, this access generally excludes the most current year, RA
Journals for which access starting in January 2016 will cease, C
Starting in June, 2015, the data collected in the Journal Retention Survey was combined with use and cost data from all of the journal titles in each of the four packages under consideration; Cambridge, Oxford, Wiley and Springer. We had just under 500 responses. This included 334 faculty members/instructors, 143 graduate students and 4 undergraduates. The vast majority of the participants were members of the Faculty of Science.
There are two use metrics used in analyses of journals, they are;
The average number of downloads over the past three years; and
The number of current year downloads in the current year, i.e., this provides an indication of how important the current year's content is in this context.
Subject librarians consulted broadly and advised the committee of important journals in all subject areas. This was an important step, as use metrics do not favour the social sciences and humanities as well as they do the sciences.
Please contact the University Library via the Collections Review SubCommittee Chair, Erin Alcock email@example.com with journal titles you would like us to consider placing in different retention categories by December 11, 2015.
Update: More information on the 2015-2016 Collections Review can be found on our website.