Serials Standard Work: the Next Frontier

Serials, one of the more complicated areas of library technical endeavors, has lacked the benefit of standards for a long time. Even now, with standards beginning to be available, the majority of institutions are not working within standard serials formats. A survey to determine the use of serials standards in libraries was conducted in 1988 by the American Library Association, Resources and Technical Services Division, Serials Section, Committee to Study Serials Standards. In the spring of 1988 a survey was sent to a group encompassing the Association of Research Libraries members, CONSER participants, United States Newspaper Program participants, Microform Project libraries, and some vendors and librarians who attended the Committee meetings on a regular basis. The survey questionnaire assessed the current level of seials standards awareness of librarians and vendors. Topics included the type of serials systems used, standards relevant to serials control and union listing and whether or not they are implemented, types and levels of training staff received in the application of standards, benefits of the standards, and areas where standards are most needed

A Serials Acquisitions Cost Study: Presenting a Case for Standard Serials Acquisitions Data Elements

This paper is based on time and cost studies conducted at Iowa State University (ISU) between 1986/87 and 2000/2001. Serials acquisitions functions were evaluated and examined with a view toward using the results as a management tool. Previous cost center papers by the authors and others focused only on monograph acquisition functions. Analysis of the data collected at ISU suggests that libraries that have developed standards for serials acquisitions processing could reap significant benefits through the use of consistent sets of information for management decisions, including, but not limited to, reassigning staff time to new and evolving tasks

The Big Deal, Interlibrary Loan, and Building the User-Centered Journal Collection: A Case Study

Finding the right balance between ownership of journals and access to the content of nonowned journal articles is a challenge to all research libraries coping with static budgets and increasing subscription costs. The Iowa State University (ISU) Library has implemented an evaluation model utilizing both cost-per-use data and interlibrary loan (ILL) cost figures to determine the overall cost benefit of two Big Deals, ultimately leading to the breakup of both. Interlibrary loan cost thresholds were utilized to subscribe to journals on an individual basis. Funds saved from the breakups were applied to the addition of new subscriptions identified as in high demand by interlibrary loan requests from the Iowa State University community. The use of interlibrary loan cost and use data was an important component in breaking up both Big Deals and adjusting the journal collection to be more in tune with user demand and contributing to a continued drop in demand for ILL service

A Serials Acquisitions Cost Study: Presenting a Case for Standard Serials Acquisitions Data Elements

This paper is based on time and cost studies conducted at Iowa State University (ISU) between 1986/87 and 2000/2001. Serials acquisitions functions were evaluated and examined with a view toward using the results as a management tool. Previous cost center papers by the authors and others focused only on monograph acquisition functions. Analysis of the data collected at ISU suggests that libraries that have developed standards for serials acquisitions processing could reap significant benefits through the use of consistent sets of information for management decisions, including, but not limited to, reassigning staff time to new and evolving tasks.This article is from Library Resources & Technical Services 49 (2005): 107–122. Posted with permission.</p

Monographs Acquisitions Time and Cost Studies: The Next Generation

This article is based on time and cost studies conducted at Iowa State University between 1994/95 and 2000/01. It represents a continuation of previous analyses in which monographs acquisitions functions were evaluated and examined with a view toward using the results as a management tool. Continued decreases in time and cost factors were anticipated as the library migrated to more advanced technologies, but time reductions were mitigated by new initiatives that were added to the work processes. As a result of various factors, costs associated with the acquisition of monographs generally increased, but the value of the services provided by the Monographs Acquisitions Department was enhanced considerably.This article is from Library Resources & Technical Services 47 (2003): 109–124. Posted with permission.</p

The Big Deal, Interlibrary Loan, and Building the User-Centered Journal Collection: A Case Study

Finding the right balance between ownership of journals and access to the content of nonowned journal articles is a challenge to all research libraries coping with static budgets and increasing subscription costs. The Iowa State University (ISU) Library has implemented an evaluation model utilizing both cost-per-use data and interlibrary loan (ILL) cost figures to determine the overall cost benefit of two Big Deals, ultimately leading to the breakup of both. Interlibrary loan cost thresholds were utilized to subscribe to journals on an individual basis. Funds saved from the breakups were applied to the addition of new subscriptions identified as in high demand by interlibrary loan requests from the Iowa State University community. The use of interlibrary loan cost and use data was an important component in breaking up both Big Deals and adjusting the journal collection to be more in tune with user demand and contributing to a continued drop in demand for ILL service.This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Serials Review on October 14, 2014, available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2014.975650. </p

Serials Standard Work: the Next Frontier

Serials, one of the more complicated areas of library technical endeavors, has lacked the benefit of standards for a long time. Even now, with standards beginning to be available, the majority of institutions are not working within standard serials formats. A survey to determine the use of serials standards in libraries was conducted in 1988 by the American Library Association, Resources and Technical Services Division, Serials Section, Committee to Study Serials Standards. In the spring of 1988 a survey was sent to a group encompassing the Association of Research Libraries members, CONSER participants, United States Newspaper Program participants, Microform Project libraries, and some vendors and librarians who attended the Committee meetings on a regular basis. The survey questionnaire assessed the current level of seials standards awareness of librarians and vendors. Topics included the type of serials systems used, standards relevant to serials control and union listing and whether or not they are implemented, types and levels of training staff received in the application of standards, benefits of the standards, and areas where standards are most needed.This article is from Library Resources & Technical Services 34 (1990): 139–157. Posted with permission.</p

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used