Abstract
The quality of library selectors’ initial decisions about which titles to relegate to storage will determine how convenient patrons are going to find the arrangement. Some of these decisions will inevitably need to be reversed over time, as research interests evolve and mistakes come to light. If patrons request storage items frequently, circulation records can identify these items for possible return transfer. Monographs can usually be restored easily, but serials pose harder questions, since back runs take up so much space on the home shelves. At the University of Florida, each request for a stored serial volume is compared to previous requests from the same title. Examining clusters of years retrieved over time provides an opportunity to “derelegate” portions of a back run, rather than the entire mass, to the active collection. Such a transfer saves shelf space, and responds directly to users’ demonstrated needs.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences
Reference21 articles.
1. American Library Association, Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (1991), Guide to Review of Library Collections: Preservation, Storage, and Withdrawal, American Library Association, Chicago, IL.
2. Cooper, M. (1989), “A cost comparison of alternative book storage strategies”, Library Quarterly, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 239‐60.
3. Cooper, M. (1991), “The sensitivity of book storage strategy decisions to alternative cost assumptions”, Library Quarterly, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 414‐28.
4. Fussler, H. and Simon, J. (1969), Patterns in the Use of Books in Large Research Libraries, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
5. Lawrence, G. (1981), “A cost model for storage and weeding programs”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 139‐47.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献