开发可重复使用的方法对图书馆资源进行审查

IF 1.1 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Insights-The UKSG Journal Pub Date : 2020-01-15 DOI:10.1629/uksg.495
Alison Brock
{"title":"开发可重复使用的方法对图书馆资源进行审查","authors":"Alison Brock","doi":"10.1629/uksg.495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the academic year 2017–18 The Open University Library was asked to examine its collection and content acquisition policies as part of an institution-wide review of services to students and staff. For the part of the project looking at best value of the Library content service, we wanted to review the ‘higher-cost’ content held by the Library, which was in the main the larger journal packages. From the project, we developed a methodology for conducting reviews of our Library resources in much greater depth than we did previously. As part of this process, we also carried out an in-depth overlap analysis for resources that contain full text content. The reason for the development of this methodology was to identify just how much ‘redundancy’ there was in the Library collections, as well as identifying unique selling points of certain collections. Also, by examining the subject coverage of the content we reviewed, we were able to show how well our content aligned with the teaching of the University outlined in the 2018 curriculum plan. The approach we took to this project offers a fresh perspective on how such review tasks can be undertaken in libraries. The methodologies developed could provide a useful tool to others wishing to carry out a similar review.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing a reusable methodology to conduct a review of library resources\",\"authors\":\"Alison Brock\",\"doi\":\"10.1629/uksg.495\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the academic year 2017–18 The Open University Library was asked to examine its collection and content acquisition policies as part of an institution-wide review of services to students and staff. For the part of the project looking at best value of the Library content service, we wanted to review the ‘higher-cost’ content held by the Library, which was in the main the larger journal packages. From the project, we developed a methodology for conducting reviews of our Library resources in much greater depth than we did previously. As part of this process, we also carried out an in-depth overlap analysis for resources that contain full text content. The reason for the development of this methodology was to identify just how much ‘redundancy’ there was in the Library collections, as well as identifying unique selling points of certain collections. Also, by examining the subject coverage of the content we reviewed, we were able to show how well our content aligned with the teaching of the University outlined in the 2018 curriculum plan. The approach we took to this project offers a fresh perspective on how such review tasks can be undertaken in libraries. The methodologies developed could provide a useful tool to others wishing to carry out a similar review.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44531,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Insights-The UKSG Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Insights-The UKSG Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.495\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.495","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2017-18学年,开放大学图书馆被要求审查其收藏和内容获取政策,作为全机构对学生和工作人员服务审查的一部分。对于项目中寻求图书馆内容服务最佳价值的部分,我们希望审查图书馆持有的“更高成本”的内容,这主要是更大的期刊包。从这个项目中,我们开发了一种方法,比以前更深入地审查我们的图书馆资源。作为这一过程的一部分,我们还对包含全文内容的资源进行了深入的重叠分析。开发这种方法的原因是为了确定图书馆藏品中有多少“冗余”,以及确定某些藏品的独特卖点。此外,通过检查我们复习内容的学科覆盖范围,我们能够展示我们的内容与2018年课程计划中概述的大学教学的一致性。我们对这个项目采取的方法为图书馆如何开展此类审查任务提供了一个新的视角。所制定的方法可以为希望进行类似审查的其他人提供有用的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Developing a reusable methodology to conduct a review of library resources
In the academic year 2017–18 The Open University Library was asked to examine its collection and content acquisition policies as part of an institution-wide review of services to students and staff. For the part of the project looking at best value of the Library content service, we wanted to review the ‘higher-cost’ content held by the Library, which was in the main the larger journal packages. From the project, we developed a methodology for conducting reviews of our Library resources in much greater depth than we did previously. As part of this process, we also carried out an in-depth overlap analysis for resources that contain full text content. The reason for the development of this methodology was to identify just how much ‘redundancy’ there was in the Library collections, as well as identifying unique selling points of certain collections. Also, by examining the subject coverage of the content we reviewed, we were able to show how well our content aligned with the teaching of the University outlined in the 2018 curriculum plan. The approach we took to this project offers a fresh perspective on how such review tasks can be undertaken in libraries. The methodologies developed could provide a useful tool to others wishing to carry out a similar review.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Insights-The UKSG Journal
Insights-The UKSG Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
The missing link: the quality of UK local and national online media coverage of research The Twitter accounts of scientific journals: a dataset EvenUP: a case study of building cross-publisher collaboration on Equity, Diversity, Inclusivity and Belonging Indispensable or unnecessary?: a data-driven appraisal of post-cancellation access rights Open access at a crossroads: library publishing and bibliodiversity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1