{"title":"循证选择、专业选择和审批计划选择的比较分析","authors":"Molly Strothmann, Karen Rupp-Serrano","doi":"10.5860/lrts.64n1.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study compares three different models for selecting e-books for a research library’s collection. From 2013 to 2018, the University of Oklahoma Libraries contracted with Elsevier for an evidence-based selection (EBS) agreement. The titles in that EBS package were compared to the approval plan parameters to determine which books would have been purchased on approval during those years if Elsevier had been included among the publishers profiled. Subject librarians also made hypothetical selections as though they were placing firm orders from this collection. The approval plan selections and librarians’ selections were compared to usage data to determine how closely each selection model matched patrons’ choices.","PeriodicalId":18197,"journal":{"name":"Library Resources & Technical Services","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Analysis of Evidence-based Selection, Professional Selection, and Selection by Approval Plan\",\"authors\":\"Molly Strothmann, Karen Rupp-Serrano\",\"doi\":\"10.5860/lrts.64n1.15\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study compares three different models for selecting e-books for a research library’s collection. From 2013 to 2018, the University of Oklahoma Libraries contracted with Elsevier for an evidence-based selection (EBS) agreement. The titles in that EBS package were compared to the approval plan parameters to determine which books would have been purchased on approval during those years if Elsevier had been included among the publishers profiled. Subject librarians also made hypothetical selections as though they were placing firm orders from this collection. The approval plan selections and librarians’ selections were compared to usage data to determine how closely each selection model matched patrons’ choices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Library Resources & Technical Services\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Library Resources & Technical Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.64n1.15\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"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":"Library Resources & Technical Services","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.64n1.15","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Comparative Analysis of Evidence-based Selection, Professional Selection, and Selection by Approval Plan
This study compares three different models for selecting e-books for a research library’s collection. From 2013 to 2018, the University of Oklahoma Libraries contracted with Elsevier for an evidence-based selection (EBS) agreement. The titles in that EBS package were compared to the approval plan parameters to determine which books would have been purchased on approval during those years if Elsevier had been included among the publishers profiled. Subject librarians also made hypothetical selections as though they were placing firm orders from this collection. The approval plan selections and librarians’ selections were compared to usage data to determine how closely each selection model matched patrons’ choices.
期刊介绍:
Library Resources & Technical Services (LRTS) is a peer-reviewed journal that takes a critical approach to the questions and challenges facing librarians and libraries with regard to: Collections Scholarly communication Preservation (including digitization) Acquisitions (including licensing and economic aspects of acquisitions) Continuing resources Cataloging (including descriptive metadata, authority control, subject analysis, and classification)