From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 23:35:31 -0700

Why not support your "subjective" impression by "objective" data?

It was not my intention to "catch" you - my intent was to obtain a
solid fact that I can quote further on. A distribution of usefulness
of library books...

The difficulty is of course that the library books are pre-selected
and not just randomly chosen.

But - even with this limitation - any statistical result of this kind
would be very important.

Ari Belenkiy


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:18:07 +0000
>
> No, I can’t. We don’t track circulation by type of publisher. My
> assessment of the demand pattern for scholarly monographs is based on
> subjective impressions of what’s happening in my library and on what I’m
> hearing from my colleagues in other libraries, as well as the
> well-documented general decline in book circulation among large research
> libraries (whose circulating holdings consist significantly of scholarly
> monographs).
>
> Anyone who disagrees with my subjective assessement of that pattern should
> feel absolutely free to ignore and dismiss it.
>
> Rick
>
> ---
> Rick Anderson
> Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
> Marriott Library, University of Utah
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> On 6/3/14, 10:59 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
> >Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 22:03:22 -0700
> >
> >Dear Rick,
> >
> >Could you please provide a relevant statistics?
> >
> >Eg, out of 1000 books (or whatever is in your collection) for last 5
> >years 100 books were not check out at all, 200 were checked once, etc.
> >
> >This distribution would be an invaluable resource for a good
> >statistical argument.
> >
> >Ari Belenkiy
> >SFU
> >Canada