From: Richard James <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:31:52 -0400

Joe- would it be improved in the same way that the quality of U.S.
movies is improved through the industry's detailed knowledge of
attendance? The result of that data has been endless regurgitation of
themes and topics, sequel after sequel, an almost monolithic
reluctance to innovate or take chances. To some extent, you're asking
libraries to pay into a scheme that might contribute to reducing the
dissemination of ideas, and so I doubt you'll find too many librarians
will be interested in participating. This one certainly isn't, absent
a more compelling argument.


On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:38 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 14:05:21 -0400
>
> Thank you, Douglas.
>
> The quality of book publishing would be vastly improved if publishers
> had access to this circulation information by title.  I outlined a
> program to make this possible a while back.  The post is here:
>
> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/24/data-mining-the-library/
>
> I am trying now to get support to build this service.  This is not a
> small project:  aggregate, real-time, fully anonymized circ data from
> all the world's libraries, searchable by library type, institution,
> publisher, title, subject category, etc.  In other words, precisely
> what you would expect publishers to have, but they don't.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: "Black, Douglas M" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:12:12 +0000
> >
> > The Cornell study is fascinating, and while the data conclusions
> > undoubtedly resonate across ARLs, the report's caution about applying
> > them too broadly is well found.  We've been examining some of the same
> > data in similar manner here at Northern Michigan University--a
> > mid-size regional university with but a handful of master's
> > programs--and the circulation distribution is quite different.  NMU
> > has neither Ph.D programs nor the major research initiatives graduate
> > faculty would be pursuing.  A very brief initial snapshot of our data:
> >
> > 1) Our greatest users of print monographs are undergraduates, at 47.7%
> > of the total.
> >
> > 2) The next largest user is a statewide resource-sharing group
> > including all library types, at 20.11%.
> >
> > 3) Faculty usage comes in third, at 14.28% of the total and less than
> > a third of undergraduate usage.
> >
> > 4) Grad students, unsurprisingly with so few in proportion, are at
> > 2.6%, less than university staff or local community users.  The latter
> > groups are important because of the university's geographic isolation
> > and its resulting relationships with the local and regional
> > community...and even to the climate, with the long winters up here.
> >
> > We have a lot of analysis left to do in order to work out more clearly
> > the usage patterns and what they might mean.  One of the more
> > challenging parts is accurately developing appropriate contexts in
> > which to understand the data.  That analysis has to include
> > consideration of the institution's mission, characteristics, role(s)
> > in the community, and other qualitative factors in addition to the
> > disciplinary distinctions Sandy outlines.
> >
> > Thanks to Joe and Sandy for the link and comments.
> >
> > Douglas
> >
> > Douglas Black
> > Collection Development Librarian
> > Northern Michigan University
> > Marquette, MI 49855