Professional Development

Author Archive

NASIG 2013

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 2:24 pm

This year’s conference of the North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG) was held June 6-9 in Buffalo, NY. After a bumpy plane ride, Chris and I arrived safely in Buffalo. (NASIG VP/Pres-elect Steve Kelley got there a day ahead of us.)

The opening session was presented by Dr. Bryan Alexander, from the National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education (NITLE). His address was primarily an overview of technology trends, especially use of mobile devices. The audience seemed engaged, but the audio was terrible where I sat, and then I lost most of my notes on his talk due -ironically- to a technology error, so Steve or Chris will have to fill you in.

I thought Saturday’s plenary address was a good combination of “Libraries are important” and “Libraries must change” [nod to Carol]. The speaker, Megan Oakleaf of Syracuse University, focused on how to communicate the importance of libraries to stakeholders. She said there is a lot of information on the value of libraries in general, but not much on their value to the sponsoring organization. The usual value metrics-user satisfaction, service quality, collection counts, usage (“a lot of people downloaded a lot of things”)-don’t communicate a compelling message. Oakleaf said we should identify what the institution/community values, then tie the message of library outcomes to those values. How/what does the library contribute toward student recruitment? student success? faculty recruitment/tenure/promotion? research funding? local economy? Do students who use more library resources ultimately get better grades? She encouraged us to think about what data we need to collect in order to answer such questions.

Sunday’s plenary session featured Siva Vaidhyanathan, author of The Googlization of Everything (and Why We Should Worry). He was scheduled to talk about “the Challenge of Big Data,” and it so happened that this session came just a few days after news of the NSA’s Prism surveillance program broke. I found his presentation fascinating. He pointed out that Google (along with other big-data endeavors) is in the prediction business, using the massive amounts of data on past user behavior to read our minds. He wondered aloud about the NSA’s ability to read and misread our information, and about how statistical correlation could kill the scientific method. This new system means no second chances; the stupid mistakes of our youth never go away. Yet most of us continue to carry GPS devices (aka cell phones) with us wherever we go, and we continue to use Google and grocery store “loyalty” cards. My favorite take-away was Vaidhyanathan’s explanation of privacy. He said that privacy is not about hiding all information, but is the ability to influence your reputation within certain contexts. There are some things you want your brother to know, but not your sister, or your clergy but not your coach. When the defaults are set to lock the flow of information open, then we lose that control and have no privacy. He said he sees a new digital divide, between those who are savvy enough to shape their digital profile and those who are victims of the system, who don’t understand, for instance, the connection between their poor credit score and their difficulty finding a job. He urged those of us on the savvier side to fight for those who don’t know how to protect their rights.

And that’s the short version of my notes on that session!

EBSCO Usage Consolidation
You probably didn’t know this, but ZSR recently subscribed to EBSCO Usage Consolidation (UC), an online service for aggregating journal usage statistics. So I went to a session in which librarians from two universities described their experience with the product. Their review was mixed. Specific problems noted included (1) a lot of up-front effort to reconcile title differences; (2) difficult user interface; (3) default cost-per-use display includes usage from aggregator databases without factoring in the cost. They liked having cost-per-use data, and the number of available reports, but librarians at one university found it too cumbersome for title-by-title review.

Designing User-Centered Services for Virtual Users
The main take-away from this session was how nice it is to work at ZSR. The presenters made a big deal out of public services and technical services working together, like it was something novel to get public services’ “endorsement” for customizing the EBSCOhost interface. Steve and I talked later about how nice it is that everybody here is focused on what is best for our users.

Aggregator Databases: Cornerstone or Annex?
The presenters in this session described their efforts to assess the value of full-text content in aggregator databases. Rather than looking just at title counts, they compared full-text aggregator titles against ISI’s top-ranked journals (i.e. highest impact factors) in various subjects. For example, they determined that Academic Search Premier contained 11 of ISI’s top 25 journals in Education. Not surprisingly, they said they ended up with more questions than answers, such as the value of the aggregators’ indexing for article discovery. It was an interesting (if tedious) methodology, but ultimately doesn’t apply much to us given the role of NC LIVE providing much of our access to aggregator databases.

FRBR, Linked Data, & New Possibilities for Serials Cataloging
This was a very good presentation about the potential of linked data to bring together catalog records for related resources. The presenters described a scenario of a patron looking for the English translation of an Einstein paper. The original German work was published as a journal article in 1903. After much digging, they discovered the English translation within a 1989 monograph, but there was nothing in the respective catalog records directly linking the two manifestations together. The principles of FRBR and linked data can overcome MARC’s weakness in showing such relationships between items. Journals, articles, authors, and even subject headings, are all described as individual entities, and the coding describes their relationships to each other. The presenters talked about BIBFRAME, the Library of Congress’ “Bibliographic Framework Initiative” that is working toward replacing MARC. I admit I didn’t understand all this very well, and I’ll definitely be looking to learn more about it.

ONIX-PL
Finally, I had the opportunity at NASIG to pick Selden Lamoureux’s brain to learn more about ONIX-PL. What’s that? I’m glad you asked. ONIX-PL is a NISO standard, kind of like MARC for e-resource licenses. The standard was released in 2009, but uptake has been slow (practically nil in the US). Learning to encode licenses in ONIX-PL isn’t easy, so there hasn’t been much incentive for publishers to start using the standard. NISO recently received a Mellon grant to encode a collection of license templates, to give publishers and libraries a starting point, and NISO has contracted with Selden Lamoureux to do the encoding. So it was a great opportunity for me to meet up with her and learn more about ONIX-PL and the encoding project (which I plan to write more about in an upcoming article).

Electronic Resources & Libraries conference, 2013

Tuesday, April 2, 2013 3:56 pm

The seventh Electronic Resources & Libraries (ER&L) conference was held on March 18-20, 2013. This was the second year that ER&L offered a “virtual conference,” streaming many of the live sessions via a secure internet connection. For less than the cost of two individual registrations, and with no airfare or hotel costs, we were able to register for a group viewing of the conference. By my count, there were seven ZSR folks who viewed at least one session of the conference! Our virtual conference registration also gives us access for a year to all the recorded sessions. The keynote addresses are currently available to anyone for free at http://www.electroniclibrarian.com/conference-info/2013-keynote-speakers.

I highly recommend the opening keynote address by Michael Eisenberg, Dean Emeritus of the University of Washington’s Information School and co-founder of Project Information Literacy (PIL). Eisenberg’s address was titled “Listening to Users,” and he based it on some of the PIL findings. According to Eisenberg’s research, multitasking students are more the exception than the rule. Today’s students tend to see technology as a distraction, and they will often unplug and “go monastic” when they are studying. Eisenberg said that employers recognize that graduates are good with technology, but they lack traditional low-tech research skills. He encouraged us to look beyond formal IL training and try to find ways to embed information literacy into online products themselves. The entire address is available at http://bit.ly/eisenbergerl13 (no password required).

The conference had several sessions on “discovery” systems. In one presentation (“What would Google do?”), Andrew Nagy of Serials Solutions reported that 45% of all search queries in Summon are 3 words or less. I didn’t catch the specific percentages (maybe I should re-watch the presentation), but Nagy said that for most of the searches with 2 or 3 search terms, the user does not end up clicking on any results. This “abandonment rate” levels out around 4-5 search terms. The two most frequent Summon searches are “JSTOR” and “PubMed” (the third most common, in case you’re curious, is “global warming”). It was in response to that phenomenon that Serials Solutions created the ability for librarians to create “best bets” for certain search terms-for example, we could set it to bring up a link to JSTOR when a user searches Summon for “JSTOR”, or set a link to a web page showing the library’s hours when users search on “library hours” (which we have already done). Nagy also gave us a sneak peek at some of the Summon enhancements coming out this summer.

There was also an interesting panel discussion about discovery systems (“Truth or Dare”), featuring representatives from Serials Solutions, EBSCO, Ithaka S&R, and a librarian. The ground rules were “No name-calling, no shouting, no sales pitch.” One interesting aspect was their discussion of search statistics. The librarian observed that each time a user selects a facet, it is logged as a new search, so the number of searches isn’t a very meaningful statistic; as one attendee observed on Twitter, “Number of searches is dead, and Discovery has killed it.” The panelists also made some general comments about continuing development, and the Serials Solutions rep remarked “We’re really just getting started in discovery; there’s so much more we need to do.”

The Tuesday morning keynote was framed as an interview with Dan Tonkery, who has been an Associate University Librarian, a founder of Horizon Information Services, and an VP at EBSCO. Tonkery talked about things librarians wish publisher understood, and things publishers wish librarians understood. I have long enjoyed this type of mutual-understanding presentation, and Tonkery’s sense of humor also made it enjoyable (although it also led him to over-generalize at times). A few examples of the types of topics he addressed:

  • Standards (e.g. COUNTER for usage statistics) – Publishers don’t usually care about standards unless there is a direct effect on revenue. They definitely want to track usage, but how the data are presented is less important.
  • Perpetual access – “Perpetual access” is a term libraries invented, and it tends to be something publishers either don’t care about or are not equipped to manage. A common approach is to not worry about tracking what a library’s perpetual access rights should be, and leave it to the library to alert them if something is wrong.
  • License negotiation – Publisher get a mixed message, because many libraries will sign whatever terms are put in front of them. Tonkery suggested that when handed a license with unfavorable terms, the librarian could just edit the document, sign it, and send it in, and “half the time, nobody will even notice.” (Did I mention he sometimes over-generalized?) If a publisher refuses to accept a crucial change, then the library should refuse to pay full price for the product. “Everything is negotiable.”
  • Publisher organization – Sales and Marketing departments don’t always talk to each other. Don’t assume your salesperson knows what marketing information you have received. Your sales reps also can’t do anything about license terms, but they can go back to the lawyers and say “We’re losing sales because of this.” Revenue is the language the publishers understand.

Of course there were a number of sessions that don’t have as many juicy tidbits to report on. There was the obligatory sesson on streaming video, with a Columbia University librarian describing their process for securing streaming rights (apparently they actively seek out rights to stream DVD’s that they purchase). A University of Michigan librarian described a pilot project of patron-driven acquisition of e-journals. In a separate session, another U.Mich. librarian described his research into effectiveness of OpenURL link resolvers, primarily using canned reports from SFX. I noticed that the best results they were getting at any point amounted to about an 81% success rate, which of course means that the “Full Text Options” links have about a 1 in 5 failure rate.

A new award was presented at the conference, the ER&L/EBSCO Information to Inspiration Fellowship, to support “research that will inspire and inform librarians worldwide about issues related to management of electronic resources.” The winner of this first award was NC LIVE!

The conference closed with a keynote address by Rachel Frick, Director of the Digital Library Federation. If that sounds familiar, it’s because she was also the opening keynote speaker at the North Carolina Serials Conference the preceding Friday. Her presentation also sounded familiar. At ER&L, she focused on being active contributors to the broader library community. Two of the points she made stood out to me this time. She told librarians to “Get off your e-horse!” In other words, stop thinking of products as e-this or e-that, especially when more and more of the stuff we deal with is electronic. Data and local content are part of everyone’s job, and everybody needs to have a knowledge of them.

Regarding contributing constructively to the conversation, Ms. Frick urged us to “Cut out the snark.” She said that the worst criticism of the DPLA project has been from within the library community. Snark, she said, “is really detrimental to new ideas.” We need to be open to feedback (both positive and negative). In turn, we should learn to deliver feedback in a way that is respectful & constructive.

As I’ve mentioned before, the recorded sessions of this conference will be available online to us for a year because we registered for the group online conference. Please contact me if you need access. The keynote addresses are available here and currently do not require log-in.

North Carolina Serials Conference, 2013

Monday, April 1, 2013 5:27 pm

On Friday, March 15, Bradley, Linda Z., and I traveled to Chapel Hill for the 22nd annual North Carolina Serials Conference. They had a great program lined up. In addition to the breakout sessions, there were keynote addresses by DLF Program Director Rachel Frick and EBSCO’s Oliver Pesch, and a panel discussion with three journal editors.

In the opening keynote address, Rachel Frick (who is an alumna of both Guilford College and UNC-CH) spoke pretty passionately about taking advantage of online collaboration and the ability to create large networks of resources. She mentioned Hathi Trust, the Center for Research Libraries Print Archives, and the Digital Public Library of America, and strongly encouraged libraries to take advantage of cloud library projects and infrastructure. (Disappointed at the low number of raised hands showing who had read Constance Malpas’ OCLC Cloud Library Report, Ms. Frick said she was tempted to dismiss us right then so we could go read it.) Ms. Frick emphasized the importance of focusing efforts on unique, local collections and sharing those. She also urged everyone to contribute constructively to “the conversation,” to get involved, talk to people and seek out new ideas. My favorite quote, citing David Lankes: “The mission of libraries is to improve society through facilitating knowledge creation in their communities.” I love the thought that our work facilitates the creation of new knowledge.

Oliver Pesch’s closing keynote address seemed to review the changes that libraries have made over the past 15-20 years (e.g. not just shifting from print to digital collections, but collaborative study spaces, wired study rooms, food outlets, etc.). I’m sad to say that’s about all I got out of it. Maybe others learned more.

I thought the panel discussion with the journal editors was quite interesting. The panel included editors from a society journal published by Nature, a social science journal published by SAGE, and a literature journal published by Duke U.P. I’ve heard presentations from journal publishers’ perspectives, but I think this was the first time I had been to one from the editors’ perspective. The society journal editor described a recent survey in which the editorial team asked the society members whether it was worth it to continue publishing the journal; the overwhelming response was yes, and that it was a valuable component of society membership. She presented other results of the survey. I was surprised that 67% of their authors expect a submitted article to be published online within 60 days. On a more disappointing (though not surprising) note, the social science journal editor remarked with a straight face that “Impact Factor is very important,” and one of the editors made a comment that seemed to equate open access publication with an absence of vetting or editorial oversight. [sigh]

I attended a breakout session that gave a good overview of RDA and serials cataloging. I was afraid it might overwhelm this non-cataloger, but it didn’t. Main takeaways: For now, expect a hybrid environment, and don’t worry about stylistic differences in records. Also, the presenters don’t expect the impact of RDA on serials cataloging to be significant. They also commented on some changes that are needed in OPACs, e.g. OPACs need to display the 264 field (since it is replacing the 260 field for publication data), plus some way to identify the type of resource, since the GMD (think “[Electronic resource]” after the title) is no longer part of the title field.

In another breakout session, Dianne Ford from Elon and Nancy Gibbs from Duke talked about their respective experiences with granting e-resource access to alumni. Both of them mentioned the relatively reasonable cost-Duke provides alumni access to eight different e-resources at a total cost of under $17,000/year (would be less for us). I was curious about how they handle user authentication. Elon uses Shibboleth, which allows different categories of users. At Duke the access and authentication are handled entirely by the Office of Alumni Affairs, so I didn’t get an answer there. Another challenge noted by Nancy Gibbs is that few, if any, vendors offer useable usage statistics; they either don’t offer any usage stats at all, or else the stats are combined with the overall campus use, so there’s no way, or else it’s very difficult, to distinguish how much the alumni are using the resources.

On Friday, March 15, Bradley, Linda Z., and I traveled to Chapel Hill for the 22nd annual North Carolina Serials Conference. They had a great program lined up. In addition to the breakout sessions, there were keynote addresses by DLF Program Director Rachel Frick and EBSCO’s Oliver Pesch, and a panel discussion with three journal editors.

 

In the opening keynote address, Rachel Frick (who is an alumna of both Guilford College and UNC-CH) spoke pretty passionately about taking advantage of online collaboration and the ability to create large networks of resources. She mentioned Hathi Trust, the Center for Research Libraries Print Archives, and the Digital Public Library of America, and strongly encouraged libraries to take advantage of cloud library projects and infrastructure. (Disappointed at the low number of raised hands showing who had read Constance Malpas’ OCLC Cloud Library Report [https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2011/2011-01.pdf], Ms. Frick said she was tempted to dismiss us right then so we could go read it.) Ms. Frick emphasized the importance of focusing efforts on unique, local collections and sharing those. She also urged everyone to contribute constructively to “the conversation,” to get involved, talk to people and seek out new ideas. My favorite quote, citing David Lankes [http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/atlas-new-librarianship]: “The mission of libraries is to improve society through facilitating knowledge creation in their communities.” I love the thought that our work facilitates the creation of new knowledge.

 

Oliver Pesch’s closing keynote address seemed to review the changes that libraries have made over the past 15-20 years (e.g. not just shifting from print to digital collections, but collaborative study spaces, wired study rooms, food outlets, etc.). I’m sad to say that’s about all I got out of it. Maybe others learned more.

 

I thought the panel discussion with the journal editors was quite interesting. The panel included editors from a society journal published by Nature, a social science journal published by SAGE, and a literature journal published by Duke U.P. I’ve heard presentations from journal publishers’ perspectives, but I think this was the first time I had been to one from the editors’ perspective. The society journal editor described a recent survey in which the editorial team asked the society members whether it was worth it to continue publishing the journal; the overwhelming response was yes, and that it was a valuable component of society membership. She presented other results of the survey. I was surprised that 67% of their authors expect a submitted article to be published online within 60 days. On a more disappointing (though not surprising) note, the social science journal editor remarked with a straight face that “Impact Factor is very important,” and one of the editors made a comment that seemed to equate open access publication with an absence of vetting or editorial oversight. [sigh]

 

I attended a breakout session that gave a good overview of RDA and serials cataloging. I was afraid it might overwhelm this non-cataloger, but it didn’t. Main takeaways: For now, expect a hybrid environment, and don’t worry about stylistic differences in records. Also, the presenters don’t expect the impact of RDA on serials cataloging to be significant. They also commented on some changes that are needed in OPACs, e.g. OPACs need to display the 264 field (since it is replacing the 260 field for publication data), plus some way to identify the type of resource, since the GMD (think “[Electronic resource]” after the title) is no longer part of the title field.

 

In another breakout session, Dianne Ford from Elon and Nancy Gibbs from Duke talked about their respective experiences with granting e-resource access to alumni. Both of them mentioned the relatively reasonable cost-Duke provides alumni access to eight different e-resources at a total cost of under $17,000/year (would be less for us). I was curious about how they handle user authentication. Elon uses Shibboleth, which allows different categories of users. At Duke the access and authentication are handled entirely by the Office of Alumni Affairs, so I didn’t get an answer there. Another challenge noted by Nancy Gibbs is that few, if any, vendors offer useable usage statistics; they either don’t offer any usage stats at all, or else the stats are combined with the overall campus use, so there’s no way, or else it’s very difficult, to distinguish how much the alumni are using the resources.

ALA TechSource webinar on eBooks in Libraries, 2013

Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:42 pm

On February 14th and 21st I attended a two-part webinar on e-books in libraries. The webinar was sponsored by ALA TechSource, and was presented by Sue Polanka, author of the blog No Shelf Required and of two books by the same name.

Part 1 of the webinar was primarily about different types of e-books and different purchase models. Part 2 was about e-reader lending programs, and was mainly targeted toward public libraries. As you might guess, both parts covered ground that we’ve already pretty well covered at ZSR. But I was able to pick up a few tidbits of knowledge that I’ll share here.

Polanka cited a Library Journal survey that found that about 92% of academic libraries provide some sort of access to e-books. I think that was intended to show the growth and prevalence of e-books, but it made me wonder about the remaining 8% (schools to avoid, perhaps?).

She talked about the advantages and disadvantages of buying e-books (1) directly from publishers, (2) from aggregators [think EBL or ebrary], and (3) from wholesalers [e.g. YBP], as well as hosting your own e-books locally (requires enormous IT and infrastructure resources). Polanka also brought up self-publishing, in which individual authors use a proprietary software service to publish their own books, and wondered aloud: How do we discover, review, purchase, and access these e-books?

My favorite insight from part 1 was Polanka’s Rule #1 of buying e-books: “You are not just buying content, you’re buying content inside a container.” In other words, collection decisions must also take the user experience into account. The container might include DRM, specific software or interface, or a specific vendor relationship. The content you want to purchase will often determine the business model, vendor, or license.

Part 2 of the webinar was about lending e-readers, and seem to be mainly aimed at public libraries-types of devices, how to set up a lending program, etc. [*yawn* been there, done that]

One caution Polanka discussed was new to me. She cautioned against lending out e-readers that are not “fully accessible.” This means that a blind individual must be able to access the same content as the sighted, with reasonable ease of use. Polanka described a presentation she attended in which a blind audience member demonstrated with a Nook. The audience member was able to push the power button, but that was all; she didn’t even have a way to tell if the device had actually powered on. According to Polanka, Apple devices (iPad, iPhone, etc.) are fully accessible, as is the Kindle 3; the Kindle Fire, Kindle DX, Nook, and Sony e-readers (among others) are not. (I found it ironic, however, that throughout the presentation, Polanka continued to use the Kindle and Nook among her examples of lending programs.) She also gave three examples of libraries that have been sued (and lost) over this. Yipe!

Derrik at NASIG 2012

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:00 pm

One of the things I have always liked about NASIG is that representatives from journal publishers and subscription agents participate fully as members of the organization. Our Alexander Street Press sales rep, Jenni Wilson, has been serving on the NASIG Board, and the new President of NASIG is from Springer. I also find it valuable to attend presentations given by vendor reps, since these sessions teach me about the vendors’ processes, timelines, values, etc.

One such presentation this year was called “JSTOR and Summon Under the Hood.” Summon Product Manager Laura Robinson talked about how Serials Solutions approached the development of Summon. She said their goal is to help researchers start broad and then focus. She explained a little about their relevance ranking, and said they are exploring using the searcher’s geographic location to influence the rankings. Robinson also said that Summon is building a new knowledge base; this sounded important to me, but she made the comment in passing and didn’t go into any detail.

Ron Snyder from ITHAKA spoke about upcoming changes in JSTOR, based on their analysis of actual users’ behavior. He spoke about their Local Discovery Integration pilot, which I reported hearing about at this year’s ER&L conference. He also said they are trying to develop a machine-based article classifier, in an attempt to assign subject disciplines at the article level (JSTOR disciplines are currently at the journal level). Snyder also announced that there will be a complete overhaul of JSTOR’s search infrastructure this summer (but no mention of whether or how the user interface will change).

Another session, presented by Eleanor Cook from ECU and Megan Hurst from EBSCO, talked about the use of mobile technologies in libraries. Hurst gave some excellent definitions of the differences between mobile apps vs. mobile websites, e-readers vs. tablets, etc. She said that currently in the U.S. and its territories, there are more mobile devices than people (how many devices do you have?). Hurst also said that over the last 4 years, mobile traffic as a percentage of total web traffic has been roughly doubling every year; as of January 2012 in the U.S., mobile traffic accounted for about 8.75% of total web traffic.

The opening keynote address was given by Dr. Lynn Silipigni Connaway of OCLC. Dr. Connaway presented results from multiple studies from the US and UK on information-seeking behavior. Much of it sounded familiar (users prefer keyword searching, they are confident in their skills, and they value convenience and speed), but I appreciated that it was backed up by evidence, not just anecdotes. Dr. Connaway was an entertaining speaker, and included many direct quotes from users that were both humorous and a little painful. She said that many users don’t want to approach a librarian for help because we look busy and they don’t want to bother us. She also said that users often complain about insufficient or cryptic signage (e.g. “I’m a smart person, but when I go to the library it makes me feel stupid”). She also spoke about avoiding jargon, and urged us not to put it on the users to figure things out (e.g. Don’t say “former title,” say “used to be called”). She told about walking into a library where she saw a sign that said “Help”; she was confused by it and wasn’t sure what the desk was for, but observed that the users were ok with it and weren’t confused at all.

In another keynote address, Duke University’s Kevin Smith talked about copyright and fair use in light of current litigation. The main points I took away were (1) Don’t put professional activities on hold while waiting for the outcome of cases “out there”; and (2) Fair Use is always a risk analysis: when weighing the risks, be sure to consider the risk of doing nothing.

In Rick Anderson’s closing keynote address, he spoke about the shifting scholarly communication landscape and questioned the continuing relevance of the scholarly journal. He wondered aloud how long it will be before we can ask our smartphones: “Siri, I need 5 scholarly articles on the demographics of Iceland, published in the last 5 years, in journals with an impact factor of at least 11.” Anderson talked about blurry boundaries between types of information, saying that these changes will be a tremendous boon for researchers even while making things much harder for librarians.

I guess that about wraps it up for me. I’ll let Chris tell about the totally awesome presentation he heard about CORAL.

NISO webinar on Usage Statistics

Friday, June 15, 2012 4:35 pm

On Wednesday June 13, Lauren, Chris, and I met to watch a NISO-sponsored webinar on the latest developments in usage statistics standards COUNTER and SUSHI. For those of you wondering, COUNTER is the standard that defines what statistics should be provided by vendors and in what format; SUSHI is a communication protocol that defines how those stats can be shared between computers (and can thus be set up so that harvesting the stats can be automated).

In Wednesday’s webinar, Peter Shepherd (project director for COUNTER) and Oliver Pesch (co-chair of the SUSHI standing committee) spoke about changes coming with the newest release of COUNTER (release 4), then Amy Lynn Fry (E-resources Librarian at Bowling Green State University) described some of the methods and workflows BGSU uses to collect and record usage statistics.

Release 4 of the COUNTER code includes some good changes, IMHO. Shepherd described some of the committee’s objectives in developing the new release, including wanting all publishers to be able to use it, and also making it possible to include usage for local institutional repositories. Some of the new report features include:

  • no longer requires database “session” counts; instead reports “record views” and “result clicks”
  • allows for reporting usage from mobile devices (optional)
  • includes a report specifically for usage of “Gold” Open Access journals
  • will include additional data to facilitate the linking of usage stats to other data (e.g. subscription info)
  • a new report specifically for usage of online multimedia resources
  • a new report that will list journal stats by the year of publication (not just current vs. archival as in release 3)

Pesch said that automating the collecting of usage statistics (i.e. SUSHI) is a step toward “comprehensive” usage collection and increasing the value of usage stats. He also said that although there are changes to the COUNTER code, there are no changes to the SUSHI schema in COUNTER release 4 (the SUSHI communication protocol has been a part of the COUNTER standard since release 3). He described the tools available to providers at the SUSHI website, including FAQ, tools, and a COUNTER-SUSHI Implementation Profile.

Compliance with the COUNTER code of practice is verified by auditors, and compliant vendors are listed on the COUNTER website. Because of the number of changes in release 4, vendors have until December 31, 2013, to adopt the Release 4 standard in order to remain compliant.

… Now, where did I put my notes from NASIG?

Derrik at ER&L 2012

Wednesday, April 25, 2012 11:35 am

I had a very good conference experience with the 2012 Electronic Resources & Libraries (ER&L) conference. It’s almost overwhelming just to look at all the notes I took! ER&L really packs a lot into a 2.5-day conference, averaging 8 sessions a day. And if that’s not enough going on, you can follow even more sessions via Twitter.

My two main areas of focus for this conference were e-resource management systems (ERMS) and demand-driven acquisition (DDA).

ERMS. The first set of breakout sessions included a panel of 8 librarians representing a total of 5 ERM systems. I was one of two CORAL users on the panel. For those of you who are wondering, an ERMS helps Resource Services personnel keep track of databases and licenses-things like license terms, user limits, vendor contact information, etc. The panel discussion used a “buffet” metaphor, and the idea was for audience members to get a sampling of the different ERMS options. The format was fast-moving, even with a two-hour time slot. It was interesting how different sites use the same product differently, and see different strengths & weaknesses of that product. Common themes that emerged in the discussion included using the ERMS for internal communication, desires for better usage statistics management, and Interlibrary Loan permission as the only license term that anyone outside of e-resource management really cares about. And I discovered I’m not the only one who thinks CORAL should include subject headings for databases.

ERMS buffet

At the CORAL user group meeting (my first as an actual user), I learned more about the new CORAL Steering Committee. As I have described in previous blog posts, CORAL was developed by librarians at Notre Dame. But as adoption has increased, Notre Dame’s capacity to develop the product has been diminished. So they have formed a Steering Committee, with librarians from Texas A&M, Duke Medical Library, and the College of New Jersey. The committee will make product decisions and actively develop fixes and enhancements. As always, other libraries are also allowed to contribute code.

On a more general ERMS note, I attended a presentation by Tim Jewell, who has chaired a NISO working group on ERM Data Standards and Best Practices <http://www.niso.org/workrooms/ermreview>, a successor to the ERMI data initiative. Among other things, ERMI defined standards for what data elements should be tracked by an ERMS and has given direction to the development of other e-resource management standards such as SUSHI (usage statistics) and ONIX-PL (communication of license terms). The working group released a report in January (available at the website). The report (and Jewell’s presentation) recognizes that other standards initiatives, many of which have grown out of ERMI, provide greater granularity than ERMI. Thus the working group recommended that NISO not continue to develop the ERMI data dictionary, but instead continue to support these more targeted initiatives.

Sorry for the ERM geek-out; I hope I didn’t overwhelm you too much. Moving on…

DDA. Based on this conference, it seems like demand-driven acquisition is moving out of the pilot phase and is moving toward becoming a more accepted practice. Carol and I presented stats and findings from ZSR’s first year of DDA. We also saw data from the University of Denver’s DDA program, and it appears that they spent about $6 per FTE during fiscal year 2011, close to ZSR’s per-FTE spend of $5. But librarians from Calif. State Fullerton said that their DDA expenditure increased significantly in the second year-something for us to keep an eye on. We also learned that NISO is reviewing a proposal to develop best practices for DDA.

One question about DDA that was brought up a couple of times was planning for removal of titles. As the number of available titles increases, is there a need to “weed” outdated ones? If so, how would this be accomplished? No one offered any answers, just raising the question.

Publishers and vendors are also coming to grips with DDA. DDA is forcing them to re-think their sales models, moving from the predictability of Approval sales to the unpredictable volume and timing of patron-driven sales. Oxford Univ. Press is investing more heavily in discoverability, trying to make all Oxford content cross-searchable. Matt Nauman, from YBP, described their DDA service, and said that YBP is seeing a need to develop an e-book collection management service rather than relying strictly on sales.

JSTOR. John Lenahan from ITHAKA described some of the results of JSTOR user data analysis, and some of the projects they are working on as a result. JSTOR has found that a major portion of their users are coming to JSTOR from outside the library (mostly via Google), resulting in a high number of unnecessary turnaways. So JSTOR is developing some really cool features to address this. First of all, JSTOR has made all journal content published prior to 1923 free to anyone. The are also working on a “Register to Read” function, where a user can “borrow” up to 3 articles at a time. What’s really cool, though, is the “Institutional Finder,” which will prompt the user saying “You are not logged in from an affiliated institution,” and will allow the user to select their university and log in via the proxy server. Finally, they are building an integration with discovery services, providing the user with a link to re-do their JSTOR search on their library’s Summon instance.

Turnover. I attended a session on reducing information loss when there’s staff turnover, thinking of all the information stored in an individual’s memory, e-mail account, hard drive, etc. Strategies suggested included using an ERMS, wikis &/or LibGuides, and project management tools. The speaker also suggested using a checklist for departing personnel. One tip I liked was to create a generic institutional e-mail account to list with vendors so that when a person leaves you can just redirect that account rather than having to contact all those vendors.

AR. I learned about a project at the University of Manchester, where they have developed Augmented Reality (AR) apps in conjunction with Special Collections exhibits. For example, a student might point their smartphone camera at a 200-year-old printing press, or a copy of Dante’s Inferno, and can tap certain areas of their screen to get more information. The externally-funded project represented cooperation among software developers, tech support, librarians, and academic departments. They found it to be most meaningful for 1st- and 2nd-year undergraduates, less so for experienced students and researchers. In case you’re wondering (like I was), their Special Collections dept. has iPads available for checkout for patrons who don’t have a smartphone. More about the project is available at http://teamscarlet.wordpress.com/ .

ER&L is a great conference to follow on Twitter. There are quite a few attendees (including yours truly) who tweet during sessions, and with only three or four concurrent sessions, the conversations are fairly easy to follow. The conference organizers tried something new this year–in addition to the conference hashtag, they assigned a separate hashtag for each session. It was a good idea (IMHO), but apparently wasn’t publicized very well and had only moderate uptake. It will probably work better next year.

Finally, here are some miscellaneous sound bytes either from my notes or from the conference Twitter stream:
@AnAnarchivist: “Accepting other people’s opinions is an expectation, we want other’s opinions, and expect our opinions to be welcome. #erl12 #millennials”
“Unlikely you’ll ever be down to 1 tool” for managing e-resources – Heidi Zuniga, University of Colorado medical campus
“IP addresses are not an identity” – Thomas Blood, Naval Postgraduate School
@library_chic: “print books were all shareable across consortia. ebooks are, in most cases, not shareable #consortia #erl12″
@annacreech: “What a cataloger thinks a title is and what a vendor thinks a title is are two different things. #ebookpbook #erl12″
@tmvogel: “UDenver: Going through data fast, but it looks like they saw higher per title usage for the titles in both formats #erl12 #ebookpbook”

Derrik at NCLA 2011

Monday, October 31, 2011 2:37 pm

I just realized I haven’t yet posted a report of my attendance at NCLA. Should be a good test of my note-taking. As I had observed at ALA this summer, I found the presentations by and one-on-one discussions with vendors to be a very valuable part of the conference.

During a presentation by the Executive Director on NC LIVE, I learned about a “vendor showcase” immediately afterward, highlighting EBSCO e-books. So I skipped the exhibits and poster sessions (sorry Carol) and went to learn more about this successor to NetLibrary. Through this presentation and subsequent discussions with the EBSCO Steves, I learned much about this new product, and I have already been able to make some improvements to our service. For instance, I obtained the correct database-level URL to direct users to the EBSCO e-books home page. I also learned how to set up a “notify” option so that when an EBSCO e-book is in use, the user can have an e-mail sent when the e-book becomes available (before NCLA, our users simply got the NetLibrary equivalent of a busy signal). I also learned that users can share notes, citations, etc., by creating shared folders in MyEBSCOhost.

I attended an informative presentation by Andrew Pace of OCLC about their new product Webscale Management Services (WMS). WMS is a cloud-based integrated library system; my impression was that they had added Circulation and Acquisitions functions to WorldCat. Three WMS Beta implementers-a public library system, Davidson College, and High Point Univ.-spoke about their experience thus far with WMS. All three spoke favorably of the product and of OCLC (perhaps because they were co-presenting with OCLC?). One said that “the support from OCLC has been wonderful”; another said that students have taken to the product with little or no training; and the librarian from Davidson said “I hope I never have to do another ILS migration in my career.”

I also had a couple of good conversations with our EBL representative about managing our DDA title files. We didn’t solve any problems (yet), but I learned more about how the process is designed to work, and he learned more about how we want it to work.

Other sessions I attended:

  • e-book approval – this enlightening discussion of the e-book approval plans at NC State and Duke was previously described by Carol
  • providing access to online resources – this presentation turned out to be too basic to be helpful, with its tab-by-tab tour of LibGuides and its very rudimentary explanation of how a proxy server works.
  • authentication on public computers – staff from the WCU Hunter Library reported on their research into academic libraries’ practices for authenticating users at public computers

 

Derrik at ALA 2011

Tuesday, July 5, 2011 4:55 pm

I felt I had a very productive conference at ALA Annual this year. Once again, the conversations with vendors were the best part. I stayed very busy and came home exhausted.

I’m currently on two ALCTS committees-the Acquisitions Section Technology Committee and the ALCTS Task Force on Transforming Collections. The Transforming Collections meeting was covered on the American Libraries ALA Membership Blog [http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/ala-members-blog/new-transforming-collections-task-force-outcomes]. As the report says, the task force “is interested in reexamining how we define collections and approach collection management in the future.” I also attended (and served as a volunteer at) the “ALCTS 101″ session Friday night. Rather than have a representative from each Section speak to the whole group, the meeting was set up as “speed networking”; each Section had a table, and participants would choose a table and sit there and talk with the Section rep and others at the table for 5 minutes, then move to another table. I met lots of people and thought the speed networking worked very well.

Most of the regular sessions I attended were somewhat disappointing. I found that the descriptions often didn’t quite match the content. For example, I really looked forward to a session called “Implementing and Managing Webscale Discovery Services: Implications for E-Resources Librarians,” but it ended up being just another “here’s the decision process we went through, and this is the decision we made” presentation.

One session that started out disappointing but got better was called “Getting on Track with Tenure.” This panel discussion started as a discussion of pros/cons of faculty status for librarians, but did include (as advertised) some tips for the research/publication/advancement process. Some examples:

  • create a coherent research record (what is your area of specialty?);
  • don’t let Service get in the way of Research;
  • identify your best setting (time/place/atmosphere) for research, and build it into your schedule;
  • have benchmarks, map out where you want to be in ___ years;
  • own your research, but be open to criticism;
  • read more of the research published in your field;
  • don’t compare yourself to others (expectations can be very different);
  • don’t wait!

The Publisher-Vendor-Library Relations Interest Group was the last session I attended, though I wish it had been the first. It was a very good, frank discussion of specific challenges that all players in the e-book market are facing. The three panelists were from YBP, Project MUSE, and the Univ. of North Texas Library. Michael Zeoli (YBP) said that only 20% of approval titles are available simultaneously in print & as e-books, even fewer are available for demand-driven acquisition, and fewer still for consortial purchase. He spoke about the proliferation of e-book platforms, and how even when publishers do make e-books available through aggregators (EBL, ebrary, etc.), they often sell different titles through different aggregators. He also showed data that backlist e-book titles are seeing high use.

Melanie Schaffner, from Project MUSE, described some of the challenges of their venture to offer e-books from various university presses on the Project MUSE platform: getting timely & consistent metadata from publishers; dividing content into subject-based collections (granularity of subject areas, what number of titles in a collection is appropriate, etc.); how to price a subject collection; and institutional customization (most existing Project MUSE customers subscribe to all their journal content, so the platform isn’t currently set up for customized collections).

Beth Avery (Univ. of N. Texas) presented 41 “theses” (she said she was tempted to nail them to the door) of problems with the e-book market. The overarching idea was that now, while the simultaneous print & electronic availability is at 20%, is a great opportunity; we should work with suppliers now to shape the market, not wait until we get to 85-100% saturation. A few other highlights:

  • What is the unit of transaction? Our users deal in articles/chapters, but publishers/vendors/libraries deal in journals/books;
  • archiving – How long will publishers keep an e-book in inventory? How compatible will file formats be in 10, 20, 50, 100 years?;
  • How do we assess the vendor we’re working with? What do we measure? Should university accounting & legal offices fit into the assessment of a vendor? How?

I also attended a few presentations sponsored by vendors. EBSCO sponsored a luncheon specifically targeting e-resource management, but it was essentially a (too) long sales pitch. But other presentations on specific new products were well worth the time. I got a lot of information about the forthcoming E-books on Project MUSE product, and I’m fairly excited to see it roll out. It won’t be perfect, but I think the vision they have is looking in the right direction; for example, while initially the e-books must be bought in collections, by 2013 they hope to be able to offer purchase of individual titles through book vendors like YBP. Commenting on the many issues that must still be worked out, the Director of Project MUSE remarked, “this is 1998 all over again.” I also attended a session on Thomson’s upcoming Book Citation Index on the Web of Science. This will be analogous to their familiar journal citation products, but users will be able to search citations from books, journals, and conference proceedings simultaneously. They expect to have over 30,000 books indexed by the Dec. 2011 launch, and add about 10,000 per year. I do expect it will be a valuable product, but my thought upon leaving the presentation was, “Well, that’s a few more databases we’ll have to cancel to cover the cost…”

My time in the exhibits was more piecemeal than last year, so I didn’t have as much time to wander and explore new products. But I did make a list ahead of time of the vendors I wanted to be sure to talk to, and I felt that my time there was well spent (I ran into two BYU colleagues who were there with an Exhibits Only registration, something I might consider in the future). I had some good conversations with reps at the EBSCO, Overdrive, 3M, Springer, and Palgrave Macmillan booths about their respective e-book platforms and purchase models. I tried to explain why the single-user/unlimited-user dichotomy does not serve us well, and urged all of them to explore other models. I received the usual push-back from Springer when I brought up single-title purchasing (they claimed they wouldn’t be able to make money that way – hmph!). But Steve O’Dell from EBSCO told me that they are developing an e-book option where a library could buy a single “copy” of an e-book, but then lease more “copies” short-term if they knew, for example, that a class was going to need to use it. I also spoke with Drew Watson, product manager for EBL; it’s nice to deal with a company that is still small enough that I could tell Drew “this is a question that came up” and have him make a note and say “I should be able to fix that.”

Electronic Resources & Libraries, 2011

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 3:04 pm

Last week I attended the 2011 Electronic Resources & Libraries conference in Austin, TX. I can’t say I learned anything really earth-shaking; one Twitter comment said the presentations were long on “descript-o’-problem” but short on solutions. But there was lots going on; Monday & Tuesday each had 4 sets of concurrent sessions in the afternoon alone, and there were several times I wanted to divide myself into two or three to attend multiple sessions.

This was also the first conference I’ve followed on Twitter, which was quite fun. Not only did it give me a window into some of those sessions I couldn’t attend, I also enjoyed how it allowed me to participate in some side conversations.

Preconference

I went to the conference a day early to attend a pre-conference on the CORAL Electronic Resource Management System. It includes modules for managing acquisition workflow, storing vendor info and licenses (and making some license terms/permissions visible to the public), and compiling usage stats. This was a very practical workshop, and I got some hands-on experience. I’ve blogged about CORAL before; it is now fully developed, and I would love to get it implemented, but I’m afraid it will require a significant investment of time to get it populated.

Keynotes

Keynote 1 was by Amy Sample Ward, who spoke about innovation, and the need to actively work with (not for) our community. My impression during her presentation was that ZSR does very well in this area.

For Keynote 2, Dr. Amanda French spoke about the Digital Public Library of America initiative, and explained some of the challenges and obstacles they are facing. She said that the biggest obstacle to creating a national digital library in the U.S. is copyright. One of my favorite statements she made was, “imagine an American national library consortium, and imagine the bargaining power such a consortium would have with STEM journal publishers.” The full text of her talk, including pictures of the National Digital Library of Korea, is available at http://amandafrench.net/.

Streaming Video

I attended two sessions on streaming video. One, by a librarian at UNLV, was primarily an overview and not particularly enlightening, though he did say the UNLV library uses a subject heading “Streaming video,” which I thought sounded like a clever idea. The other presentation was by Christine Ross from U. of Illinois-Springfield. Ross, who also has a Law degree, had some interesting ideas about Fair Use and public performance rights. She told about a lawsuit between the Association for Information Media and Equipment (AIME) and UCLA, in which AIME sued UCLA for streaming content contrary to licensed permissions. The case has several potential implications, including whether federal copyright law can trump state contract law. Ross also talked about alternatives to licensing streaming content, including requiring students to pursue individual subscription options, such as subscribing to Netflix for a semester (hey, it’s cheaper than textbooks).

Demand-driven Acquisition (DDA)

I went to two sessions on DDA that actually presented data, not just “here’s how we’re doing it.” The presenters, from Sam Houston State University, had asked several librarians to go through the 100,000 potential DDA titles and make hypothetical selections for the library. The researchers compared the 8,500 librarian selections to the 637 actual patron-triggered purchases over the first 4 months of the program. Only 116 of the 637 patron purchases were also selected by librarians, but the vast majority of both patron (69%) and librarian (79%) selections were in the Gen-Academic and Adv-Academic categories. The researchers were also surprised to see that patron selections didn’t necessarily match the institution’s curricular emphasis; for example, SHSU has a strong program in Education, but only 4% of patron purchases were in that subject area.

The other DDA session I attended featured reps from ebrary, EBL, YBP, and the University of Denver. According to a Jan 2010 ebrary survey, 80% of librarians view DDA as fitting into their collection development strategy, but only 30% see it as a means to save selectors’ time. EBL said that, based on 100 customers and about 1 year of data, access via Short-term Loans (where the library pays a small percentage of list price for temporary access to an e-book) resulted in libraries paying 14% of list price to facilitate access, whereas access via up-front purchases resulted in paying 247% of list price (because approx. 50% of the purchased books were not used in that year). The YBP rep noted the rapid uptake of DDA, and said they are working on developing management tools. The Denver librarian said he sees DDA as analogous to approval (he didn’t say “replacement”); for example, their university has no architecture program, so they now use DDA for purchasing books in that area.

Mobile services

Another session with research results presented findings from a survey done at Utah State University. 54% of student respondents said they currently use their mobile device for academic purposes (Blackboard, electronic course reserves, etc.). 71.5% said they were “likely” or “very likely” to use their smartphone for assignments or research if library resources were easily accessible that way. When asked what mobile services they would like the library to offer, the highest responses were catalog, articles, and study rooms. The presenters noted that mobile websites are device-agnostic, so a small amount of work has potential to benefit many users. Some examples they gave were Ball State’s databases list (selected databases with mobile interfaces), BYU’s study room reservations, and NCSU’s library mobile site (including a live webcam shot of the coffee line).

Web-scale Discovery

There were several sessions on Web-scale Discovery at ER&L (click here for an overview of them). I went to one by librarians from Montana State Univ. They participated in a WorldCat Local pilot and discovered that getting it to work for them would require large-scale data cleanup. So instead, they implemented Summon. They discussed a number of problems they had experienced-poor communication (diffusion of responsibility problems), misuse/misunderstanding of the search box (top searches included “facebook.com” and “gmail.com”), difficulty tracking broken links, unclear how to tweak settings for results ranking, no overall limiter for peer-reviewed results. The presenters were not entirely negative about Summon, but cautioned not to expect it to be an out-of-the-box discovery solution.

In other sessions…

A librarian from Indiana State Univ. presented a schema he developed to systematically evaluate free online resources to help decide how much staff time it’s worth investing to track and manage the resources. A librarian from Illinois Wesleyan U. discussed a method she developed using Excel and Access to conduct overlap analyses of databases; in one case, she found that a particular A&I database had only 3 unique titles. And librarians from Virginia Tech demonstrated the upcoming release of LibX 2.0. LibX is a Firefox plugin that allows users to search library holdings without having to go first to the library’s website (so for example, from amazon.com the user can check whether the library has a book they looked up). They also demo’ed LibApps, which will allow libraries to place content onto third party pages; the example they demo’ed was to place an icon next to the JSTOR search box, so that all the library’s users with a LibX plugin would be able to click it and see a video tutorial (they did this live, in the session, in about 5 minutes).

Finally, I want to make sure you all know that Harper Collins has put a limit on the number of times their e-books can be lent by a library (26 times, then the library has to pay for more). Even though this primarily affects public libraries for now, I was surprised at how many at ER&L hadn’t heard about it.

And that was the ER&L conference… well, that’s the short version anyway. ;)


Pages
About
Categories
2007 ACRL Baltimore
2007 ALA Annual
2007 ALA Gaming Symposium
2007 ALA Midwinter
2007 ASERL New Age of Discovery
2007 Charleston Conference
2007 ECU Gaming Presentation
2007 ELUNA
2007 Evidence Based Librarianship
2007 Innovations in Instruction
2007 Kilgour Symposium
2007 LAUNC-CH Conference
2007 LITA National Forum
2007 NASIG Conference
2007 North Carolina Library Association
2007 North Carolina Serials Conference
2007 OCLC International ILLiad Conference
2007 Open Repositories
2007 SAA Chicago
2007 SAMM
2007 SOLINET NC User Group
2007 UNC TLT
2007_ASIST
2008
2008 Leadership Institute for Academic Librarians
2008 ACRL Immersion
2008 ACRL/LAMA JVI
2008 ALA Annual
2008 ALA Midwinter
2008 ASIS&T
2008 First-Year Experience Conference
2008 Lilly Conference
2008 LITA
2008 NASIG Conference
2008 NCAECT
2008 NCLA RTSS
2008 North Carolina Serials Conference
2008 ONIX for Serials Webinar
2008 Open Access Day
2008 SPARC Digital Repositories
2008 Tri-IT Meeting
2009
2009 ACRL Seattle
2009 ALA Annual
2009 ALA Annual Chicago
2009 ALA Midwinter
2009 ARLIS/NA
2009 Big Read
2009 code4lib
2009 Educause
2009 Handheld Librarian
2009 LAUNC-CH Conference
2009 LAUNCH-CH Research Forum
2009 Lilly Conference
2009 LITA National Forum
2009 NASIG Conference
2009 NCLA Biennial Conference
2009 NISOForum
2009 OCLC International ILLiad Conference
2009 RBMS Charlottesville
2009 SCLA
2009 UNC TLT
2010
2010 ALA Annual
2010 ALA Midwinter
2010 ATLA
2010 Code4Lib
2010 EDUCAUSE Southeast
2010 Handheld Librarian
2010 ILLiad Conference
2010 LAUNC-CH Research Forum
2010 LITA National Forum
2010 Metrolina
2010 NASIG Conference
2010 North Carolina Serials Conference
2010 RBMS
2010 Sakai Conference
2011 ACRL Philadelphia
2011 ALA Annual
2011 ALA Midwinter
2011 CurateCamp
2011 Illiad Conference
2012 SNCA Annual Conference
ACRL
ACRL 2013
ACRL 2015
ACRL New England Chapter
ACRL-ANSS
ACRL-STS
ALA Annual
ALA Annual 2013
ALA Editions
ALA Midwinter
ALA Midwinter 2012
ALA Midwinter 2014
ALCTS Webinars for Preservation Week
ALFMO
ANCHASL
APALA
ARL Assessment Seminar 2014
ARLIS
ASERL
ASU
ATLA
Audio streaming
authority control
Berkman Webinar
bibliographic control
Book Repair Workshops
Career Development for Women Leaders Program
Carolina Consortium
CASE Conference
cataloging
Celebration: Entrepreneurial Conference
Charleston Conference
CIT Showcase
CITsymposium2008
Coalition for Networked Information
code4lib
commons
Conference Planning
Conferences
Copyright Conference
costs
COSWL
CurateGear 2013
CurateGear 2014
Designing Libraries II Conference
DigCCurr 2007
Digital Forsyth
Digital Humanities Symposium
Disaster Recovery
Discovery tools
E-books
EDUCAUSE
Educause SE
EDUCAUSE_SERC07
Electronic Resources and Libraries
Embedded Librarians
Entrepreneurial Conference
ERM Systems
evidence based librarianship
FDLP
FRBR
Future of Libraries
Gaming in Libraries
General
GODORT
Google Scholar
govdocs
Handheld Librarian Online Conference
Hurricane Preparedness/Solinet 3-part Workshop
ILS
information design
information ethics
Information Literacy
innovation
Innovation in Instruction
Innovative Library Classroom Conference
Inspiration
Institute for Research Design in Librarianship
instruction
IRB101
Journal reading group
Keynote
LAMS Customer Service Workshop
LAUNC-CH
Leadership
Learning spaces
LibQUAL
Library 2.0
Library Assessment Conference
Library of Congress
licensing
Lilly Conference
LITA
LITA National Forum
LOEX
LOEX2008
Lyrasis
Management
Marketing
Meetings
Mentoring Committee
MERLOT
metadata
Metrolina 2008
MOUG 09
MOUG 2010
Music Library Assoc. 07
Music Library Assoc. 09
Music Library Assoc. 2010
Music Library Association
NASIG
National Library of Medicine
NC-LITe
NCCU Conference on Digital Libraries
NCICU
NCLA
NCLA Biennial Conference 2013
NCPC
NCSLA
NEDCC/SAA
NHPRC-Electronic Records Research Fellowships Symposium
NISO
North Carolina Serial Conference 2014
North Carolina Serials Conference
Offsite Storage Project
OLE Project
online catalogs
online course
Online Learning Summit
OPAC
open access
Peabody Library Leadership Institute
plagiarism
Podcasting
Preservation
Preservation Activities
Preserving Forsyth LSTA Grant
Professional Development Center
rare books
RDA/FRBR
Reserves
RITS
RTSS 08
RUSA-CODES
SAA Class New York
SACS-COC
SAMM 2008
SAMM 2009
Scholarly Communication
ScienceOnline2010
Social Stratification in the Deep South
Social Stratification in the Deep South 2009
Society of American Archivists
Society of North Carolina Archivists
SOLINET
Southeast Music Library Association
Southeast Music Library Association 08
Southeast Music Library Association 09
SPARC webinar
subject headings
Sun Webinar Series
symposium
tagging
TALA Conference
Technical Services
technology
ThinkTank Conference
Training
UIPO Symposium
ULG
Uncategorized
user studies
Vendors
video-assisted learning
visual literacy
WakeSpace
Web 2.0
Webinar
WebWise
WFU China Initiative
Wikis
Women's History Symposium 2007
workshops
WSS
ZSR Library Leadership Retreat
Tags
Archives
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007

Powered by WordPress.org, protected by Akismet. Blog with WordPress.com.