This response doesn’t answer the question but I wanted to point out that we have ~300 or so print subscriptions still and we decided to not bother gathering usage stats at all for current issues a few years ago. My thinking is that even automating the process as described by Jill and others is still extra work for little value and so far haven’t had any pushback about it. We used to also track bound journal use manually when I came and that was quickly stopped in favor of treating bound volumes in the same way as redlined shelves for monographs. In other words our circulation staff gather unshelved bound journal volumes in the same way they do anything else, and run it through a discharge process in our ILS (Voyager). We can then easily run reports on this use. So then, why do that for bound and not unbound? Well, mainly this is because we are very space constrained and want to better understand bound journal use to see what we should keep.


Steve Oberg

Assistant Professor of Library Science
Electronic Resources and Serials
Wheaton College (IL)
+1 (630) 752-5852
NASIG Vice-President/President-Elect

On Dec 7, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Christina Torbert <ctorbert@OLEMISS.EDU> wrote:

Similar to Portland State, we have one barcode for each title still coming in print and as loose issues are reshelved, the barcode is scanned as in-house use. At a previous library, we kept use statistics by hand, making a list each day of issues being reshelved, but it wasn’t as big a collection. Automate as much as possible.
All the best,

To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list, click the following link: