I have been using the number of turn-aways to add new journals subscriptions, but I noticed that I need to look for several years of data, because sometimes a
certain journal spikes in one year, but is not used much in other years. I also look at ILL requests and our overall journal coverage in the subject area.
Hella
Hella Bluhm-Stieber, MLIS, AHIP
Medical Librarian
M.J. Chatton Medical Library
Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System
751 S. Bascom Ave.
San Jose, CA 95128
(408) 885-5654
Fax (408) 885-5655
Hella.bluhm-stieber@hhs.sccgov.org
Library opening hours: Monday, Wednesday-Friday, 8 am – 1 pm, Tuesday 8 am – 5 pm, closed on weekends and county holidays
From: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG]
On Behalf Of Herraghty, Maureen
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 9:08 AM
To: SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] ILL data as basis for new subs (or not)
The scientists I deal with (all post-graduate level) tend to assume that ILL will take too long, so if we don’t have electronic full-text access, their first-choice alternative is usually to ask a colleague to
retrieve it for them from another institution, or request a copy directly from the corresponding author. Only if those options fail will they request it as an ILL.
I only take time to fully analyze those situations where they seek to reach full-text. My method for cross-checking turnaways for true demand is to do citation analysis on papers recently published at my institution.
If they are citing it, they are reading it, and if they are not getting it from the Library’s collection, then they must be getting it somewhere else. I’ve been able to pretty accurately identify potential demand with that comparison.
-Maureen
Maureen E. Herraghty
Director of Library Services
Elizabeth Gray Danforth Library
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center
975 North Warson Road
Saint Louis, MO 63132
t 314.587.1081
f 314.587.1181
From: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum <SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG>
On Behalf Of Melissa Belvadi
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:13 AM
To: SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG
Subject: [SERIALST] ILL data as basis for new subs (or not)
Hi, all.
I occasionally see an article in our professional literature about how well ILL article request data does (not) reflect likely demand, and that definitely seems to reflect our own experience
from my somewhat informal analysis of our own data.
But I seem to have trouble persuading my colleagues here about this.
For example, I'll present JR2 turnaway data and "abstracts viewed" in EBSCO and Proquest as evidence for adding a subscription, but they'll respond that :"if they didn't bother to ILL it, then
they don't really need it".
Has anyone done, either for publication or for internal use that you can share with me, some kind of "systematic review" on this issue?
Or even if you have a clear and concise explanation of why that "they didn't bother" reasoning is not an appropriate conclusion to draw, I would appreciate that too. I haven't found the right
way to articulate why I think that's wrong.
Or if you agree with my colleagues, tell me that too!
Melissa Belvadi
Collections Librarian
University of Prince Edward Island
mbelvadi@upei.ca 
902-566-0581
Make an appointment via YouCanBookMe
To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list, click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1
To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list, click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1