Collaborative collection development: a MedPrint case report

Background

In response to several of Texas' largest medical libraries being forced to discard all serial print holdings, the Texas A&M University System and University of Texas System's Joint Library Facility (JLF) staff worked to help provide a solution to save and store these resources. This process fire-started a comprehensive effort by JLF staff to contact the National Library of Medicine (NLM) and devise a blueprint that would be used to help save and preserve all serial medical resources listed in NLM's medical retention program.

Case Presentation

In an unprecedented approach, the Texas A&M JLF staff launched efforts to collect and preserve the complete holdings range of all NLM MedPrint periodical runs. This case report details the planning and steps JLF staff took to accomplish this feat; highlights important matters of consideration for the medical community which heavily relies upon continuous access to MedPrint materials; and provides insight on the apparent preservation vulnerabilities these materials increasingly face in an environment where digitization may create a false sense of security.

Discussion

By May 2021, JLF had collected complete title runs up to year 2000 for 202 of the 254 MedPrint titles, which consists of more than twelve thousand volumes. These efforts proved particularly beneficial in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced NLM to halt ILL processing from their print collection. During this time, JLF was uniquely positioned to meet and respond to the historic high number of medical literature ILL requests it received during this time.

Where’s the EASY Button? Uncovering E-Book Usability

E-book platforms have multiplied among vendors and publishers, complicating not only acquisitions and collection development decisions, but also the user experience. Using a methodology of task-based user testing, the researchers sought to measure and compare user performance of eight common tasks on nine e-book platforms: EBSCO eBooks, ProQuest Ebook Central, Gale Virtual Reference Library (GVRL), Oxford Reference, Safari Books Online, IGI Global, CRCnetBASE, Springer Link, and JSTOR. Success and failure rates per task, average time spent per task, and user comments were evaluated to gauge the usability of each platform. Findings indicate that platforms vary widely in terms of users’ ability and speed in completing known-item searches, navigation tasks, and identification of specialized tools, with implications for library acquisition and user instruction decisions. Results also suggest several key vendor design recommendations for an optimal user experience. The study did not aim to declare a “winning” platform, and all the platforms tested demonstrated both strengths and weaknesses in different aspects, but overall performance and user preference favored ProQuest’s Ebook Central platform.