Matthew Revitt
This chapter describes a statewide approach to managing legacy print based on the author’s experiences as program manager of the Maine Shared Collections Strategy (MSCS) project. Like most libraries, those that would eventually form MSCS faced the challenge of housing legacy print collections while at the same time lacking the funding and space to build new stacks. Their users expected them to increase study, collaborative, and technology space as well as to preserve the same level of access to information resources. The MSCS libraries also felt pressure to responsibly steward sizable historic print collections. In addition, the partners saw the growth of large-scale digital collections such as the HathiTrust as an opportunity to rethink the management and delivery of their collections. In this context, the libraries needed to develop a collaborative approach to collection management because these issues exceeded the capacity of any single library or organization.
The MSCS was established in 2010 and contained a unique mixture of public and academic (including both private and state institutions) partners: Maine’s two largest public libraries, Portland and Bangor; Maine State Library, the University of Maine, and University of Southern Maine; three private colleges, Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin; and the statewide consortium Maine InfoNet. In contrast to other shared print initiatives, which generally consist of very similar institutions (academic and research libraries), MSCS was a multi-type institutional approach to shared print.1 Although the libraries were multi-type, their similarities allowed them to collaborate. The project partners all use Innovative Interfaces’ Information Library System (ILS) and are members of the INN-Reach union catalog MaineCat and statewide physical delivery system, which connects them both technically and organizationally. MSCS benefited from the long history of cooperation and trust between the MSCS libraries—dating back almost 100 years—which was only strengthened by MSCS’s shared print initiative.
MSCS was supported by a three-year Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) National Leadership Demonstration Grant that ended in March 2015. The funding that MSCS received from IMLS, along with matching funds, supported hiring a full-time program manager, a contracted systems librarian, and the services of collection analysis vendor Sustainable Collection Services (SCS). The goal of MSCS was to create a cooperative strategy for the long-term preservation and management of legacy print collections. Based on OCLC data, the collective collection of the MSCS partners accounts for 85 percent of print books in Maine, so the grant partner’s holdings were a good starting place for establishing a shared print initiative in the state.2 In order to gain political approval from library stakeholders, MSCS emphasized the role of the partner libraries as stewards of Maine’s legacy print collections, whose focus was the retention and preservation of material to ensure they remain accessible to library patrons.
MSCS partner libraries collaborated to make decisions about the storage, retention, and preservation of print monographs and journals to help alleviate space concerns while ensuring that users would continue to have equal or greater access to the information.
For serials and journal titles, MSCS agreed that partner libraries should only be expected to commit to retain titles that were not already being retained and preserved elsewhere. This meant that titles not archived by PORTICO, JSTOR, ProQuest Periodicals Archive Online, ProQuest American Periodicals, ProQuest British Periodicals, and American Antiquarian Society Historical Periodicals 1–5 repositories or databases were eliminated from consideration for retention. From the remaining serial titles, MSCS agreed to focus on those with fewer than fifty holding libraries in WorldCat. The libraries were provided with a list of titles in this category and asked to filter the list to include only titles they agreed to commit to retain. MSCS also wanted to consider retaining Maine-related titles, so the libraries were provided with a list of titles in the “local protected” categories (which were developed for print monographs) and those stored in special collections. The following factors were taken into consideration when reviewing the lists: the content’s value for the patrons of MSCS and other libraries, online availability, missing and incomplete holdings information, and superseded works which either did not have historical value or were on subjects that had low institutional value. In the end, the partners collectively committed to retain 5,424 journal and serial titles.3 It should be noted that for many serial titles in the sets considered, libraries may have held only one or two issues or volumes, or a short run of numbers in a monograph series, and these materials were already located in the book, rather than periodical, stacks areas. As a result these serial allocations overall do not represent a large number of long runs of bound periodicals.
For monographs, on which the remainder of this chapter will focus, MSCS decided to analyze and take action only on what were considered legacy print monograph titles, specifically titles published or added to a library’s collection pre-2003. MSCS felt any later imprint had not had sufficient time to be used. MSCS decided to exclude the following monographs: government documents (because the University of Maine already has a commitment to retain as part of the Federal Depository Library Program); ebooks licensed to individual libraries (because they could not be part of a shared collection); non-print formats; maps; and scores. The MSCS project focused on monographs because this was the area of the partners’ collections about which they were most concerned. There were approximately three million monograph titles in-scope for collection analysis, which meant realistically retention decisions had to be made at scale.
Rather than having partner libraries nominate groups of monographic titles they wanted to retain, MSCS decided to take a data-informed approach to making retention decisions. While data is vital to the decision-making process, it could not solely drive retention decisions. To clearly define objectives, MSCS employed four guiding questions:
1. What monographs should be designated for long-term retention?
2. What is an equitable and/or common-sense distribution of retention responsibilities?
3. What monographs are candidates for incorporating into on-demand services by virtue of public domain availability in the HathiTrust or Internet Archive?
4. What monograph copies could optionally be deselected once retention decisions have been finalized?
These questions allowed MSCS to decide which data would be required to make retention decisions, as opposed to information that was merely interesting or nice to know. Despite these good intentions, there were times when it felt like we were drowning in a sea of data. There can be a temptation to micromanage the analysis process, which is not possible when attempting to make retention decisions on a large scale.
Bad data will only lead to bad decisions. Therefore, in order to accurately compare and analyze holdings and circulation data across five local catalogs and eight libraries, participating libraries agreed that an OCLC reclamation project was necessary to synchronize the library’s holdings with WorldCat and one another before extracting data for analysis.
The reclamation resulted in just over a quarter-million MARC records being updated, which included 001s updated, holdings synthesized, and holdings removed for materials that were no longer locally held. The reclamation proved to be an extremely time-consuming process that took place over a twelve-month period and required significant staff time, but it was essential, particularly because so much of the matching in the collection analysis and eventual batch loading of retention commitment statements into catalogs relied on the OCLC control number. Some collection analysis vendors will carry out clean-up work of extracted data through validation, transformation, and normalization, but MSCS wanted existing catalog records to be as clean as possible going forward, so that the work of MSCS could eventually benefit other Maine libraries.
The complexity of extracting data for analysis should not be underestimated. All MSCS partners used Innovative Interfaces’ systems, which made it easier to extract and compare data. MSCS also was fortunate to be able to use grant funds to hire a systems librarian who coordinated the data extract process and worked with local staff to ensure that the decision factors were represented in the extracted data. The following data elements were extracted for analysis.
• local record number
• OCLC number
• item record number
• created date
• barcode
• itype (value in the item record that defines circulation policies)
• volume and copy
• item call number
• location
• total checkout and total renewal
• year-to-date circulation
• last year circulation
• last check-in date
• out date
• last out date
• reserve notes
• internal use count
• icode2 (item record suppression code contributed to union catalog)
• circulation status
Bibliographic data was required to identify the title being analyzed, for use in holding comparisons with larger resources such as OCLC, and for subject information. Item level data was required to show holdings at member libraries and their usage.
Analyzing millions of monographic titles required commercial vendor support. MSCS contracted with SCS, which was able to wrangle the collection data in multiple ways and present the results in various types of reports and charts.
MSCS agreed on the following data to see in the reports and charts:
• number of monographic copies of a particular work owned by partner libraries
• number of circulating monographic copies
• number of times a title circulated and date of last circulation
• number of titles/copies uniquely held in the group/state/WorldCat
• subject strengths across the group
• monographic titles represented in the HathiTrust and Internet Archive
• overlap between general collections and special collections
MSCS found that in order to develop retention criteria, it was vital that the extracted data being analyzed be presented in a manner which can be easily interpreted by participants. SCS’s suggestions for areas of focus and its outline of potential retention and withdrawal scenarios were very helpful to have in both the presentation of data and facilitation of the process.
The data SCS presented showed that approximately 1.6 million monographic title-holdings and 50 percent of all monographic titles in the MSCS dataset were held by only one or two partners.4 MSCS decided to split the analysis into two stages: stage one, for titles held by only one to two MSCS libraries, and stage two, for titles that were held by three or more MSCS libraries. For titles held by only one or two partners, the number of title-holdings to retain was straightforward—MSCS libraries simply retained what they had. Eliminating the need to look at retention allocation for titles held by only one or two partners took care of low-hanging fruit and enabled some guaranteed retention commitments to be made.
The focus on retention and preservation meant that retention criteria were fairly conservative. MSCS libraries committed to retain holdings or items if any of the following criteria were met.
Usage had a major impact on the volume of title-holdings retained. For stage one, in approximately 95 percent of cases, the reason why a title was in the committed to retain category was because it had been used. MSCS felt that usage was an important gauge of a title’s value and an indicator of future use. However, in hindsight the inclusion of public libraries might have been taken into greater consideration when it came to circulation thresholds, because their higher circulation rates may have resulted in more retention than might have otherwise been the case. MSCS also counted available in-house use and reserves statistics toward usage when perhaps such use should have been weighted differently, but making decisions at scale would have made this difficult.
As a state project, a goal was to ensure Maine-related titles were retained and preserved. OCLC data presented to MSCS showed that the partners are the major repositories of literature related to Maine, so MSCS could make a significant impact on the retention of this material.5 MSCS developed a set of categories that was used to ensure materials of local interest were committed to retain regardless of usage.6
From the outset, MSCS debated whether special collections and archives copies should be included in the analysis, because it was assumed that libraries would retain these copies anyway. MSCS included them in the analysis, and made retention commitments to all special collections and archives copies as well as at least one accompanying circulating copy to guarantee access.
MSCS concentrated on retaining those titles that are not widely available at other OCLC member libraries in the United States. MSCS recognized that OCLC holdings data is only representative of a point of time, and that holding levels will change over time, especially as more shared print initiatives are formed. Accepting these caveats to the data, MSCS agreed that specific editions with fewer than ten OCLC holding libraries in the United States was sufficiently rare as to warrant a commitment.
It may seem surprising that, as a state project, scarcity within the state of Maine was not one of the retention criteria. However, except for the MSCS partner libraries, few Maine libraries are members of OCLC. Therefore, any OCLC data on holding levels in Maine is not an accurate reflection of scarcity and thus not reliable.
As part of the collection analysis, MSCS considered situations when a digital copy of a title could substitute for retaining print copies. SCS compared MSCS partner print holdings against the HathiTrust and Internet Archive to identify overlap. For the HathiTrust there was a surprisingly low 6 percent overlap for all public domain titles across all partner collections, but a 37 percent overlap for in-copyright titles.7 Therefore, relying on digital copies would never be an option for the vast majority of MSCS print collections. The willingness of Maine library patrons to rely on digital copies was considered but it was concluded that, unlike serials and journals, digital copies of monographs are not currently an adequate replacement for print. Concerns were also raised because not all MSCS libraries are HathiTrust partners, and therefore do not have download access to all public domain titles in the collection.
MSCS’s focus on retention meant that the approach to deciding how many monographic holdings to commit to retain differed from many other shared print initiatives that set minimum levels of title-holdings to be retained. MSCS felt the minimum-level approach was too arbitrary and did not take into account the different factors noted above that resulted in titles being retained. Also, because MSCS wanted to make commitments to retain titles, not deaccession them, we decided that the risk of the last copy being deaccessioned from the group was low.
Participants agreed that not all holdings of a title required retention commitments and that past circulation was a likely indicator of future demand, so usage ranges were used to decide how many title-holdings should be committed across the group.8 The partners agreed to commit to retain one title-holding across the MSCS group for each title-set with one to three uses and two title-holdings for each title-set with four or more uses.
To break down the average usage ranges further, date of last usage was considered because some titles might circulate widely when they are first added to a collection, but less so subsequently. After discussing last usage date with SCS it was concluded that it would be too complex to factor in this data element.
MSCS also committed to retain:
• two title-holdings of all “local interest” category title-sets
• all title-holdings where the specific edition is held in nine or fewer libraries in the United States (according to OCLC)
• all special collections and archives copies, and at least one accompanying circulating copy
In most cases, an MSCS library is only required to commit to retain one copy of a title it is assigned, but for ease of implementation items records for all copies received a retention statement. Therefore, libraries are free to decide in the future that they will only retain a specific copy and remove the commitment in the local catalog for the surplus copies. This decision might be based on a particular copy being in the best physical condition or having a distinguishing feature.
To allocate retention responsibility across the group for stage two monograph titles, the following rules were developed for SCS to apply to retention lists:
1. If Colby College holds a title, titles are marked committed to retain. During the project, MSCS partner Colby College built a new library storage facility and, because of this, was willing to be allocated a larger percentage of committed to retain titles. As an institution, Colby also has a strong commitment to retaining and preserving materials.
2. If a title is held by any of the Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin College Libraries, then at least one of these libraries has its holding marked committed to retain. If Colby holds and is marked committed to retain per rule 1, then this rule will be satisfied. There is a long-standing resource sharing agreement between all of the MSCS partners. However, Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin Colleges have, as a consortial ILS, shared preferential loan periods that cannot be guaranteed by other partners. Therefore they were not willing to rely on copies outside of the three libraries for access of titles they were committing to retain. Given that rules 1 and 2 are satisfied, the remaining commit to retain allocations were done in an “equitable” fashion, where every library committed to retain a percentage of titles proportional to its collection size.
3. All Maine State Library’s “local interest” title-holdings are marked committed to retain.
4. The Maine State Library made the decision to commit to retain any local interest category title-holdings it held, in keeping with its mission to facilitate access to and delivery of library services and collection resources for the State of Maine.
MSCS had hoped that subject data could be used to identify subject strengths of the partner libraries which in turn could be used to allocate retention responsibilities. In reality, when making decisions on three million items it was impossible to add this sort of granularity to an already complicated set of allocation rules.
Geographical distribution was also discussed as a potential factor. Because the statewide delivery system includes a one-day turnaround time on physical delivery of many items, this was not a critical consideration for MSCS and was not factored into retention decisions.
When making retention decisions at scale, there are going to be titles that, if one conducted title-by-title reviews, would probably not be committed to retain, or flagged as a withdrawal candidate. MSCS felt it was important to give collection development representatives the opportunity to spot-check lists of titles their libraries had been allocated a commitment to retain. They identified specific examples of titles that they felt were inappropriate. Instead of changing the retention criteria, the MSCS Project Team and Collection Development Committee decided that a window of opportunity was required to reverse commitments on specific categories of titles to correct errors and address anomalies. The MSCS Collection Development Committee produced a list of specific publishers that they agreed did not warrant a retention commitment. The goal of this work was to remove outdated and superseded textbooks, manuals, test preparation guides, and some paperback versions of popular fiction.
To address ongoing issues with commitments, MSCS produced a Policy on Retention Commitment Changes that includes situations where it is appropriate for a retention commitment to be transferred or reversed.9 Two of the most common situations seen already are when it is cost-prohibitive to replace a damaged or lost item, and when a newer edition of a committed to retain title is added to a library that wants to withdraw the superseded edition. There are also supporting procedures for library staff to follow when making changes to retention commitments.10 Ideally, the commitments will be transferred to another MSCS library, but in some cases this will not be possible and there will need to be limited withdrawals. Trust in the professional discretion of each staff will be essential, because the policy and procedure do not include a peer review.
The MSCS partner libraries have agreed to commit to retain 1,416,918 monograph titles:
|
Bangor Public |
158,720 |
|
Bates |
183,359 |
|
Bowdoin |
217,431 |
|
Colby |
265,184 |
|
Maine State Library |
61,369 |
|
Portland Public Library |
94,797 |
|
University of Maine |
309,698 |
|
University of Southern Maine |
126,360 |
|
TOTAL |
1,416,918 |
MSCS libraries have collectively committed to 48 percent of their print monographs that were in scope for the project.11 While this is a high percentage, the partners still have the option to safely deaccession the 52 percent of titles for which they have not been allocated a retention commitment.
The terms and conditions of the retention commitments are described in the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), including the agreement that titles will be retained for a fifteen-year period with a chance for the retention commitment to be reviewed at least once every five years.12 MSCS felt fifteen years indicated a serious commitment by the institutions; with such uncertainty in the future of the library world and dwindling resources, MSCS directors were not willing to commit their successors to a longer retention period. At the end of the fifteen years the libraries will review the retention commitments and evaluate whether any changes in retention policy are required.
From the outset; MSCS felt it was important to document and disclose retention commitments in the metadata of retained items. MSCS wanted other libraries to be able to use its retention decisions as a factor in their own collection management decision-making. Because this was an an IMLS-supported project, MSCS wanted to establish good practice for other projects. Therefore, MSCS decided to disclose its commitments as widely as possible in WorldCat, local catalogs, and the union catalog MaineCat. Holdings information for serial and journal title commitments are recorded in the Center for Research Libraries (CRL) Print Archives Preservation Registry (PAPR). The PAPR registry does not currently accept holdings information for monographs.
MSCS was fortunate to have a contracted systems librarian who could spend a significant amount of time on MSCS-related activities. This helped with disclosing commitments during the grant period. However, even with the systems librarian’s considerable expertise, the disclosure process was complicated by vendor limitations.
MSCS followed the recommendations of the OCLC Print Archives Disclosure Pilot Final Report (2012).13 MSCS became the first shared print initiative to record retention commitments for monograph titles in the OCLC Local Holding Records of titles (using the MARC 583 Action Note to describe specific actions for each set of holdings: 852 was used for location, and 561 for ownership and custodial history) and to disclose those commitments using the separate OCLC shared print symbol. Until a more practical model is developed, MSCS will use two symbols for each holding in OCLC: both the main symbol, which will remain requestable, and the shared print symbol, which will be a non-supplier. This decision was made as a result of the MSCS Directors’ Council opposition to the ILL fees associated with using the shared print symbol. OCLC took approximately four months to process MSCS’s initial request to batch-load commitments into Local Holding Records, but once the project parameters were set up, turnaround time for loads was only one to two weeks. MSCS was in contact with OCLC throughout the project in regard to a self-service model for submitting holdings information and its requirements for the discovery of shared print items.
Most libraries in Maine are not OCLC members, so it made sense to display retention commitments in both local catalogs and the partners’ union catalog MaineCat (using the same fields as in OCLC: 561, 583, and 852) where they will be visible to other Maine libraries. The MSCS partner libraries are currently waiting for Innovative to address issues with the flow of retention information from local catalogs to MaineCat in a future release of Inn-Reach.
The MSCS systems librarian has produced guidelines for staff to follow when adding or making changes to retention commitment statements.14
MSCS is using a distributed storage model wherein the items will be retained and continue to be owned in situ by the library. This decision was reached mainly because MSCS libraries want to continue to lend as before, and the logistics of a centralized facility would have held up processing requests.
The MSCS libraries are committed to the existing open resource sharing infrastructure in Maine and thus did not want to place any additional access restrictions on retained items. Retained materials will continue to be subject to the circulation and interlibrary loan policies of the retaining library. The grant partners have a long-standing resource sharing agreement that means items will continue to be accessible to each other’s patrons. Guaranteed access is obviously a key ingredient for any shared print project to succeed. In Maine, the union catalog MaineCat and statewide physical delivery system support this access.
MSCS initially envisaged that it would be possible to identify situations where a digital surrogate would suffice. While agreement was not reached on this, MSCS still wanted to complement the existing physical delivery services to meet the changing reading and delivery preferences of patrons by implementing ebook-on-demand and print-on-demand service delivery models.
MSCS loaded approximately 1.4 million MARC records for HathiTrust public domain titles into the MaineCat union catalog and included links to a viewable or downloadable (depending on rights restrictions) copy in the HathiTrust online catalog. MSCS also loaded Google Books links when available, allowing users to fully download Google-digitized titles that can only be downloaded from HathiTrust one page at a time. The records also include a link where Maine library patrons can submit a request for a print-on-demand copy that will be printed by the University of Maine Printing and Mailing Service.15
The grant partners established the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative (MSCC) to oversee post-grant activities. The MSCC has an Executive Committee whose members represent constituencies that are participants in the Cooperative, and a Collections and Operations Committee that oversees issues related to the selection of materials for retention, as well as issues related to holdings disclosure and access and delivery. The grant participants are keen to build upon the work and trust from the grant; one example of this is collection building. Three MSCS partners—the Maine State Library, Bangor Public Library, and Portland Public Library—have already nominated themselves as collection builders, whereby they agree to ingest retained materials. Bangor Public Library in particular is keen to use subject data to assign collection building responsibilities for prospective collection development.
As part of MSCC, the grant partners will proactively commit to retain specific new additions. They have decided that their next group collection analysis (which will not take place sooner than 2019) should include items added post-2003.
Because Maine is a relatively small and geographically isolated state outside of the BOS-WASH mega-region, it is important for the MSCC libraries to consider joining regional shared print efforts.16 With this in mind, the MSCS grant partners participated in finalizing the planning for the Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust (EAST). This chapter’s author, MSCS Program Manager Matthew Revitt, and Co-Project Principal Investigator Clem Guthro, Director of Colby College Libraries, have been appointed to EAST groups. MSCS systems librarian Sara Amato has been appointed as the EAST Data Librarian, but will continue to work on MSCC analysis. The author and Guthro were also members of the HathiTrust’s Task Force Print Monograph Archive Planning Group, which is developing a national approach to shared print monographs. The author is also a member of the OCLC Shared Print Advisory Council, which provides guidance to OCLC for developing strategies for managing library print collections as shared assets.
Considering the large number of retention commitments made, the MSCS grant partners have gone a long way toward protecting Maine’s legacy print collections. However, there will be interesting and rare titles held outside of this group that will also need to be protected. The University of Maine has agreed to support these efforts by funding a Maine Shared Collection Librarian to coordinate the Cooperative’s activities. The MaineCat and delivery infrastructure will facilitate the process of more Maine libraries joining MSCC.
Maine library directors were surveyed about their levels of interest in MSCC and in participating in shared print-related activities. It was clear from the survey results that libraries were most interested in receiving collection analysis services to assist them in identifying items to weed and retain.17
MSCC carried out two pilot projects with the University of Maine at Presque Isle and Edythe L. Dyer Community Library both of which have collections under 50,000 print monograph holdings. Building upon experiences from the grant, the systems librarian extracted both item and bibliographic data and presented it in a manner that assisted libraries in making retention decisions. While the focus of the grant was on identifying titles to retain, in order to attract new members it was emphasized that weeding could also be accomplished using the data provided. To that end, the print monograph holdings of the pilot libraries with the retention commitments made by MSCS were compared. The holding comparisons showed high overlap (70 percent in University of Maine at Presque Isle’s case) between the library’s collections and what had been committed to retain by grant partners. Additional data (e.g., circulation rates) were provided for the overlapping titles as a retention commitment alone might not dictate a withdrawal decision. The libraries were provided with data showing which of their titles have fewer than ten OCLC holding libraries, and those which have no OCLC holdings in Maine. MSCC also compared overlap in the union catalog MaineCat because as smaller libraries join, overlap with their peers in Maine will take on greater significance. Also, MaineCat provides a more comprehensive reflection of rarity in Maine, as so few Maine libraries disclose their holdings in OCLC.
The pilots showed that in order to succeed, MSCC needs to make the case that the space saved by withdrawing items already committed to be retained by MSCC will more than offset the relatively small number of titles they must retain locally. For example, the Edythe L. Dyer Community Library, whose collection is approximately 20,000 monograph print holdings, committed to retain only 33 titles and decided to withdraw 793 items. At the time of writing, MSCC has worked with thirty libraries to analyze their print monograph collections.18 Of the thirty libraries, eighteen have so far joined MSCC and have collectively agreed to retain approximately 500 titles. Libraries that go through the collection analysis process are required to pay a small fee for the time it takes the systems librarian to produce holdings reports, but there is no fee for joining MSCC. In early 2015, MSCS completed a successful pilot project with a library using a Koha ILS—a first for MSCC. It can now market services to a variety of ILSs, rather than just those libraries using Innovative Interfaces’ products.
MSCS has shown that although analyzing collection data and developing retention policies can be a difficult process, with the right ingredients—trust, shared infrastructure, collection analysis support, dedicated project staffing, and grant funds—it is possible for a statewide project consisting of multi-type libraries to collaborate and make shared retention commitments. Libraries should be aware that implementing a successful approach for managing shared collections will require complex analysis and difficult decisions. The initiative will need the support and leadership of those managing the project. However, the rewards of agreeing to the retention commitments will be great, not only for individual libraries that need to maximize dwindling resources, but also will contribute to the greater good of the library community by guaranteeing access to titles for years to come.
1. “Archiving Programs,” Print Archives Preservation Registry, http://papr.crl.edu.
2. Constance Malpas, “Managing the Collective Collection—Print Books in Maine,” presentation at the Maine InfoNet Collections Summit, Orono, Maine, May 24, 2013, www.slideshare.net/Maine_SharedCollections/managing-the-collective-collection-cooperative-infrastructure-for-shared-print-management.
3. “Journals/Serials Retention Commitments,” Maine Shared Collections Strategy, www.maineinfonet.org/mscs/about/people/technical-services-subcommittee/serials-retention-commitments.
4. “Summary,” Maine Shared Collections Strategy, www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/wp-content/uploads/MSCS-Collections-Summary.pdf.
5. Malpas, “Managing the Collective Collection.”
6. “Glossary,” Maine Shared Collections Strategy, www.maineinfonet.org/mscs/updates/glossary-of-mscs-terms.
7. “Summary,” Maine Shared Collections Strategy.
8. “Retention Scenario Step Two: Pre-2003 Titles Held by 3 or More Partner Libraries,” Maine Shared Collections Strategy, www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/updates/retention-scenario-two.
9. “Policy on Retention Commitment Changes,” Maine Shared Collections Strategy, www.maineinfonet.org/mscs/policy-on-retention-commitment-changes.
10. “Procedure for the External Transfer of Retention Commitments,” Maine Shared Collections Strategy, www.maineinfonet.org/mscs/procedure-for-the-external-transfer-of-retention-commitments.
11. “Retention Commitments Made: Stats,” Maine Shared Collection Strategy, www.maineinfonet.org/mscs/about/people/technical-services-subcommittee/actual-retention-commitments-made-in-scenario-1.
12. “Maine Shared Collections Cooperative (MSCC) Memorandum of Understanding,” Maine Shared Collections Strategy, www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/wp-content/uploads/Maine-Shared-Collections-Cooperative-MOU.pdf.
13. “OCLC Print Archives Disclosure Pilot Final Report,” April 2012, https://oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/productworks/OCLCPrintArchivesDisclosurePilotFinalReport.pdf.
14. “Recording and Displaying Retention Decisions,” Maine Shared Collections Strategy, www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/about/people/technical-services-subcommittee/recording-displaying-retention-decisions.
15. “E-book-On-Demand (EOD) and Print-On-Demand (POD) Services Guidelines,” Maine Shared Collections Strategy, www.maineinfonet.org/mscs/updates/e-book-on-demand-eod-print-on-demand-pod-service-guidelines.
16. Brian Lavoie, Constance Malpas, and J.D. Shipengrover, Print Management at “Mega-scale”: A Regional Perspective on Print Book Collections in North America (Dublin, OH: OCLC Research, 2012), www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2012/2012-05.pdf.
17. “Cooperative Collection Management Survey Results,” Maine Shared Collections Strategy, www.maineinfonet.org/mscs/cooperative-collection-management-survey-results.
18. “Maine Shared Collections’ Services & Membership,” Maine Shared Collections Cooperative, www.maineinfonet.org/mscs/maine-shared-collections-services.