OhioLINK Collection Analysis Project

Report on the OCLC/OhioLINK Circulation Study

Julie Gammon, University of Akron

Ed O’Neill, OCLC Research

WebinarNov. 18, 2010

The Overview

Research Project

Joint study by OhioLINK, OhioLINK members, OhioLINK Collection Building Task Force (CBTF) and OCLC Research

The goal is to strengthen the collective collection and expand cooperative acquisitions

This project is distinct from OCLC’s collection analysis service

Much of the analysis is new or previously untested

Distinctive Aspects

Size and scope of collections

Use of local holdings and circulation information

Number and variety of institutions

FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records)

New metrics (Audience Level, Comprehensiveness, …)

The Libraries

Library Type NumberARL 5Universities 18Colleges 362 Year Colleges 49Depositories 6Other Types 25

The Data

Item No.:OCLC No.:

Title:LCCN:

Location Code:Status Code:

Circulation:Renewals:

Accession date:Date of Last Use:

ISBN:Source:

i2587859145207959The infinite / A.W. Moore00051722bc-518/3/20018/23/20040415252857 (pbk.)Akron

WorldCat Linking

Obsolete OCLC numbers were replaced, Unique LCCNs or ISBNs were used to identify an

OCLC number, Records lacking any standard number were excluded

from the study, Records from the 2007 & 2008 circulation files were

paired to determine annual circulation, Approximately 93% of the records were validated;

many of the unvalidated records were for non-book materials.

The OCLC Number is used to link the circulation records to the corresponding bibliographic record in WorldCat

The Circulation Data (1 Year)

Annual circulation 2,822,035

No. of Items (Volumes) 29,002,327No. of Items Circulated 2,106,142

No. of manifestations (Titles) 6,779,969No. of Manifestations Circulated 1,041,405

Multi Level Structure

Third level units: Distinct library units.

Location codes : The codes used within OhioLINK to identify the location of the individual items. Over 4,200 different location codes are used.

Top level units: Individual campus, depositories, and external organizations (Museums, Centers, Hospitals)

bccco, bccct, bccir, bccm, bcgd, bcgdo, bcmu, …

University of Akron

Second level units: Separate administrative units [university libraries, law, medicine, etc.) or distinct library units.

University of Akron

University Libraries

University of Akron

University Libraries

Bierce Library

Three Level Holdings Structure (Akron)

Analysis

Individual Institution Focus

Detailed holdings

General Statistics

Languages

Age

Subjects

Single campus Language, Age, and Subjects tables have been added to improve readability

Language Table (Akron)

12 Major Non-English Languages

Age Tables (Akron)

Subjects Tables (Akron)

‘Collective’ Collection Focus

Tables Subject Language

Analysis Subject Language Duplication Obsolescence Library Type FRBR etc.

Subject Table (Advertising)

Circulation Rate: The average number of times a circulating item in the collection was used during the year observed.

Percent Coverage: The percent of all OhioLINK manifestations held in specified collection.

Comprehensiveness: The proportion of all OhioLINK circulations that could have been met by the manifestations in the collection.

Audience Level: The type of audience for which the collection is most suitable.

Audience Level

0 (Juvenile) (Scholarly) 1

Octopusses and squid Audience level: 0.06

Phylogeny and systematics of the treehopper subfamily Audience level: 0.96

Fundamentals of entomology Audience level: 0.51

Language Tables(German / Language & Literatue)

Eight broad subjects are used:• Arts & Recreation• Business & Economics• History & Geography• Language & Literature• Science & Technology• Social Science• Medicine• Law

Relative Circ. Rate: The circulation rate relative to the rate for English language books.

Holdings by Library Type

ARLs; 27.0%

Universities; 27.3%

Colleges; 24.6%

2yr Colleges, 6.0%

Depositories, 15.2%

Annual Circulation Rates by Library Type

ARLs Universities Colleges 2yr Colleges Depositories0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

Usage Distribution

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,0000%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Number of Manifestations

Ann

ual C

ircul

atio

n

455,000

6.5%

Subject Distribution of Items

Arts & Recreation; 8.0%

Business & Econom-ics; 8.2%

History & Geog-raphy; 13.7%

Language & Litera-ture, 21.2%

Science & Tech-nology; 15.1%

Social Science; 22.1%

Medicine; 4.2%

Law; 7.4%

Annual Circulation Rates

Arts & Recreation

Business & Economics

History & Geography

Language & Literature

Science & Technology

Social Science Medicine Law0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Duplication Rates

Arts & Recreation

Business & Economics

History & Geography

Language & Literature

Science & Technology

Social Science

Medicine Law0

3

6

9

Duplication Rate

Publication Date

Ave

rage

No.

of

Cop

ies

4.5

Non-English Collections

German; 26.5%

French; 22.0%

Spanish; 13.5%

Russian, 7.7%

Chinese; 4.3%

Italian; 4.6%

Japanese; 3.1%

Other; 18.3%

Relative Usage by Language

German French Spanish Russian Chinese Italian Japanese Other0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Non-English Percent of Collection

1900 1915 1930 1945 1960 1975 1990 20050%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Relative Use of Non-English Books by Publication Date

1900 1915 1930 1945 1960 1975 1990 20050%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Relative Non-English Language Use by Library Type

ARLs Universities Colleges Depositories0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Non-English Distribution by Subject

Arts & Recreation;

11.3%Business & Economics;

3.8%

History & Geog-raphy; 10.7%Language &

Literature; 20.1%

Science & Technology;

3.3%

Social Sci-ence; 6.2%

Medicine; 1.1% Law; 1.4%

Relative Usage of Non-English Books by Subject

Arts & Recreation

Business & Economics

History & Geography

Language & Literature

Science & Technology

Social Science

Medicine Law

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Project Websitehttp://www.oclc.org/research/activities/ohiolink/collections.htm

*†

Conclusions

Limited use of non-English materials, Unique resources widely distributed, Circulation rates vary greatly by subject, institution, … Collectively duplication level are high. Next Steps

Analysis is ongoing, What information is helpful; what isn’t? What did we get wrong? What did we miss? Sharing of the data.