Objective

1. (Trying to) Rethink the Reference Collection Leslie Czechowski, MLS, MA & Jeffrey Husted, MLIS, Health Sciences Library System, University of Pittsburgh • Objective • To rethink the provision of a traditional, print reference collection in a health sciences library system that serves a dispersed user population • and • To investigate the possibility of creating an electronic, clinical reference collection. • Methods • Analyzed our print reference collection (titles classed in Q and R) as a potential benchmark. • Gathered usage data from our ILS. • Noted whether a title appeared on “best books” lists including the former Brandon Hill list and the current lists from Doody’s Review Service. • Analyzed the 2009 Doody’s Essential Purchase Titles (EPT) list as a potential benchmark. • Compared it against our print reference collection to determine overlap between the two. • Noted whether we owned a title in another collection or format. • Determined the percentages of EPT list titles and our print reference titles that were available in an electronic format. Table 1. Comparison of Print Reference Collection to “Best Books” Lists Table 2. Comparison of Doody’s EPT List to Library’s Collections Figure 1. Availability of Doody’s EPT and Print Reference Titles in Electronic Format • Results • Our print reference collection contained 1,045 titles classed in Q and R. Table 1 shows how our print reference collection compares to the Doody’s Core Titles and Essential Purchase Titles lists and the Brandon Hill list. • The 2009 Doody’s EPT list, when limited to titles classes in Q and R, contained 450 titles. Table 2 shows how these EPTs compare to our print reference and other collections. • Our analysis spanned two releases of the EPT list. Comparing the 2009 and 2010 lists, we found a turnover rate of about 51%. • Figure 1 shows the availability of titles on the EPT list and in our print reference collection in an electronic format. • Conclusion • Our print reference collection would not be a useful benchmark. • Only 40% of titles available electronically. • Limited overlap with “best books” lists. • Large number of titles would be expensive. • The EPT list is also not feasible. • Too fluid year-to-year (high expense). • Only half of the EPTs are available electronically. • New editions of many titles on EPT list not purchased due to low usage of previous edition. • Given the low percentage of e-books available, we will need to devise a different strategy for creating an electronic, clinical reference collection. • Possible strategies: • Collect electronic versions of high-use print reference titles. • Collect electronic versions of titles that appear in both the print reference collection and the EPT and/or Brandon Hill lists. • Notes & References • Except for the comparison of the 2009 and 2010 EPT lists: • All analyses focused only on titles classed in Q and R. • All analyses used the 2009 title lists from the Doody’s Review Service. (http://www.doody.com/drs) • We used the Doody’s Review Service to determine the availability of titles in electronic format. (http://www.doody.com/drs) • We used the Brandon Hill list maintained by Matthews Book Company. (http://www.matthewsbooks.com/press/mla/BH_Titles.xls) • Contact Information: Leslie Czechowski (lczech@pitt.edu) ; Jeffrey Husted (jthusted@pitt.edu)