CHAPTER 2

Organization and Management of the Reference Collection

ANNELIESE TAYLOR AND JEAN BLACKWELL

The previous edition of Introduction to Reference Sources in the Health Sciences focused on the impact of e-resources on reference services and, by extension, reference collections. It noted that the rapid proliferation of electronic information resources had transformed how librarians do reference and observed that the ability to search full text turns every collection of electronic information resources into a potential reference collection. This chapter examines librarians’ changing roles in health sciences libraries today and how these affect library services and the content and management of reference collections. It looks at issues related to the duplication of print and electronic formats and the presentation and management of online collections to enhance discovery and usability.

Given the emphasis on instant access to online resources, librarians continue to seek a solution for how best to balance collection development between print and online. Concerted efforts by some libraries to completely replace their print reference resources with online counterparts have revealed that print is the only option in many cases.1 Users still express a preference for print for some types of resources and usage, as well as a willingness to use whichever format the library makes available.2

What Is Reference?

Reference as a place with a sign saying “Reference” is a nineteenth-century development, and the term “reference work” first appeared in the index to Library Journal in 1891.3 Traditionally, libraries have had a reference desk staffed by reference librarians who made themselves available for giving directions, answering questions, and assisting with literature searches and other information-finding needs of library users. Their work was supported by the reference collection, a conveniently located collection of the tools used most often to answer questions. Reference sources were typically consulted for specific and immediate information and usually included these categories of materials: dictionaries, manuals and guides, almanacs and statistical compilations, subject handbooks and data books, drug lists, directories of organizations, biographical directories, geographic atlases, encyclopedias, library information, serials information, book catalogs, and lists of meetings and translations. These materials were not allowed to circulate, the idea being that the library should acquire, organize, and provide access to these resources just in case they were needed. In a time of rapid transition in library physical space, services, and information resources, however, the value of a traditional reference collection is increasingly under debate.

Collection Development Policy

Decisions about what materials to include in the reference collection should be guided by a reference collection development policy that is usually a part of the overall collection development policy (CDP) of the library. Some libraries may have a separate CDP just for the reference collection in order to provide supplemental criteria unique to reference. Liestman recommends this approach, noting that because reference needs change so rapidly, it helps to have a statement that can be frequently updated to reflect those changes.4 A CDP defines the scope of a collection and provides guidelines for the weeding and retention of materials. It can be used to justify budget requests and to evaluate needs based on new curriculum and research demands and on new technology. It can also serve as a guide in defining areas of cooperative collection building with other libraries.

The parts of a collection development policy:

Ideally, a collection development policy serves as a blueprint for adding and for getting rid of materials to ensure that a collection is current and responsive to the needs of library users. It can also be critical for informing new staff and maintaining institutional continuity. In reality, however, collection development policies are sometimes ignored because they do not take into account new publishing trends, a shifting information environment, the changing needs of users, and budget and space constraints.

When librarians at the University of Maryland Health Sciences and Human Services Library realized that their CDP, developed in 1999, was too dated to provide useful guidance for current challenges, they formed a task group to review the CDP and decide whether to revise it to reflect realities or to get rid of it altogether. After careful deliberation, they decided to revise the CDP to make it more flexible by avoiding specific collection procedures and encouraging the use of best practices. The result was a streamlined policy with useful guidelines for adapting the collection in a rapidly changing environment.6 In contrast, when librarians at the University of Kentucky Ekstrom Library set out to revamp an unwieldy reference collection, it became clear that the existing reference CDP stood in the way of rethinking the collection. As a result, they abandoned it and wrote a new one that focused on meeting the needs of users, emphasized the importance of timeliness, and stressed a preference for electronic formats.7

A collection development policy should include guidelines for weeding and retention of materials. Weeding is the process of removing materials from the active collection. The disposition of outdated materials will depend to some extent on the type of library: a hospital library may choose to keep only the most recent edition of a work, while an academic health sciences library may need to retain earlier editions for historical and research purposes. When weeding reference collections, librarians can choose to move books to the circulating collection, replace them in electronic format, or get rid of them altogether.

A thorough weeding project requires significant time to plan and implement. In “Weeding the Reference Collection: A Case Study of Collection Management,” Francis describes a reference collection weeding project, including the development of a reference collection development policy, a review of standing orders, the goals and outcomes of the review, and a discussion of the benefits of the project. At the conclusion of the project, librarians set up a schedule to review the collection every other year.8

Questions to consider before weeding:

It can be difficult to keep usage statistics on a print reference collection, but answering the question, “Is it being used?” is not usually a problem with electronic resources. Since e-books do not require shelf space and do not get worn out, the necessity of weeding is often overlooked. In “Weeding in a Digital Age,” Moroni recommends that e-books be treated the same as physical collections, with guidelines based on use, accuracy of information, and relevance to library patrons.9

It has always been important for libraries to avoid bloated, outdated reference collections, but given users’ preference for electronic access, the need has become even more pressing. In light of the trend toward re-purposing library space to accommodate shifting institutional priorities, libraries can no longer afford to dedicate valuable real estate and diminishing funds to a reference book collection that gathers dust due to lack of use. The experiences reported by Detmering and Douglas point out the benefits of reflecting on users’ information needs and how best to meet them, as well as aligning the library’s priorities with those of the institutions they serve.10^–11

Selection Tools

A variety of selection tools assist librarians in making decisions about what to add to their collections. For almost forty years, health sciences and hospital librarians depended heavily on the Brandon/​Hill Selected Lists (http://library.mssm.edu/​brandon-hill/​index.shtml) for guidance in choosing books and journals, with the “minimal core” titles serving as a particularly helpful list from which to make reference selections. That all changed when Dorothy Hill retired in 2004, and the lists that she and the late Alfred Brandon had created and offered as a free service were no longer being published. Doody Enterprises soon filled the vacuum with Doody’s Core Titles in the Health Sciences (DCT), produced annually and available for purchase. DCT lists are also made available as a service to subscribers of online book vendors such as YBP. DCT uses the expert opinion of health-care professionals and medical librarians to identify books and software that constitute the core body of literature for a health sciences library.12

Other selection aids available to health sciences librarians include reviews in library journals, reviews in medical and allied health journals, publisher and vendor notifications, approval plans, standing orders, and holdings lists of other libraries. Librarians rely most heavily on publisher/​vendor notifications and review sources to identify new collection materials.13 Doody’s Review Service is the most comprehensive source of expert reviews in health sciences disciplines, written by experts in more than 140 specialties and covering more than 130,000 books.14 Reviews in journals such as Medical Reference Services Quarterly, Journal of the Medical Library Association, and JAMA, as well as from online booksellers such as Amazon (http://amazon.com), help round out the selection process. Many book vendors now integrate reviews from sources such as “Doody’s Review Service,” Booklist, and New York Times Book Review so that selectors may easily find them at the point of purchase, alongside book descriptions.

The Collection Development Section of the Medical Library Association (http://colldev.mlanet.org/​index.html) provides a forum for communication and cooperation among health sciences librarians responsible for selection of library materials. MLA-CDS publishes an online newsletter and has an active e-mail discussion list. Its open access webpage has a “Resources for Librarians” section which points to vendors, subject-based resources, review sources, a methodology for comparing approval plans, and other useful information.

Evaluation Criteria for New Material

Criteria for evaluating new materials include the following, which can also be used for maintaining and weeding the reference collection:

When looking at specific reference tools, librarians use a combination of measures for evaluation, with a definite focus on the materials’ usefulness to their particular library’s collection and clientele. Because budgets are frequently limited, librarians often look for new tools that will fill the gaps in their collection.17

Additional Evaluation Criteria for Online Resources

Most librarians would agree that selection criteria for e-resources are the same as for print, with regard to the authoritativeness, scope, and appropriateness of the resources for the audience. The U.S. National Library of Medicine’s Collection Development Manual states, “When considering electronic resources for selection, the Library’s intent is to apply the same criteria for scope, depth of coverage, and authoritativeness as for publications in other formats.18 “Due to the nature of online resources and the enhanced functionality enabled by Web technology over print resources, evaluation of these resources presents several additional variables for consideration:

Not all of these criteria will apply to every online resource considered for purchase. A librarian might decide that for an online statistical resource, for example, mobile optimization and archival access are not as important as search features; whereas for an aggregated database of online medical reference books, the mobile interface is very important but linking out is less important since the content is already full-text.

Doing a trial is a common method to help evaluate digital resources before committing to a purchase. The most common trial period is 30 days; however, trials of 60 days or longer may be arranged with some vendors. Because online resources represent recurring costs, getting feedback about the usefulness and quality of the resource after a trial can be crucial. A popular method is to target relevant and specific users for feedback. The library can also put up a brief online questionnaire to be filled out after the user logs out from the resource on trial, as well as advertising the trial on the library webpage.

Print or Electronic? Choosing the Format

Studies comparing usage measures of print versus online versions of the same resources reveal that measurable online usage typically far surpasses that of print.19^–21 The difference would seem to make a clear argument for buying online over print. However, the decision is not always so straightforward for a multitude of reasons. Despite the benefits of digital versions of reference resources compared to the print—more frequent updates, full-text search capabilities, more convenient access—there are additional aspects that need to be considered:

Deciding between Formats

Librarians have plenty of anecdotal evidence that print reference resources are not used the way they were even as recently as five years ago. Our patrons rely heavily on online resources to answer their reference questions, and reference librarians do the same. The trends toward merged service desks combining circulation and reference assistance, and downsized reference collections, reflect the change in practice of how people get their information. However, a need still exists for selected resources in print and for others online, and librarians must consider each resource individually in order to make a format decision.

Print Selections

Factors that point a library to the print version of a reference resource include:

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Join