| 2 | ACRL data | Tables A (volume count statistics) and B (title count statistics) of the Prototype are updated with ACRL requirements (Thanks to Daisy) CDL is still exploring how to exclude the applicable eBook collections, where UC does not own a copy (to exclude HathiTrust, Center for Research Libraries, Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR) Q for all: how those exclusions are made last year at campuses
Review the resources types that are not currently mapped into ACRL categories For UC Berkeley, please visit Guidance Report 20240117-UCB only.xlsx. For all other campuses, please visit Guidance Report 20240117-UCD, UCI, UCLA, UCM, UCR, UCSD, UCSF, UCSB, UCSC.xlsx.
Digital database count: two options Exclude equipment Daisy’s note: “As there was also equipment found within the guidance reports, would you like to exclude equipment as well? If so, we can exclude those identified in the guidance report from the Prototype manually (but automatically by formula, especially by updating Column H on the TOC page of our Prototype), and we will make sure we work on excluding them in our next fiscal years’ runs in Alma Analytics.”
DDA:
| 40min | Chan/All | eBook exclusions; Daisy has started to look at how to implement the ACRL requested exclusions at the Network Level. At an initial glance, there isn’t a clear path to a uniform exclusions (she started by looking at Hathi). DN seeks campus feedback on how each campus made these exclusions last year (Hathi, and the other exclusions noted in the column to the left). UCB: These exclusions were potentially not made last year. UCSD: Don’t have the history on how exclusions were made previously. Consensus is that the eBook stat used for UCL/UCOP annual stats was used. UCR: Also re-used UCL/UCOP data; likely didn’t include exclusions. UCM: Used UCOP/UCL eBooks count (no exclusion). UCLA: Also used UCOP/UCL stat as there wasn’t a great deal of HathiTrust titles to exclude at that point.
Unclear the extent to which collections like Hathi are impacting stats; could be activated in Primo by not loaded.
Review of ACRL data summary Database analysis: Generated by DN just to see how database type/category is reflected in Alma. Totals are too low, particularly at the campus level. Highlights issue of “what is a database”. No change to last week’s decision. Each campus should still generate their campus Database stat; but everyone should record what/how they are counting databases – to supported AASA-PT exploration around the extent to which this stat can be generated from the NZ next time.
Guidance report: For some, the numbers for these categories are so low - potentially not a high priority to review right now. The guidance report and each campus' analysis - this may inform clean-up and/or how we want to run UCL/UCOP annual stats (e.g., re-binning equipment; how we treat undefined, etc.).
Equipment DDA | Decision: Campuses that submitted self-reported (non-ILS) data – e.g., for microforms, affiliate counts -- those campuses likely want those data included in ACRL counts, for the applicable categories. (Definite yes for UCLA and UCB; UCSD confirming.) (Acknowledgement that self-reported data may be holdings level, instead of title - but that’s ok.) Decision: Hold discussion/review of equipment and potential re-binning or exclusions for next round of stats reporting (23/24). | Action: ALL - consult locally around how exclusions were handled last year, including for DDA. Report back. Action: ALL - for guidance report, each campus will look at their campus-specific physical and electronic tabs and determine the extent to which they want to dive into these categories now for clean-up/re-binning. These data should be considered for potential modifications to the UCL/UCOP reporting summer 2024. If there is any action to take (for DN) in the ACRL stats, campuses should annotate/comment the google sheet (tagging Daisy). |