The summary table is publicly accessible (comment/read access); folks are welcome to share locally, if helpful.
The summary table is intended to be high-level (a snapshot), to give a quick, scannable overview.
All - please review the summary table. If you have feedback/comments (suggestions, edits, etc.), please send those to Anna and Daisy.
All - We should reflect on and consider the discussion questions - to bring responses/comments to that discussion meeting. Folks should also raises additional questions, if a perspective / aspect is missing.
3
ARL stats
Action items from last meeting:
Continue to Check numbers against last year’s submission and confirm submissions or investigate possible inaccuracies with Daisy
reach out to circulation contact for each campus and ask if circulation number should be included in UCOP report or handled locally in directions in guidance report for ARL
Volunteers for subteam to draft language explaining the differences in stats?
20
All
ARL numbers (overall)
Stats look good for folks; some edits/refinements last week for UCB. Otherwise, no further edits made.
Physical collection usage / statistics
For circulation, Daisy was able to re-run the ILS-based circulation data for physical materials with affiliates (e.g., Law, health sciences) and general. The affiliate data is applicable for UCB, UCLA, UCI and UCD (those who report affiliates).
Should the UCLs use this re-run data for ARL, or the original circulation data run in summer 2023 for FY 2022/23 stats?
Minimal difference, between summer 2023 circ report and re-run (april 2024) circ report for FY2022/23
Query based on loan status “active” and “complete” - so when we re-run the report, there is a slight chance that this status may have changed (resulting in the slight change in the stats, typically slightly lower).
Change from active to inactive - sometimes due to material being lost; there are a few other status change reasons reflected in the metadata.
ARL asks institutions to exclude reserves from physical circulation. The re-run data excludes reserves. (ACRL and IPEDS includes reserves.
ILL data (formerly schedule C)
Campuses with Affiliates – for ARL submission, some (UCB) submit total ILL and do not include by-affiliate subtotals; others include ILL for affiliates.
This reflects configuration for ILL Law, it appears; Davis and Irvine have Law-specific ILL units; for UCB, law ILL goes through the main library ILL.
LA similarly includes ILL for Health Sciences in their General stats (does not report by Affiliates). Irvine is recording ILL for health sciences; both UCLA and UCI are reporting physical initial circulations for health sciences.
How this is reported by applicable UCs, likely dependent on how ILL is locally organized/run; also a matter of value (is it worth reporting, locally, by affiliate?).
Do we want to change the ILL (Schedule C) template, such that it includes affiliate subtotals for those that report? (Could allow each campus with affiliates to determine whether to include affiliate subtotals for ILL stats).
Should Physical Collections Use - should we strike (hide) ILL from this table? And just rely on ILL/Schedule C?
Labelling - need to be clearer about what’s included / excluded. May not hide data but more clearly label it (e.g., ILL is as described within Alma/Ex Libris - but does not reflect VDX or CAIA).
In part, this reporting is understanding work / effort / what is possible through the SILS reporting; labelling to show what’s included / not. For physical usage - it’s all based on User Group. We think the by-user-group physical collection usage is under-reported; we also report with/through VDX, CAIA and other means, to pursue our goal of improved stats and reporting of work and usage.
Parking lot: Let’s be much clearer, regarding labels and footnotes, particularly in regards to physical collection usage.
Is Schedule C out of scope for us? Not entirely. We relied on our resource sharing colleagues to generate the data. But we can consider template changes - and work in partnership with our colleagues in resource sharing / ILL to ensure template changes are good.
Decision: There is no objection to using the re-run physical circulation/usage data for ARL, which includes affiliates for the applicable campuses. Differences between summer 2023 and April 2024 versions were minimal and reasonable / understandable to AASA-PT. This will mean a slight difference, between ACRL/IPEDS and ARL submissions for physical usage.
@Chan Li and @Ellen Augustiniak will draft a brief decision page, outlining why physical circulation was re-run for ARL and why that has resulted in slight change (total physical circ).
4
UCOP Stats Library Categories for Schedule E
Should we accept, apply and replace the one in UCL/UCOP Stats FY2022-2023?
20
All
5
Wrap up
Review actions and decisions
5
6
Parking Lot
Capture important topics for future discussion
Re-naming and adding further footnotes in the prototype detailed report, to help us better understand differences between NZ/ILS-based reporting and alternatives. (E.g., physical collection use, ILL).
Potential changes to the Schedule C template might be pursued, to reduce workload for ARL reporting (one template services all data reporting needs).
7
Total
x/x
The SILS mission is to transform library services and operations through innovation and collaboration. The future is shared!
Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu