OhioLINK Collection Analysis Project OCLC Members Council 21 October 2008 Preliminary Analysis Ed O’Neill, OCLC Research With support and contributions from: Julia A. Gammon, University of Akron Anne T. Gilliland, Ohio State University (Formerly OhioLINK)
48
Embed
OhioLINK Collection Analysis Project OCLC Members Council 21 October 2008 Preliminary Analysis Ed ONeill, OCLC Research With support and contributions.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
depositories are treated as top (first) level units
Independent administrative units (if present) within
the campus
Separate libraries (if present) within an administrative
unit
Distinct collections with unique location codes
Multi Level StructureMulti Level Structure
Third level units: Distinct library units.
Location codes : The codes used within OhioLINK to identify to location of the individual items. Over 4,200 different location codes were found; one institution alone used 556 different codes)
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 Structure for AkronThree Level Structure for Akron
Location Codes MappingLocation Codes Mapping
Caution!Caution!
The project is still “in
progress” and the data
analysis is incomplete
Results are preliminary;
revisions and corrections
will occur
General Information General Information
LanguagesLanguages
Additional columns include statistics for German, French,
The subject analysis included 24 primary subjects; a more detailed subject analysis with approximately 500 subject areas will included in the final analysis
AgeAge
Statistics on 20 different age groups are provided
Collective Collection: What Do We Have?Collective Collection: What Do We Have?
How many items do we have?
What languages do we have?
How old are they?
How many are unique?
In what subjects?
How many copies do we need?
Most HeldMost Held
Libraries: 68
Copies: 109
Circulations: 99
Most CopiesMost Copies
Libraries: 12
Copies: 9,542
Circulations: 9
The National union catalog, pre-1956 imprints
Most CirculatedMost Circulated
Libraries: 6
Copies: 92
Circulations: 6,023
Holdings vs. Active CollectionHoldings vs. Active Collection
Subject DistributionSubject Distribution
Circulation by SubjectCirculation by Subject
Language DistributionLanguage Distribution
24,386,814
Circulation of Non-English MaterialsCirculation of Non-English Materials
Average per Item
Circulation
Circ. Rate by Institution TypeCirc. Rate by Institution Type
ARL Univ. Colleges CC/Branches
Cir
cula
tio
n
1.7 2.3 3.6 2.3
Usage DistributionUsage Distribution
% of Books
% o
f C
ircul
atio
n
12.86%
(788,483)
Annual Collection GrowthAnnual Collection Growth
Publication Date
No
. of M
ani
fest
atio
ns
Ad
ded
Max 114,375 (2000)
Duplication RateDuplication Rate
Publication Date
Ave
rag
e N
o. o
f C
op
ies
4.5
Duplication by SubjectDuplication by Subject
Conclusions?Conclusions?
Only first phase of data analysis complete
Additional and more reliable statistics will be available after the next phase
Preliminary results:
Duplication rates are steady
The 80/20 rule may be closer to 80/10
Limited use of non-English materials
Books are still being used in the Sciences
Circulations rates vary greatly by subject, institution