Academic
A study reported in 1974 investigating the materials used by master’s and doctoral candidates completing theses after 1966 in public health at 5 universities (Yale; Harvard; University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, Berkeley; and California State University, North-ridge), involving 3,456 citations taken from 44 theses, showed thatthe most efficient journal collection did not keep all its journals for the same length of time. For example, the most efficient journal collection of 1,500 volumes to cover the materials cited in this study was based on 60 journal titles with backfiles ranging from 37 years (American Journal of Public Health) to 8 years (Journal of Experimental Medicine). This would cover 48% of the citations needed. (Source)
A 1977 study of biomedical journal use in the Lane Medical Library at Stanford University Medical Center during the month of November involving the bound volumes of 334 journal titles for a 10-year period (1967-76) showed thatthe higher use of newer volumes was not due to their containing more articles. For example, for the 10-year period of holdings there was an exponential decrease in use but only a linear decrease in shelf space occupied. Specifically, 24.35% of the journal use involved bound volumes 1 year old, while volumes 10 years old received only 3.12% of the total use; bound volumes 1 year old occupied 10.63% of the shelf space, while volumes 10 years old occupied 9.26% of the shelf space. (Source)
A 1977 study at the Music Library of the University of California, Berkeley, to investigate weeding criteria (based on a sample of 116 circulated volumes and a sample of 515 volumes from the shelf) showed that, to satisfy the needs of 97% of the borrowers over a year’s time by weeding by publication date alone, the library would have to keep on the shelves all books published since “about 1900.” (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatweeding on the basis of language alone was not a feasible idea. For example, during the period 1950-77, while 84.8% of the English-language books in the sample circulated, 79.3% of the French-language books and 71.8% of the German-language books circulated as well. Overall, during the 1950-77 period, 45.6% of the materials circulated were non-English language materials. (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatweeding on the basis of circulation activity indistinct subject areas was the most feasible idea. For example, the number of books that had never been charged out ranged from 5.6% of the books in “performance practice” to 35.0% of the books in “history.” (Source)
A survey reported in 1981 of 11 TALON resource libraries [100% response rate] concerning weeding policies showed that3 libraries had written policies for discarding books, 4 had informal (i.e., nonwritten) procedures, and 4 did not weed materials and hence had no need for policies. Further, of the 7 respondents who did weed materials, the 2 most common practices were discarding multiple copies (4 respondents) and keeping only the latest edition of specified types of materials (4 respondents). (Source)
Public
A study reported in 1979 at the Washington State Library, based on 5 days’ circulation information (1,878 items) and a shelflist sample of 159 titles concerning the issue of selecting materials for remote storage, showed that:
90% of the user needs for monographs could be satisfied with monographs that had circulated within the past 35 months (these constituted 50% of the collection);
95% of the user needs for monographs could be satisfied with monographs that had circulated within the past 58 months (these constituted 60% of the collection);
and 99% of the user needs for monographs could be satisfied with monographs that had circulated within the past 131 months (these constituted 85% of the collection).
Data accurate to ±1.55 months at the .99 confidence level. (Source)
Special
A 1964 study at the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (Bedford, Massachusetts) over a 6-month period, involving use of 4,579 articles from 552 journal titles by 382 patrons, showed thateven low-use journals were an important part of the collection for a substantial number of patrons. Specifically, while 281 (51%) titles had only 1 patron using them during this period and accounted for only 598 (13%) of the total articles requested, this group of titles was nevertheless requested by 144 (38% of the total) different patrons. (Source)
A study reported in 1974 investigating the materials used by master’s and doctoral candidates completing theses after 1966 in public health at 5 universities (Yale; Harvard; University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, Berkeley; and California State University, North-ridge), involving 3,456 citations taken from 44 theses, showed thatthe most efficient journal collection did not keep all its journals for the same length of time. For example, the most efficient journal collection of 1,500 volumes to cover the materials cited in this study was based on 60 journal titles with backfiles ranging from 37 years (American Journal of Public Health) to 8 years (Journal of Experimental Medicine). This would cover 48% of the citations needed. (Source)
A 1977 study of biomedical journal use in the Lane Medical Library at Stanford University Medical Center during the month of November, involving the bound volumes of 334 journal titles for a 10-year period (1967-76) showed thatthe higher use of newer volumes was not due to their containing more articles. For example, for the 10-year period of holdings there was an exponential decrease in use but only a linear decrease in shelf space occupied. Specifically, 24.35% of the journal use involved bound volumes 1 year old, while volumes 10 years old received only 3.12% of the total use; bound volumes 1 year old occupied 10.63% of the shelf space, while volumes 10 years old occupied 9.26% of the shelf space. (Source)
A 1977 study at the Treadwell Library of the Massachusetts General Hospital comparing raw-use ranking of journal use (frequency of use per title) with density-of-use ranking (raw-use frequency/linear shelf space occupied by a title), involving 647 titles studied over a year’s time, showed thatdensity-of-use ranking of periodicals had substantial advantages over raw-use ranking in terms of using shelf space most efficiently. Specifically, although 240 titles were required to provide 80% of the periodical use in the density-of-use ranking (compared to 136 titles in the raw-use ranking), the amount of shelf space required to hold the 240 titles was less than the amount required to hold the 136 titles. Conversely, when shelf space was held constant (2 different points were examined) the higher number of titles allowed under the density-of-use ranking provided greater user satisfaction (the smaller number of raw-use titles provided 19% less potential uses). (Source)
A 1977 study at the Music Library of the University of California, Berkeley, to investigate weeding criteria (based on a sample of 116 circulated volumes and a sample of 515 volumes from the shelf) showed that, to satisfy the needs of 97% of the borrowers over a year’s time by weeding by publication date alone, the library would have to keep on the shelves all books published since “about 1900.” (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatweeding on the basis of language alone was not a feasible idea. For example, during the period 1950-77, while 84.8% of the English-language books in the sample circulated, 79.3% of the French-language books and 71.8% of the German-language books circulated as well. Overall, during the 1950-77 period, 45.6% of the materials circulated were non-English language materials. (Source)
Ibid…. showed thatweeding on the basis of circulation activity indistinct subject areas was the most feasible idea. For example, the number of books that had never been charged out ranged from 5.6% of the books in “performance practice” to 35.0% of the books in “history.” (Source)
A survey reported in 1981 of 11 TALON resource libraries [100% response rate] concerning weeding policies showed that3 libraries had written policies for discarding books, 4 had informal (i.e., nonwritten) procedures, and 4 did not weed materials and hence had no need for policies. Further, of the 7 respondents who did weed materials, the 2 most common practices were discarding multiple copies (4 respondents) and keeping only the latest edition of specified types of materials (4 respondents). (Source)
