New prospects for the cooperative preservation of print materials

Cooperative Efforts of Libraries

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 151-158

  Reilly, Bernard F ^a  

^a Center for Research Libraries   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic libraries; Center for research libraries; Cooperative collection development; Cooperative preservation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925833239     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315863443     Document Type: Chapter

References (7)

1. Stephen G. Nichols and Abby Smith, The Evidence in Hand: The Report of the Task Force on the Artifact in Library Collections (Washington. DC: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2001) page 1. (The publication is also available on line at http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub103/pub103.pdf.)
2. “CRL Collections Assessment Task Force Report,” Focus XXI, 2, December 2001-January 2002, and online at http://wwwcrI.uchicago.edu/info/focus/Focus.htm.
3. The Evidence in Hand, op. cit., page vii.
4. “The Center should begin now to provide leadership for the creation of a national program for the coordination of the future archiving of traditional materials. In some cases, this may mean that the Center itself will take responsibility for housing some materials in some specific subject areas, but in many cases it will be a matter of the Center assuming responsibility for coordinating retention and discard in member libraries. Such a coordinated service may admittedly not be needed for some time-but the time will eventually arrive when every paper collection is a special collection, a kind of CRL unto itself, and leadership is needed now to plan for the systematic management of this transition.” “CRL Collections Assessment Task Force Report,” op. cit.
5. For a very readable summary of recent transformational thinking in the national energy policy field, see Steve Silberman, “The Energy Web.” Wired. July 2001. pp. 115-127.
6. Another funding model would be the fee-for-ILL service, whereby revenue would be generated from fees charged by the holding library for loan of materials to other libraries. The advantage of this model is in the direct correlation between use (and hence service) of materials and compensation to the service provider. The disadvantage here is that fewer funds would be available to preserve infrequently used materials. This market-driven approach might then compromise the ability of the community to preserve the most valuable but less frequently used materials.
7. Book Repository: “Out of Sight, Not Out of Mind.” US I Newspaper, June 5,2002, and on-line at Princeton Info.Com http://www.princetoninfo.com/200206/20605c01.html.