GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals and objectives of this project are:
To preserve and improve access to a critical mass of the most significant publications documenting the history of agriculture and rural life in a diverse cross-section of states.
· To identify systematically
the relevant publishing in each state, raising our preservation beyond
the holdings of any given library by scrutinizing the total universe of
publishing within the subject scope;
· To involve scholars and librarians in evaluating this universe of publishing, ranking individual titles to set preservation priorities;
· To microfilm the top 25% of the brittle titles in each state ranked as most important for humanities research, about 1,987 volumes;
· To preserve and catalog target materials.
To continue the momentum of the National Preservation Program for Agricultural Literature by having the states fulfill their responsibility for preserving state and local publications.
· To replicate and adapt
through the experience of fifteen states the Cornell model for preservation
of state and local level literature, and to publish an article on the project
and its methods;
· To create a state-centered bibliographic database of the titles, including both preserved and unpreserved titles, with rankings, to guide any future preservation work on the balance of the universe;
· To stimulate other coordinated projects to meet the goals of the National Preservation Program for Agricultural Literature.
To provide additional institutions
with substantive experience in the practice of systematic, discipline-based
preservation; and to advance the concept of discipline-based, cooperative
· To continue to adapt and extend this model for cooperative preservation to a discipline-based approach;
· To ensure that selection, preservation, and access standards for quality and productivity are maintained across the project through proper administration, training, and coordination;
· To address methodological problems in the evolving disciplinary approach to cooperative preservation, including bibliographical analysis issues and methods of interlibrary cooperation.
4.2 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
The project will be implemented and administered through the auspices of the Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University. Mary Ochs, Head, Collection Development and Preservation, will serve as Project Director, as she has in Phase III, and will work closely with the five project libraries and their designated institutional Project Managers or Co-Managers. The USAIN Preservation Committee will serve as advisor to the project. [See Appendix A for the vitas of the principal project staff.]
The administration, coordination, and management plan is based on a successful model that has been well-established and tested through other cooperative preservation and access projects such as those of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (Big-Ten University libraries and the University of Chicago), and projects administered by the Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET). The value of this particular project is that it will enable institutions to be linked in a discipline-based preservation and access project for the benefit of humanities scholars, while also insuring that preservation and access standards for quality and productivity are maintained throughout the project.
During Phase I, the cooperative preservation model was successfully adapted to a cooperative project incorporating a discipline-based selection model and using a review panel to rank materials according to their importance as resources for humanities studies. Experience gained during Phases I, II, and III is being shared during meetings held in conjunction with the annual meetings of USAIN or the American Library Association. This dialog improves the methodology of the present program to preserve the history of agriculture and rural life. Based on the experience in Phases I, II, and III, the model is a useful one, helping libraries address the additional set of preservation issues faced in identifying and preserving high priority materials within the context of a discipline-based approach to preservation.
Cornell University has long been a leader in the land-grant community and in the agricultural sciences worldwide. The Albert R. Mann Library is a major land-grant library with a proven record of leadership in the trends and issues in agricultural information. Cornell’s commitment to preserving the literature of the agricultural sciences is an outgrowth of its role as a world center for agricultural sciences research. This commitment to excellence and innovation in agricultural information services, and to leadership in preservation, is demonstrated in Cornell’s initiative in the development of a National Preservation Program for Agricultural Literature; in identifying the core literature, contemporary and historical, of the agricultural sciences; in preserving the core historical literature; and in developing a methodology for the preservation of state and local literature.
Sam Demas, an employee until June 1998 of the Albert R. Mann Library, organized the 1991 USAIN preconference program in which the idea of a national preservation program was developed and an outline and plan of action emerged. Wallace C. Olsen’s work in identifying the core literature and Mann’s work to preserve the core historical literature has contributed immensely to the USAIN preservation program and to stimulating continued action on projects to implement the program. Mary Ochs, Head of Collection Development and Preservation at Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University, will serve as Project Director. Ms. Ochs was Deputy Director of Mann Library’s The Essential Electronic Agricultural Library (TEEAL) project with responsibility for the design of the user interface, creation of the database, and development of the online and written documentation. Her current job covers all collection coordination and development, and planning and implementation of conservation and preservation activities for Mann’s collections. See Appendix A for biographical details. Cornell is committed to the National Preservation Program for Agricultural Literature. Albert R. Mann Library views the NEH-funded project as a continuing step forward in the evolution of a cooperative, discipline-based preservation program.
As Project Director, Mary Ochs
will oversee the continued implementation of the project. She will
be responsible for establishing standards for the project, maintaining
contact with NEH staff and Cornell’s Office of Sponsored Programs, and
administering project funds. She will assure progress toward project
goals, represent the project in national forums, and direct the work of
the Deputy Project Director, Joy Paulson.
4.2.1 Project Coordination
Mary Ochs will coordinate the work of the participating libraries that are preparing bibliographies, serve as a resource person, and maintain regular contact with the institutional project managers to resolve problems and issues and to ensure that work proceeds in a timely manner. She will oversee the development of quarterly production goals for each project, monitor progress towards meeting the goals, recommend approval of payments to participants, and draft quarterly progress reports to send to NEH for review and approval.
Joy Paulson, Preservation Librarian,
Mann Library, will serve as the Deputy Project Director. She will
coordinate the microfilming work of participating libraries, serve as a
resource person, and maintain regular contact to resolve problems and issues
and to ensure that the work proceeds in a timely manner. She will
oversee the development of quarterly production goals for each library
participating in the preservation portion of the project, monitor progress
towards meeting the goals, and draft quarterly progress reports for NEH
to review and approve. She will assist the Project Director in maintaining
contact with all institutional project managers and NEH.
4.2.2 Project Management
Each of the five participating institutions has appointed an institutional Project Manager or Project Co-managers who will be responsible for the implementation of their library’s and state’s participation in this project. Project managers will attend the two project meetings, implement the plan of work, supervise project staff, establish local work flows, oversee contracts with vendors, assure that all procedures and products meet established guidelines and standards, verify that work has been completed, and submit quarterly reports to the Project Director.
During Phase IV, those participating states and libraries that identified the universe of materials and selected the most important for preservation (Michigan and North Carolina) will complete their work by microfilming in Phase IV. In addition, Georgia, Illinois, and Ohio will identify the universe of materials and -- with the assistance of a scholarly review panel in each state -- will select the most important materials for preservation. Participating institutions and libraries and their Project Managers are listed here. Section 5 provides a complete list of project staff and Project Managers.
Georgia: University of
Anne Hurst, Agricultural and Consumer Sciences Bibliographer and Coordinator of the Agricultural Research Facility
Illinois: University of
Sharon Clark, Newspaper Librarian and Associate Professor of Library Administration
Robert Pat Allen, Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Science (ACES) Librarian
Michigan: Michigan State
Jeanne Drewes, Assistant Director for Access and Preservation
Ohio: Ohio State
Constance Britton, Librarian at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
Susan Logan, Head of the Ohio State University Libraries’ Agriculture Library
North Carolina: North Carolina
Scott Devine, Preservation Librarian
4.2.3 Project Financial Administration
The Project Director will review progress as outlined in the following project timetable to ensure that the project is conducted in a timely manner and that project goals are met for quality and productivity. She will work with the institutional Project Managers to establish institutional benchmarks during the first six months. The Deputy Project Director will work with the institutional Project Managers to develop benchmarks for the preservation stage of the project for each participating library after the completion of the bibliographic analysis and selection stage and will be based on the number of volumes to be preserved and titles cataloged.
All costs attendant to the identification, selection, and preservation of the target materials are included in the project budget for each participating institution in Section 5, Preservation Profiles and Project Staff. The summary budget in Section 4.2.4 (page 22) provides a Project Overview, for each participant and for the project as a whole, including the total number of titles and volumes to be identified and preserved, the per-volume reimbursed cost, and the total project cost. See Appendix E for detailed project budgets for each participant. Also see Section 7, Budget Narrative, for more budget detail.
According to a formal Memorandum of Agreement, participating libraries that are identifying and selecting only (Georgia, Illinois, and Ohio) will be paid 50% of the total project cost in advance, and 50% upon completion of the ranked bibliography. Participating libraries that are preserving materials selected in Phase III (Michigan and North Carolina) will be reimbursed according to their cost-per-volume rate on a quarterly basis up to the total project cost submitted by each participant. A quarterly report from the institutional Project Manager to the Project Director (certifying the number of volumes preserved and titles cataloged) will be required with a formal billing.
Because reimbursement will be based on work completed, those participating institutions preserving materials in Phase IV will be required to spend institutional funds up front in the first stages of the project to complete bibliographic work and get production started.
As project sponsor, Cornell has received from each participating institution letters of intent to collaborate in this project. These letters, included as Appendix E, indicate institutional commitment to participate and to waive indirect cost recovery, considering it as a cost share contribution. Indirect cost recovery rates are shown.
Cornell University will be reimbursed
for the partial costs of administering and coordinating the project, including
at ten percent effort, salary for the Project Director, at fifteen percent
effort, salary for the Deputy Project Director, and at ten percent effort,
salary for the Projects Collections Assistant; travel to the project meetings
by the Project Director and Deputy Project Director; expenses for telecommunications
and postage associated with coordinating the work of the participating
institutions; and indirect costs at Cornell’s negotiated rate for non-research
projects. Cornell will contribute the fringe benefits for each of
the three staff members working on the project.
4.2.4 Project Timetable
The project will extend for two years beginning July 1, 2002, and ending June 30, 2004.
July - September 2002
Project Managers’ start-up meeting, at ALA annual conference
Training in bibliographic phase of the project
Training for scholarly evaluation phase of the project
Quality control workshop for libraries filming in Phase IV
Seek initial funds
Hiring and training of institutional staff
Begin searching and compilation
Identification of resources for compiling the bibliography
Set filming contracts for continuing libraries
October - December 2002
Compilation of the bibliographies for each state
Review of bibliography scope documents from each state
Start-up of the preservation stage of the project
Benchmark approx. 15% of volumes completed by continuing libraries
Half-year reports due
January - March 2003
Scholarly review and ranking of the bibliographies
Review of ranked bibliographies
Continuation of preservation stage by continuing libraries
Complete filming of 30% of project volumes
April - June 2003
Preservation and quality assurance completed for 40% of project volumes by continuing libraries
Start preservation phase for new libraries; contract for filming
Annual reports due
July - September 2003
Project Managers’ meeting at ALA annual conference
Review progress and compare strategies
Quality assurance completed for 60% of project volumes filmed, continuing libraries 25% of project volumes for new libraries
Quarterly reports due
October - December 2003
Preservation and quality assurance complete for 80% of volumes, continuing libraries
50% of project volumes of new libraries
Completion of any needed refilming, continuing libraries
January - March 2004
Preservation and quality assurance completed for 100% of volumes, continuing libraries
Preservation and quality assurance completed for 75% of project volumes, new libraries
April - June 2004
Preservation and quality assurance completed for 100% of volumes, including refilming by new libraries
Wrap-up of project activities
Notification of scholarly journals and societies
Creation of a state database of titles preserved and yet to be preserved, with rankings
Completion of institutional and project final reports
4. 3 BIBLIOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Over the last decade, research libraries and archives, with funding assistance from federal and private sources, have mounted an impressive national effort to preserve our endangered intellectual heritage. As the program has evolved, so have the strategies for defining and selecting materials for preservation. A number of projects have employed the “great collections” model introduced by the Research Libraries Group, whereby materials on a particular subject are preserved from the great collection of an individual library. The use of the national bibliographic databases has allowed more than one great collection library to work in a subject area without duplication of effort. However, this approach to selection for preservation does not meet the need of scholars for the systematic preservation of the “core literature” of a discipline. Nor does it meet the national program’s need to be selective and cost-effective.
The preservation problem in research libraries is estimated to include over twelve million unique titles requiring preservation. When Congress increased funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1988, the national program was targeted to preserve a selected three million volumes over a twenty-year period. Thus, at the same time that Congress and research libraries acknowledged the urgency of the preservation problem, they also recognized that it would be impossible, given financial realities, to preserve everything. While the great collections approach is valuable, when considered in the context of limited funding it cannot meet the goal of developing a coordinated and focused strategy to preserve the highest priority literature of individual disciplines.
The limitations of funding from both federal and local sources demand that the national program be highly selective. Some preservation projects, targeting the needs of scholars, have employed a partnership strategy between scholars and librarians to analyze the literature and designate priorities. Such a strategy can be particularly effective when applied to a specific discipline such as the history of agriculture and rural life.
In addition, to further advance the goals of coordination, cost-effectiveness, and selectivity, a powerful strategy has emerged whereby materials are designated for preservation based on a comprehensive national plan for the preservation of the literature of a discipline. Such a plan defines and analyzes the literature of an academic or research discipline, sets priorities for preservation, identifies the major players, and organizes projects around logical topics or genres. Programs are underway in such diverse disciplines as theology, biomedicine, performing arts, anthropology, geology, architecture, art history, and agriculture. Through the experience of these programs national preservation planning, discipline by discipline, is emerging as a rational and cost-efficient model. The value of this model lies not only in its cost-effectiveness, since there will never be enough resources to preserve all materials, but also in its involvement of scholars in the decision process. The ranking of literature in terms of preservation priorities provides the basis for incremental projects.
This project employs the model
of a discipline-based preservation project and continues the work of Phases
I, II, and III. Its purpose is to preserve additional materials and
improve access to them, thus approaching a critical mass of the most significant
publications documenting the history of U.S. agriculture and rural life
between 1820 and 1945 from a diverse cross-section of states. This
cooperative project will be conducted with five land-grant university libraries
and state partners. They will use the proven methodology for bibliographic
analysis and evaluation developed and implemented at Cornell University,
in cooperation with the New York State Library, to preserve New York State’s
agriculture and rural life literature, and applied
successfully. (See Appendix C for an article describing this methodology).
This methodology has been tested and refined in Phases I, II, and III. At the second Project Managers Meeting in San Francisco (in June 1997) we took stock of what was learned through the experience of eight states in compiling their bibliographies and having them reviewed by scholars. Based on similar discussions with Phase II participants, their quarterly reports, and a meeting in June 1998, we know that the methodology has been successfully adapted to the needs of land-grant institutions. We have a growing body of librarians experienced in this methodology of selection for preservation.
The plan of work is organized so that libraries first conduct a systematic bibliographic analysis and evaluation of the materials, with priorities for preservation determined by a team of scholars and librarians. This stage of the project includes the following steps:
· Defining the subject
and format scope of the literature
· Compiling a bibliography of the universe of publications within that scope
· Conducting scholarly evaluation of the bibliography with ranking of citations
· Setting preservation priorities for the body of literature
Each state plans to preserve the top-ranked 25% of titles so identified. At the conclusion of the project, ranked lists of titles that were not preserved in the project (i.e., the balance of the universe of publishing on the subject) are included in a state-maintained accessible database. Also included are lists of titles preserved prior to or parallel with the project by commercial filmers or libraries. These lists will provide guidance on preservation priorities for future efforts to preserve a greater share of the universe of the relevant publishing in any of the states.
This approach focuses limited preservation funds on the most important materials first, provides a method of measuring overall progress in preserving the published record of a discipline, and leaves for posterity a record of what has been preserved and what hasn’t.
Two project meetings will be
held to provide training and direction in bibliographic analysis, scholarly
evaluation, and quality assurance, and to develop consensus about the utility
and methodology of the discipline-based approach to preservation and access
4.3.1 Defining the Scope of the Literature
For the purpose of developing an estimate of the materials to be preserved, each state estimated the universe of publications that constitute the published historical record of agriculture and its fundamental relationship to the state’s landscape, natural resources, rural society, and economy between 1820-1945. Earlier imprints were excluded from consideration as nearly all are included in the Evans and the Shaw and Shoemaker bibliographies and because as part of the national plan, the National Agriculture Library has assumed preservation responsibility for early imprints. Later imprints were considered out-of-scope at this time. Land grant and experiment station publications previously filmed as part of the NAL-sponsored cooperative microfilming project are excluded from this project.
The definition of rural society that will be covered by the project can be characterized by Dr. Albert R. Mann’s definition: “the study of associated or group activities of the people who live in the country viewed from the standpoint of the effect of these activities on the character of the farm people themselves.” Also included is the effect of outside influences (e.g., advertising, technology, war, immigration) on the activities and character of rural people and communities. Broad subject areas include the following:
Rural society: family farming; the farm home and family; forestry and its industries; rural communities; standards of living in rural communities; rural organizations (agricultural societies, Grange, Farm and Home bureau, 4-H, church and improvement societies); rural political organizations and movements; farm demographics; rural communications and radio programming; centralization/consolidation of schools; nature study movement; country life movement; rural play and recreation activities; county and local fairs; cooperative extension services; rural people’s attitudes and opinions; rural leadership; selected mail order catalogs of interest to farm families; women in farm life and rural communities; immigrants and immigrant populations in rural societies; employment of migrant workers; Rural Free Delivery; automobiles and rural life; rural architecture; rural health and medical care; rural social services, welfare, and social security; rural art; rural water supply and waste water treatment; rural land use and planning.
Rural economy: agricultural and forestry economics; farm organization and management; production economics; food distribution; state food supply; statistical data; agricultural prices; marketing of agricultural and forestry products; state agricultural and food policies; cooperatives; agricultural finance; land economics and land use; land tenure; marketing of agricultural products; rural economy other than farm economy; food exports.
farming, food and nonfood agricultural and forestry products; major, minor,
and experimental crops; agronomic techniques, including plant breeding;
animal science; forestry; crop insects and diseases and their control;
food science; agricultural engineering (farm equipment, farm structures,
agricultural technology); rural transportation; natural resources pertaining
to agriculture (soils, water, meteorology) and their conservation.
4.3.2 Compilation of the Bibliography for each State
During this stage of the project, participating libraries will systematically identify the universe of publications on agriculture and rural life in their respective states. The object is to identify the state and local literature in total -- not just the titles held in each of the library’s collections. Therefore, depending on the state, the lead library will seek the cooperation of one or more other libraries, such as the state library, state historical society library, other research libraries, the state’s historically black land-grant university, and forestry schools in order to identify the universe of relevant materials.
Institutional project managers have received training on the bibliographic process from Sam Demas and Wallace C. Olsen in the first two phases and from Wallace C. Olsen and Mary Ochs in Phase III. Instruction and consultation on developing scope statements and the compilation of the bibliographies will continue as an integral part of Phase IV.
Because the program is national in scope, the participants will come to final agreement at their first meeting about those materials to be included and excluded from consideration based on subject and topic, as well as considerations of format, date, provenance, and the likelihood of coverage in other preservation projects. The project will exclude, for example, materials such as reprints, almanacs, daily newspapers, and state legislative documents. In the final analysis, each state will be responsible for identifying its most important material relevant to the history of agriculture and rural life; therefore, some differences in scope and subject matter will result in consultation with Program Director.
Also at the start-up meeting, the participants will discuss the use of a database management program for compiling and manipulating the bibliographies. The use of a database management program designed to handle bibliographic references can facilitate downloading records from online systems, and allow merging, sorting, and duplicate detection of records.
Following the start-up meeting,
the participants will begin by:
1) Identifying the sources they will use for compiling the bibliography; and
2) Listing the subject headings to be used based on modifications for their states
By the end of the first three months of the project, they will also have hired or assigned staff and begun the searching and compilation process so that questions about compilation can be fruitfully addressed at this early stage. Libraries will generally employ a team consisting of a librarian and a support staff person to compile the bibliography and prepare it for scholarly evaluation. The amount of time devoted to this will vary from state to state, but typically it will involve a half-time librarian and half-time support staff person for 3 - 5 months, depending on the size of the universe of materials. These personnel costs are included in the project budget for each participant.
Three months into the project, the Project Director will review the products developed in each state and provide additional guidance. Participants will be provided with materials developed for the scholarly evaluation stage of the project. In addition, questions about the preservation stage of the project will be addressed. Participants will be asked to attend a filming quality assurance workshop at the beginning of the project. [See Section 4.4.4 Microfilming and Quality Assurance below.]
With the scope of each state
bibliography determined, project participants will compile the bibliographies,
a process that will take approximately 2 - 4 months and will involve an
extensive review of both print and electronic sources. Participants
will work from the list of subject headings derived from the original New
York State project and Phase I, but customized to reflect their state’s
agricultural history. Selected subject headings and date parameters
will be searched in each library’s online catalog as well as the databases
of other libraries in the state and, if appropriate, in national bibliographic
databases. Lists generated from online sources will be supplemented
with citations from a wide variety of printed sources, including scholarly
bibliographies, dictionary catalogs, repository shelf-lists, source bibliographies
appended to books, theses, dissertations, and esoteric bibliographies.
4.3.3 Scholarly Evaluation and Ranking
Each library will engage a scholarly review panel of three to four individuals to review and rank the titles in the bibliography for preservation priority according to the rating scheme described below. Reviewers were selected for their knowledge of agriculture and/or state history and chosen to reflect different backgrounds and points of view. Each reviewer will be paid an honorarium ($500 per person; costs are included in the cost for each state) for this consulting service and asked to deliver the completed product within six weeks. Based on Phases I, II, and III experiences, each reviewer will spend approximately eight hours reviewing the list, usually over a period of two or three weeks.
Prior to distributing the bibliography, a library may host a meeting for the reviewers to discuss the project as a whole, the scope of the bibliography and the compilation process, and the rating scheme and scholarly review process. This meeting will help insure that reviewers are applying the rating scheme in a similar manner and that questions are addressed up front. Directions and explanations will also go with each list for review.
Monograph citations are best separated into subject categories to help structure the review process and make it easier for the reviewers to consider each title within the context of the subject matter and the time of publication. Likewise, serial titles will be arranged in categories depending upon the type of publication (e.g., serials about state agriculture, land-grant university publications, etc.). Reviewers will also be notified about titles that have already been acceptably preserved.
Reviewers will be asked to determine the relative importance of each title for historical research in the humanities compared to other titles in the lists according to the following scheme:
First Priority: Very important historical title, of critical importance to preserve.
Second Priority: Important title definitely worth preserving, funds permitting.
Third Priority: Worth preserving at some time, but of a lower priority.
Fourth Priority: Not worth preserving.
In addition to the scholarly reviewers, the institutional project managers, or another appropriate person in the institution, will also evaluate the list from the point of view of an agriculture bibliographer. A review by a practicing librarian will contribute a broad perspective on how the materials are used by students and scholars in many disciplines and a sense of the relative scarcity of the publications.
Following the rating process,
the results for each title will be averaged and ranges assigned in order
to sort the titles into logical and manageable priority groups. For
example, in New York, titles that fell into the 1.0 - 1.5 range became
first priority titles; titles that fell into the 1.6 - 2.0 range were ranked
second priority for the project. The experience of the original New
York State project and Phases I, II, and III showed remarkable similarity
in the way historians viewed the literature. A random sampling of
the ratings showed that the four reviewers rated each title either the
same or one rating apart about 90% of the time.
4.3.4 Priority Selection for Preservation
Setting preservation priorities
by the use of a rated bibliography is more time-consuming than the
more typical model for a preservation project that selects deteriorated materials within a subject and time period from the shelves of a library. The premise of this proposal is that a thorough bibliographic and scholarly evaluation project can objectively and authoritatively set preservation priorities for a discipline, thus setting the stage for the conduct of a systematic preservation program. Such a methodology allows individual projects to be undertaken at cooperating institutions at different times, when funding is available and without losing momentum. Most importantly, use of a rated bibliography as a selection tool for preservation ensures that the most important materials in a discipline will be preserved first. Given the realities of limited funding for preservation, this more time-consuming approach to selection probably is the most effective and appropriate strategy for this program.
Funds requested for preservation in the Phase IV project are based on the actual quantity of material of highest priority selected for preservation by scholars during Phase III in Michigan and North Carolina. Funds requested for identification and selection in Georgia, Illinois, and Ohio were established based on the estimates of the universe of materials provided by the project libraries during the development of the proposal, drawing on the experience of prior projects.
The budget requested for each
state is estimated to be sufficient to preserve those materials that have
been or will be ranked priority one and two by the scholarly reviewers.
The goal of the project is to preserve approximately 25% of the universe
of materials. When titles previously preserved are added to this
25% (22% in New York State; estimated to be 10-20% in most states), approximately
35-45% of the universe of materials will have been preserved. Project
libraries are committed to preserve any remaining priority two materials
within their local preservation programs, as funding permits. In
addition to preserving the most important materials on the history of agriculture
and rural life, this project also establishes priorities for preserving
the remaining historical record.
4.4 PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS
Throughout the project, participants will adhere to specifications, guidelines, and standards from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM), the Research Libraries Group (RLG), and the Library of Congress. These specifications and standards apply to the physical and bibliographic preparation of materials for microfilming; the bibliographic control of microfilm masters for monographs and serials; the preservation microfilming of library materials; processing, duplication, inspection, and quality assurance procedures for preservation microfilm; and the housing and storage of master negative microfilms completed for the project.
The Project Deputy Director will
work with the institutional Project Managers to ensure that staff from
participating libraries have access to and appropriate knowledge of all
standards, specifications, and guidelines to be used in the project.
She will conduct a formal workshop on quality assurance procedures for
those institutions that are microfilming in Phase IV at the start-up meeting
in June 2002. If needed and upon the recommendation of the Project
Director, USAIN will arrange and finance a follow-up visit by the Deputy
Director to those libraries needing additional assistance with quality
assurance procedures. Although all participating libraries have some
experience with microfilm reformatting, the coordination of project procedures
will also include linking libraries less experienced in the conduct of
preservation projects with experienced participants so that procedures
and practical advice will be immediately available. Workforms and
guidelines will be distributed to help determine when a microfilm copy
is an acceptable preservation replacement.
4.4.1 Searching and Identification
In the course of the bibliographic analysis and selection phase of the project, (see Section 4.3.2), project staff will search for and identify all relevant titles, using both print and electronic sources. The national bibliographic databases, OCLC and RLIN, will be searched to identify titles, as well as to determine whether titles identified from other sources have already been preserved on archival quality microfilm.
As a result of these and other searching strategies, the project libraries will collect information on which relevant titles have already been microfilmed. A list of titles, both monographic and serial, that are suitably preserved will be provided to the scholarly reviewers in addition to the list that they will be asked to evaluate and rank in order to establish the priorities for the project. This will insure that the reviewers are given an appropriate context in which to judge the importance of material.
Priority one and two materials
selected for inclusion in the project (see Sections 4.3.3 & 4.3.4)
will be retrieved from the library’s collection or requested on interlibrary
loan from another cooperating library in the state. Because online
catalogs are typically inadequate sources for detailed holdings information
for serials, project staffs will need to conduct additional searches of
manual records as well as shelves.
4.4.2 Physical Preparation for Filming
Each of the project libraries microfilming materials in Phase IV will carry out the preparation of materials for microfilming according to guidelines established by the Research Libraries Group for their cooperative projects, and published in the RLG Preservation Microfilming Handbook (March 1992), pages 20-35.
Physical preparation begins with page-by-page collation of the material to check the order and completeness of individual monographic volumes and serial runs. Every effort will be made to ensure that microfilmed material is complete by obtaining photocopies of missing pages or borrowing missing volumes or issues from other libraries. Items will be identified that need page repair, temporary removal of foldouts, or disbinding before they can be successfully microfilmed. Also at this stage, microfilm reel programming for serial titles will take place to prepare the list of volumes and issues being filmed and the reels on which they will appear. This list will appear at the beginning of each microfilm reel for a serial title. Serials will be processed for microfilming in advance of monographs to allow time to locate and obtain any missing issues.
Microfilm targets to be filmed in conjunction with the original materials, including technical targets and bibliographic record targets, will be prepared and assembled by preservation staff, or by the filming agent when so instructed.
When titles and volumes are complete
and in filmable condition, they will be cataloged so that a printout of
the online bibliographic record can be microfilmed along with the original
4.4.3 Bibliographic Control and Record Distribution
Immediately prior to microfilming, bibliographic records for each title will be entered into the library’s online catalog in conformance with the ARL Guidelines for Bibliographic Control of Microform Masters for both monographs and serials. These documents are based upon existing national cataloging rules and interpretations for creating catalog records, including Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, the Library of Congress Name Authority File, the CONSER Editing Guide, and the Library of Congress classification schedules and cataloging manuals. If no subject headings are present on existing catalog records, one subject heading will be added.
Master negative information will be included in the reproduction note (533) and physical description (007) fields of the MARC record according to national standards. Holdings statements for serial titles will be summarized in the reproduction note (533, subfield M) according to guidelines established by ARL and CONSER. This will ensure that information about the extent of preservation of a particular serial title will be available nationally.
All machine-readable bibliographic
records for project materials will be entered into OCLC or RLIN through
either direct input or tape loading. Bibliographic records for master
negative microforms entered into OCLC and RLIN are exchanged monthly.
4.4.4 Microfilming and Quality Assurance
The institutions microfilming in Phase IV will contract with filming agencies for microfilming services. Each project participant procured at least two bids for services and chose the filming agent most capable of doing preservation quality work at a reasonable cost and within the time of the project. A mention of these procedures for filming is in Section 5, along with names of Project Staff for each library. Supporting materials are available for examination from the Project Director.
All project participants, or their filming agents, will produce three generations of polyester-based silver-gelatin 35 mm microfilm for each volume in the project, including the camera master negative, a duplicate negative to be used for producing additional copies, and a positive film copy for patron or library use. The microfilm will be produced according to relevant ANSI/AIIM standards and the technical microfilming guidelines published in the RLG Preservation Microfilming Handbook (pages 36-44).
Joy Paulson will work with the participants to help ensure the quality of the preservation microfilm produced for the project. She will conduct a half-day workshop during the first project managers meeting; the focus will be to make certain that project participants have the information they need to develop local QA routines and ensure that the preservation product meets all applicable national standards and relevant guidelines. The Deputy Director will work with the Project Director and project participants to develop a letter of agreement governing the work of microfilmers. Finally, she may make a site visit to those libraries that need additional help in establishing QA routines.
Project Managers will be responsible
for ensuring the quality of all film produced for the project. A
quality assurance report form will be established for the project to assist
libraries in their examination and certification of completed film.
In general, the project will follow the quality assurance procedures developed
by the Research Libraries Group for their cooperative projects and described
in the RLG technical microfilming guidelines.
4.4.5 Access to Preserved Materials
Service copies of all microfilms
created in the project will be available to users through Interlibrary
Loan, as well as on-site in the holding libraries. Copies of the
microfilm will be available for purchase at cost by other institutions
or individuals, subject to copyright restrictions. The availability
of preserved titles will be made known through the distribution of bibliographic
records to the national bibliographic databases, OCLC and RLIN.
4.4.6 Storage of Master Negative Microfilms
Duplicate negatives will be maintained by the project libraries in facilities that are appropriate for microfilm storage; they will be used, as needed, to make service copies. All first generation master negative microfilm produced in the project will be sent to the National Library of Agriculture (NAL) as security against any unforeseen damage to the duplicate negative, and for preservation in perpetuity as part of the national preservation program for agriculture and rural life (See Appendix B, letter of support from NAL).
Project materials will be stored
according to established temperature and humidity levels set forth in ANSI
PH1.43-1985, American National Standard Practice for Storage of Processed
Safety Photographic Film. Film enclosures will conform to ANSI IT9.2-1989,
Imaging Media- Photographic Processed Films, Plates, and Papers - Filing
Enclosures and Storage Containers. The Project Directors have worked
with staff at NAL to establish procedures for identifying and labeling
Titles and Volumes to be Preserved, Phase III