Author Index by Authors : S

• SPEC Kit 292: Institutional Repositories (July 2006) Morris, Chris; Bailey, Jr., Charles W.; Wright, Robert; Emery, Jill; Mitchell, Anne; Simons, Spenser; Coombs, Karen Bailey, Jr., Charles W.; Coombs, Karen; Emery, Jill; Mitchell, Anne; Morris, Chris; Simons, Spenser; Wright, Robert
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit collects baseline data about ARL member institutions’ institutional repository activities.

  For the purposes of this survey, an IR was simply defined as a permanent, institution-wide repository of diverse locally produced digital works (e.g., article preprints and postprints, data sets, electronic theses and dissertations, learning objects, and technical reports) that is available for public use and supports metadata harvesting. If an institution shares an IR with other institutions, it was within the scope of this survey. Not included in this definition were scholars’ personal Web sites; academic department, school, or other unit digital archives that are primarily intended to store digital materials created by members of that unit; or disciplinary archives that include digital materials about one or multiple subjects that have been created by authors from many different institutions (e.g., arXiv.org).

  The survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in January 2006. Eighty-seven libraries (71%) responded to the survey. Of those, 37 (43%) have an operational IR, 31 (35%) are planning for one by 2007 at the latest, and 19 (22%) have no immediate plans to develop an IR. The survey found that most IRs had been established in the last two years (or had just been established). By far, the library was likely to have been the most active institutional advocate of the IR. It was also likely to have been the primary unit leading and supporting the IR effort, sometimes in partnership with the institutional information technology unit. The main reasons for establishing an IR were to increase the global visibility of, preserve, provide free access to, and collect and organize the institution’s scholarship.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of IR home pages, IR usage statistics, deposit policies, metadata policies, preservation policies, and IR proposals

  Title: SPEC Kit 292: Institutional Repositories (July 2006)
• SPEC Kit 292: Institutional Repositories (July 2006) Morris, Chris; Bailey, Jr., Charles W.; Wright, Robert; Emery, Jill; Mitchell, Anne; Simons, Spenser; Coombs, Karen
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit collects baseline data about ARL member institutions’ institutional repository activities.

  For the purposes of this survey, an IR was simply defined as a permanent, institution-wide repository of diverse locally produced digital works (e.g., article preprints and postprints, data sets, electronic theses and dissertations, learning objects, and technical reports) that is available for public use and supports metadata harvesting. If an institution shares an IR with other institutions, it was within the scope of this survey. Not included in this definition were scholars’ personal Web sites; academic department, school, or other unit digital archives that are primarily intended to store digital materials created by members of that unit; or disciplinary archives that include digital materials about one or multiple subjects that have been created by authors from many different institutions (e.g., arXiv.org).

  The survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in January 2006. Eighty-seven libraries (71%) responded to the survey. Of those, 37 (43%) have an operational IR, 31 (35%) are planning for one by 2007 at the latest, and 19 (22%) have no immediate plans to develop an IR. The survey found that most IRs had been established in the last two years (or had just been established). By far, the library was likely to have been the most active institutional advocate of the IR. It was also likely to have been the primary unit leading and supporting the IR effort, sometimes in partnership with the institutional information technology unit. The main reasons for establishing an IR were to increase the global visibility of, preserve, provide free access to, and collect and organize the institution’s scholarship.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of IR home pages, IR usage statistics, deposit policies, metadata policies, preservation policies, and IR proposals

  Authors: Bailey, Jr., Charles W.; Coombs, Karen; Emery, Jill; Mitchell, Anne; Morris, Chris; Simons, Spenser; Wright, Robert
• Open Educational Resources as Learning Materials: Prospects and Strategies for University Libraries (Sept. 2012) Schweik, Charles M.; Sheridan, Matt; Schafer, Jay; Billings, Marilyn S.; Hutton, Sarah C.
• Open Educational Resources as Learning Materials: Prospects and Strategies for University Libraries (Sept. 2012) (2-11) Schweik, Charles M.; Sheridan, Matt; Schafer, Jay; Billings, Marilyn S.; Hutton, Sarah C. Billings, Marilyn S.; Hutton, Sarah C.; Schafer, Jay; Schweik, Charles M.; Sheridan, Matt (2-11)
  Title: Open Educational Resources as Learning Materials: Prospects and Strategies for University Libraries (Sept. 2012)
• Open Educational Resources as Learning Materials: Prospects and Strategies for University Libraries (Sept. 2012) Schweik, Charles M.; Sheridan, Matt; Schafer, Jay; Billings, Marilyn S.; Hutton, Sarah C.
• SPEC Kit 326: Digital Humanities (November 2011) Posner, Mariam; Varner, Stewart; Bryson, Tim; St. Pierre, Alain Bryson, Tim; Posner, Mariam; St. Pierre, Alain; Varner, Stewart
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit provides a snapshot of research library experiences with digital scholarship centers or services that support the humanities (e.g., history, art, music, film, literature, philosophy, religion, etc.) and the benefits and challenges of hosting them. The survey asked ARL libraries about the organization of these services, how they are staffed and funded, what services they offer and to whom, what technical infrastructure is provided, whether the library manages or archives the digital resources produced, and how services are assessed, among other questions.

  This survey revealed that library-based support for the digital humanities is offered predominantly on an ad hoc basis. However, as demand for services supporting the digital humanities has grown, libraries have begun to re-evaluate their provisional service and staffing models. Many respondents expressed a desire to implement practices, policies, and procedures that would allow them to cope with increases in demand for services.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents that describes the mission or purpose of digital humanities centers, the services offered, policies and procedures, examples of digital projects, fellowship and grant opportunities, promotional materials, and repositories for digital projects.

  Title: SPEC Kit 326: Digital Humanities (November 2011)
• SPEC Kit 326: Digital Humanities (November 2011) Posner, Mariam; Varner, Stewart; Bryson, Tim; St. Pierre, Alain
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit provides a snapshot of research library experiences with digital scholarship centers or services that support the humanities (e.g., history, art, music, film, literature, philosophy, religion, etc.) and the benefits and challenges of hosting them. The survey asked ARL libraries about the organization of these services, how they are staffed and funded, what services they offer and to whom, what technical infrastructure is provided, whether the library manages or archives the digital resources produced, and how services are assessed, among other questions.

  This survey revealed that library-based support for the digital humanities is offered predominantly on an ad hoc basis. However, as demand for services supporting the digital humanities has grown, libraries have begun to re-evaluate their provisional service and staffing models. Many respondents expressed a desire to implement practices, policies, and procedures that would allow them to cope with increases in demand for services.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents that describes the mission or purpose of digital humanities centers, the services offered, policies and procedures, examples of digital projects, fellowship and grant opportunities, promotional materials, and repositories for digital projects.

  Authors: Bryson, Tim; Posner, Mariam; St. Pierre, Alain; Varner, Stewart
• SPEC Kit 324: Collecting Global Resources (September 2011) Khabibullaev, Akram; Singer, Andrea; Wahrman, Noa; Frank-Wilson, Marion; Cheun, Wookjin; Liu, Wen-Ling; González, Luis A. Cheun, Wookjin; Frank-Wilson, Marion; González, Luis A.; Khabibullaev, Akram; Liu, Wen-Ling; Singer, Andrea; Wahrman, Noa
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the trends, practices, and challenges in collecting global resources in North American research libraries at a time of political and economic change, on the one hand, and of significant change in scholarly communication and collection management strategies, on the other. It covers global resources collections (including an overview of expenditures, collecting trends, sources of funding, and acquisition strategies), staff and organizational structure, preservation strategies, and discovery, public service, and outreach.

  The survey results clearly demonstrate that support for global resources in North American research libraries is strong and predicted to remain so in the foreseeable future. Budget and space challenges, as well as increasing electronic access to resources with resulting changes in research habits of students and faculty, will create new and different patterns in collection growth. In response, many ARL libraries either already have or are in the process of creating organizational structures that facilitate intense outreach activities, in-depth reference, and collaborative collection development.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents that describes print and digital global collections, collection development policies, examples of research guides, and organization charts.

  Title: SPEC Kit 324: Collecting Global Resources (September 2011)
• SPEC Kit 324: Collecting Global Resources (September 2011) Khabibullaev, Akram; Singer, Andrea; Wahrman, Noa; Frank-Wilson, Marion; Cheun, Wookjin; Liu, Wen-Ling; González, Luis A.
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the trends, practices, and challenges in collecting global resources in North American research libraries at a time of political and economic change, on the one hand, and of significant change in scholarly communication and collection management strategies, on the other. It covers global resources collections (including an overview of expenditures, collecting trends, sources of funding, and acquisition strategies), staff and organizational structure, preservation strategies, and discovery, public service, and outreach.

  The survey results clearly demonstrate that support for global resources in North American research libraries is strong and predicted to remain so in the foreseeable future. Budget and space challenges, as well as increasing electronic access to resources with resulting changes in research habits of students and faculty, will create new and different patterns in collection growth. In response, many ARL libraries either already have or are in the process of creating organizational structures that facilitate intense outreach activities, in-depth reference, and collaborative collection development.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents that describes print and digital global collections, collection development policies, examples of research guides, and organization charts.

  Authors: Cheun, Wookjin; Frank-Wilson, Marion; González, Luis A.; Khabibullaev, Akram; Liu, Wen-Ling; Singer, Andrea; Wahrman, Noa
• SPEC Kit 302: Managing Public Computing (November 2007) Shelton, Mark; Cook, Michael Cook, Michael; Shelton, Mark
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the management of library public computing, i.e., those computers that are located in public spaces for use by patrons, as distinct from staff computers and servers. By jointly looking at the scale of the public computing operations, the staffing and organizational structure, budgets, upgrades, maintenance, security, polices, and assessment, the survey pulls together and expands on issues covered in several previous SPEC Kits.

  The survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in July 2007. Sixty-nine libraries (56%) responded to the survey. The survey respondents were primarily library deans, directors, and heads of library information technology or library systems departments. All 69 respondents indicated that their library contains public computers that need support. Responsibility for the support, service, repair, and replacement of computers in public library spaces falls solely on library staff in 44 of the responding libraries (64%). Support is shared with non-library staff in 21 of the libraries (30%); in four libraries (6%), the institution’s central IT staff provides sole support. In none of the libraries is computer support contracted out or provided by a consortium’s IT staff.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of job descriptions, public computing policies and procedures, and organization charts.

  Title: SPEC Kit 302: Managing Public Computing (November 2007)
• SPEC Kit 302: Managing Public Computing (November 2007) Shelton, Mark; Cook, Michael
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the management of library public computing, i.e., those computers that are located in public spaces for use by patrons, as distinct from staff computers and servers. By jointly looking at the scale of the public computing operations, the staffing and organizational structure, budgets, upgrades, maintenance, security, polices, and assessment, the survey pulls together and expands on issues covered in several previous SPEC Kits.

  The survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in July 2007. Sixty-nine libraries (56%) responded to the survey. The survey respondents were primarily library deans, directors, and heads of library information technology or library systems departments. All 69 respondents indicated that their library contains public computers that need support. Responsibility for the support, service, repair, and replacement of computers in public library spaces falls solely on library staff in 44 of the responding libraries (64%). Support is shared with non-library staff in 21 of the libraries (30%); in four libraries (6%), the institution’s central IT staff provides sole support. In none of the libraries is computer support contracted out or provided by a consortium’s IT staff.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of job descriptions, public computing policies and procedures, and organization charts.

  Authors: Cook, Michael; Shelton, Mark
• SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) Slomba, Elizabeth; Hackbart-Dean, Pam Hackbart-Dean, Pam; Slomba, Elizabeth
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit examines the current policies and practices for processing manuscript and archival collections in Special Collections.   It is organized around four general areas: personnel, job responsibilities and training; processing policies, procedures, and priorities; impacts on processing decisions; and management tools.

  By the May deadline, responses had been submitted by 76 of the 123 ARL member libraries for a response rate of 62%. Half of the responding institutions have a combined special collections/archives department and all but a few of these process all types of rare books, rare serials, manuscripts, and archival materials. Twenty-seven respondents (36%) indicated that the cataloging of rare books and rare serials was done in another department or unit within the library, usually cataloging or technical services.   Only five respondents indicated that manuscripts and archival materials were processed outside of special collections/archives.

  The survey responses speak to the classic issues of the management of processing: how to process collections efficiently but yet adequately so that collections are usable with minimal meditation; how to balance demands for more description and item-level cataloging (digitization) with initiatives to make more collections available (“more product, less processing”); and how to manage staff effectively and to assess processing progress.   From the survey results it is clear that the respondents agree on core principles for processing (such as what is fully processed collection, what makes a good processor, and the challenges facing processors), but in practice the application of these principles are tempered by institutional practices, traditions, and resources.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of processing policies and procedures, processing worksheets, statistics, and job descriptions.

  Title: SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009)
• SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009) Slomba, Elizabeth; Hackbart-Dean, Pam
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit examines the current policies and practices for processing manuscript and archival collections in Special Collections.   It is organized around four general areas: personnel, job responsibilities and training; processing policies, procedures, and priorities; impacts on processing decisions; and management tools.

  By the May deadline, responses had been submitted by 76 of the 123 ARL member libraries for a response rate of 62%. Half of the responding institutions have a combined special collections/archives department and all but a few of these process all types of rare books, rare serials, manuscripts, and archival materials. Twenty-seven respondents (36%) indicated that the cataloging of rare books and rare serials was done in another department or unit within the library, usually cataloging or technical services.   Only five respondents indicated that manuscripts and archival materials were processed outside of special collections/archives.

  The survey responses speak to the classic issues of the management of processing: how to process collections efficiently but yet adequately so that collections are usable with minimal meditation; how to balance demands for more description and item-level cataloging (digitization) with initiatives to make more collections available (“more product, less processing”); and how to manage staff effectively and to assess processing progress.   From the survey results it is clear that the respondents agree on core principles for processing (such as what is fully processed collection, what makes a good processor, and the challenges facing processors), but in practice the application of these principles are tempered by institutional practices, traditions, and resources.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of processing policies and procedures, processing worksheets, statistics, and job descriptions.

  Authors: Hackbart-Dean, Pam; Slomba, Elizabeth
• SPEC Kit 325: Digital Preservation (October 2011) Schultz, Matt; McMillan, Gail; Skinner, Katherine McMillan, Gail; Schultz, Matt; Skinner, Katherine
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the strategies that ARL member institutions use to protect evolving research collections and the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders. The survey asked ARL libraries about their digital content, their strategies for preserving that content, and the staff, time, and funding they currently devote to digital preservation. It also asked each responding library to compare its digital preservation activities of three years ago to current activities and project three years into the future. In addition, to better understand the roles of research libraries in the emergent field of digital curation, the survey sought to identify issues that are and are not being addressed through current practices and policies.

  This survey revealed, as the digital preservation field is maturing, that most ARL libraries are rising to the challenge of establishing policies, workflows, and infrastructures to systematically preserve their rapidly expanding bodies of digital content. The survey also revealed that most ARL libraries are actively engaging in in-house digital preservation rather than outsourcing it to external parties, thus maintaining their control and ownership over the digital content that they curate.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents that describes policies, procedures, and guidelines for digital preservation, cooperative agreements, job descriptions, and data management services.

  Title: SPEC Kit 325: Digital Preservation (October 2011)
• SPEC Kit 325: Digital Preservation (October 2011) Schultz, Matt; McMillan, Gail; Skinner, Katherine
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the strategies that ARL member institutions use to protect evolving research collections and the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders. The survey asked ARL libraries about their digital content, their strategies for preserving that content, and the staff, time, and funding they currently devote to digital preservation. It also asked each responding library to compare its digital preservation activities of three years ago to current activities and project three years into the future. In addition, to better understand the roles of research libraries in the emergent field of digital curation, the survey sought to identify issues that are and are not being addressed through current practices and policies.

  This survey revealed, as the digital preservation field is maturing, that most ARL libraries are rising to the challenge of establishing policies, workflows, and infrastructures to systematically preserve their rapidly expanding bodies of digital content. The survey also revealed that most ARL libraries are actively engaging in in-house digital preservation rather than outsourcing it to external parties, thus maintaining their control and ownership over the digital content that they curate.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents that describes policies, procedures, and guidelines for digital preservation, cooperative agreements, job descriptions, and data management services.

  Authors: McMillan, Gail; Schultz, Matt; Skinner, Katherine
• SPEC Kit 329: Managing Born-Digital Special Collections and Archival Materials (August 2012) Shaw, Seth; Deromedi, Nancy; Belden, Michelle; Shallcross, Michael; Pyatt, Tim; Schmidt, Lisa; Esposito, Jackie R.; Goldman, Ben; Ghering, Cynthia; Nelson, Naomi L. Nelson, Naomi L.; Shaw, Seth; Deromedi, Nancy; Shallcross, Michael; Ghering, Cynthia; Schmidt, Lisa; Belden, Michelle; Esposito, Jackie R.; Goldman, Ben; Pyatt, Tim
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the tools, workflow, and policies special collections and archives staff use to process, manage, and provide access to born-digital materials they collect. It also looks at which staff process and manage born-digital materials and how they acquire the skills they need for these activities, and how libraries have responded to the challenges that managing born-digital materials present.

  The management of born-digital materials is still relatively new for ARL libraries, and the survey results show that good practices and workflows are still evolving. New tools are emerging rapidly, and the once solid line between digitized content and born-digital content is beginning to blur. Survey responses indicated that the library and archives profession lacks a common definition of what born-digital content is and a common understanding of who within the organization should manage this content.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents that describe digital specialists’ job responsibilities, collection policies, gift/purchase agreements, format policies, and workflows.

  Title: SPEC Kit 329: Managing Born-Digital Special Collections and Archival Materials (August 2012)
• SPEC Kit 329: Managing Born-Digital Special Collections and Archival Materials (August 2012) Shaw, Seth; Deromedi, Nancy; Belden, Michelle; Shallcross, Michael; Pyatt, Tim; Schmidt, Lisa; Esposito, Jackie R.; Goldman, Ben; Ghering, Cynthia; Nelson, Naomi L.
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the tools, workflow, and policies special collections and archives staff use to process, manage, and provide access to born-digital materials they collect. It also looks at which staff process and manage born-digital materials and how they acquire the skills they need for these activities, and how libraries have responded to the challenges that managing born-digital materials present.

  The management of born-digital materials is still relatively new for ARL libraries, and the survey results show that good practices and workflows are still evolving. New tools are emerging rapidly, and the once solid line between digitized content and born-digital content is beginning to blur. Survey responses indicated that the library and archives profession lacks a common definition of what born-digital content is and a common understanding of who within the organization should manage this content.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents that describe digital specialists’ job responsibilities, collection policies, gift/purchase agreements, format policies, and workflows.

  Authors: Nelson, Naomi L.; Shaw, Seth; Deromedi, Nancy; Shallcross, Michael; Ghering, Cynthia; Schmidt, Lisa; Belden, Michelle; Esposito, Jackie R.; Goldman, Ben; Pyatt, Tim
• SPEC Kit 332: Organization of Scholarly Communication Services (November 2012) Feltner-Reichert, Melanie; Radom, Rachel; stringer-stanback, kynita Radom, Rachel; Feltner-Reichert, Melanie; stringer-stanback, kynita
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores how research institutions are currently organizing staff to support scholarly communication services, and whether their organizational structures have changed since 2007, when member libraries were surveyed about their scholarly communication education initiatives. It covers who leads scholarly communication efforts inside and outside the library, the scholarly communication related services that are offered to researchers, and which staff support those services. It also looks at how the library measures the success of its scholarly communication services, including demonstrable outcomes of these services.

  It includes position descriptions for library leaders of scholarly communication efforts, charges for SC committees, organization charts, descriptions of SC services, assessment tools, open access policies, and SC resolutions

  Title: SPEC Kit 332: Organization of Scholarly Communication Services (November 2012)
• SPEC Kit 332: Organization of Scholarly Communication Services (November 2012) Feltner-Reichert, Melanie; Radom, Rachel; stringer-stanback, kynita
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores how research institutions are currently organizing staff to support scholarly communication services, and whether their organizational structures have changed since 2007, when member libraries were surveyed about their scholarly communication education initiatives. It covers who leads scholarly communication efforts inside and outside the library, the scholarly communication related services that are offered to researchers, and which staff support those services. It also looks at how the library measures the success of its scholarly communication services, including demonstrable outcomes of these services.

  It includes position descriptions for library leaders of scholarly communication efforts, charges for SC committees, organization charts, descriptions of SC services, assessment tools, open access policies, and SC resolutions

  Authors: Radom, Rachel; Feltner-Reichert, Melanie; stringer-stanback, kynita
• SPEC Kit 311: Public Access Policies (August 2009) Sarli, Cathy; Lewis, Ruth; Dubinsky, Ellen; Engeszer, Bob Sarli, Cathy; Dubinsky, Ellen; Engeszer, Bob; Lewis, Ruth
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the role ARL member libraries are playing in supporting public access policies in their institutions.

  The survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February 2009. Respondents were asked to provide information on staffing, partnerships, and resources and services developed for public access policy (PAP) compliance support, and the challenges related to providing such support. Seventy libraries (57%) from sixty-seven institutions responded to the survey. Of the respondents, sixty-three were at libraries located within the United States (90%) and seven were at libraries located in Canada (10%).

  The majority of the responding libraries provide, or plan to provide, resources and services that help authors affiliated with their institution (and/or the author’s support staff) to comply with public access policies. Thirty-seven respondents (53%) indicated that more than one library within their system provides PAP compliance support; eleven (16%) indicated that just one library within their institution is providing this support. Four other institutions (6%) are planning to support PAP compliance. Of the libraries that do not provide such support, eight (11%) indicated that another department or unit within their institution provides compliance support. Eight others (11%) responded that their institution offers no PAP compliance support.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of PAP Web sites, compliance FAQs and flowcharts, handouts and slides from presentations to faculty and library staff, and sample letters to publishers.

  ---

  Title: SPEC Kit 311: Public Access Policies (August 2009)
• SPEC Kit 311: Public Access Policies (August 2009) Sarli, Cathy; Lewis, Ruth; Dubinsky, Ellen; Engeszer, Bob
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the role ARL member libraries are playing in supporting public access policies in their institutions.

  The survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February 2009. Respondents were asked to provide information on staffing, partnerships, and resources and services developed for public access policy (PAP) compliance support, and the challenges related to providing such support. Seventy libraries (57%) from sixty-seven institutions responded to the survey. Of the respondents, sixty-three were at libraries located within the United States (90%) and seven were at libraries located in Canada (10%).

  The majority of the responding libraries provide, or plan to provide, resources and services that help authors affiliated with their institution (and/or the author’s support staff) to comply with public access policies. Thirty-seven respondents (53%) indicated that more than one library within their system provides PAP compliance support; eleven (16%) indicated that just one library within their institution is providing this support. Four other institutions (6%) are planning to support PAP compliance. Of the libraries that do not provide such support, eight (11%) indicated that another department or unit within their institution provides compliance support. Eight others (11%) responded that their institution offers no PAP compliance support.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of PAP Web sites, compliance FAQs and flowcharts, handouts and slides from presentations to faculty and library staff, and sample letters to publishers.

  ---

  Authors: Sarli, Cathy; Dubinsky, Ellen; Engeszer, Bob; Lewis, Ruth
• The State of Large-Publisher Bundles in 2012 (pre-pub from Spring 2013) (1-9) Strieb, Karla L.; Blixrud, Julia C. Strieb, Karla L.; Blixrud, Julia C. (1-9)
  Title: The State of Large-Publisher Bundles in 2012 (pre-pub from Spring 2013)
• The State of Large-Publisher Bundles in 2012 (pre-pub from Spring 2013) Strieb, Karla L.; Blixrud, Julia C.