45
FOOTNOTES TO THE ARL ACADEMIC LAW LIBRARY STATISTICS, 2004-05
Footnotes may also include errata and corrections to data not previously reported from prior years. Numbers in parentheses refer to columns in
Library Data Tables and to Questionnaire numbers.
QUESTION
NUMBER NOTES
ALABAMA
All figures are as of September 30, 2005.
15c The library does not separate expenditures for microforms and audiovisual materials these costs are
included with monographs expenditures.
19 Includes bibliographic utilities, memberships, and literature searching.
ALBERTA
All figures are as of March 31, 2005.
1, 6 As there is no way to include the large amount of material sent to the remote storage facility, this would
result in an inaccurate count of Law Library material.
2 Precise number of monographs purchased from 2000‐01 onward is unavailable all monographs purchased
are included in gross volumes added (1bi).
12 This is a title count. 2003‐04 figure was inaccurate.
15‐25 Expenditures as reported in Canadian dollars: (15a) $324,460 (15b) $1,006,164 (15c) UA/NA (15d) UA/NA
(15) $1,330,624 (16) $7,125 (17a) $205,790 (17b) $446,525 (17c) $16,681 (17) $668,996 (19) UA/NA (20)
$2,006,745 (21) UA/NA (22) $286,120 (23a) UA/NA (23b) UA/NA (24) UA/NA (25) UA/NA.
32 Initial circulations cannot be separated from renewals.
34 Due to use of Relais for collecting statistics, all requests funnel through one search queue which makes it
difficult to provide breakdown for the Law Library.
ARIZONA STATE
Volumes held June 30, 2004 revised to 267,737.
BRIGHAM YOUNG
All figures reflect the status of collections and expenditures as of December 31, 2004.
8 Figure reflects the Hunter Law Library only. The Lee Library no longer tracks this figure.
CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
15d Data are included in monograph expenditures (15a).
CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
1b Increase due to fewer volumes withdrawn.
15a Increase due to an increase in number of volumes purchased, as well as in cost per volume.
29 Number of presentations for 2004‐05 increased.
34 Decrease due to RLG ILL online system malfunctions requests were not received for several weeks.
CHICAGO
29 Increase was the result of changing to small‐group presentations.
34, 35 Figures represent items, not requests.
CINCINNATI
4 Figure is lower than in 2003‐04, as a high number of OhioLINK journals were credited to the law library in
2003‐04. With the current submission model, it is not possible to credit the law library with its access to
FOOTNOTES TO THE ARL ACADEMIC LAW LIBRARY STATISTICS, 2004-05
Footnotes may also include errata and corrections to data not previously reported from prior years. Numbers in parentheses refer to columns in
Library Data Tables and to Questionnaire numbers.
QUESTION
NUMBER NOTES
ALABAMA
All figures are as of September 30, 2005.
15c The library does not separate expenditures for microforms and audiovisual materials these costs are
included with monographs expenditures.
19 Includes bibliographic utilities, memberships, and literature searching.
ALBERTA
All figures are as of March 31, 2005.
1, 6 As there is no way to include the large amount of material sent to the remote storage facility, this would
result in an inaccurate count of Law Library material.
2 Precise number of monographs purchased from 2000‐01 onward is unavailable all monographs purchased
are included in gross volumes added (1bi).
12 This is a title count. 2003‐04 figure was inaccurate.
15‐25 Expenditures as reported in Canadian dollars: (15a) $324,460 (15b) $1,006,164 (15c) UA/NA (15d) UA/NA
(15) $1,330,624 (16) $7,125 (17a) $205,790 (17b) $446,525 (17c) $16,681 (17) $668,996 (19) UA/NA (20)
$2,006,745 (21) UA/NA (22) $286,120 (23a) UA/NA (23b) UA/NA (24) UA/NA (25) UA/NA.
32 Initial circulations cannot be separated from renewals.
34 Due to use of Relais for collecting statistics, all requests funnel through one search queue which makes it
difficult to provide breakdown for the Law Library.
ARIZONA STATE
Volumes held June 30, 2004 revised to 267,737.
BRIGHAM YOUNG
All figures reflect the status of collections and expenditures as of December 31, 2004.
8 Figure reflects the Hunter Law Library only. The Lee Library no longer tracks this figure.
CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
15d Data are included in monograph expenditures (15a).
CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
1b Increase due to fewer volumes withdrawn.
15a Increase due to an increase in number of volumes purchased, as well as in cost per volume.
29 Number of presentations for 2004‐05 increased.
34 Decrease due to RLG ILL online system malfunctions requests were not received for several weeks.
CHICAGO
29 Increase was the result of changing to small‐group presentations.
34, 35 Figures represent items, not requests.
CINCINNATI
4 Figure is lower than in 2003‐04, as a high number of OhioLINK journals were credited to the law library in
2003‐04. With the current submission model, it is not possible to credit the law library with its access to
