Search

Using data for 2,717 journals and more than 9,000 acquisition opportunities, this study shows how journal prices vary by level of aggregation (single-journal subscription or full-text database), resource provider type (scholarly society, university press, other nonprofit organization, commercial publisher, or library vendor), and broad subject field. The journals acquired through commercial publishers' databases cost less than half as much as those acquired through the databases of scholarly societies, university presses, and library vendors. Across all provider types, full-text databases are more cost-effective than single-journal subscriptions. These results are more realistic than those reported in earlier investigations, since (1) unlike previous studies, this one accounts for the prices of both single-journal subscriptions and full-text journal databases; (2) this assessment is based on actual prices, including consortial and negotiated prices, rather than list prices; and (3) this investigation focuses on the journals identified by faculty as important titles for their teaching and research.

This study examines the book selections of 22 Manhattan College librarians, faculty, and students who were asked to make "yes" or "no" decisions for 287 books reviewed in CHOICE. It focuses on four research questions. First, "What characteristics are associated with selected and nonselected books?" Although there is only modest agreement among selectors, "yes" decisions are associated with favorable reviews, appropriateness for lower-division undergraduates, reasonable price, publication by a university press, and the absence of caveats in the review. The results suggest that selectors are willing to relax certain selection criteria if others are exceeded, that selectors' generally favorable attitudes toward multidisciplinary works do not extend to all such books, and that titles in areas unfamiliar to the selector are less likely to be chosen. Second, "What are the key differences among the book selections of librarians, faculty, and undergraduates?" Although there are minor differences among all three groups, the main finding is that students' selections are relatively unpredictable and less closely linked to particular book and review characteristics. Third, "What are the key differences among the book selections of specialists (faculty and librarians) in the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities?" Although the three subject groups are similar in their yes/no decisions and in the characteristics of the books they choose, most selectors demonstrate a strong tendency to favor books in their own subject areas. Finally, "What individual characteristics are associated with effectiveness as a book selector?" Librarians and faculty are equally effective, overall. Faculty have an advantage among selectors without book selection experience, but the positive impact of experience is greater for librarians than for faculty. In contrast, students are relatively ineffective selectors, and their choices are not closely related to those of other students, faculty, or librarians.

The information literacy (IL) assessment program at Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York, instituted in 2014-2015, evaluates students' information literacy capabilities as demonstrated in their written coursework, their test performance, and their comments on library instruction sessions. Both instruction and assessment are closely linked to five learning objectives, and five years' assessment results have led to significant changes in the IL instruction program. This paper presents key concepts in IL assessment; highlights the importance of evidence-based measures (that is, direct assessment of cognitive outcomes); describes Manhattan College's three assessment methods, with guidelines for the reporting of results; discusses sampling difficulties and related statistical issues; describes the changes in IL instruction undertaken in response to the results ("closing the loop"); and reviews additional assessment methods that can help demonstrate the impact of IL instruction on broader educational outcomes.

This study examines the influence of four predictor variables--university-wide research activity, faculty status (eligibility for sabbaticals), university control (public versus private), and enrollment--on the scholarly productivity of librarians at research universities in the United States. University-wide research activity is directly related to librarians' scholarly productivity, although the relationship weakens at institutions with more than 30 librarians. In contrast, faculty status has a direct influence that is strong and consistent across all university sizes. These results suggest that the faculty subculture, by setting university-wide expectations for research, influences librarians' scholarly productivity only when there is no strong librarian subculture with its own research norms--in other words, only when the institution employs relatively few librarians. Librarians' faculty status (or nonfaculty status) appears to have both formal aspects (such as promotion requirements), which are consistent across all university sizes, and informal aspects (such as scholarly norms and expectations), which moderate the influence of the faculty subculture at those institutions where the librarian subculture is strong.