Search

Patron-driven acquisition has been an important, if contentious, topic for decades, with numerous programs having been piloted, adopted, and reported on, largely favorably, in the library literature. Still, questions and doubts persist for academic libraries, especially where the composition of vendor plans and packages and the judgment of patrons are concerned. Past literature has approached the assessment of patron-driven acquisition by analyzing circulation/usage, comparing peer-library holdings, seeking patrons' or librarians' judgments of utility and suitability, looking for evidence of collection imbalances, and testing for overlap in patrons' and librarians' purchases. To contribute to this literature, this study addresses scholarly impact and examines whose selections--approval plans', librarians', or patrons'--have been most heavily cited. For the social sciences, the sciences, and the humanities, the authors gathered topic-matched random samples of books acquired via approval plans and librarian orders during the first five years of operation of their institutions' interlibrary loan purchase-on-demand patrondriven acquisition program and compared their citation counts to the counts of books acquired via the program. Google Scholar was employed to tally citations.

Group testing is the process of testing items as an amalgamation, rather than separately, to determine the binary status for each item. Its use was especially important during the COVID-19 pandemic through testing specimens for SARS-CoV-2. The adoption of group testing for this and many other applications is because members of a negative testing group can be declared negative with potentially only one test. This subsequently leads to significant increases in laboratory testing capacity. Whenever a group testing algorithm is put into practice, it is critical for laboratories to understand the algorithm's operating characteristics, such as the expected number of tests. Our paper presents the binGroup2 package that provides the statistical tools for this purpose. This R package is the first to address the identification aspect of group testing for a wide variety of algorithms. We illustrate its use through COVID-19 and chlamydia/gonorrhea applications of group testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patron-driven acquisition has been an important, if contentious, topic for decades, with numerous programs having been piloted, adopted, and reported on, largely favorably, in the library literature. Still, questions and doubts persist for academic libraries, especially where the composition of vendor plans and packages and the judgment of patrons are concerned. Past literature has approached the assessment of patron-driven acquisition by analyzing circulation/usage, comparing peer-library holdings, seeking patrons' or librarians' judgments of utility and suitability, looking for evidence of collection imbalances, and testing for overlap in patrons' and librarians' purchases. To contribute to this literature, this study addresses scholarly impact and examines whose selections--approval plans', librarians', or patrons'--have been most heavily cited. For the social sciences, the sciences, and the humanities, the authors gathered topic-matched random samples of books acquired via approval plans and librarian orders during the first five years of operation of their institutions' interlibrary loan purchase-on-demand patrondriven acquisition program and compared their citation counts to the counts of books acquired via the program. Google Scholar was employed to tally citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]