Serials Minutes

Serials Committee Minutes

  • 2013 Minutes (Seattle) (Joint with Acquisitions)

    Acquisitions and Serials Standing Committees
    Joint Meeting and Roundtable
    2013 Annual Meeting Minutes
    Monday, July 15, 2012 — Seattle, Washington

    7:15 a.m.-8:45 a.m. — Sheraton-Ballard Room

    The meeting was called to order at 7:14 a.m. by Wendy Moore (University of Georgia School of Law), chair of the Serials Standing Committee.

    Approval of the Acquisitions Standing Committee and the Serials Standing Committee Minutes

    Motion was made by Ismael Gullon (Mercer University School of Law) and seconded to approve the minutes from the Acquisitions Standing Committee and the Serials Standing Committee meetings held at the 2012 Annual Meeting & Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. Motion carried.


      1. Exchange of Duplicates Program (Patricia Roncevich, University of Pittsburgh School of Law)
        As more libraries are binding fewer titles every year, there are fewer members who participate in the program. The program has improved the exchange and storage of information in the database, especially the checking of title authority before adding information to the database. Currently the program raises funds through the membership fees and approximately 1/3 of the available funds are expended on the support work of a database administrator. The question at hand is how often the exchange services should be done. It is a lot of work. One option would be to handle the exchange approximately once a year. Wendy Moore stated that she had brought up this issue with the board and that the Serials Committee will submit the issue to the board again.
      2. Project COUNTER Task Group (no report provided)

    Wendy Moore reported that the survey has been completed and that Damon requests assistance from members who know how to calculate statistics. Volunteer are welcome to help compile and analyze the data for the report. Damon may be contacted at:

    1. AALL Price Index for Legal Publications (Carol Nicholson, in absentia)
      Wendy Moore reported that Carol Nicholson, editor of the AALL Price Index for Legal Publications will continue her role in editing the annual publication as a retiree. Luz Verguizas (Columbia Law School) reported that the Committee for the Price Index for Legal Publications is discussing expanding and changing categories. Examples would be to include e-resource pricing and access options. Comments and concerns about possible changes may be submitted to the Committee. Stephanie Edwards (Roger Williams University School of Law) stated that it would be useful to have electronic pricing data included in the Index.
    2. List of Law Publishers (Anne Robbins, University of Illinois College of Law, in absentia)
      Wendy Moore reported that the project to convert the current List of Law Publishers (formerly AcqWeb) to a blog format to ease the management of the resource has stalled. Wendy stated that Anne Robbins is seeking volunteers and may be contacted via email if you are interested in assisting with this project. Wendy Moore stated that a taskforce from both the Serials and Acquisitions Standing Committees may provide enough people to complete the project as well as accountability to get the work done. Stephanie Edwards stated that it remains a valuable resource. One of the goals of moving the site to a blog format is that it could readily support having multiple editors for ongoing maintenance.

    Education Programming for AALL 2014

    Wendy Moore stated that Christine Dulaney (American University Washington College of Law) is the incoming chair of the Education Committee. The Committee is considering changes to AALL programming processes and how best to work with AMPC. The AMPC seems to want only the ideas for programming topics and then they would pursue the programming details. Wendy stated that Brian Striman (University of Nebraska College of Law) is not going to leave us alone. Brian is particularly obsessed with programing ideas from the Acquisitions and Serials standing committees. Wendy asked the attendees to push themselves to provide ideas to the Education committee in order to keep Brian at bay.

    Roundtable Discussions


    1. New discovery, purchasing and management
      1. Ebook acquisitions and management
        1. There was much discussion about the LexisNexis Digital Library.
        2. Often packages were being negotiated by the main library whereas the law library continues with title by title selections.
        3. There was interest in partnering for the cataloging of the West Study Aids. This is limited because law libraries are not purchasing the package. The wide disparity may be due to variation in pricing quotes, though the pricing may be standardized by West soon. Melody Lembke (University of California at Irvine Law Library) suggested subdividing the cataloging work by series.
      2. Patron-driving acquisitions (demand driven acquisitions or DDA)
        1. Law school had pushed DDA to its faculty to make use of main campus (University Library) DDA services. Assessing the cost to the law school as yet to be worked out.
        2. A law library in Florida negotiated with the main campus library to have all K schedule acquisitions from DDA be billed to the law library.
        3. It was suggested that some vendors seem not to have experience working with and for law library needs in this area.
      3. Electronic Resource Management systems
        1. ERM systems continue to be useful for managing subscriptions and statistics.
        2. There are several libraries who have or are working to deploy open source ERM clients.
        3. One library reported that their ERM is overpopulated with titles entered as an access provider rather than for management. It is time to sift out titles that are ‘free’ or that do not require oversight (other than access) by the library staff.
        4. OLLARA and ERMes were briefly discussed.
      4. Next-generation library management systems and newer discovery environments
        1. The application of ERM systems may be changing due to the availability and implementation of discovery platforms. The result may be that ERMs become more of an internal management resource than a public access tool.
    2. Evolution of acquisitions and serials work in law libraries
      1. What changes to workflow and staff duties have you made this year?
        1. Changes have been driven by more electronic acquisitions and less print.
        2. Interdepartmental staff sharing is trending (placement of staff shared between library and other law school departments such as communications or web design.
        3. More cross training of staff.
        4. While centralizing technical services (e.g. Harvard Law) may be discussed, law libraries are also withdrawing from a centralized support model to focus on law school management needs.
        5. More collaboration with public services was noted.
      2. How are our roles as technical services librarians changing?
        1. Technical services staff have contributed to maintenance and creation of finding aids such as LibGuides pages.
        2. Direct faculty support is growing. Examples included acquiring copyright permissions and assisting with faculty research.
        3. Tech Services librarians are participating more in the marketing of library services.

    The meeting adjourned at 8:46 a.m.

    Respectfully submitted by
    Stephanie Schmitt
    Assistant Technical Services and Systems Librarian
    University of California Hastings College of the Law

  • 2012 Minutes (Boston)

    Serials Standing Committee
    2012 Annual Meeting Minutes
    Tuesday, July 24, 2012
    7:15 a.m.-8:15 a.m.
    Sheraton-Independence Ballroom West
    Boston, Massachusetts

    1. Introductions: Wendy Moore opened the meeting and led in introductions of all participants. There were a total of 18 people in attendance.
    2. Approved the minutes from the July 26, 2011 meeting in Philadelphia
    3. Old business
      1. Exchange of Duplicates program
        • Wendy Moore reported that 27 libraries participated in the program this past year. Will try to publicize the sign up for it more this year.
      2. Project Counter Task Group
        • Lorna Tang, Project Counter Task Force leader, reported that the task group has mainly wrapped up their work. She noted that the Bibliography of Project COUNTER Resources that the task group maintains has been updated as of July 2012 by Pat Sayre-McCoy and is available on the Project Counter Task Group page of the TS-SIS website.
        • She also gave a brief update on Project COUNTER status
          • A new release was issued earlier this year
          • Combined stats for books and databases right now
          • Lack of legal information database providers participating makes it not as useful for law libraries
          • Our vendors seem to want to hear an outcry demanding Project COUNTER from all of their library users, versus a single request by the task group. Actions you can take are:
            • If you are so inclined, there is a sample letter on the task group’s page.
            • Contact CRIV, the AALL Vendor Liaison to express that this is something that needs to be addressed with our vendors.
    4. New Business
      1. Call for program ideas for AALL 2013
        • Jim Mumm outlined the changes in the program planning and selection process for the upcoming year. He stressed that everyone should be certain to fill out the AMPC survey that runs through August 10. The AMPC will use the results of that survey to guide their decision making about programs. The results will be shared with members before the call for programs goes out in September. The TS-SIS Education Committee will be happy to work with anyone to improve their program proposals prior to submission or to help put together a program proposal based on an idea they have. It is up to all of us to come up with programs of interest to TS-SIS, as well as the broader AALL membership. Program submission deadline won’t be until October 15.
        • Some brainstormed program ideas:
          • Collaborative collection programs (consortia agreement for collecting of serials, like agreement with Duke and University of Virginia)
          • Expectation management of faculty RE serials resources and collection development
          • Death to loose-leaf –
          • Negotiation skills (beyond just license agreements)
      2. Survey on Collection Development Trends in Law Libraries report
        • Damon Campbell briefly mentioned that he and Shyama Agrawal have preliminary results from the Acquisitions Standing Committee’s “Survey on Collection Development Trends in Law Libraries” which they will hopefully be publishing somewhere in the near future.
    5. Serials Roundtable Discussion – The below questions were posed, with some variation, to the group for discussion. Mainly our discussion, however, in the short time that was left, focused on print journal cancellations and methodology libraries were using for determining what stayed as print and what was electronic only access. These are as follows:
      • relying on HeinOnline for their journal literature access
      • cancelling on print journals that have no embargo on HeinOnline
      • cancelling lower tiered law school journals regardless of electronic access
      • retaining only print for top 50 journal titles
      • retaining only print for top ranked subjects of interest
      • no binding of periodicals
      • keeping print for current year only
      • weeding/withdrawing bound periodical sets available in HeinOnline to save space

      Questions Proposed for Discussion:

      1. In what ways are you acquiring and providing access to journals online? Such as through third party aggregator databases, full-image archive sites, individual title online subscriptions, or purchasing individual articles when requested, etc.
      2. What print serial related “passenger pigeons” are you maintaining in your library?
      3. What changes to workflow and staff duties have you made this year, because of decreased print/increased online access to serial related materials?

    Meeting was adjourned at 8:17am, since discussion exceeded meeting time frame.

    Submitted by: Wendy Moore, Acquisitions Librarian, University of Georgia Law Library and Damon Campbell, Acquisitions Librarian, Florida Coastal School of Law Library & Technology Center.

  • 2011 Minutes (Philadelphia)

    Serials Standing Committee
    2011 Annual Meeting Minutes
    Tuesday, July 26, 2011
    7:00 a.m.-8:45 a.m.
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    1. Introduction: Shyama Agrawal opened the meeting and led in introductions of all participants.
    2. Announcements
      • Incoming Serials Standing Committee chair, Wendy Moore, was introduced.
      • Jim Mumm outlined the process for proposing programs for next year’s annual meeting. August 15, 2011 is the deadline for proposing a program to TS-SIS for review and revision. September 15, 2011 is deadline for proposing a program to AMCP. Competition is stiff, so proposals need to be well-developed. TS-SIS assigns a liaison to assist in preparing a proposal which will be accepted. A committee member who had worked with TS-SIS to prepare a program proposal found the process instrumental in getting her proposal approved. She encouraged all members to submit proposals.
      • Shyama Agrawal reviewed all TS-SIS programs for the day.
    3. Old business
      1. Exchange of Duplicates program
        • Pat Roncevich, Exchange of Duplicates program leader, commented on the difficult transition in leadership for this program. Regardless, two exchanges were conducted and updated information for the TS Handbook was submitted.
      2. Project Counter Task Group
        • Lorna Tang, Project Counter Task Force leader, reviewed the progress to date. A 35% discount is offered to smaller publisher to encourage participation.
        • Update on COUNTER Code of Practice status
          • A working paper draft is online. March, 2012 is implementation date
          • Publishers will be audited for compliance to counter format
          • Group is doing a study to quantify quality of journals
          • 12/13/13 — Release 4 compliance deadline for those who have been audited
          • Publishers remain concerned about providing usage statistics-Publishers need to be educated that low usage may lead to more user training rather than cancellation
        • Bibliography for Project Counter is being compiled
        • Up to Serials Committee to promote Project Counter to CRIV
        • 6 members of task force recruiting more members
    4. New Business
      1. Transitioning from print to electronic. During the discussion, members made the following comments or identified the following issues:
        • Duke Univ. does not cancel print automatically if electronic version is available, although they did cancel some looseleafs. Some law reviews and reporters were cancelled because they are part of a cooperative project with UVA or because title is available on HeinOnline.
        • ASU cancelled print reporters and state codes because they rely on HeinOnline. Unresolved problem is how to continue routing or “pushing” of online issues. TOC services have not been satisfactory.
        • Duke maintains an in-house alerting service for some titles. Table of content alerts and some newsletters are received from publishers through e-mail and these messages are forwarded to appropriate faculty by setting rules in the e-mail account.
        • Law Journal Press titles are being cancelled due to price increases from the print + online subscription model change, especially if the titles are available on the platform as part of the ALM/Lexis deal.
        • Member commented that their library cannot duplicate formats. They must choose between print and online versions.
        • Space issues drive some cancellations.
        • Problems arise when purchase of online is dependent on print.
        • Member commented that they cancelled all regional reporters, but found it disheartening to walk through stacks and see “outdated” stickers on books that have been cancelled.
        • Problem with meeting needs of public patrons who use print when library is cancelling print for online.
        • Question was raised whether or not patrons are satisfied using the online version.
          • Depended on age of user
          • Visually impaired occasionally have trouble with online
          • In some cases, libraries reinstated print because search engine for online was so poor or online version was difficult to use
          • Some users just prefer print
          • Print index may be easier to use than online search engine
          • Not all indexes are available online
        • Comments/Issues with cancellations:
          • On occasion, if print is canceled in error, publisher will reinstate at discounted price
          • Before cancelling, review usage statistics of print copies, circulation statistics, and consult with faculty
          • If payment for a resource comes out of a “faculty” account, then users are more motivated to cancel an underused title
        • Cancellations are mostly due to availability via HeinOnline
        • Libraries are cancelling some reporters
        • Libraries are binding less
        • Question was raised about how you repurpose staff after print cancellations?
          • Didn’t rehire after retirements
          • Existing staff do more tasks although with fewer titles
          • Staff seem willing to learn new tasks
          • Use Technical Services staff at circulation desk where they are faster at identifying and resolving problems
        • Question: Do libraries check regularly for electronic access?
          • One library checks HeinOnline with every issue received
          • One library checks when invoice is received
          • Notes are added when electronic access is checked
          • Non-HeinOnline titles are problemmatic
      2. Electronic books
        • Question: Any purchasers?
          • University libraries are heavy users
          • Many duplicate titles are available in e-book packages
          • Moving away from packages to individual selections from YBP
          • E-books in mobile format would be good
        • Concern about perpetual access
          • Difference between perpetual access and ownership
          • Concerned about ensuring content for “the ages”
          • Concern about maintaining access if company goes out of business
        • E-book format is useful for creating an interdisciplinary collection beyond the law
        • Concern raised about privacy and copyright. Have been instances of titles pulled from kindles because of copyright issues
        • Question: Should committee prepare a program on e-books in law libraries

    Meeting was adjourned since discussion exceeded meeting time frame.

    Submitted by Christine K. Dulaney, Associate Law Librarian for Technical and Metadata Services, Pence Law Library, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC

  • 2010 Minutes (Denver)

    Serials Standing Committee
    2010 Annual Meeting Minutes
    July 13, 2010
    Colorado Convention Center, Room 608
    Denver, Colorado

    The Chair, Shyama Agrawal, called the Serials Committee meeting to order at 7:35 a.m. with approximately 21 members in attendance. Continental breakfast was provided by TS-SIS.

    1. Introductions – In a round-robin format, each attendee quickly gave their name, position, and institution.
    2. Announcements
      1. TSLL is looking for a Serials columnist. Please contact Virginia Bryant, TSLL Editor, if interested.
      2. Programs of interest today include:
        1. I-5 – Charting New Roles for Technical Services (10:45-11:30 a.m.)
        2. PLL-SIS Program – Law Firm Technical Services Challenges and Opportunities (9:00-10:30 a.m.)
        3. TS-SIS Program – How Are We to Accomplish That Much More with That Much Less? followed by the TS-SIS Technical Services Management Issues Roundtable (2:15-4:00 p.m.)
      3. c. Education Committee is looking for proposals for next year’s meeting. The Education Committee did a great job of arranging for many relevant programs at the Denver Meeting, but they need your ideas for Philadelphia. The Education Committee is very helpful at helping to put together successful proposals. Contact Ajaye Bloomstone, Chair of the Education Committee, if you have an idea for a program, or get the information on the Education Committee from the TS-SIS website.
    3. Old business
      1. Exchange of Duplicates Program – Michele Pope sent a report concerning the Exchange of Duplicates Program. Two exchanges were held this year, with 37 libraries participating. There were 16,000+ issues offered with 1697 distinct titles. The EOD Program grossed $1110, with $370 for website maintenance, and $740 net for TS-SIS education awards. Michele would like to resign as EOD Coordinator, so we need a new EOD Coordinator for the coming year. Wendy Moore, current TS-SIS Secretary/Treasurer shared some of the financial duties. Bonnie Geldmacher, a former EOD Coordinator talked about the responsibilities of EOD Coordinator. Patricia Roncevich volunteered to be the new EOD Coordinator. Attendees were encouraged to use the EOD Program – it is a collaborative program that directly benefits TS-SIS. TS-SIS has made the most recent exchange list available, so non-participating libraries can see what types of materials are being traded. Heather Buckwalter shared some good tips on participating in the program and noted that it is now very easy to use, so worth another look if it has been a while since you have participated. Six attendees’ libraries have recently participated in the EOD Program.
      2. Project COUNTER Task Force Group – Lorna Tang, Chair of the Project COUNTER Force Group, gave a report on the work of this task force. She noted that the links concerning Project COUNTER have been updated on the TS-SIS website and that Pat Sayre-McCoy has updated the related bibliography through June 2010. Because there is a distinct lack of legal publishers/vendors participating in COUNTER that has left the Task Force to consider what to do next as a group. There is a model letter that has been drafted, but a letter from AALL would need to come from the AALL Executive Board. The Task Force encourages individual libraries to speak/write to legal publishers/vendors about their desire for COUNTER compliant statistics, using the model letter as a guide. The Task Force is working on putting together a list of how our legal publishers/vendors provide access to statistics. It was noted that both Hein and BNA will be providing statistics this year, however, neither will be COUNTER compliant.
    4. New Business
      1. 2011 Annual Meeting Program Proposals – A reminder to attendees that if we want good Technical Services programming at AALL, then it is up to us to propose programs. Program ideas discussed included:
        1. ERM – Carol Nicholson noted she was brainstorming about a possible ERM workshop that would focus on the local management of electronic resources and the process that libraries follow at a departmental level to provide access to information and resources. Maybe focus on things like A-to-Z lists, handling shared resources provided by University libraries, and “best practices.” This would not focus on various available platforms/ERMS. Carol said that while she has the idea, she would be interested in just helping someone else who would be the Coordinator for it.
        2. Change Roles of Technical Services – The program I5 “Charting New Roles for Technical Services: Faculty Publications and Institutional Repositories” does address this topic this year, but in a specific way. Could possibly have a broader, panel based discussion on finding new roles for our staff as collections change from print to electronic, focusing on the management issues involved, especially as different supervisors start sharing staff. Lisa Arm and Pat Roncevich both expressed interest in the idea.
      2. Project Ideas for 2010-11 – There were no new Project Ideas for 2010-11.
    5. Open forum for discussion
      1. There was a brief discussion and sharing of examples at a few libraries that have had an overall positive experience/outcome with the downsizing of positions in their libraries.
      2. Shyama also reminded the group to be on the look out for the survey to evaluate TS-SIS Sponsored Programs held at AALL 2010, which will be sent out to the TS-SIS listserv, along with some other SIS listservs. Feedback from this survey will be used by the Education Committee in helping them plan programs for next year’s meeting.

    Meeting adjourned at 8:52 a.m.

    Respectfully submitted by,

    Wendy Moore
    Acquisitions Librarian
    University of Georgia Law Library

  • 2009 Minutes (Washington, D.C.)

    Serials Committee
    2009 Annual Meeting Minutes
    July 28, 2009 — Washington, D.C.

    Minutes compiled by Lisa J. Arm (Boston University).

    Shyama Agrawal (Duke University) is the new incoming chair of the Serials Committee. Carol Avery Nicholson (University of North Carolina) will be chair of the Education Committee. Members thanked her for her years of steering the Serials Committee so successfully.

    Serials AALL Programs

    Carol announced this meeting’s SIS sponsored programs and commended Ann Kolodzey’s (Widener University, Delaware) program “Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? The Future of Print Periodicals in Law Libraries.” Attendees praised the program. The full-day program on “Managing from the Middle: Techniques for Success in Technical Services,” coordinated by Carol with Karen Douglas, was also found to be most relevant and highly useful.

    Carol, in her role of TS Education Committee Chair, asked for ideas for more serials programs for AALL in Denver. If you want to suggest or coordinate a program, send your suggestion to Carol by August 10 via SHARE. Do not send directly to the Annual Meeting Program Committee (AMPC). The deadline for final submission is August 23. The Education Committee is experienced with helping flesh out your program and polishing it before sending it to AMPC.

    Exchange of Duplicates

    The exchange of duplicates coordinated by Michelle Pope (Loyola, New Orleans) had 36 participants who paid $30 for a spring and fall exchange. The fall exchange will take place on December 3. More than 19,000 issues and 1,400 titles were offered in the spring exchange. The technical person who created the list is paid $10 out of each $30. He’s paid $50/hour if he has to make major changes. The SIS has not been invoiced. An option to use a credit card for payment was instituted. The authority list was updated with more titles added. There was discussion on whether statistics of fill rate would be useful.

    Discussion on whether the program should continue ensued with the question on whether libraries continue to bind print periodicals. The money does go to TS-SIS and the cost is low so folks wanted to continue for the time being. Committee will continue to evaluate usefulness of program if more folks drop out as libraries discontinue binding. The program made a $720 profit for the SIS from one exchange this year.

    Libraries should offer to reimburse for half the postage if requesting a large number of journals (say 25). Some libraries have absorbed the cost of postage.

    Librarians not in the program now would like to have the option to view the list before committing to joining. Currently there is not a facility for this. The suggestion was made to join for a year since the cost is so low. Members did not wish to offer the pre-view option.

    Project Counter

    Lorna Tang (University of Chicago) reported on Project Counter. A sample letter was created to have vendors comply with Counter Compliant statistics reporting. There is a link on the Project COUNTER Task Group webpage for Counter compliant statistics. Hein has contacted Shyama to see how they can comply with COUNTER. SUSHI and COUNTER work together. Work was begun to ask companies where they get usage statistics (all vendors, not just law). Companies have very different statistics access models. At LLMC, they are available on their website. At CCH, someone has to write to them and they will be posted at the Counter Compliant webpage. Someone has to let them know what to post.

    There were suggestions on how to get vendors to get statistics to libraries. Contacting vendor representatives can be useful. BNA-All is planning to have usage statistics available in the next 6 months. Following up with BNA is important so we let them know what our libraries need.

    There was discussion about cancelling LLMC due to its poor search engine. Staying in contact with representatives to ask to try and improve the product is important.

    Just providing statistics is not the only issue. Some stats aren’t useful if they’re not COUNTER compliant. We want stats that can be compared across platforms. Some stats count minutes used while other count searches so we’re comparing apples to oranges. It’s up to us to stay in contact with vendors to tell them what WE need, not just what they want to provide. It’s been difficult for librarians who have to call multiple vendors to get statistics. Some vendors only run stats twice a year when we need more frequent stats.

    What’s on your plate?

    Some libraries have cancelled Halsbury’s in print.

    As libraries cut more and more print products, they wanted to have more coordination with who cuts what making sure there is at least one library retaining a print copy of titles being cut making sure there are regional depositories to store a master copy. LIPA (Legal Information Preservation Alliance) was created to preserve legal information including print titles. Libraries should ask their library directors to join. The page is hosted on AALL at: Margie Maes, the executive director of LIPA may be willing to co-sponsor a program.

    The stability of companies relying on revenue from print purchasing was noted as more libraries cut their print collections.

    The issue of what to cut when there’s nothing left to cut was mentioned as some libraries have had devastating budget reductions due to the financial climate.

    One option, instead of cancelling a title entirely, is asking whether libraries can “pay per view” since many general providers have this option. Direct negotiation with vendors is vital when there are large price increases. One librarian succeeded in paying a lower price when she said her library would have to cancel the title entirely. The vendor reduced the price to the previous year’s level.

    Ann K. suggested a program on pricing models for electronic sources: what are the current models and what the future holds. Vendors need to know what libraries are thinking. Libraries need to be part of the initial discussion if we are to remain active participants in controlling electronic sources pricing.

    Another program on best practices for withdrawing material was mentioned.

    Durham’s statement on open access with law reviews available only online brings up issues on how stable the electronic platform is. How do law school deans feel about this policy?

    Space is a huge issue. Deans want more space at the same time libraries are reducing their print collections.

    What to do with discarded print products since there is a reduced market for these. Folks suggested that China is looking for this material. Contact Better World Books, who takes monographs only, no serials. They will send boxes, but at least eight boxes need to be sent at once.

    For foreign journals going to electronic only, are folks checking to be sure the “electronic access” is actually available? There have been some problems with this.

    With link checking reports, only the main link is checked not individual journal records so it’s possible a link may no longer work.

    Question asked: Does anyone check in electronic issues? One library did. Others deemed it counter-productive since libraries are paying for access so the current electronic issue should be there.