BOHMs AWAY! Lessons from a Collection Survey
2017
- 105Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage105
- Downloads54
- Abstract Views51
Lecture / Presentation Description
VCU James Branch Cabell Library underwent a major renovation and expansion from 2014 to 2016, necessitating a move of all special collections and archives materials. After the move we surveyed our collections to help us regain intellectual and physical control. In addition, the survey allowed us to assess whether collections were in need of additional processing or reprocessing to make them more accessible physically and intellectually, identify special formats, and address conservation issues.To conduct the survey, we created a form and used this in conjunction with the assessment tool in Archivists’ Toolkit. The form included checklists to note information such as material formats other than paper, specific condition and preservation issues, as well as a general notes field. For brevity and consistency, we created a list of abbreviations to use. Collections were ranked using an agreed upon set of criteria in multiple categories. The rankings have helped determine which collections are in most need of attention.During the course of the survey we discovered that not all collections were processed equally, meaning that they didn’t always conform to best practices and standards. This poster will expand upon what we learned and what we’re doing with the information we obtained.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know