UKRR Final Report.Pdf

[DOCUMENT TITLE]

United Kingdom Research Reserve

UKRR Final Report Theo Stubbs, John Hosking, Andy Appleyard, Neil Grindley, Chris Banks, Nova Larch, Daryl Yang, and institutional contributors With a foreword by Professor Sir Rick Trainor

August 2019

Except where credited or licensed otherwise, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Contents

FOREWORD ...... 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6

THE NEED FOR A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO THE MANAGEMENT OF PRINT JOURNALS ...... 6

THE CHALLENGES TO BE OVERCOME FOR COLLABORATIVE DE-DUPLICATION OF PRINT JOURNALS ...... 6

UKRR PROCESSES ...... 7

PROJECT OUTCOMES ...... 7

EXTENDING UKRR TO MONOGRAPHS ...... 7

UKRR SUSTAINABILITY ...... 7

DEFINITIONS, GLOSSARY & ABBREVIATIONS ...... 8

DEFINITIONS ...... 8

PROCESS DEFINITIONS ...... 8

DEFINITIONS ASSIGNED TO LIBRARIES ...... 9

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... 9

NOTES ON DATA ...... 10

SCOPE OF SOURCE DATA: ...... 10

DATASET FROM UKRR ...... 11

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT ...... 11

ESTABLISHING THE NEED ...... 11

UNDERSTANDING THE CHALLENGE ...... 12

PROJECT TIMELINE AND KEY MILESTONES ...... 13

WORKING TOWARDS A DISTRIBUTED COLLABORATIVE NATIONAL COLLECTION ...... 14

PHASE 1: PILOT, APPETITE AND PROCESS ...... 14

PHASE 2: SCALE AND SYSTEMS ...... 16

PHASE 3: CONSOLIDATION AND SUSTAINABILITY ...... 18

GOVERNANCE ...... 20

VARYING COLLABORATIVE APPROACHES TO COLLECTION MANAGEMENT ...... 20

FINANCES ...... 21

IMPACT AND ACHIEVEMENTS ...... 22

SPACE AND SAVINGS ...... 23

RECURRENT ESTATE MANAGEMENT SAVINGS: ...... 23

CAPITAL SAVINGS: ...... 24

NUMBER OF STUDY SPACES...... 24

TYPE AND VARIETY OF LIBRARY SPACE PROVISION ...... 26

A DISTRIBUTED NATIONAL COLLABORATIVE COLLECTION...... 28

DATA AND SYSTEMS ...... 31

IMPROVED CATALOGUE RECORDS ...... 31

PHASE 3 DATA PROJECT ...... 32 LARCH ...... 33

COLLECTING AND ANALYSING DATA ...... 33

COMMUNITY AND CULTURE ...... 42

TRUST IN UKRR PROCESSES ...... 43

MEMBER TYPES ...... 43

DISCIPLINARY CHANGES ...... 44

MOVING AWAY FROM PHYSICAL COLLECTIONS ...... 47

COLLABORATION BEYOND THE HE AND UK...... 47

INSTITUTION TYPES ...... 47

EUROPEAN COLLABORATION ...... 48

ANALYSIS ...... 49

PROFILE OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 49

METERAGE OF OFFERED HOLDINGS ...... 49

SIZE OF SUBMITTED CYCLE LISTS ...... 52

NEW BL OVERLAP TITLES PER CYCLE LIST ...... 53

OFFERED HOLDINGS SUBMITTED WITHOUT AN ISSN ...... 57

ANALYSIS OF RETENTION LEVELS AND METERAGE ...... 58

RETENTION LEVELS OVER TIME ...... 58

RETENTION LEVELS FOR OFFERED HOLDINGS SUBMITTED WITH OR WITHOUT AN ISSN ...... 59

OFFERED HOLDINGS SUBMITTED WITHOUT AN ISSN BUT WHERE ONE EXISTS FOR CONTINUED TITLE ...... 61

METERAGE ...... 62

COLLECTION COMPARISON ...... 65

CONCLUSIONS FROM ANALYSIS ...... 68

CONCLUSIONS AND LEARNING POINTS ...... 69

EXPECTATIONS FOR THE FUTURE ...... 69

FROM PROJECT TO SERVICE ...... 70

THE NATIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHIC KNOWLEDGEBASE (NBK) ...... 73

LESSONS LEARNED ...... 75

FUNDING ...... 75

OSCILLATION IN SUPPLY ...... 76

EASE OF PROCESSING ...... 76

ADVOCACY ...... 76

ACCURACY OF DATA ...... 77

FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES ...... 77

MONOGRAPHS ...... 79

CONCLUSIONS ...... 80

APPENDIX 1: INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN UKRR ...... 82

PROJECT DELIVERY STAFF AT THE BRITISH LIBRARY AND IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON ...... 82

ADVISORY BOARD (PHASE 1) ...... 83

BOARD MEMBERS (PHASES 2 & 3) ...... 84

APPENDIX 2: PARTICIPATING LIBRARIES ...... 85

APPENDIX 3: EPICO COLLABORATORS ...... 86

APPENDIX 4: PUBLICATIONS ARISING FROM THE PROJECT ...... 87

REPORTS ...... 87

PRESENTATIONS/CONFERENCE...... 87

JOURNAL ARTICLES ...... 88

APPENDIX 5: NARRATIVE CASE STUDIES ...... 89

UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN ...... 89

UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM ...... 89

UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL ...... 90

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE ...... 91

DURHAM UNIVERSITY ...... 92

GOLDSMITHS, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ...... 93

KING’S COLLEGE LONDON ...... 93

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY ...... 96

UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS ...... 97

LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE ...... 98

UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER ...... 98

QUEEN MARY, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ...... 100

UNIVERSITY OF READING ...... 100

UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS...... 103

APPENDIX 6: UKRR PHASE 2 CYCLE LIST PROCESSING WORKFLOW ...... 109

UKRR PHASE 3 RETENTION DECISION DIAGRAM ...... 112

APPENDIX 7: MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT ...... 113

PHASE 2 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ...... 113

PHASE 2 ADDENDUM ...... 114

PHASE 3 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ...... 114

COLLABORATIVE COLLECTION RETENTION AGREEMENT ...... 115

Foreword I am very pleased to have the opportunity to provide a foreword to this very impressive report of a highly successful project which has evolved into a major ongoing resource that is doing much to sustain the world-class quality of UK research. It has been a genuine privilege and a real pleasure to serve as Chair of the Board of the UK Research Reserve (UKRR) during the final years of its project phase. By the time that I took over the chair from my long-serving predecessor Sir Drummond Bone UKRR already had a number of major achievements to its credit. Most fundamentally, UKRR had persuaded the UK’s research libraries to exchange space-consuming physical holdings of bulky periodicals (now very largely available online) for a national system, enhanced by proper preservation and management, of ready access to physical copies in secure locations. The latter stages of this process occurred on my watch, as did the exploration of future possible parallel action for monographs and the agreement of mechanisms for transforming UKRR from a time-limited collaborative project into a long-term service of the British Library. UKRR’s achievements have been more than convenient. They represent a major triumph of UK universities, and supporting agencies, in dealing with the impact of rapidly advancing technology on the traditional research library. By providing ways in which access to key materials could be maintained while necessary space efficiencies were carried out in university libraries – allowing not only substantial cash savings but also the creation of additional reader spaces and the housing of new collections of other types - UKRR has played a crucial role in adapting UK universities’ research resources to the digital age. This has demanded great expertise, imagination, trust, generosity and determination from the many institutions and individuals concerned. UKRR has been a triumph of collaboration, reaching right across the UK and extending into Continental Europe. In turn the mechanisms and resources created by UKRR are a continuing reinforcement to collaboration. UKRR’s success indicates what can be achieved for UK higher education when these virtues are deployed by all relevant parties: individual research universities, funding bodies (especially HEFCE and Research England), national research resources (the British Library and JISC), consortia of universities (Research Libraries UK and SCONUL), learned societies and academies (particularly the British Academy). All have played their part in the Board, which has been a very easy body to chair, partly because of the constructive attitudes of the individuals concerned, partly because all the participating entities have been committed to a shared vision. None of this could have been achieved, of course, without the dedication and skill of Chris Banks and her predecessors, and of the UKRR staff whom they coordinated. I wish UKRR every success as it makes its transition from a very high-achieving project to a permanent service of great value to the UK research community. At a time when the latter faces unprecedented challenges UKRR provides not only a very useful function and set of resources but also an example of how big problems in research can be overcome by united action. Professor Sir Rick Trainor, Rector, Exeter College, Oxford

Acknowledgements That UKRR has succeeded in delivering a £4:£1 return on investment and has enabled the creation of enhanced student spaces at its 36 participating libraries is due to the contributions of the many individuals and institutions involved in the project over its 12 year lifespan. Key individuals, institutions and organisations are listed in Appendices 1 & 2. Here we thank them in groups: • The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and its successor body, Research England, for its willingness to fund the pilot and then the full project. • The British Library as our trusted partner throughout the entire project and as the willing successor in delivering UKRR services to the community. • The UKRR Board who have guided, supported and encouraged our work throughout the 12 years of the project. • The participating libraries who both piloted the initial concept, and who continued to undertake the detailed work necessary to ensure the collaboration was successful and that the outcomes of its success could be shared more widely. • The SUNCAT team at EDINA who supported data processing and comparison throughout the project. • Roger Sparling & Associates for the development of the LARCH database. • JISC for ensuring that, through NBK, data will remain available to support the ongoing collection comparison and management between UK libraries. • Research Libraries UK for being willing to support the development of a Collaborative Collection Retention Agreement to ensure the ongoing collaborative preservation and retention of scarce research materials. • The UKRR Project team at Imperial College London who have acted as liaison between participating libraries and who have undertaken detailed scrutiny of all data and decisions throughout the project and to my colleagues in Imperial’s Library Services who have supported that team and its work. • To my co-authors, including those from libraries who have contributed case studies for ensuring that the UKRR legacy is fittingly documented and analysed and that supporting data has been made available to enable future analysis. • Finally, to Jan Wilkinson and Clare Jenkins who, between them in their roles at the British Library and Imperial College London enabled and encouraged those first, and at the time, seemingly brave steps towards collaborative collection management.

Chris Banks, Head of UKRR, Imperial College London, August 2019.

Executive summary This report has been prepared for Research England and summarises the achievements of the United Kingdom Research Reserve project, hereafter UKRR. UKRR was established in 2007 to explore whether, through collaborative documentation, preservation and de-duplication of low use print journals, it would be possible to realise benefits through the generation of space savings across the UK’s Higher Education Libraries. The project received £11,581,672 in total funding from HEFCE (now Research England). UKRR was managed by Imperial College London in partnership with the British Library and between 2007 and 2019, 35 further libraries participated in the project. UKRR ran in three phases and has now transitioned to a service delivered by the British Library. • Phase 1, 2007–2009: to pilot processes and to establish the full business case. • Phase 2, 2009–2017: to embed the processes, develop systems to support the processes, to scale beyond the pilot libraries. • Phase 3, 2017–2019: to widen the scheme beyond HE, to explore extensibility to low use monographs, to refine the processes and to ensure a smooth transition from project status to the service now delivered by the British Library. The need for a collaborative approach to the management of print journals Factors which contributed to the need to consider this collaborative approach included the growth in published journal output and increases in the numbers of students attending university. Together these placed increased pressure on university space, particularly in university libraries. Journal content was selected for this first approach to collaborative de-duplication because for this material, the transition from print availability to digital was well underway when the project commenced in 2007, with many publishers additionally offering options for the purchase of digital backfiles of pre-1997 content. The challenges to be overcome for collaborative de-duplication of print journals That this activity needed a project to support it largely stemmed from the often-poor quality of metadata for journals making a data-driven approach to collection management highly problematic. • Few libraries would document journals to issue level. Sometimes a library metadata record for a journal would lack information about start and end date of the run, as well as information about any gaps e.g.: Biochimica et biophysica acta. (BBA). Bioenergetics. Published: Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISSN: 0005-2728. Availability: on shelf, print journal. • Journals change titles, sometimes multiple times over the course of their production. • A single journal may split to form two or more separate more specialized journals. • Some journal titles are very similar. A further challenge was a cultural one: disposal of library content, even low-use content duplicated across multiple institutions, can be perceived as an act of barbarism and philistinism by librarians and researchers alike. UKRR therefore set out to create robust and trusted processes while individual libraries engaged in meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders. Through this engagement issues which might help to determine the most appropriate solution for any individual journal were teased out and addressed: • Scarcity: the extent to which an Offered Holding was scarce amongst the participating libraries. • Unique or rarely preserved content: these included first publications of artworks in art journals, advertising content which had not been preserved by other libraries or in

digitized backfiles of journals, high quality illustrations where online versions in backfiles were of a significantly lower quality. UKRR Processes Processes developed by UKRR included defining the detailed analysis and documentation of proposed holdings for deduplication needed by participating libraries; undertaking detailed shelfchecking of the equivalent British Library purchased loan copies; undertaking analyses of documented holdings at other UKRR libraries; and developing a system to support robust disposal/retention decisions. Project outcomes During all three phases of the project, UKRR supported the processing of nearly 130,000m of print journal materials and enabled the release of nearly 98,000m of shelf space across the 36 libraries. UKRR has delivered an estimated £4.04 in savings for every £1.00 of funding received with capital savings estimated at £29,649,000, accrued recurrent savings at £17,143,000 and with ongoing recurrent savings in the region of £2,831,000. Between them, the British Library and the participating libraries ensured the retention of loan and preservation copies of nearly 30,000 journal titles and nearly 10,000 holdings from 8,000 titles went to fill gaps in the BL’s own loan collection. Detailed analysis of the materials processed through UKRR showed that over 16,000 titles were scarce and that nearly 40% of all titles processed were held by only one of the participating libraries. Both through the main UKRR de-duplication process and as the result of an additional data enhancement project, data for nearly 300,000 individual journal issues has been enhanced in the British Library’s catalogue, making these individually discoverable for researchers. Space released in participating libraries has been re-purposed for a variety of student study and collaboration facilities. Extending UKRR to monographs During Phase 3, a stand-alone project was undertaken to explore the extent to which UKRR processes could be extended to monographs in order to enable the collaborative retention and de-duplication of further materials. This work has identified an appetite for continuing discussions, with a likely emphasis on collaborative preservation of such material, including shared storage, the improvement of metadata for monographs, and of links between print and digitized formats. UKRR sustainability For UKRR to become a sustainable service, processes, systems, data, and an agreed collaborative approach to retention are essential. These have been achieved as follows: • Service: a UKRR service is now offered by the British Library who have, as part of Phase 3 of the project, refined processes and re-platformed the UKRR system, LARCH. • Enhanced data arising from the UKRR project is now available through both the British Library’s catalogue and via the new Jisc National Bibliographic Knowledgebase (NBK). • Research Libraries UK (RLUK) have put in place a Collaborative Collection Retention Agreement to ensure the continued preservation of scarce research materials held by them.

Definitions, glossary & abbreviations Definitions The following terms are used throughout this report to describe particular characteristics of the materials offered to UKRR, and to describe the various processes and decisions that might be reached for any item. Process definitions • Cycles – specified calendar periods used in Phases 2 and 3 for the acceptance of UKRR submissions. Each library’s submissions within a given Cycle could be divided into multiple individual lists. • List/Cycle List – a batch of Offered Holdings for submission to UKRR by a given library. • Offered Holding – a specific range of volumes, parts, issues and/or years (including the specification of any gaps in this range and/or any included supplementary material from that journal) of a specified single published title. Note that “single published title” here could be in the literal sense or in the sense of a single BL Overlap Title (see below). For example, an Offered Holding could be submitted by a library under the title Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete with the ISSN 00443719 and a range of Volume 1 (1962) to Volume 71 (1986). This Offered Holding would represent one Offered Holding of the single BL Overlap Title that includes the journal Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete along with all preceding and following title and ISSN changes, in particular it includes volumes in its given range from after the title change to Probability theory and related fields and the ISSN change to 01788051. • BL Overlap Title – a journal considered as a single entity irrespective of any changes in the title under which it is published. For example, consider a journal initially published under the title Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete which then had its published title changed to Probability theory and related fields. This represents, here for UKRR, a single BL Overlap Title. When a journal is split into separate series/journals, or when multiple series/journals are combined into one journal, all constitute a single BL Overlap Title too. That is all journals on both sides of a “780 - Preceding Entry” or “785 - Succeeding Entry” MARC 21 field, with any indicated “Type of relationship”, constitute a single BL Overlap Title. The identification of journals – with possibly different published titles and/or ISSNs – as belonging to a shared BL Overlap Title was done by the British Library as part of their shelf check process (the information has been represented by a value called the BL Overlap number). • Scarcity – material was given a Scarcity value based on how many other Member Libraries held it. It was also given an ‘adjusted Scarcity value’, which reduced this Scarcity value based on the number of institutions which had perhaps disposed of the material (as a result of having been given a Dispose status) but which had not yet been updated in SUNCAT. Material was considered scarce if it was held in two or fewer Member Libraries. • Retention Status – the final outcome assigned to an Offered Holding at the completion of the UKRR process. The possible final Retention Statuses are: o Retain – an Offered Holding which the BL did not require any part of, but which was found to be scarce. o BL Retain – an Offered Holding which the BL were requesting some part of in order to fill a gap in their collections, and which was found to be scarce. o Dispose – an Offered Holding which the BL did not require any part of, and which was not found to be scarce.

o BL Dispose – an Offered Holding which the BL were requesting some part of in order to fill a gap in their collections, the remainder of which was not found to be scarce. o Withdrawn – an Offered Holding which was, for whatever reason, removed from a List by the submitting library. o Out of Scope – an Offered Holding that was considered out of scope for UKRR (for example, abstracts, leisure journals, newspapers, and reprints). o Not Categorised – a legacy status applied to certain Offered Holdings that could not be assigned another status. • Retention Agreement – All Holding Libraries signed a Memorandum of Agreement, outlining their commitment to retain physical material where required. The memorandum went through a few iterations, and can be found in Appendix 7: Memoranda of Agreement. As UKRR moved into the British Library Service, this was replaced by the Collaborative Collection Retention Agreement (CCRA). Definitions assigned to libraries Member Library – Phases 1 and 2 worked on a membership model, with libraries paying subscriptions based on their Jisc band1. Member Library, therefore, applies to any of the libraries involved in these Phases. Holding Library (HL) – Introduced during Phase 3 after the move away from a membership model, a Holding Library was required to only dispose of UKRR journal material through UKRR, and to retain material that it was asked to retain. More detailed information about HLs can be found in Table 1 on p.19. Principal Holding Library (PHL) – Also introduced as part of the changed model for Phase 3, PHLs had the same commitments as a HL, but were also required to ingest any material submitted by a Contributing Library which was considered Scarce but was not needed at the British Library. More detailed information about PHLs can be found in Table 1 on p.19. Contributing Library (CL) – The concept of a CL was also introduced during Phase 3, offering libraries the opportunity to offer material in the knowledge that if it was Scarce and thus needed to be retained it could be ingested into the collections of the PHLs. Again, more detailed information about CLs can be found in Table 1 on p.19. Offering Library – UKRR worked on the basis of libraries submitting Lists of material, and the term Offering Library was used specifically in relation to material submitted, meaning that an Offering Library could be any of the other aforementioned definitions. Glossary and abbreviations BL – British Library, the national library of the UK. Primarily based at St Pancras (Central London), where many of the reading rooms are based, and Boston Spa (Yorkshire), which is where most of the physical material is stored. BLDSS – British Library Document Supply Service. Copac – A library union catalogue for HE and research libraries in the UK. Superseded by the NBK. EPICo – European Print Initiatives Collaboration, a group of organisations from across Europe involved in the collaborative management of print material. HE – Higher Education. HEFCE – Higher Education Funding Council for England, a public body concerned with the distribution of funding to HEIs. HEFCE closed on 1 April 2018 and was replaced by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Office for Students (OfS).

1 For further information, please see: https://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Support/Jisc- Banding/

HEI – Higher Education Institution. ILL – Interlibrary Loan, the system through which libraries are able to access material owned by other libraries. ISSN – International Standard Serial Number, an identifier used for journal titles. LARCH – Linked Automated Register of Collaborative Holdings, the system through which material is submitted to UKRR and processed for decision. MARC 21 – a standard format for bibliographic data. NBK – the National Bibliographic Knowledgebase, the Jisc service including bibliographic data of holdings of UK libraries. The service superseded COPAC and SUNCAT, and the public facing parts were called Library Hub Discover, Library Hub Catalogue, and Library Hub Compare. RLUK – Research Libraries UK, a consortium of 37 research libraries across the UK and Ireland. SCONUL – The Society of College, National and University Libraries; an organization representing all the university libraries in the UK, as well as the national libraries and some additional FE libraries. SUNCAT – until July 2019, the Serials Union Catalogue. A shared library catalogue for journal and other serials holdings in the UK. In July 2019, this service was superseded by the NBK. UKRI – UK Research and Innovation, the body that brings together the Arts and Humanities Research Council; Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council; Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; Economic and Social Research Council; Innovate UK; Medical Research Council; Natural Environment Research Council; Research England (formerly HEFCE); and Science and Technology Facilities Council. UKRR – UK Research Reserve, a project that is the subject of this report, which became a British Library service. UKRR supported the collaborative preservation, management and availability of print journal materials whilst allowing local de-duplication by HEIs. Notes on data Scope of source data: • The source data used in this analysis was, unless explicitly noted otherwise, extracted from the LARCH database and encompasses the Cycle List processing data for all finalized Cycle Lists from Phases 2 and 3. • All data from Phase 1 were excluded from this analysis. Whilst some lists from Phase 1 were imported into LARCH after LARCH was introduced (hence after Phase 1 had been completed), not all Phase 1 lists were. Given this and a degree of uncertainty about how the exact mechanisms of the Phase 1 process operated, the focus was placed on Phases 2 and 3 only for this analysis. • The source data therefore comprises list processing data for Phases 2 and 3 including: o data drawn from Offered Holding information on the Cycle Lists submitted by the Offering Libraries (after any later corrections were made following its processing). o resulting data from the BL’s shelf checking process. o Scarcity check results submitted by either the Offering Library or the BL. o information produced in final stage of list processing (i.e. after the previous three types of data were completed and imported into LARCH) by LARCH and the central UKRR team (in particular the Retention Statuses given to Offered Holdings). • In this analysis: o ‘meterage’ refers to the linear shelf-space meterage of an Offered Holding (which is entered into LARCH by the submitting library as part of the Offered Holding details).

Dataset from UKRR One of the outputs of UKRR was a 28,655-line dataset with detailed information gathered over the course of the project, including journal title changes, the number of times material was offered, and by whom it was offered. All 36 Offering Libraries agreed to make this dataset publicly available without anonymisation for any interested parties to do any additional analyses. It is available here: dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3368465 Introduction and context Establishing the need At the beginning of the 21st century, many higher education libraries across the UK were facing severe space shortages and challenges posed by internal and external factors: increasing student numbers, user behaviour changes, technological advancement and the fact that library content was being delivered both physically and increasingly digitally, and a greater emphasis on student experience. The UK Research Reserve (UKRR) was a strategic initiative by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), the British Library (BL), the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE; until April 2018), and Research England (from April 2018). UKRR was founded in 2007 to provide a collaborative national solution to tackle relevant issues surrounding this growing space shortage, in particular the duplication of print journals. The de-duplication and collaborative management of print journals was chosen as a solution to this space crisis in libraries as many of the physical materials were also increasingly being held electronically in the form of publisher- digitised backfiles, and because of the large scope for space savings that journals offer - particularly in comparison to print monographs. The project concluded at the end of March 2019 when UKRR transferred to become a service provided directly by the British Library. This final report is prepared for Research England to capture the programme’s achievements, impact, and return on investment. In 2007-8, at the time that UKRR started, libraries faced a space crisis, with full open-access shelves and closed-access stores giving libraries little scope to cope with growing student numbers, and the resulting high numbers of library visits.

Total student numbers at all UK SCONUL members and UKRR Phase One members in 10 years leading up to commencement of UKRR project 2,000,000 160,000 1,800,000 140,000 1,600,000 120,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 100,000 1,000,000 80,000 800,000 60,000 600,000 40,000

400,000 members 200,000 20,000 members 0 0 1998 -1999 -2000 -2001 -2002 -2003 -2004 -2005 -2006 -2007 - 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Axis Title Total number Total number of students atall UKSCONUL All SCONUL members Eight founder members Total number of students at UKRR Phase 1

FIGURE 1: TOTAL STUDENT NUMBERS AT ALL UK SCONUL MEMBERS AND UKRR PHASE ONE MEMBERS IN 10 YEARS LEADING UP TO COMMENCEMENT OF UKRR PROJECT

Total library visits at UKRR Phase One members and at all UK SCONUL members and UKRR Phase One members in 10 years leading up to commencement of UKRR project 124,000,000 12,000,000

122,000,000 10,000,000

120,000,000 8,000,000

118,000,000 6,000,000

116,000,000 4,000,000 members members 114,000,000 2,000,000

112,000,000 0 1998 - 1999 - 2000 - 2001 - 2002 - 2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Axis Title Total number Total number oflibrary visitsat UKRR Phase 1 Total number Total number oflibrary visits atall UK SCONUL All UK Sconul members UKRR Phase 1 members

FIGURE 2: TOTAL LIBRARY VISITS AT ALL UK SCONUL MEMBERS AND UKRR PHASE ONE MEMBERS IN 10 YEARS LEADING UP TO COMMENCEMENT OF UKRR PROJECT In the original bid to HEFCE, UKRR’s core stated objectives were as follows: • A shared national initiative to secure the long-term retention, storage and availability of low use printed research journals. • A collaborative strategy for more efficient use of resources across the sector. • Overall enhanced access to information resources for the researcher. These founding principles were embedded in UKRR’s strategies and guided UKRR’s operations since the commencement of the project in 2007. They supported: • Safe de-duplication of print journals across participating libraries. • Shared collaborative retention of print journal holdings amongst the participating libraries. • The filling of gaps in runs of the British Library’s loan collection of print journals. • Enhanced metadata about journal holdings. • A preferential service to deliver print journals to participating libraries. Understanding the challenge The idea of the removal of print items from research collections is a topic fraught with emotion and symbolism, with acts of destruction equated with philistinism and barbarism. As such, it was not always plain sailing for UKRR, particularly for those libraries participating in Phase 1 and for many libraries that joined subsequently. In the early days, UKRR and libraries working with the small central team faced reluctance and resistance to the idea of disposing of collections, even in a collaborative and systematic manner and even where perpetual access to digitized content had been secured by their institutions. Many viewed the idea as unacceptable, with some viewing it as everything from a threat to job security to a threat to an institution’s reputation. Others regarded the approach as a disrespect to their disciplines or a risk to their research resources. In addition to developing robust processes which ensured the safeguarding of individual scarce print journal issues, it was equally crucial that the right messages were developed and communicated effectively with a wide range of stakeholders, and that concerns were understood and addressed. Working with participating libraries, UKRR designed tools and supported libraries. Acting as a catalyst for change, UKRR successfully implemented its strategies and plans and built up a

national distributed collection of low-use print journals; its collaboration network gradually expanded, with a full list found in Appendix 2: Participating libraries, not only within the UK but also abroad through the formation of a collaborative initiative with European partners. Project timeline and key milestones UKRR commenced as a pilot in 2007 (Phase 1), then as a project from 2009 (Phases 2 & 3) before transferring to become a service delivered by the British Library in 2019.

FIGURE 3: A TIMELINE OF SIGNIFICANT UKRR MILESTONES

Working towards a distributed collaborative national collection The terms used in this section are described in the Definitions, glossary and abbreviations section on p.8. Phase 1: pilot, appetite and process

MAP 1: PHASE 1 LIBRARIES

GOOGLE MAPS., (2019). [UK AND IRELAND WITH UKRR PHASE 1 LIBRARIES MARKED]. GOOGLE. [VIEWED 17 JULY 2019]. AVAILABLE FROM: HTTPS://DRIVE.GOOGLE.COM/OPEN?ID=1PPHURBJYRSDEAAS0IJKQIPYBTQVC_NWF&USP=SHARING NOTE THAT IN THE MAP ABOVE, THE BLUE PINS MARK THE LOCATIONS OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF PHASE 1, NOT THE CITIES MARKED AND NAMED IN BLACK. To see a full list of participants and the Phases they took part in, please see p.85.

Phase One of the UKRR project, which ran from January 2007 to August 2008, was set up to pilot the UKRR concept with six initial volunteer institutions – the University of Birmingham, Cardiff University, Imperial College London, the University of Liverpool, the University of Southampton, and the University of St Andrews. These were joined later in Phase 1 by Newcastle University and the University of Exeter. The review and de-duplication process in this Phase consisted of the following nine steps: Stage 1: Selection by the pilot university of candidate journals for de-duplication. Stage 2: Preparing local holdings data for UKRR process. Stage 3: Checking holdings of titles in SUNCAT and in HE library catalogues. Stage 4: Checking titles against BL’s purchased holdings. Stage 5: Assign categories based on the information received and separate material. Stage 6: The transfer of requested titles to the BL to fill gaps in their journal runs. Stage 7: Disposal of unwanted titles. Stage 8: Transfer UKRR “reserve copies” to a designated HE library. Stage 9: Accession of the UKRR “reserve copies” for local retention. Stage 1 in this process was an important aspect of the UKRR model that remained in place throughout all phases of the project. This was that the selection of holdings to be considered for deduplication was made solely by the Offering Library and was not dictated by the UKRR project team nor other libraries or project stakeholders. This process also contains the two essential main stages in UKRR Phases 2 and 3: the check of the British Library’s document supply collection for matching holdings, and the Scarcity check process based on information in SUNCAT and HE library catalogues. A major difference between the initial plan for the UKRR process and that used in Phases 2 and 3 was in the treatment of Offered Holdings that were found to be scarce. The initial plan in Phase 1 was that for each scarce holding processed, two libraries would be designated to retain a copy of that journal – in addition to a copy held by the British Library – so that the current scarce Offered Holding and any future scarce holdings of that journal would be transferred to a designated library for retention there.2 It was towards the end of Phase 1 that the CHEMS report was commissioned in order to demonstrate the ongoing value for money of any future funding. This report reviewed the work that had been done up until then, and made recommendations for future UKRR activity.

2 This process is referenced in points 3.6 and 3.7 of the 2008 CHEMS report “An Evaluation of Phase One of the UK Research Reserve: Report”, where it is noted that this part of the planed process had not yet been implemented at the time the report was written. CHEMS Consulting. (2008), An evaluation of Phase One of the UK Research Reserve.

Phase 2: scale and systems

MAP 2: NEW UKRR PHASE 2 LIBRARIES

GOOGLE MAPS., (2019). [UK AND IRELAND WITH UKRR PHASE 2 LIBRARIES MARKED]. GOOGLE. [VIEWED 17 JULY 2019]. AVAILABLE FROM: HTTPS://DRIVE.GOOGLE.COM/OPEN?ID=1LYYQE0YKYQJRIWDURKGL181BM_BZUD2S&USP=SHARING NOTE THAT IN THE MAP ABOVE, THE BLUE PINS MARK THE LOCATIONS OF ONLY THE NEW PARTICIPANTS IN PHASE 2, NOT THE CITIES MARKED AND NAMED IN BLACK. Following the success of Phase 1, HEFCE confirmed their support of UKRR Phase 2 which was launched in February 2009 and which eventually ran to February 2017. For the main part of Phase 2 UKRR operated with a membership model whereby Member Libraries would pay an annual subscription based on their JISC band, and then libraries received funding back based on the meterage of their submissions to UKRR. In Phase 2, 29 Higher Education libraries participated as Member Libraries. The basis of the Phase 2 model was to consider the combined collection of the Member Libraries’ holdings, and the British Library’s document supply collection, as constituting the total UKRR collection, then for each Offered Holding submitted by a Member Library calculate whether it

was safe to remove this holding from total UKRR collection, and whether the British Library were missing any issues within the Offered Holding. The two main checks in the Phase 2 process - Scarcity checking and British Library shelf checking – guided the answer to these respective questions. During Phase 2 UKRR’s LARCH system was developed and launched. LARCH was: • a repository for data submitted – both data detailing the Offered Holdings on each list submitted by the given library, and resulting data processed by the BL for the shelf checking and Scarcity checking stages – for each Cycle List; • a decision support system; and, • a communication tool that helped in coordinating the list processing stages. The process included the following steps: • Having consulted with internal stakeholders about which journals would be suitable for de-duplication, the Member Library completed a template spreadsheet with the details and holdings of the journals they wished to offer to UKRR. These details were submitted to UKRR by uploading the completed file into UKRR’s web application Linked Automated Register of Collaborative Holdings, LARCH3.

• The information from the submitted file was downloaded from LARCH by the BL and was checked against their loanable holdings. Colleagues at SUNCAT ran a check of all Member Libraries’ holdings for the given list of titles and ISSNs from the submission. This data was then forwarded to the BL where a manual comparison was made between the holding range being offered and the holdings found at other Member Libraries.

• Material missing from the BL’s existing lending collection was requested by them in order to complete their holdings, whilst titles not already in the BL collection were assessed for suitability and could be requested by them in their entirety. The check on the Scarcity of an Offered Holding across the collections of other UKRR members informed the decision to retain or dispose the holding at the Offering Library.

• Based on the results of the BL shelf check, the Scarcity check and the history of previous submissions of the same BL Overlap Title to UKRR, a Retention Status was calculated for each Offered Holding on the list. Offered Holdings given a Retain decision were retained by the Offering Library. For each BL Retain Offered Holding the Offering Library could choose to retain the whole Offered Holding or transfer the requested part of it to the BL and retain the remaining part. Offered Holdings given a Dispose decision could be sent for environmentally friendly disposal or donated to charity. For each BL Dispose Offered Holding the Offering Library had to transfer the part of it requested by the BL then could treat the remaining part as they would a Dispose decision.

• Access to material held in the Research Reserve was provided via the BL’s established document supply service, with UKRR members receiving a premium 24 hour branded electronic delivery service for all their document requests in Phase 2.

Please see Appendix 6: UKRR Phase 2 Cycle List processing workflow for a diagram of the UKRR Phase 2 Cycle List processing workflow. LARCH acted as a safeguard on decisions made about retention. Retention decisions could not be made based on a snapshot of information held in SUNCAT because it may not be up-to-date as individual libraries may not have updated their own holdings data following de-duplication. It was necessary also to have a log of material previously offered, with this being provided by LARCH. The instances in which this was useful were if two libraries submitted the same material in quick succession, where LARCH could then say whether material was potentially due to be scarce in future, based on Institution A having received a Dispose status, but that this was not

3 That is once LARCH was introduced in 2010.

yet reflected in SUNCAT, and as a result affecting the Retention Status given to Institution B and ensuring that scarce material was not disposed of inadvertently. Phase 3: consolidation and sustainability

MAP 3: NEW UKRR LIBRARIES IN PHASE 3

GOOGLE MAPS., (2019). [UK AND IRELAND WITH UKRR PHASE 3 LIBRARIES MARKED]. GOOGLE. [VIEWED 17 JULY 2019]. AVAILABLE FROM: HTTPS://DRIVE.GOOGLE.COM/OPEN?ID=1FQAD- Q9HUJQD4BX6WSQTLP4WM64TKDNO&USP=SHARING NOTE: IN THE MAP ABOVE, THE BLUE PINS MARK THE LOCATIONS OF ONLY THE NEW PARTICIPANTS IN PHASE 3, NOT THE CITIES AND TOWNS MARKED AND NAMED IN BLACK. UKRR Phase 3 provided its service under an on-demand model, as opposed to the Phase 2 membership model, and under this model its services were open to all UK libraries in or beyond the HE sector. One challenge in moving to an open membership model was the question of how to handle Scarcity checking in such a system. Scarcity checking is a time intensive process and a new process that would require the collections of all new libraries to be fully checked for each Offered Holding received would greatly add to the processing time needed for each list. The approach adopted

for Phase 3 was to divide the UKRR libraries into different types: Principal Holding Libraries (PHLs), Holding Libraries (HLs), and Contributing Libraries (CLs). These three categories defined different roles in the Phase 3 process as is illustrated in the table that follows:

All Libraries

UKRR Holding Libraries Non-UKRR Holding Libraries

Holding Library (HL) Principal Holding Library Contributing Library (CL) (PHL)

• Only disposed of material • Only disposed of material • UKRR encouraged all other through UKRR through UKRR libraries, potential CLs, to • Retained items that were • Retained items that were dispose of material deemed scarce4 deemed scarce (also through the UKRR channel • Transferred required items ingested and retained only to the BL (required for BL research holdings • CLs’ collections were not Dispose items, optional for transferred from CLs)5 counted to determine the BL Retain items) • Transferred required Scarcity of any Offered • Updated catalogue records items to the BL Holding locally and for SUNCAT • Updated catalogue • Transferred required items • Through SUNCAT, their records locally and to to the BL (BL Dispose and holdings were checked SUNCAT BL Retain items) against the Scarcity • Through SUNCAT, their • Transferred scarce (Retain checking of other libraries holdings were checked and parts of BL Retain submissions against the Scarcity items not required by BL) checking of other items to PHLs, or retained libraries submissions them themselves

TABLE 1: UKRR PHASE 3 LIBRARY CATEGORIES

All UKRR Phase 2 members disposed of material only through UKRR and all remained HLs – they were requested to retain (their own or other members’) items if they were found to be scarce and had their collections searched in the Scarcity checking of other libraries’ Offered Holdings. For Phase 3, in addition to committed Phase 3 HLs, any library that wished to weed collections in an informed and collaborative manner could submit lists to UKRR for processing as a CL; however, they would not be required to retain titles for UKRR. In Phase 3, Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, became PHLs that could ingest items offered by CLs and designated for retention. As these two libraries’ collections largely overlap with what was offered to UKRR, and both only deduplicate against their own collections, this meant that they were in an ideal position to ingest scarce holdings from CLs. Additionally, their collections could also benefit from gap-filling in a similar way to how UKRR helped fill gaps in the BL’s collection.

4 HLs were required to retain their own Offered Holdings which were found to be scarce. There remained a possibility that an HL could be asked to retain scarce items from other HLs or CLs if they were found to be the most suitable holder for such holdings, but from our knowledge this was never needed/requested in Phase 3. 5 Both Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, only offered Holdings that were local duplicate copies of their own collections, while they retained the other copy of their Offered Holdings as part of the UKRR collection. Scarce items here refer to holdings transferred from CLs.

Despite these changes to the UKRR model, the only major changes to the BL’s workflow for processing each submitted list was that: • The libraries used for the Scarcity checking process were changed slightly as the collection of Phase 3 HLs and PHLs differed from the collection of Phase 2 Member Libraries. • An Excel Add-in was introduced for LARCH’s Excel file upload process (both for user libraries and the BL) that facilitated the direct upload of a file, from Excel itself, and which improved the robustness of the system to variations in the cell formatting on the completed template file. A diagram illustrating the Phase 3 Retention Status decision process can be found in Appendix 6: UKRR Phase 2 Cycle List processing workflow, p.109. Governance During Phase 1, an Advisory Board met from January 2007 until August 2008 every 1-3 months. The Advisory Board consisted of representatives of each of the libraries involved, including the British Library, as well as the Head of UKRR and UKRR Project Manager. A full list of people involved in the Advisory Board can be found in Appendix 1: Individuals involved in UKRR on p.82 During Phases 2 and 3, UKRR was governed by the UKRR Board, whose role it was to provide strategic leadership to UKRR, ensuring it fulfilled its stated aims, and met the needs of the UK HE education sector. The membership of the Board attempted to reflect the diversity of the research community in the UK. A list of Board members can be found in Appendix 1: Individuals involved in UKRR on p.82 Varying collaborative approaches to collection management The pressures of space in university libraries and the growing acceptance of digital information resources were contexts relevant beyond the UK, and other collaborations were established across Europe and further afield. UKRR partnered with other European initiatives to establish the European Print Initiatives Collaboration (EPICo). While the contexts were similar, the working models differed, as each collaboration was set up by, and to deliver for, a different group of institutions. This section gives an overview of some of the ways in which the working models of UKRR and other EPICo collaborations vary. An important way in which they differed is where the material was held, and also where it was deduplicated. UKRR relied on one copy held centrally at the British Library, with two further copies held elsewhere amongst what are termed by UKRR Holding Libraries. Continuing to hold three copies was, in other countries, considered conservative, and other collaborations required just one, either held centrally (e.g. Finland, Switzerland), or distributed (e.g. Austria). Holding material centrally gave scope for facilities to contain material which was not only part of the collaborative collection, but also material which was owned by partner libraries (e.g. Switzerland, CTLES (France)), and so additionally act as storage facilities. One common feature across collaborations was that of ceding ownership of material: it no longer remained the submitting institution’s material to discard as they wished, they committed to retain it. The collaborations that held the material centrally also differed, as UKRR material was held as a discrete part of the British Library collection (and retention tagged as such) whereas facilities such as GEPA in Catalonia and the Finnish Repository Library were standalone bodies (as opposed to a part of the national library), albeit with governmental funding. Aside from where material was held, there was also the question of where it was deduplicated. Most collaborations allowed this to be done locally, although Finland had initially done this centrally until they found that receiving duplicate material created a processing bottleneck. UKRR sent Retention Statuses to libraries who could then deduplicate locally. While UKRR worked on a first come first served basis, in that the first library to submit material was most likely to receive a BL Dispose or Dispose status on that material, other collaborations also considered aspects such as condition (Catalonia) and ensured that they only held the copy

in the best condition, or length of the runs of journals (Austria), with a goal to having as close to complete runs as possible, whether a run is distributed across institutions or held in just one. A final point was the scope, both in terms of participants and in terms of material type. UKRR focused just on journals, whereas in some other collaborations, such as Finland and Catalonia, monographs were also in scope. A reason this may be the case is that these were smaller countries/regions, and so it was more feasible than in a country the size of the UK. The scope of participants was another way in which collaborations varied, most obviously along two axes: regional vs national (UKRR being a national scheme, while other ones such as CTLES and the Swiss Storage Facility were regional), and which type of libraries were involved, with almost all collaborations being focused on higher education libraries (with UKRR dipping a toe into non-HE libraries), but with the project in Finland having a wider scope than that, and considering public library material as well. Finances The UKRR project was funded in three phases. The following table gives an overview of the funding awarded and the total expenditure for each of those three phases.

Phase Allocation Expenditure Balance

Phase 1 (January 709,163.00 605,734.60 103,428.40 2007-January 2009)

Phase 2 (February 9,835,747.00 9,804,504.00 31,243.00 2009 - July 2017)

Phase 3 (August 2017- 1,139,872.00 1,098,180.00 41,692.00 March 2019)

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS. REMAINING BALANCES FROM PHASES 1 AND 2 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE PHASE 2 AND 3 BRIDGE PROJECTS

Phase 1 Allocation Expenditure Balance

Project costs Capital 93,515.00 71,571.97 21,943.03

Staff 126,678.00 144,653.34 -17,975.34 (including FEC)

Sub-Total 220,193.00 216,225.31 3,967.69

Partner costs Capital 313,665.00 217,157.26 96,507.74

Staff 175,305.00 172,352.03 2,952.97

Sub-Total 488,970.00 389,509.29 99,460.71

HEFCE funding Total 709,163.00 605,734.60 103,428.40

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF PHASE 1 ALLOCATION AND EXPENDITURE During Phase 1, capital resources were allocated to Systems Development and to payments to participating universities.

Phase 2 Allocation Expenditure Balance

Project costs (allocated to Capital 261,150 Imperial College London)

Staff 847,137

Sub-Total 951,056 1,108,287 -157,231

Project costs (allocated to Sub-Total 6,374,036 6,374,036 British Library)

Participating University Sub-Total 2,510,655 2,322,181 188,474 costs

HEFCE funding Total 9,835,747 9,804,504 31,243

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF PHASE 2 ALLOCATION AND EXPENDITURE All funding for Phase 2 was spent in accordance with specific terms and conditions set out in the original award letters, and for the purpose intended as reported to the UKRR Board. During this Phase, no Systems Development was required. Payments to participating universities ceased on 31 January 2015 at the end of Cycle 11, when funding for this ceased to be available.

Phase 3 Allocation Expenditure Balance

Project costs Capital 891,000.00 826,388.00 64,612.00

Staff 248,872.00 271,792.00 -22,920.00

Sub-Total 1,139,872.00 1,098,180.00 41,692.00

HEFCE funding Total 1,139,872.00 1,098,180.00 41,692.00

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF PHASE 3 ALLOCATION AND EXPENDITURE Funding for Phase 3 was originally awarded to the project with an end date of 31 March 2020, a date later shortened to 31 March 2019. Capital resources were allocated to Systems Development to prepare for transfer to the British Library. No payments were made to participating libraries. Impact and achievements By the end of the project, many libraries regarded UKRR as a trusted and integral part of their collection management decision-making processes. The scheme provided assurance that scarce holdings were documented, preserved, and remained accessible. UKRR’s reputation also assisted librarians to obtain support from the communities they served when selecting collections for disposal. In the following section, the impact and benefits UKRR had on the sector and beyond are summarised as: • Space and savings • A distributed national collaborative collection • Data and system • Community and culture • Collaboration beyond HE and the UK

Space and Savings Space shortage was the first and foremost issue that UKRR was set up to tackle. An estimate highlighted in the original Phase 2 bid submitted to HEFCE was that ‘by 2015 there would be a shortfall of some 450,000m of shelving within UK Higher Education (HE) libraries, and that there was increasing pressure across the sector for library space to be repurposed.’6 In supporting the release of nearly 98,000m, UKRR helped to address about a fifth of this estimated shortfall whilst much of the remainder has been managed through the move to online subscription only, with the cancellation of print. In addition to the space issues outlined below, some libraries had specific constraints on their space, for example Oxford and Cambridge having Legal Deposit responsibilities, with this being a key factor in Cambridge’s new storage space, outlined in their case study on p.91.

Involvement in UKRR has meant that we have been able to renovate three of our medical libraries. UKRR disposal reduced the journal stock in these libraries to a level such that we were able to relocate them in library stores across campus, and therefore gave us in effect a whole floor in each library to use for study space. (King’s College London)

Across the three phases, UKRR processed nearly 130,000m of physical journal material. A summary can be found below:

Phase Offered/Processed Metreage Released/repurposed Metreage

1 13,500 11,000

2 94,247 74,063

3 18,397 12,777

TOTAL 126,144 97,840

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF LINEAR METERAGE OFFERED AND RELEASED ACROSS UKRR PHASES 1-3 The consultants responsible for the CHEMS report developed formulas to convert space released by UKRR into savings in two categories: recurrent estate management costs, and capital savings. Recurrent estate management savings: The CHEMS report proposed a means of calculating the estates savings achieved by libraries by converting linear metres into square metres (1m2 = 6.6m). Using this formula it is estimated that 1m2 achieves c. £191 savings per annum. Based on the amount released as shown in the table above, it is estimated that the recurrent estate management savings UKRR achieved for the sector by the end of the project was in the region of £2,831,000 per annum. Furthermore, it is estimated that the accrued total of the recurrent savings achieved, up to and including 2018, was £17,143,000 (without adjusting for inflation). The methodology used to calculate this accrued figure was to estimate the recurrent savings achieved within each individual year of project activity from 2008 to 2018 and then to multiply each of those figures by the number of future years that that saving was realizable and sum the resulting values.

6 UK Research Reserve Phase 2 Proposal and Business Plan, April 2008

PHOTO 1: PHYSICAL JOURNALS IN THE BARNES LIBRARY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM. PHOTO TAKEN BY PHIL GREENING AND USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM. Capital savings: By converting linear shelf metres into square metres (1m2 = 6.6m of shelved stock), it was estimated that each 1m2 achieves c. £2,000 capital savings. As such, it was estimated that the total capital savings UKRR achieved for the sector was in the region of £ 29,649,000 The CHEMS report was produced in 2008 following the completion of UKRR Phase 1; therefore, it is believed that the savings figures demonstrated above are modest considering the inflation and rises in land values over the years that UKRR ran. Consequently, it was estimated that UKRR achieved total cost savings up until the end of the project (in the sense of the total capital costs savings plus the total accrued recurrent savings from above) of £46,792,000. This total cost saving was achieved from funding of £11,581,672, meaning for each £1 spent, £2.56 in total capital cost savings was achieved, and £1.48 in recurrent savings, giving a total of £4.04 for each £1 spent. For some libraries, e.g. the University of Aberdeen, involvement in UKRR allowed them to postpone building a new store, avoiding substantial capital costs in the process.

A key outcome of involvement in UKRR was that we did not need to build the planned new storage facility, leading to direct capital savings, as well as reducing and avoiding other ongoing rental and estates costs at other facilities. (Aberdeen)

Number of study spaces The case studies indicate that as a result of being able to deduplicate print holdings of journals through UKRR, libraries were able to increase the number of study spaces that they offered, with Manchester, Queen Mary University of London and St Andrews (see case studies on pages 98, 100 and 103), for example, using some of the shelf space released to add 119, 227, and 70 extra study spaces respectively. Doing this was essential in times of increasing student numbers and the resulting high numbers of library visits. The Figures 4 and 5 below, which use statistics taken from the SCONUL reporting tool, show the extent of this growth from ten years prior to the start of UKRR, to ten years after the start of the project: from 1,377,000 students at all SCONUL

institutions in 1997-8 (of which 429,000 were at institutions which went on to participate in UKRR) to 1,986,000 in 2017-18, of which 731,000 were at UKRR institutions, an increase of 70.5% at UKRR institutions and 44.2% at all SCONUL members7. In terms of visits, this grew from 116,156,000 at all SCONUL institutions in 1997-8, with 36,495,000 of these at institutions which eventually participated in UKRR, to 134,176,000 in 2017-8, of which 57,882,000 were UKRR institutions (an increase of 15.5% at all SCONUL members, and of 58.6% at UKRR members8). Delivering extra study spaces was vital to help cope with this growth.

In addition to re-developing the JF Allen departmental library in 2010, UKRR has more recently helped with ongoing activities in the Main Library, for example, the creation of an additional 70 study seats in summer 2018. (St Andrews) UKRR involvement has helped alleviate the pressure of increasing student numbers and enabled us to create various spaces over the years. These range from a dedicated Research Reading Room for researchers and staff, a PGT Reading Room, upgrading our Training Room from 20 to 56 study spaces, creating the Silent PC Room with 35 PCs, increasing the number of toilets by 14 with the introduction of the gender neutral toilets, 3 additional group study rooms and allowed us the opportunity to condense the collection further with the introduction of 62 study spaces in the main reading rooms. Since 2011, 227 additional study spaces have been created as a direct result of our involvement with UKRR and has helped shape our Library to be fit for purpose in the current climate. (Queen Mary, University of London)

Number of FTE students at UKRR and SCONUL institutions 2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5 Number Number (in millions)

0.0 1997-98 2007-08 2017-18 Academic year

UKRR members All UK Sconul members

FIGURE 4: NUMBER OF FTE STUDENTS AT UKRR AND SCONUL INSTITUTIONS 10 YEARS PRIOR TO THE START OF UKRR (97/98), THE ACADEMIC YEAR THAT UKRR STARTED (07/08), AND 10 YEARS AFTER THE START OF UKRR (17/18).

7 Using the exact, as opposed to rounded, figures 8 Again using the exact, as opposed to rounded, figures

Number of annual library visits at UKRR and SCONUL institutions 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Number Number of visits (in millions) 0 1997-98 2007-08 2017-18 Academic year

UKRR members All UK SCONUL members

FIGURE 5: NUMBER OF ANNUAL LIBRARY VISITS AT UKRR AND SCONUL INSTITUTIONS 10 YEARS PRIOR TO THE START OF UKRR (97/98), THE ACADEMIC YEAR THAT UKRR STARTED (07/08), AND 10 YEARS AFTER THE START OF UKRR (17/18). Type and variety of library space provision As can be seen in the testimonial quotes that follow, libraries not only increased the number of study spaces as a result of their participation in UKRR but also created different kinds of study spaces. While there was an ongoing expectation that libraries provided traditional quiet and silent study areas, less traditional spaces were increasingly also desired. These included more informal collaborative spaces, as well as bookable group study rooms, complete with AV equipment, all of which supported pedagogic moves towards team-based assignments. Libraries were beginning to use User Experience (UX) techniques in order to understand, and deliver, what students needed from library study space. Other types of space made possible through UKRR included café space, such as that developed at Kingston University, adding an additional dimension to the offer in the library buildings, one considered important from a welfare perspective, particularly as more libraries moved to 24/7 opening. Having these different types of spaces improved student experience by allowing them to work in different ways appropriate to the evolving university curricula and changing learning habits, and potentially led to increases in student satisfaction (as measured by metrics such as the National Student Survey, NSS), which could then be used as a marketing and recruitment tool by the universities.

UKRR has not only enabled us to provide more spaces, but up the quality in the process. These spaces include lots of quiet individual study spaces, plus comfortable relaxed seating, and bookable group work facilities with shared screens, all of which have been very popular. (Leeds9) The space vacated as a result of UKRR houses a new learning café with comfortable seating and Wi-Fi access. Our first

9 Not included in narrative case study in Appendix 5, but adapted from Saunders, J. (2019). A Space Odyssey: Leeds and the UKRR. The Next Volume: UKRR from Project to Service, April 2019, London, United Kingdom.

payment from UKRR was used to provide power on study desks for the use of laptops. (Kingston) This was our chance to return to the original vision of the library by making better use of our space, helped by the amount of material we had withdrawn via UKRR. We could return these spaces to their original function as reading rooms, but with modern furniture which incorporated a variety of study spaces to suit different learning styles. The result was a huge success, as evidenced by our library NSS score going from 76% before we started the project to 91% after. (Reading)

PHOTOS 2 AND 3: CHANGING SPACES IN CARDIFF UNIVERSITY – FROM PRINT JOURNALS TO GROUP STUDY. PHOTOS USED WITH PERMISSION OF CARDIFF UNIVERSITY LIBRARY SERVICES AND UNDER A CC BY-NC-ND LICENSE.

A Distributed National Collaborative Collection UKRR works on the principle of centralised and distributed storage, with one copy held at the British Library as part of their purchased loan collection and two further copies held across the UKRR community. Following consultation, the post-project British Library UKRR service has moved to being a loan copy held at the British Library, with just one further reference copy held across the community. This allows greater scope for space savings and constitutes a key difference between UKRR as project and as the British Library service.

There were a number of drivers which formed the rationale for the University of Manchester Library’s involvement in the project. Perhaps foremost amongst these was the desire to contribute to the building of a national collection, which enabled the preservation of vital research material by completing the British Library’s collection. (Manchester)

During Phases 2 and 3, 28,655 titles were offered to UKRR. From these titles, scarce holdings (which, as explained on p.8 could be as little as one single issue to as much as the entire run) from 16,503 scarce titles were retained by participating libraries. These were holdings where fewer than two copies are available amongst the collaborating community and were at risk of being lost due to the severe space pressure their Holding Libraries were under. Of these, materials from 10,851 titles was not held anywhere else except that Holding Library. Material was not only still being marked for retention in the latter stages of the project, but in fact the proportion to be retained was growing, with 4974m of the total 18,397m (27%) submitted in Phase 3 marked for retention, compared to 18.1% of the material submitted in Phase 2. Explanations for this included the move observed to shorter average runs (see p.38), with libraries initially sending long runs of widely held journals to release space. It also might have had a relationship with the greater diversity of subjects submitted (see p.44), with early submissions primarily being scientific, and a growing proportion of social science and arts and humanities during later Cycles. Although the overall percentages of material to be retained were relatively low (e.g. by meterage), there was a substantial proportion of titles with scarce material (57.6%), requiring Retain or BL Retain statuses.

For a large research institution such as ours it is critical for us to know that we are acting responsibly in managing our collections. We recognise that our collections are of value beyond the University of Leeds, and that we have a responsibility to curate our collections with the needs of the wider, and future, research community in mind. We want to preserve collections, not necessarily all locally, but certainly at a national level. (Leeds)

Titles with scarce material marked for retention

Retain or BL Retain Titles without any with 0 other copies material to be 38% retained 42%

Retain or BL Retain with > 0 copies 20%

Retain or BL Retain with 0 other copies Retain or BL Retain with > 0 copies Titles without any material to be retained

FIGURE 6: BREAKDOWN OF TITLES BY RETENTION STATUS AND SCARCITY As can be seen visually in Figure 6 above, of the 16,503 titles that were marked with a Retain or ‘BL Retain status across Phases 2 and 3, material (again this could be anything from one single issue to a full run) from 7951 titles was transferred to fill the BL’s collection gaps, of which 5117 titles were not held anywhere else. Once transferred to the British Library, this material was made available through their document delivery services, so researchers in the UK and elsewhere could access this enhanced collection quickly and easily.

Part of our rationale for joining UKRR was so that we could get academics on our side by telling them that they would still have access to periodicals through the British Library, plus we would also be entitled to a faster inter-library loan service. (Reading10) We felt that it was beneficial to be able to tell academic members of staff that the work that we were doing was part of a nationwide, recognised scheme that HE libraries had signed up to. (Queen Mary, University of London)

10 Not included in narrative case study in Appendix 5, but adapted from Ricci, C. (2019). UKRR at the University of Reading Library: the experience of a member library. The Next Volume: UKRR from Project to Service, April 2019, London, United Kingdom.

PHOTO 4: THE TYPE OF LIBRARY SPACE WHICH WAS BEING PHASED OUT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS (PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS).

PHOTO 5: AND THE TYPE OF SPACES CREATED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS AS A RESULT OF THE REDUCTION IN PHYSICAL SHELF SPACE REQUIRED (PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS).

Data and Systems Something as intricate and labour-intensive as UKRR required robust systems to underpin it. In 2010, the LARCH system was released for libraries to use for the submission of material, and this has been so successful that it continues to form part of the British Library service infrastructure. A byproduct of the project was the collection of detailed data (please see p.11 for the DOI), giving both an unprecedented understanding of the nation’s journal collections, as well as the opportunity to improve the information that was held about this material.

Improved catalogue records As part of the process of submitting lists to UKRR, libraries were required to submit information about the length of their journal runs, and any gaps in these runs. This allowed libraries to document more detailed information about their collections, and allowed them to correct holdings information in their catalogues to reflect what was actually held. This data was uploaded and made discoverable in SUNCAT (and so from July 2019 its replacement, the NBK), meaning that the library community and the research community are now better able to find the material that they need. An example of a line in a UKRR submission follows.

Title Start Start Start End End End Supplement Gaps Year Volume Issue Year Volume Issue details

Journal of 1969 1 1 2012 44 4 Supplement vol. Issues 34(3), Nematology 2 1988, 39(4) supplements for Duplicates: all vol. 23 – 33 We have two inclusive, copies of vols supplement for 1-12 inclusive vol. 37

TABLE 7: AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AN OFFERED HOLDING

We joined SUNCAT, which made Scarcity checking a bit easier and gave us a presence on a much-valued research resource. The exercise reminded us that we hold unique titles which we are happy to store on behalf of the research community. (Kingston) Involvement helped us to improve our holdings records, ensuring researchers and users both in and outside of the institution were using a better-quality library catalogue. (Aberdeen)

Phase 3 Data Project Towards the end of Phase 3 it was agreed to utilise part of the remaining project funds to deploy BL staff to enhance the BL catalogue on content published pre-1987. During initial shelfchecking, staff checked the range of content while at the shelf and updated this material to include issue level detail, thereby improving discoverability and enhancing all BL access services. The priority in terms of updating was established by focusing on: - Journals which hadn’t been offered as part of UKRR but which had non-zero British Library Document Supply usage, enhanced in order of use, from most frequently to least frequently used. This list contained 1899 titles, and was completed in September 2018. - Journals which had been offered as part of UKRR, enhanced in order of number of times offered, from most to least frequently offered (this second list remained unfinished). This approach benefited users by: • Lessening the need for shelf checks in the new, more streamlined, service; • Allowing future participants to have greater confidence in the accuracy of the British Library’s publicly available holdings information; • Allowing all users to explore and discover material using this more detailed metadata. The overall output can be seen in the following graph, and the source data for this was from the UKRR team at the British Library.

FIGURE 7: PROGRESS MADE ON THE UKRR DATA ENHANCEMENT PROJECT In summary data for 296,500 journal issues were enhanced making them individually discoverable on the BL catalogue for all researchers going forward.

LARCH The Linked Automated Register of Collaborative Holdings, LARCH, was the system which underpinned UKRR processes and workflows. The system was introduced in UKRR Phase 2 and was designed based on the requirements agreed between UKRR, the British Library and Phase 2 Member Libraries, with further developments made to meet the requirements of the changing model of Phase 3. LARCH was part of the legacy of UKRR. Although originally developed and deployed in 2010, it was transferred to the British Library and formed an integral part of the ongoing UKRR service at the BL. Aside from being a key piece of UKRR infrastructure, LARCH stored all the data from the project, and so allowed for much of the analysis included in this report, as well as any future analyses that might be done. Collecting and analysing data For a library to make a submission to UKRR, they needed to collate in-depth data about their journal holdings before submitting lists, constituting a perfect way for UKRR to collect data about journal collections across the UK, allowing a greater understanding of the national research collections. This data has been released publicly so that interested parties could undertake further analyses on it. Some of the key findings were:

Changing titles Journals not only go through title changes but were also catalogued differently by different institutions. UKRR made possible the collation of these titles, so that title changes, inconsistencies, and journal splitting (whereby a journal split into multiple discrete journals) could be grouped together, recognising the continuity of different journals. Grouping these together allowed for more accurate preservation and, as a result, greater space savings, ensuring better value from UKRR. This data, from what is called the Master List11, was a key output of the project, and an example of the title changes, inconsistencies, and related titles for one single BL Overlap Title can be seen below. Although in this example many of the titles are accounted for as a result of splitting, there are instances of inconsistencies, for example the different versions of Reviews on Cancer highlighted.

BBA Bioenergetics / BBA Biomembranes / BBA- Gene Regulatory Mechanisms / BBA General Subjects / BBA Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids / BBA Protein Structure and Molecular Enzymology / BBA Proteins and Proteomics / BBA Reviews on Cancer / BBA-Molecular Basis of Disease / BBA-Molecular Cell Research / BBS Gene Structure and Expression / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biomembranes / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biophysics including Photosynthesis / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Enzymology / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Enzymology and Biological Oxidations / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Structure and Expression / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Lipids and Lipid Metabolism / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Lipids and Related Subjects / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Basis of Disease / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Cell Research / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Mucoproteins and Mucopolysaccharides / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Nucleic Acids and Protein Synthesis / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure and Molecular Enzymology / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Bioenergetics / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Biomembranes / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Specialized Section on Biophysical Subjects / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Specialized Section on Enzymological Subjects / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Specialized Section on Mucoproteins and Mucopolysaccharides / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Specialized Section on Nucleic Acids and Related Subjects / Biochimica et biophysica acta (it is devided into different subtitles which have different ISSNs) / Biochimica et biophysica acta(BBA) / Biochimica et biophysica acta. Biomembranes : international journal of biochemistry and biophysics. / Biochimica et biophysica acta. Gene structure and expression. / Biochimica et biophysica acta. General subjects / Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular and cell

11 Found at the following link: dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3368465

biology of lipids / Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular basis of disease / Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular cell research. / Biochimica et biophysica acta. Nucleic acids and protein synthesis. / Biochimica et biophysica acta. Protein structure and molecular enzymology. / Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on biomembranes : international journal of biochemistry and biophysics. / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta: Bioenergetics / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta: Biomembranes / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta: Consolidated. / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta: Enzymology / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta: Lipids and Lipid Metabolism / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta: Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids. / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta: Protein Structure / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta: Reviews on Bioenergetics / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta: reviews on Biomembranes / Biochimica et Biophysica Acta: Reviews on Cancer

FIGURE 8: AN EXAMPLE OF A BL OVERLAP TITLE ON THE MASTER LIST, SHOWING THE TITLES CHANGES AND CATALOGUING INCONSISTENCIES

PHOTO 6: UNINSPIRING BASEMENT SPACE AT IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON. PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON.

PHOTO 7: THE NEW ENTERPRISE LAB DEVELOPED IN THE BASEMENT AS A RESULT. PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON.

Frequently and infrequently offered journals Nine journals were offered more than fifty times as part of UKRR, with the most frequently offered title being the Journal of the Chemical Society, which was offered 68 times over Phases 2 and 3. 15,590 journals (or 54.4% of the total 28,655 journals offered) were only offered once as part of UKRR.

Number of times titles were offered 18000

16000 15590

14000

12000

10000

8395

No. No. titles of 8000

6000

4000

2339

2000 1657

496 9 32 137 0

No. of times offered

FIGURE 9: THE NUMBER OF TIMES INDIVIDUAL TITLES WERE OFFERED

There was also understandably a significant difference in the Retention Status breakdown between frequently offered material, and infrequently offered material, with the key differences being: - 90.9% of the top 222 most frequently offered titles across Phases 2 and 3 were given a Dispose or BL Dispose status (7216 of 7939 Offered Holdings), compared to 30.4% of the titles which were offered just once (4736 of 15590), and 71.6% of all the material offered in these phases (72183 of 100759 holdings). - Only 584 of the 7939 holdings (7.4%) of the 222 most frequently offered titles were given Retain statuses, compared to 8517 of the 15590 titles only offered once (54.6%) and 24421 of the 100759 holdings offered across Phases 2 and 3 (24.2%). - Again unsurprisingly, the BL requested (for Retention or Disposal) far more of the infrequently offered titles (5443 of 15590, 34.9%) than the most frequently offered titles (899 of 7939, 11.3%) and the material offered across both phases (26002 of 100759, 25.8%).

UKRR Retention Status Breakdown of all Phase 2 and Phase 3 titles 2538 1425 192 3% 1% 0% 9909 10%

Dispose BL Dispose 14512 14% Retain BL Retain 56090 Withdrawn 56% Out of Scope 16093 Not Categorised 16%

FIGURE 10: RETENTION STATUS BREAKDOWN OF ALL PHASE 2 AND 3 TITLES

UKRR Retention Status Breakdown of 222 Most Offered Titles in Phase 2 and Phase 3 139 460 124 2% 6% 1%

775 10%

6441 81%

Dispose BL Dispose Retain BL Retain Withdrawn Out of Scope Not Categorised

FIGURE 11: RETENTION STATUS BREAKDOWN OF THE 222 MOST OFFERED PHASE 2 AND 3 TITLES

UKRR Retention Status Breakdown of the titles offered once over the whole of Phase 2 and Phase 3 1174 170 8% 1% 2865 993 18% 6%

D BL Dispose Retain 1871 3572 12% BL Retain 23% Withdrawn Out of Scope Not Categorised

4945 32% FIGURE 12: RETENTION STATUS BREAKDOWN OF THE TITLES ONLY OFFERED ONCE ACROSS PHASES 2 & 3

Lengths of runs Although there was some relationship between the amount of material offered in metres, and the number of times it was offered, it was, unsurprisingly, more complicated than that. The Journal of Biological Chemistry was submitted 33 times (ranked 115th in terms of number of times submitted), but accounted for the most meterage: 722.14m, while the journal most frequently offered, the Journal of the Chemical Society accounted for the 14th highest meterage – 303.65m. At the other end of the spectrum, less than 1m of material was received for 18,270 titles, 63.8% of the total number of titles submitted. Of these, just 1cm of material was submitted for each of 723 titles.

[Being a member of UKRR] has allowed us to carry out a more comprehensive review of our print holdings against their electronic equivalents, which will allow us to fit the journals we still need back on the shelves when they return. (Reading)

The general trend observed was a move towards shorter average holdings submitted, as seen in Figure 13 below. The Cycle with the longest average runs was Phase 2 Cycle 6, at 1.33m/title, compared to Phase 2 Cycle 12 at just 0.59m/title. A target for submitting libraries of no less than 1m/title on average across a submission was given, although this was not always met, understandably given the aforementioned number of titles of which the total submission to UKRR was less than 1m. This 1m/title target was put in place due to the increased workload stemming from shelfchecking shorter runs of titles, particularly if they were rarely submitted titles. This trend was likely attributable in part to libraries identifying long runs as quick wins, and so submitting these at an earlier stage, avoiding being required to continue to hold this material.

Average length of each holding submitted from Phase 2 Cycle 1 to Phase 3 Cycle 3 1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Average length (m) per holding submitted

Cycle

FIGURE 13: AVERAGE LENGTH OF EACH HOLDING SUBMITTED ACROSS PHASES 2 AND 3

Filling collection gaps at the British Library Over Phases 2 and 3, the British Library requested 9,909 holdings from 7,951 titles to fill their own collection gaps, 27.8% of the total 28,655 titles offered. For the majority of these 7,951 titles, the British Library only requested part runs. However, there were 3,167 holdings offered, from 2,865 titles, which the British Library set a BL Retain status for the entire Offered Holding, 10% of the total number of titles offered across Phases 2 and 3 of UKRR. While this indicates the comprehensiveness of the British Library’s collections (it contained 343,000 titles which would be considered in scope for UKRR but were yet to be offered), it also shows how UKRR was able to identify and fill British Library collection gaps, developing an even more comprehensive national collection. While this shows the extent to which gaps existed in the British Library collections, it is interesting to consider that some analysis done by the British Library in 2015 showed that of the document supply requests that they received for UKRR submitted material, 99.6% was fulfilled

by the British Library’s copy, and only 0.4% by a UKRR transferred copy12. Alongside this, 80.3% of document supply requests for UKRR material came from non-UKRR members, 18.5% from UKRR members, and only 1.2% from UKRR members that offered that material. The fact that requests from UKRR members which offered the material accounted for such a small proportion of the total shows how low use this material is and sets the significant capital savings into perspective.

Conversations about withdrawal have been easier with academic colleagues who are reassured by the existence of a national framework ensuring long term access. Thanks to that reassurance, we have increasingly been able to move towards a criteria-based approach to disposal instead of needing to consult on a title-by-title basis. (Birmingham)

Scarce material retained Although UKRR released space to the tune of 98,000m over the lifecycle of the project, an overall finding was that in fact there was more scarce material than had initially been thought, with holdings in 16,503 titles being given either a Retain or BL Retain status, 57.6% of the total 28,655 titles offered. Of these 16,503 titles, holdings in 10,851 were retained with a Scarcity value of 0 when checked, meaning that 37.9% of all the titles offered across Phases 2 and 3 had at least some material which was not held elsewhere. Identifying and retaining this material allowed for greater comprehensiveness across members’ collections, and so this could be made available to the research community across the UK. Identifying scarce material within libraries’ collections allowed these libraries to better understand the depth of specific subject strengths that they have. Knowing and being able to demonstrate to senior university colleagues that holdings were scarce rather than widely duplicated helped manage the pressure and expectations of library estate.

Other key benefits from being a UKRR member have been a greater awareness of collections, including material subsequently identified for Special Collections and improved bibliographic data of print journal holdings. (St Andrews)

12 Stats compiled by the British Library

PHOTO 8: JOURNAL MATERIAL PACKED UP AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS. PHOTO TAKEN BY MARCUS GRAY AND USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS.

PHOTOS 9 & 10: A BEFORE AND AFTER SHOT OF MOVING FROM JOURNAL STACKS TO A NEW FRONT DESK. PHOTOS USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF KING’S COLLEGE LONDON, LIBRARIES AND COLLECTIONS, 2013. Community and culture One of the challenges overcome by UKRR was achieved by communicating with key stakeholders, particularly academics, and through building a culture of trust in the processes that UKRR provided. Manifestations of these changes were a move to a wider range of member institutions, and, over time, a broadening of the subject matter of materials that were submitted.

We have also really enjoyed the opportunity to network with other research libraries on collection management activities and as we still have journal collections and other low use materials to assess, we look forward to continuing to work with the British Library in this area. (St Andrews) Membership of the UKRR community provides LSE Library with the opportunity to network with other research libraries on collection management activities. Our relationship with UKRR will continue to develop as LSE Library continues to rationalise the future storage of its printed collections. (LSE)

Trust in UKRR processes Institutions now rely on the structures and processes that UKRR provides in collection decision making. Libraries do not want to release space at any cost; and responsible collection management is vital, with UKRR providing a framework for this, and peace of mind that collection management is done at a level beyond the local. Cambridge mention how these trusted processes are an important part of being able to advocate with academics, in that the processes ensure ongoing access and preservation.

The value of UKRR and those who have worked on the project over the years is that it established policies and frameworks that give assurance to the academic community that the active management of collections and retention of printed material is important for future generations. This has been very important over a period of rapid cultural and technological change. (Cambridge) We are still submitting titles to UKRR, and the scheme remains critical to us in the responsible management of our collections. (Leeds)

It is also interesting to note that libraries involved indicated their belief in the retention commitment beyond the precise wording of any Memoranda of Agreement (MoA). The Phase 3 MoA only explicitly required Holding Libraries to remain Holding Libraries until the end of Phase 3, but institutions indicated that they now understand the commitment to retain to be something which goes on long into the future. UKRR processes were developed and improved to meet the needs of the community (as outlined in Working Methods), and continued to do so beyond the end of the project, with one major change in the shift from project to service being the move from 1+2 (i.e. one copy at the British Library, with 2 held elsewhere), to 1+1. Changes in working practices could only be achieved with the agreement and trust of the community. The ongoing need for UKRR and the trust in the processes it provided can be evidenced through the interest expressed in the service that the British Library took on. Even prior to the new service being finalised, 20 libraries had proposed lists. Member types Over the course of the project the type of institutions involved in UKRR widened. Initially a collaboration between 8 RLUK libraries (the name was changed from CURL in 2008), membership not only grew (with 31 libraries participating in the first two Phases, and 36 across the project so far) but, as seen in the pie charts below, diversified, with some non-RLUK libraries joining

during Phase 2, and this number continued to expand during Phase 3, and the first non-HE library also joined during Phase 3. In fact, all five of the institutions that joined during Phase 3 were either non-RLUK members or non-HE.

FIGURE 14: THE CHANGING PROFILE OF UKRR PARTICIPANTS IN PHASES 2 AND 3 This shows that when becoming a British Library service there was scope and appetite for UKRR to expand beyond the traditional research libraries which were the bulk of the participants across the three Phases, and the experiences of these libraries really crystalize the benefits. At one end of the spectrum, Rothamsted Research, the non-HEI involved, were given a status of Retain or BL Retain on 83.6% of their holdings submitted and 72.8% of their metres submitted, indicating a scarce and important research collection which has now been preserved and added to the national collection. At the other end of the spectrum, the University of East Anglia were given Retain or BL Retain on 6.7% of their holdings submitted, and 3.1% of their metres submitted, indicating real scope for space savings, while still potentially filling gaps in the British Library and wider national collections.

In our case we also had concerns around post-cancellation access (PCA) to online titles we also had print copies of. Through UKRR we were able to de-duplicate these titles safe in the knowledge that the scheme was there should our PCA ever be disputed with a publisher. […] We're delighted that there is life in UKRR as the project becomes a service with the British Library and can certainly see ourselves making further submissions. (Goldsmiths)

Disciplinary changes Consultation among the community and studies, such as those conducted by ITHAKA in 2012 and 201513, indicated that disciplinary differences existed in research cultures, with researchers in

13 Housewright, Schonfeld, & Wulfson. (2013). Ithaka S+R, Jisc, RLUK - UK survey of academics 2012. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34651 Wolff, C., Rod, A. B., & Schonfeld, R. C. (2016). Ithaka S+R, Jisc, RLUK - UK survey of academics 2015. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34651

social sciences and, particularly, arts and humanities having a stronger desire to maintain physical journal collections than those working in scientific fields. This is reflected in the percentages of material most frequently offered to UKRR, with only 14% of the top 100 most frequently offered titles being arts and humanities titles, compared to 37% being science titles. However, it is interesting that these percentages are far closer together than at the start of Phase 2, when science material made up 62% of the top 100 most frequently offered titles, and arts and humanities only 2%. A culture change became clear over the ten years that Phases 2 and 3 lasted, with a move towards the submission of a greater range of subject material. This change was reflected in the experience of some Member Libraries, with Queen Mary University of London stating how they moved from initially offering scientific journals, to eventually also offering arts and social science material. This was likely to be, at least in part, due to trust building up in UKRR and its processes, allowing for successful advocacy with more resistant groups.

Through positive emphasis of the benefits of the project, particularly in terms of the preservation of material, and careful selection processes to safeguard those titles which were not readily available elsewhere, the project became widely accepted amongst our academic colleagues. (Manchester) We were unable to get institutional buy-in for the disposal of material, due to worries about possible loss of access to e- journals. […] The UKRR project, with its creation of a distributed national collection, with at least two printed copies of every journal run in addition to the BL’s copy, was instrumental in getting institutional permission for the disposal of this material. (Durham)

FIGURE 15: BREAKDOWN OF THE TOP 100 UKRR TITLES BY SUBJECT MATTER

Moving away from physical collections While it was not completely attributable to UKRR, over the years that the project ran, a steep decline in the number of print journals taken by academic libraries was seen. With libraries actively disposing of existing physical journal collections, there was a desire not to then continue exacerbating the space problem by collecting print material, and so print subscriptions were replaced almost completely by electronic ones, as seen in Figure 16 below, with this data coming from the SCONUL reporting tool. It is worth noting that the number of print serial titles was an optional question on the SCONUL return, and so the number of print serial titles is almost certainly underreported in the data seen below, but at least indicates the changing culture.

Print serial titles purchased by all UK SCONUL institutions 250

200 Thousands 150

100

0 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 - 2016 - 2017 - 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

FIGURE 16: NUMBER OF PRINT SERIAL TITLES PURCHASED BY UK SCONUL INSTITUTIONS Collaboration beyond the HE and UK In developing a culture of collaboration, as well as the systems to support that, it was natural that UKRR began to work with bodies outside the UK and beyond higher education. While UKRR continued as a service, building relationships and links with new stakeholders ensured the benefits of the project could be extended more widely.

Institution types Phase 3 saw the first library from outside HE, Rothamsted Research, submit material to UKRR. Having been asked to retain, or send to the BL for retention, a large proportion of their material, it became clear to see the value of working with such a specialist organisation. In the Lessons Learned section of this report (p.75), consideration is given to advocacy, and at workshops held at the end of 2017 and the start of 2018, six non-HEIs expressed interest in involvement, including public libraries, museums and galleries, and other research institutes. Delivering for this wider range of potential participants meant attempting to understand the different motivations for involvement that they may have had – the contexts driving different types of institution to be involved were likely to be different to those driving involvement at HEIs. Regardless, at the close of the project, momentum was very much on opening UKRR up to different types of library.

Rothamsted Research is an independent agricultural science research institute. Its Library has collated around 2000m worth of print journals since 1843. We wanted to use UKRR as a collections analysis tool to identity a subset of scarce journals (especially in non-English languages) that should be retained for wider research benefit. (Rothamsted Research).

European collaboration The pressures which drove collaboration on print journals in the UK were also experienced across Europe. With this in mind, UKRR staff, along with colleagues from across Europe, joined together to form the European Print Initiatives Collaboration (EPICo) in 2015, bringing together practitioners working in the field in order to share strategies and best practice amongst the European community. The main success of EPICo at the end of the UKRR project was the creation of a forum for knowledge sharing, with an example being how practice in Austria about retention tagging was fed into conversations about retention tagging of monographs in the UK. However, in being a focal point and community of print initiatives, it had the potential to increase in importance, with proposed pieces of work including mapping print journal archives and working with publishers to explore and improve their preservation practices, as well as further work on connecting information about print for which digital surrogates exist.

The collaboration between UKRR and Shared Archiving Austria has led to the founding of EPICo (European Print Initiatives Collaboration), an informal European initiative which aims to keep important print library resources available in an era of widespread availability of digital resources. EPICo’s mission statement: “We believe that a comprehensive and robust research and information infrastructure is essential for Europe’s wellbeing, now and in the future. We are concerned that, at a time of unprecedented change in the ways information is collected, stored and disseminated, there is a real danger that some of the important printed resources in our European libraries may be at risk.” Since 2015 numerous meetings have been held all over Europe, offering an ideal setting for an exchange of ideas and comparing experiences. The number of members participating in the initiative has now grown to twelve and the organisation of the Kuopio Conference, a prestigious platform for topics regarding archiving, will be carried on by EPICo partners, starting with the 2020 event. (EPICo partners from the University of Vienna).

Analysis In this section data collected from UKRR list processing is examined to consider what it shows about how libraries engaged with UKRR, what relationships can be inferred about the material submitted to UKRR, and what this UKRR data might indicate about the collection similarity of libraries used in UKRR Scarcity checking. Furthermore, consideration is given to how the answers to these questions perhaps changed over time, and whether there were trends that could provide insight for the future of UKRR as a British Library service. For definitions of specific terms used here – including ‘Offered Holding’, ‘BL Overlap Title’, and ‘Retention Status’ – please see p.8. Information about the scope of the data can be found on p.10. Profile of submissions Here are considered the profile of submissions to UKRR with respect to four metrics: • Meterage per Offered Holding • Size of submitted Cycle Lists (i.e. number of Offered Holdings on list) • New BL Overlap Titles per list • Offered Holdings with no ISSN per Cycle List The data presented in this subsection includes all Offered Holdings with a Retention Status Withdrawn. As the focus of this subsection is the makeup of Cycle Lists as they were received by UKRR, the decision was made to include withdrawn Offered Holdings in the data presented here as Offered Holdings could be withdrawn both before or after a Cycle List was first submitted by the library. Typically many of the withdrawals were made after the list was first submitted. Meterage of Offered Holdings The plot in Figure 17, below, is a variable width bar chart that shows, for each Cycle in Phases 2 and 3: • the cumulative number of Offered Holdings submitted by the end of that Cycle (counting from the start of Phase 2) on the lower x-axis; • labels on the top x-axis indicating which Cycle each bar represents, using the format ‘P x C y’ for Phase x Cycle y (please refer to p.13 for a timeline of UKRR); • the average meterage of Offered Holdings in each Cycle on the y-axis. One may consider this graph as consisting of two different periods: • Phase 2 Cycles 1 to 7, where the average meterage per Offered Holding was relatively high (around 1.2-1.3 meters) and stable across Cycles in this period; and, • Phase 2 Cycle 8 to Phase 3 Cycle 3, where the average meterage per Offered Holding was generally lower than the first period and had greater variation across Cycles in this period, with: an initial increasing trend, followed by a drop for the Phase 2 Cycles 12 and 13, then a decreasing trend starting from a high point in Phase 3 Cycle 1.

FIGURE 17: AVERAGE METERAGE OF OFFERED HOLDINGS BY CYCLE The abnormally low average meterage per Offered Holding in Phase 2 Cycle 12 could be a natural result of the smaller sample size here. Instead, the focus is on these questions: 1. Does the data show an overall downward trend in the average meterage per Offered Holdings as libraries submitted more Offered Holdings? That is, broadly, does the data suggest that libraries may have exhausted their available longer runs of journals, and were turning to their smaller runs for UKRR submissions? 2. Is the data seen in Phase 3 – of a sharp decrease in the average meterage per Offered Holding for each Cycle in Phase 3 – a significant and continuing trend? The plot in Figure 18 and Figure 19 (which is a close-up of the plot in Figure 18 limited on the y- axis to values between 0 and 2.5) is:

• a scatter plot where for each library and each list submitted by that library, there is a ‘+’-marker indicating: o on the x-axis the cumulative number of Offered Holdings submitted by that library up to and including that list; o on the y-axis the cumulative average meterage per Offered Holding submitted by that library up to and including that list (i.e. the sum of meterage for all Offered Holdings submitted by the library on that list and its previous lists, divided by the sum of all Offered Holdings submitted by the library on that list and its previous lists);

• a simple linear regression14 fitted to this scatter plot (the straight line) with a 95% confidence interval for each x-axis value (the translucent band around the linear regression line).

FIGURE 18: LINEAR REGRESSION ON METERAGE PER OFFERED HOLDING BY CUMULATIVE METERAGE SUBMITTED BY LIBRARIES

FIGURE 19: LINEAR REGRESSION ON METERAGE PER OFFERED HOLDING BY CUMULATIVE METERAGE SUBMITTED BY LIBRARIES, Y-AXIS LIMITED TO RANGE FROM 0 TO 2.5

14 For a simple explanation of linear regression see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression

The linear regression shows a downward trend implying that as libraries offered more holdings to UKRR the meterage of their newer offerings tended on average to decrease. However, it is arguable that this data does not suggest UKRR was at the stage where libraries had, or were beginning to, run out of reasonable length holdings, around one meter, for submission to UKRR since: 1. The trend shown here is not an overly steep downward trajectory. 2. The great majority of current UKRR libraries offered fewer than 5000 total Offered Holdings (although this does affect the tightness of the confidence intervals for the right-hand-side of the regression fit) suggesting that there may have been scope for a good amount of further submissions of a reasonable length. 3. Further new libraries were expected to contribute to UKRR under the British Library service, thus providing new sources of Offered Holdings and potentially more long runs. In regards to our second question of whether the sharp decrease in the average meterage per Offered Holding through Phase 3 was a significant and continuing trend: • The drop in the average meterage per Offered Holding from Phase 3 Cycle 1 to Phase 3 Cycle 2 was fully accounted for by the large submissions of shorter holdings by two universities. • The drop in the average meterage per Offered Holding from Phase 3 Cycle 2 to Phase 3 Cycle 3 was fully accounted for by the large submissions of shorter holdings by two universities. Thus, while these libraries made a significant proportion of the offerings in Phase 3, as the observation in the question is fully accounted for by the offerings of such a small number of libraries, one cannot know if it was a significant and continuing trend at this point. Size of submitted Cycle Lists The plot in Figure 20 below shows, for each different Cycle from Phase 2 Cycle 1 to Phase 3 Cycle 3, a violin plot (showing minimum, maximum, mean and median values) of the distribution of Cycle List size (in number of Offered Holdings on the Cycle List) in that Cycle.

FIGURE 20: DISTRIBUTION OF CYCLE LIST SIZE (VIOLIN PLOT)

The plot in Figure 21 below shows, for each different Cycle from Phase 2 Cycle 1 to Phase 3 Cycle 3, a swarm plot of the distribution of Cycle List size (in number of Offered Holdings on the Cycle List) in that Cycle.

FIGURE 21: DISTRIBUTION OF CYCLE LIST SIZE (SWARM PLOT) One immediate observation from these two plots is the lack of very long Cycle Lists submitted after Phase 2 Cycle 10. During Phase 3, at least, libraries were generally encouraged or scheduled to submit individual Cycle Lists of a more limited size (but more Cycle Lists, if the library’s total submission demand required it) since these were easier for the UKRR team to manage while processing. It is recommended that the British Library and UKRR Offering Libraries continue with this approach in the future. A further observation to note from these two plots is that, even in the Cycles up to and including Phase 2 Cycle 10, very large Cycle Lists appear to be more outliers than the norm. This is clear to see in Figure 21 while Figure 20 indicates a general higher skewness in the data for these Cycles where the few very large lists result in a higher mean value than the corresponding median value. New BL Overlap Titles per Cycle List The plot in Figure 22 below is a variable width bar chart that shows, for each Cycle in Phase 2 and 3: • the cumulative number of Offered Holdings submitted by the end of that Cycle (counting from the start of Phase 2) on the lower x-axis; • labels on the top x-axis indicating which Cycle each bar represents, using the format ‘P x C y’ for Phase x Cycle y (please refer to p.13 for a timeline of UKRR); • the percentage of Offered Holdings in that Cycle which were the first offering of a BL Overlap Title, on the y-axis.

FIGURE 22: NEW BL OVERLAP TITLES PER CYCLE The data depicted in this graph is perhaps somewhat surprising. It shows: first a steady decrease in the percentage of new BL Overlap Titles to Phase 2 Cycle 6, then a stage of varying percentage but roughly flat (or of no clear trend) to the end of Phase 2, followed by a trend of increasing percentage during Phase 3. The initial steady decrease in the percentage of new BL Overlap Titles would seem natural as the amount of BL Overlap Titles that were offered to UKRR increased (for example, loosely, if a BL Overlap Titles is chosen at random it is more likely to belong to a given set of previously offered BL Overlap Titles the larger that set is). However, as can be seen, the percentage broadly stopped decreasing in the later part of Phase 2, and then even tended to increase in Phase 3. This behaviour may suggest that the number of BL Overlap Titles offered to UKRR in Phases 2 and 3, being 28,655, was still small in comparison with the total collection of BL Overlap Titles from all UKRR libraries. A more detailed view could be that in the initial Cycles of Phase 2 UKRR libraries generally restricted their attention to a subset of holdings that were obvious targets for deduplication in that they were considered common titles, had an ISSN, were from a subject area with good academic support for UKRR, were of a reasonably long meterage (so if given a disposal UKRR retention decision would provide a good amount of space release for the time and effort involved in its submission to UKRR), and were available in digital backfiles. Then around the end of Phase 2 Cycle 6, the libraries possibly were exhausting their initial subset of titles, and began to explore different parts of their collections for possible deduplication, leading to the staged influx of new BL Overlap Titles to UKRR. The plot in Figure 23 shows, for each UKRR library, the line plot of their cumulative number of Offered Holdings against the cumulative percentage of them that were a new BL Overlap Title, calculated for each Cycle List processed for that library. While a lot of the data in this plot is difficult to interpret, it is included here to draw attention to two different types of approach observed among the libraries which submitted large numbers of Offered Holdings. Figure 23 shows that a few of these libraries started submitting a high proportion of Offered Holdings that were

new BL Overlap Titles which then decreased as they offered more, while there is another subset of these libraries who started submitting a low proportion of Offered Holdings that were new BL Overlap Titles which then increased as they offered more. This complicates the suggested interpretation of the data from Figure 22 that was offered in the previous paragraph.

FIGURE 23: CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES OF OFFERED HOLDINGS THAT WERE NEW BL OVERLAP TITLES BY CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF OFFERED HOLDINGS PER LIBRARY

The plot in Figure 24 is (using the same underlying data as displayed in Figure 23): • a scatter plot where for each library and each list submitted by that library, there is a ‘+’-marker indicating: o on the x-axis the cumulative number of Offered Holdings submitted by that library up to and including that list; o on the y-axis the cumulative percentage of Offered Holdings submitted by that library up to and including that list which were new BL Overlap Titles at that point; • a simple linear regression fitted to this scatter plot (the straight line) with a 95% confidence interval for each x-axis value (the translucent band around the linear regression line). The linear regression shown in Figure 24 implies that the dominant linear trend across all UKRR libraries, at the end of the project, was of offering an increasing proportion of Offered Holdings that are new BL Overlap Titles as they offered more holdings to UKRR.

FIGURE 24: LINEAR REGRESSION ON CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES OF NEW BL OVERLAP TITLES PER LIBRARY It is difficult to establish a general and intuitive trend in this aspect of submissions. However, a conclusion formed at the end of project was that the new British Library UKRR service could expect to continue to receive a sizable amount of Offered Holdings with new BL Overlap Titles. Furthermore, it was also expected that if a number of new specialist libraries, such as those within specialist research centres or the museum sector, became contributors to UKRR this may drive a further increase in the percentage of Offered Holdings that are new BL Overlap Titles. For example, when the Rothamsted Research library submitted their two UKRR Cycle Lists, one in Phase 3 Cycle 2 and one in Phase 3 Cycle 3, 62% and 73% of the Offered Holdings on these two lists were, at the time, new BL Overlap Titles.

Offered Holdings submitted without an ISSN The plot in Figure 25 is a variable width bar chart that shows, for each Cycle in Phase 2 and 3: • the cumulative number of Offered Holdings submitted at the end of that Cycle (counting from the start of Phase 2) on the lower x-axis; • labels on the top x-axis indicating which Cycle each bar represents, using the format ‘P x C y’ for Phase x Cycle y (please refer to p.13 for a timeline of UKRR); • the percentage of Offered Holdings in that Cycle which in LARCH had an ISSN entered in that Offered Holdings’ details. Be aware that Offered Holdings in LARCH which did not have an ISSN entered (with which we are concerned with in this subsection), may actually be of a journal that does not possess an ISSN that was in use for a period either inside, overlapping with, or outside, the range of the Offered Holding. The overall stability of the percentage Offered Holdings with an ISSN in LARCH across the different Cycles is noteworthy, especially given the observed variation across Cycles of the percentage of Offered Holdings that were new BL Overlap Titles (see the subsection on this starting on p.53) and of the percentage of Offered Holdings given a Retain or BL Retain Retention Status, and so this indicates that having no ISSN had little correlation with other trends commented upon within this analysis. For example, both the percentage of Offered Holdings that were new BL Overlap Titles and, separately, that which were given a Retain or BL Retain Retention Status, increased by close to 15 percentage points in Phase 3, which cannot be fully attributed to the Phase 3 rise of around 8 percentage points in the percentage of Offered Holdings without an ISSN in LARCH. However, the overall distribution of Retention Statuses given to Offered Holdings is markedly affected by whether or not the Offered Holding has an ISSN in LARCH as shown in the previous section.

FIGURE 25: PERCENTAGE OF OFFERED HOLDINGS WITH AN ISSN IN LARCH PER CYCLE

Analysis of Retention Levels and Meterage Retention levels over time The plot in Figure 26 is a variable width bar chart that shows, for each Cycle in Phase 2 and 3: • the cumulative number of Offered Holdings submitted at the end of that Cycle (counting from the start of Phase 2) on the lower x-axis; • labels on the top x-axis indicating which Cycle each bar represents, using the format ‘P x C y’ for Phase x Cycle y (please refer to p.13 for a timeline of UKRR); • the percentage of Offered Holdings in that Cycle which were given a Retention Status of Retain or BL Retain.

FIGURE 26: PERCENTAGE OF OFFERED HOLDINGS IN EACH CYCLE WITH A RETAIN OR BL RETAIN RETENTION STATUS The plot in Figure 27 is: • a scatter plot where for each library (except for Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford) and each list submitted by that library, there is a ‘+’-marker indicating: o on the x-axis the cumulative number of Offered Holdings submitted by that library up to and including that list; o on the y-axis the cumulative percentage of Offered Holdings submitted by that library up to and including that list which were given a Retention Status of Retain or BL Retain;

• a simple linear regression fitted to this scatter plot (the straight line) with a 95% confidence interval for each x-axis value (the translucent band around the linear regression line). The data for the Cambridge University Library (CUL) and the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford (OXF) are excluded from this plot because they follow a strict policy of only deduplicating holdings internally meaning that any Offered Holding submitted by them to UKRR is given a Dispose or BL Dispose retention decision (presuming it is in scope for UKRR and not withdrawn) as they retained another copy of the holding for UKRR. The regression shows a general trend of an increasing percentage of Retain or BL Retain decisions being given to a library as it offered more holdings to UKRR. It should be noted that any trends observed regarding retention levels in the UKRR Phases 2 and 3 may have little to no relevance to the British Library’s UKRR service because of the change in the threshold defining what a scarce holding is. Up until the end of Phase 3 the UKRR model aimed to ensure a copy of a holding was retained by the British Library and two further copies among the UKRR Member Libraries, or Holding Libraries and Principal Holding Libraries, while from the start of the British Library’s UKRR service, this changed to a model of ensuring a copy of the holding is retained by the British Library and one further copy among the UKRR Holding Libraries and Principal Holding Libraries.

FIGURE 27: LINEAR REGRESSION ON THE CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF OFFERED HOLDINGS WITH A RETAIN OR BL RETAIN RETENTION STATUS BY NUMBER OF OFFERED HOLDINGS PER LIBRARY (EXCLUDING CUL AND OXF) Retention levels for Offered Holdings submitted with or without an ISSN The plot in Figure 28 shows the total numbers of Offered Holdings that were given each Retention Status in the cases where the Offered Holding does and doesn’t have an ISSN in LARCH. While for

each of the Retention Statuses BL Dispose, BL Retain, Dispose and Retain, the great majority of Offered Holdings given that Retention Status were given an ISSN, it is also clear that Offered Holdings without ISSNs made up higher proportions of the total Offered Holdings given Retain or BL Retain statuses than those given Dispose or BL Dispose statuses.

FIGURE 28: NUMBER OF OFFERED HOLDINGS GIVEN EACH RETENTION STATUS DEPENDING ON WHETHER IT HAS AN ISSN IN LARCH The plot in Figure 29 shows the conditional distributions of Retention Statuses given whether the Offered Holding did or did not have an ISSN in LARCH. Here it is clear to see that the percentage of Offered Holdings without an ISSN in LARCH that received a Retention Status of Retain or BL Retain was around double that for the Offered Holdings with an ISSN in LARCH. On the other hand, the percentage of Offered Holdings without a given ISSN in LARCH that receive a Dispose Retention Status was around half that for the Offered Holdings with an ISSN in LARCH. This could be explained by either or both: a) the supposition that holdings which genuinely did not possess an ISSN are in general more scarce than those with an ISSN. For example, if the holding was old enough to completely pre-date the general use of ISSNs, or have such limited print runs or local focus that did not necessitate an ISSN ever being issued for the title. b) the UKRR Scarcity check process could - in general - find matches on SUNCAT more easily when searching for ISSN matches than solely on a title match.

FIGURE 29: DISTRIBUTION OF OFFERED HOLDING RETENTION STATUSES DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE OFFERED HOLDING HAS AN ISSN IN LARCH Offered Holdings submitted without an ISSN but where one exists for continued title The plot in Figure 30 shows for each BL Overlap Title (from Phase 2 and 3) the percentage of Offered Holdings of that BL Overlap Title which were given an ISSN in LARCH. The aim of this figure is to show an indication of the possible scope for ‘improvement’ in the detail of the Offered Holding submissions. Given the message of the previous subsection, where it was shown that the proportion of Offered Holdings receiving a Retain or BL Retain retention decision was much higher in case when the Offered Holding was not given an ISSN in LARCH, the number of cases of Offered Holdings without an ISSN in LARCH but which other offerings of the same BL Overlap Title were given an ISSN are now considered. For a given BL Overlap Title, an ISSN that was entered for one Offered Holding of that BL Overlap Title may not be appropriate (i.e. of any use in the Scarcity checking search) to use for a separate Offered Holding of that BL Overlap Title. For example, the Offered Holding with the ISSN could consist of a more recent range of years, for which the ISSN is valid, but the Offered Holding without an ISSN could consist of a much older range of years before the ISSN was issued (even using the later ISSN for this older range could help with finding matches in the Scarcity check if other Holding Libraries catalogued that older part of the journal in the same record as with the ISSN, or if the SUNCAT search script could pick up the link between the records, but this is not

always the case). However, Figure 30 shows the maximum scope for possible missed ISSNs in past submitted Offered Holdings.

FIGURE 30: FOR EACH DIFFERENT BL OVERLAP TITLE SUBMITTED TO UKRR, SHOWS THE PERCENTAGE OF OFFERED HOLDINGS OF THAT BL OVERLAP TITLE WHICH HAVE AN ISSN IN LARCH If one assumes that the BL Overlap Titles with a percentage 0% did genuinely not have an ISSN, or at least not one relevant for the range of the Offered Holding, then Figure 30 shows that only approximately 3500 BL Overlap Titles out of 28655 had Offered Holdings with some ‘missed’ ISSNs. Hence, relatively, not a very significant proportion. However, given the effect of the presence of an ISSN to the Retention Status and, moreover, the greater ease with which the British Library could process Offered Holdings that were given an ISSN, it is still recommended that submitting libraries be very strongly encouraged to search for relevant ISSNs for their Offered Holdings when preparing their lists for submission to the UKRR service. Meterage Here are considered the relationship between the Retention Status and the meterage of Offered Holdings. Figure 31 shows a box plot of the distribution of shelf-space meterage values of Offered Holdings with each different Retention Status. The plot indicates that the meterage of Offered Holdings with a Dispose or BL Dispose Retention Status was generally larger than those with a BL Retain Retention Status and even more so than those with a Retain Retention Status. This would seem to be unintuitive on the basis that longer ranges of Offered Holdings should in general be harder to find full matching holdings for in the Scarcity check. However, Figure 32 provides some interesting insight into this situation.

FIGURE 31: BOX PLOT OF OFFERED HOLDING METERAGE FOR EACH RETENTION STATUS Figure 32 shows a box plot of the distribution of shelf-space meterage values of Offered Holdings when grouped into different categories defined by the number of times the Offered Holding’s BL Overlap Title was offered to UKRR (in Phase 2 and 3). As can be seen, with the exception of the category for Offered Holdings whose BL Overlap Title was offered 51 to 60 times, there is a trend by which the BL Overlap Titles which were offered more frequently were generally offered in larger meterages. As they were offered more frequently one could consider them the more common titles more likely to have a high percentage of Dispose or BL Dispose Retention Status decisions. Therefore, the dominant driver in overall picture of Retain and BL Retain Retention Status decisions is, up to now, that the general commonness of the journal or BL Overlap Title rather than the length of the range into which Offered Holdings were submitted in. This means that if future participants offered lots of material that had not previously been offered, then Retention Statuses were likely to remain high, but if there was material offered which had already been offered to UKRR a number of times, then retention statuses would, it follows, be lower.

FIGURE 32: BOX PLOT OF OFFERED HOLDING METERAGE BY NUMBER OF TIMES THE BL OVERLAP TITLE WAS OFFERED For comparison with above, Figure 33 presents a histogram of the shelf-space meterage values of Offered Holdings.

FIGURE 33: HISTOGRAM OF OFFERED HOLDING METERAGE Collection Comparison Here are considered what the results of UKRR Scarcity checking may indicate about the similarity between different libraries’ collections. The source data used in this subsection are the Scarcity check results for the Phase 2 and 3 Offered Holdings which: • had a Retention Status of Dispose, BL Dispose, Retain, or BL Retain. • were submitted by any UKRR library except Cambridge University Library or the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford (since the submissions by both of these libraries are the result of their own internal deduplication process and so do not require UKRR Scarcity check as they retain the other copy of the holding for UKRR). Furthermore the Scarcity check results that were used here were those provided to UKRR by either the BL Scarcity check process or the submitting library’s Scarcity check process. Therefore these are the Scarcity check matches found for the Offered Holdings before the central UKRR team’s series of checks on the data which may, for a number of reasons, discount some of the Scarcity matches found by the BL’s or the submitting library’s Scarcity check results. Figure 3415 shows for each pair of libraries16 the number of Offered Holdings from the source data (see above) where both libraries in that pair were named as Scarcity matches.

15 A different colour scheme, than elsewhere in this report, is used for these two figures to provide greater visual clarity. 16 Libraries who’s collections were ever checked in UKRR Scarcity checking, so libraries that were either a Phase 2 Member Library or a Phase 3 Holding Library or Principal Holding Library.

Figure 35 shows for each pair of libraries the percentage of the corresponding figure in Figure 34 divided by the number of Offered Holdings from the source data where “Library A” were named as a Scarcity match.

FIGURE 34: NUMBER OF OFFERED HOLDINGS WHERE EACH PAIR OF LIBRARIES WERE NAMED AS SCARCITY MATCHES

FIGURE 35: PERCENTAGE OF THE NUMBER OF OFFERED HOLDINGS WHERE EACH PAIR OF LIBRARIES WERE NAMED AS SCARCITY MATCHES DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF OFFERED HOLDINGS WHERE LIBRARY A WAS NAMED AS A SCARCITY MATCH Some observations of the data shown in these figures are: • In a high proportion of cases (at least 63% in all instances) when a given library is found to have a Scarcity match of an Offered Holding then Cambridge University Library or the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, were also named as a Scarcity match. • In a high proportion of the cases when each of King’s College London (44%), Kingston University (53%), the Open University (47%), Queen Mary (47%), and Royal Holloway (47%) were found to have a Scarcity match of an Offered Holding then Cardiff University was also named as a Scarcity match. • In a very high proportion (97%) of the cases when Northumbria was found to have a Scarcity match of an Offered Holding then Cardiff University was not also named as a Scarcity match.

• In a good proportion of cases (at least 35% in all instances) when a given library was found to have a Scarcity match of an Offered Holding then the University of Edinburgh was also named as a Scarcity match. • In a good proportion of cases (49%) when the University of St Andrews was found to have a Scarcity match of an Offered Holding then the University of Glasgow was also named as a Scarcity match. • The number of Offered Holdings where one of Imperial College London, King’s College London, or Kingston University and another given library were both named as Scarcity matches tended to make up a smaller percentage of that other given library’s references as Scarcity matches than that for Imperial College London, King’s College London, or Kingston University respectively. • In a fair proportion of cases when a given library was found to have a Scarcity match of an Offered Holding then the University of Glasgow (at least 23%), University of Leeds (at least 18%), University of Liverpool (at least 24%), Newcastle University (at least 23%), University of Nottingham (at least 32%), or the University of Reading (at least 18%) was also named as a Scarcity match. • The number of Offered Holdings where Cardiff University and the University of Edinburgh were both named as Scarcity matches represents, at least, a fair percentage of both the number of Offered Holdings where Cardiff University was named as a Scarcity match (56%) and the corresponding number for the University of Edinburgh (35%). • The number of Offered Holdings where Cardiff University and the University of Nottingham were both named as Scarcity matches represent, at least, a fair percentage of both the number of Offered Holdings where Cardiff University was named as a Scarcity match (50%) and the corresponding number for the University of Nottingham (38%). • In a high proportion of the cases when each of the University of St Andrews (51%) and London School of Economics and Political Science (45%) were found to have a Scarcity match of an Offered Holding then Senate House Libraries, University of London, was also named as a Scarcity match. • In a very high proportion of the cases when Imperial College London was found to have a Scarcity match of an Offered Holding then Senate House Libraries, University of London, was not also named as a Scarcity match (93%). • The University of Bristol was only checked against for the Scarcity process in Phase 3 and not in Phase 2, which must be the principal reason for the comparatively lower number of shared Scarcity check mentions with other libraries (at most 16%). Conversely, Cardiff University, Kingston University, and Queen Mary were Phase 2 UKRR Member Libraries, so were checked against in the Scarcity process during Phase 2, but were not Phase 3 Holding Libraries and so their collections were not checked against in the process from which this data is produced (the Phase 3 UKRR process was able to take into account the existing retained holdings at these three libraries from their Phase 2 UKRR submissions but this process was separate to the Scarcity check results provided to UKRR by either the BL Scarcity check process or the submitting library’s Scarcity check process, and it is not considered in this subsection’s analysis). This explains why in Figures 34 and 35 there are zero Offered Holdings where the University of Bristol is named as a Scarcity match along with any of the three libraries of Cardiff University, Kingston University, or Queen Mary.

Conclusions from analysis The analysis done focused in on specific questions, but considered in context with one another, they allowed for the drawing out of some the headline conclusions, learning points, and expectations for the future, as below.

Conclusions and learning points - While the average length of metreage per offered holdings decreased as libraries offered more material, the majority of participants have offered less than 5000 Holdings, so there is scope for more to be offered. - As libraries offered more material, the proportion that is a new BL Overlap Title increased on average, as did the amount of material that was given a Retain or BL Retain status. - Encouraging libraries to submit shorter total submissions is helpful to the BL for processing purposes. - Material submitted without an ISSN remained at quite a steady percentage throughout the project, and this is likely to be due to a mixture of material with an ISSN where this data is not entered, and material which does not have an ISSN at all (e.g. it was published prior to the introduction of the ISSN in 1976). - Material with no ISSN was far more likely to be given a Retain or BL Retain status, and so libraries need to be encouraged to include ISSN information where available to avoid inadvertent duplication of material, and this may mean they need to search for this information. - Generally, the longer a holding was, the less likely it was that it would get a Retain or BL Retain status. However, there was also correlation between the length of a holding and the number of times it was offered, and the evidence suggests that the main driver for a Retain or BL Retain status was the number of times it was offered, not how long it was. Expectations for the future - The average length of metreage per offered holdings is likely to continue to decrease, but not particularly steeply, with the decreased average submission length in Phase 3 being attributable to particular universities making large offers of material with a short average Offered Holding, as opposed to a general trend of shorter holdings being offered. - As libraries submit more material, this is increasingly likely to be new BL Overlap Title material. The 28,655 titles submitted so far is a tiny part of the 343,000 serial titles held by the BL. - Any trends seen in retention levels may not have much influence on what happens in future, as the British Library moves to a 1+1 model, instead of the previously existing 1+2. - If future participants offer lots of material that was not previously offered then Retain and BL Retain statuses are likely to be correspondingly high.

From Project to Service After the transfer of UKRR to the British Library, the first priority for the team based in Boston Spa was to scale up the operation using the new process and system after checking early pilot lists. Once the workflow was optimised the team started the process of continuous improvement and further refinement. With the project having run over such a long period of time, the process evolved based on the needs and the systems in place at the time. As a consequence, the joint BL/Imperial College London project team had to consider carefully how to transition to a service reflecting the reduced resources available17. In order to maintain a service level broadly commensurate with the users’ expectation, the process was re-engineered on the basis that the underlying system architecture would be overhauled.

PHOTO 11: THE UKRR PROCESS MAP VISUALIZED DURING RE-ENGINEERING AT THE BRITISH LIBRARY. PHOTO USED WITH PERMISSION OF THE BRITISH LIBRARY.

17 A Business Case was taken to the British Library Chief Officers with a proposal that the BL operate UKRR as a service funded from Grant-in-Aid. This was agreed on the premise it will be a much smaller operation with less staff.

FIGURES 36 AND 37: THE UPPER DIAGRAM OUTLINES THE COMPONENTS OF THE UKRR LEGACY, ALL OF WHICH WERE NECESSARY FOR ANY NEW SERVICE. THE LOWER DIAGRAM SHOWS HOW, AND BY WHICH ORGANISATION, EACH OF THOSE COMPONENTS WILL BE DELIVERED AS PART OF THE NEW SERVICE.

Having defined the process as-is and identified opportunities for improvement, the revised process was designed such that it could be managed by the smaller team. The core components underpinning this new approach, seen in Figures 36 and 37, were: 1. Adoption of the LARCH user interface from Imperial to BL and the replacement of the Access 2003 database / query system with an SQL database and web front end. 2. In order to complete Scarcity following cessation of Suncat at the end of July 2019, Jisc ensured that the National Bibliographic Knowledgebase (NBK) could offer the same functionality. 3. As the service was opened up beyond the members, the holders of the 2nd copy are the nominated Holding Library. The Holding Libraries consisted of firstly Oxford or Cambridge, then all signatories of the Collaborative Collection Retention Agreement (CCRA)18. 4. In parallel, as above, the BL retained a core number of the original UKRR team to maintain the service going forward, deploying the newly designed processes. From April to July 2019, the team worked through pilot lists19, validating the process and measuring capacity so that throughput was estimated. Once done, the team prepared a production planning routine which could inform estimated lead times based on the ideal due dates and the predicted completion times. A prioritisation approach was designed that informs the scheduling process. In addition to the above, the message to users is to ensure that submitted lists were complete, accurate and timely such that a “right first time” approach could be adopted, thus enabling a smooth flow without the need for the BL team to intervene, correct and/or fix.

18 The CCRA broadly replaced the UKRR project Memorandum of Agreement, ensuring that signatories across the community did not knowingly dispose of scarce material. 19 Pilots planned were – Southampton, Oxford, Imperial and Reading.

The table below shows the main differences between the project and the service.

Factor Before (project) After (service)

Submission LARCH, Response Sheet (no change) Process

Requirement of BL team quality check and Onus on “right 1st time” and list user adjust quality/completeness

Eligibility Membership approach Open to anyone

Lead time Quicker turn-round time. Could be longer due to it being processed by a smaller team (for previously offered items)

Prioritisation First come first served A protocol was in development at the (of lists) time of publication.

Communication www.UKRR.ac.uk www.bl.uk/ukrr and Information

Preservation +2 copies within +1 within Holding Library group (CCRA) (scarce) back membership group up

Scarcity and Use SUNCAT to check and Use NBK to check and record. retention record.

BL database of Based on Access 2003 with (New) based on SQL optimised and APIs previous checks manual effort – links to to Aleph/LARCH/NBK. Aleph/LARCH.

TABLE 8: ILLUSTRATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN UKRR AS A PROJECT AND AS A SERVICE. The National Bibliographic Knowledgebase (NBK) The National Bibliographic Knowledgebase replaced and upgraded the Copac and SUNCAT services at the end of July 2019. It aggregated catalogue data from contributing libraries, of which there were many more than had contributed to Copac or SUNCAT. It was branded as Library Hub and, incorporated three services: Discover, a union catalogue; Cataloguing, a shared cataloguing service; and Compare, a collection comparison tool. As the replacement for SUNCAT it formed an essential part of the UKRR infrastructure for the British Library. Scarcity checking using SUNCAT was an integral component of the UKRR workflow and Jisc was very conscious since the beginning of the NBK specification process (in 2016) that UKRR functionality represented a primary use case for the inclusion of serials data into the NBK. The project goal as set out in the ‘Sunset Project’ (scheduled from January 2018 through to August 2019) was ‘to retire SUNCAT and transfer required functionality into the NBK’. The first step was to engage with the SUNCAT team and to effect a detailed knowledge transfer of service practice and domain knowledge in the area of serials data. Another critical objective in the project plan was to ‘engage with UKRR and understand needs and priorities’. The risks set out in the Sunset Project plan included: • The challenge of convincing SUNCAT contributors to re-submit data to a new aggregation

• Serials data might prove more difficult to manage and process than other forms of bibliographic data Addressing the first risk, the NBK team made good progress by the end of the UKRR project. Figure 38 below shows the proportions of institutions that are in scope and had made contributions to the NBK by July 2019. Of the total of 125 contributing institutions to SUNCAT, only 11 had, by July 2019, given no indication that they would like to participate. Of the RLUK libraries (which had in previous phases been most active in the UKRR initiative) only 2 were not contributing data in July 2019. Both of these libraries indicated their intention to participate but had been delayed because of major system implementation projects.

SUNCAT Contributors to NBK Not committed 9%

Want to contribute 30%

Already contributed 61%

Already contributed Want to contribute Not committed

FIGURE 38: SUNCAT CONTRIBUTOR FIGURES IN RELATION TO THE NBK In relation to the second risk, the information gleaned from the SUNCAT Knowledge Transfer exercise was very useful but did not flag up any unexpected or extraordinary issues that the NBK team felt would require major deviations from the existing project path. Some additional negotiation was required with OCLC as the NBK service delivery partner to factor in serials data processing to the Library Hub Cataloguing module but this was eventually incorporated into the joint project plan and addressed in the first half of 2019. The pilot Library Hub Discover service was displaying UKRR retention flags as a service feature from around March 2019 onwards (see Figure 39 below) and a series of meetings between the British Library UKRR and Jisc NBK teams during the first two quarters of 2019 ensured that there was a good understanding of requirements before the retirement of the SUNCAT service at the end of July 2019.

FIGURE 39: EXAMPLE RECORD FROM JISC LIBRARY HUB DISCOVER SHOWING UKRR FLAGS In July 2019, Jisc launched the first three production Library Hub services based on the NBK aggregation of data. The three services are as follows: • Library Hub Discover - which superseded the discovery functions of Copac and SUNCAT. • Library Hub Cataloguing - which superseded the MARC record download functions previously supplied by the RLUK database and SUNCAT. • Library Hub Compare - which took over from the Copac Collection Management Tools and the SUNCAT Serials Holding Comparison Service. The last of these three services provided the functionality most relevant to the UKRR service delivered by the British Library and the interface was developed and finalised in the approach to the July 2019 service launch date. Careful attention was paid to gathering requirements and refining functionality where possible. The key constraint was, however, on the quality and granularity of data that libraries submitted to the NBK. Based on analysis of the data and input from the community, it seemed likely that a community partnership programme may prove beneficial to standardise practice in relation to serials metadata creation and management. Lessons learned In terms of finalising the project and looking forward, it was important (as in all projects) to validate the achievement of benefits, plan for sustainability and assess lessons that can be learned. The following areas were identified that could either be addressed as part of the service going forward and/or as part of any further UKRR type approaches. Funding Getting the financial model right, as well as ensuring that all different types of costs are accounted for, was vital. This was a particularly pertinent lesson both as the British Library continued to deliver a more streamlined service, and as the application of similar principles to monographs was explored. One such example from the project experience was the recognition in 2009 of the need for VAT to be applied to subscription fees, which hadn’t been factored into the original Phase 2 business model. This meant that a bridging fund had to be used in order to pay the shortfall, and this type of situation is to be avoided. Another issue overcome was the Scottish Funding Council’s (SFC) withdrawal of deduplication funding in 2011. Until this point HEFCE had provided the deduplication funding for Scottish participants and then invoiced the SFC to recoup it. This withdrawal meant that the four Scottish institutions were unable to claim this money, which was a key part and benefit of the Phase 2 model. However, 3 of the 4 Scottish institutions continued to submit material even after the

funding had been withdrawn, highlighting the need for the structures that UKRR provides to preserve material and release space. In the longer term this paved the way for a model that required neither subscription payments nor funding for universities based on the extent of their deduplication activities. Oscillation in supply Throughout Phase 2, there was originally an objective of processing 10,000m of material in each Cycle, with 10 originally planned Cycles lasting 6 months each. The reason for this was to, throughout the ten originally planned Cycles, process 100,000m of linear shelf space. The reason for splitting these up into the Cycles was in order to be better able to manage and plan ingest workloads at the British Library. However, the amount of material actually submitted in these 10 Cycles varied from 5,921m (P2C2) to 12,362m (P2C4). When Cycles contained less material than the hoped for 10,000m, processing became more inefficient with a workflow set up to deal with more material, aside from the fact that it means that submission targets were missed. The initial plan was that 100,000m would be processed across 10 Cycles in Phase 2, but in the end 94,247m were processed across 13 Cycles. This problem was further exacerbated by inconsistencies between initial proposals accepted and the amount of this material actually submitted. Although statistics were never captured to quantify the extent of this problem, it was an issue throughout the project with universities submitting less material than they had proposed. Reasons for this are institutional, with one case study alluding to internal recruitment issues being a reason. This made planning workloads more difficult, leading to less productivity and to the missed targets as outlined above. As part of the new service, the British Library were exploring how to maximise list processing efficiency with a smaller team. Ease of processing There were a number of ways in which the ease of processing material could vary, including title changes, lack of ISSNs, short submissions, material not previously submitted requiring thorough shelf checks, etc. Material that was more difficult to process took longer, and again made workload planning more difficult. It was hard for the British Library to predict what the complexion of each individual submission might be, and this made planning tricky. Although less than 1m was submitted for 18,270 titles, institutions were encouraged to ensure that their submissions were an average of 1m per title, so that shorter submissions were offset by the submission of longer runs. However, this was advised and not mandated, and so many lists were submitted which missed this 1m/title target, and indeed 7 institutions involved in 5 Cycles or more across Phases 2 and 3 submitted an average of less than 1m per title, missing the target. While it seemed likely that this would continue to be the case in the new service, the British Library were able to draw on two key data outputs to make processing easier. The first was the output of the Phase 3 Data Project, where issue level holdings information was inputted on the British Library catalogue for 3,780 titles, meaning that for these titles there was no need to do time consuming shelf checks for any material offered as part of the ongoing service. The other key output which made processing easier was the Master List, which helped to group titles together, understanding differences in catalogue records and title changes, again making future processing easier by having more thorough data to draw on. Advocacy Advocacy was a vital part of UKRR, both in terms of recruiting new institutions to take part in the project, and in building trust with academic staff. Discarding of physical collections was sometimes misinterpreted and invoked a negative response. Carefully crafted communications outlining the rationale helped avoid this. One such example is how Aberdeen produced a document specifically addressing 24 concerns from academics, being open and honest in order to build this trust, which was shared with the project, but at the time it may not have been shared as widely as it could have been. As seen in the community and culture section on p.43, some libraries became less conservative as their involvement in the project went on.

Again, as seen in the community and culture section of this report on p.43, the profile of institutions involved changed throughout the project, showing that there is a need for the structures that UKRR provides beyond simply research libraries. Workshops were held in October 2017 and July 2018 during which 28 libraries which had not previously submitted (as well as Exeter, the only library involved in Phase 1, not to have submitted since) expressed an interest in taking part in UKRR. These institutions represented a wide group of interests, with 4 more RLUK institutions, 18 non-RLUK HEIs, and 6 non-HEIs, showing the potentially wide scope of participants. However, of these 28 institutions, only 4 ended up participating in Phase 3, meaning that advocacy needs to go much further in turning interest into submissions. The British Library went on an advocacy drive during the move to UKRR as a service, speaking at a number of conferences and raising awareness in order to promote the service. The new British Library model was, like that for Phase 3, not based on membership, and so was opened up to the wider community more easily. Indeed, of the 20 expressions of interest the British Library received for submitting to the new service by July 2019, 4 of them were from libraries that had not previously submitted. All of these are HEIs, with 2 RLUK and 2 non-RLUK, and 2 of them expressed an interest in the October 2017 and January 2018 workshops. Accuracy of data In order to make effective collection management decisions, the data libraries drew on needed to be accurate. One of the benefits wrought from the project was an improvement in this, both in terms of the British Library’s holding updates as part of the Phase 3 data project, and individual libraries updating their records in SUNCAT/NBK from having manually shelf checked. The NBK was rolled out at the end of July 2019, and data in this needed to be accurate and updated as often as necessary, including with appropriate retention flags, in order for the service, and any future work on monographs, to be successful. The main specific learning points about data were that: - Granularity of information was vital: records needed to show issue level information. - Retention tags needed to be consistent and easily discoverable, ideally from within the suite of NBK services, and this was included as part of NBK functionality. - Data needed to be uploaded by institutions frequently, and information should be made available about when this was last done, in order for this to be as useful as possible. Future opportunities As UKRR came to the end, it was clear that it had a sustainable legacy and an exciting future ahead. The future opened up opportunities for even greater collaboration in managing our national collections, and the aim was for UKRR to increase its value by broadening participation across the sector and tackling new formats and challenges. In considering sustainability, two key messages needed to be embraced: • Readiness to tackle new challenges and new types of material. • Readiness to open our doors to new partners. Building on these points, ways to deepen our relationships with researchers at all levels needed to be explored, enabling them to understand better how the collections are managed, the challenges faced by libraries, and the sustainability of collections that they cared about. This was increasingly important as monographs were considered (see p.79 below), with their very different place in research culture to journals, which needed to be taken into account going forward. Accordingly a number of opportunities became apparent and may be followed up such as:

• A UKRR for monographs solution20 had been discussed for some time. The challenge was different to journals inasmuch the overlap was found to be low, for example in the White Rose research done on the topic21, and led to the coining of the phrase “rareness is common”. Nonetheless, the opportunity was being discussed within both RLUK and SCONUL with a view to exploring: o In terms of access, could the NBK be used as a catalyst for creating a “digital” inter-library lending (ILL) service? o How could a national (physical) monograph storage strategy be organized including elements of de-duplication and potentially reassigning ownership according to subject based disciplines and/or geographical based consortia groups. This was explored in depth at the Royal Holloway “Share the Experience” conference session in June 2019 led by Theo Stubbs of Imperial. o Storage of monographs could also be explored as part of the BL portfolio at BL North. The concept here was that the BL could store/preserve non-BL collections at the Boston Spa site and still make them accessible by making the use of the Document Supply, ILL and/or Digitisation services. • The idea of a digital UKRR model along the lines of Ethos (www.bl.ethos.uk) was mooted, whereby digital/digitized monographs could be accessed from a central database and/or local repositories on a type of “hub-and-spoke” arrangement. This was being investigated as part of the Everything Available strategic portfolio working alongside The Tate, The British Museum, National Museums Scotland and the Museum of London Archeology. • Preliminary checking of a sample of content with Leeds City Library indicated that 75% of the titles on the list had already been processed through UKRR and could possibly be de-duplicated, thus releasing much needed space. The UKRR service at the British Library was to be governed by a new Advisory Board which, which would meet three times p.a. to discuss the strategic direction of UKRR and offer guidance on future development, including in relation to opportunities such as this.

20 Stubbs, T. (2019). An extension of UKRR into low-use monographs: does appetite exist? Retrieved from: https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/bl/global/services/ukrr/ukrr%20documents/fullmon ographsreport.pdf

21 White Rose Library staff. (2017). Understanding collections overlap: an investigation into White Rose Libraries collections using Collection Management Tools.

PHOTO 12: DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPACES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER ENABLED AS A RESULT OF UKRR. PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER. Monographs Collaborative management of monographs was seen for some time as a logical next step for UKRR, with an initial exploratory workshop held in 2011, and Phase 3 had funding specifically set aside to begin to approach the issue. However, monographs presented a different set of challenges, not least in the reduced scope for space savings that they offered. One of the key issues that became apparent was that overlap between library collections was likely to be less than originally presumed, as found in RLUK and White Rose Libraries studies,22 the latter of which suggested that three libraries would have insufficient overlap for collaboration on monographs to work, but that this might be feasible with more partners. From 2016-2019 more work was done to approach this complex problem. In 2016, the National Monographs Steering Group (NMSG) was formed, with representatives from HEFCE, UKRR, RLUK, the British Library and Jisc. The NMSG articulated the problem and engaged consultants, Information Power, to research the area in greater depth. This report, published in June 2017, recommended the creation of a shared collection, held at the British Library’s Boston Spa site. Subsequent to this, a further report was commissioned into HE library directors’ attitudes towards a mooted UKRR for monographs. Published in December 2018, this found that appetite existed, and, alongside broadly recommending a similar model to that suggested by Information Power, made some recommendations for pieces of work to be approached. One approach considered was retention tagging within the NBK, allowing a bottom-up approach to collaborative collection management. In June 2019, the Jisc Collection Management

22Malpas, C., & Lavoie, B. (2016). Strength in numbers: the Research Libraries UK (RLUK) collective collection. Retrieved from: http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/2016/oclcresearch-strength-in- numbers-rluk- collective-collection-2016.pdf White Rose Library staff. (2017). Understanding collections overlap: an investigation into White Rose Libraries collections using Collection Management Tools.

Community Advisory Board (CMCAB) were consulting the community with a view to standardising Retention Statuses for use in closer future collaboration. Work that was going on within established consortia (e.g. the University of London, SCURL, WHELF, GW4) suggested that an alternative approach might be a hub and spoke model, with a copy held by the British Library, and other copies held consortially. This reduces the scope for de-duplication of monograph copies, but may be politically more feasible, and shifts the focus of such a project onto preservation of research material, as opposed to space savings, and thus changes the way the problem can be framed in consultation and advocacy with key stakeholders. Conclusions By 2019, UKRR had been a part of the research landscape in the UK for 12 years, and yet the services it provided to help libraries manage their physical collections had not diminished in importance, as seen in the demand noted by the British Library for their new service from libraries that had previously participated and those that were yet to do so. The outcomes and benefits provided by UKRR can be viewed across different axes, such as local vs national, or quantitative vs qualitative. The national, measurable headline benefits of space and financial savings were excellent, but sight should not be lost of the stories from individual institutions, as they repurposed space to meet the needs of their users, improving their educational experiences, as well as improving their libraries. Benefits mentioned included: - More study spaces created - Better quality study spaces created, addressing changing learning needs - Being able to address closed-access storage requirements, either reducing the need for or consolidating it - Preserving material in such a way that it was quickly and easily accessible were library users to need it in future - Rationalising journal collections, and improving discoverability in catalogues Looking at the numbers, UKRR provided clear value for money, bringing financial benefits in the form of capital savings and recurrent savings of £4.04 for each £1 of funding received, without this being adjusted for inflation. 126,144m of material was submitted, with over 97,840m of linear shelf space released over the course of the project. As a result of the Phase 3 data Project, information about 296,5000 issues of 3780 journals was added to the British Library catalogue. UKRR helped to foster a community focused not just on releasing space, but on the preservation of essential research materials, creating a national collection distributed across the country. This creation and growth of a national research collection was an initial objective of the project, but without having specified any desired size of the shared collection. In the end, material from 16,503 titles (of 28,865 offered) was given a Retain or BL Retain status, and so became a part of this collection. As a result of collating and submitting information about their collections, libraries were better able to understand their collections, and made accurate holdings information available to researchers through union catalogues (SUNCAT, and latterly the NBK). A key success of UKRR was that it would continue to be delivered as a service by the British Library, showing sustainability, and constituting a strong legacy. UKRR is a trusted brand, and this can act as capital as additional opportunities, for example monographs, are explored with the community in the future. During the event in April 2019 to mark the transition from project to service, it was mentioned by Sir Rick Trainor, the Chair of the UKRR Board, that UKRR was the type of unglamorous yet essential work which helps to underpin the world-class research conducted in the UK, and this really encapsulates the purpose and personality of this service, which in March 2019, began a new chapter.

PHOTO 13: EVEN SMALL SUBMISSIONS, SUCH AS THE ABOVE FROM IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON…

PHOTO 14: …CAN ENABLE THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL STUDY SPACES. PHOTOS USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON.

Appendix 1: Individuals involved in UKRR Project delivery staff at the British Library and Imperial College London 1) Strategic Level a) SRO and BL strategic leadership - Caroline Brazier. b) BL Senior project lead - Jan Wilkinson, Joanna Newman, Andy Appleyard. c) BL strategic support - Phil Spence, Alasdair Ball. d) Strategic leadership at Imperial College London – Clare Jenkins, Deborah Shorley, Chris Banks 2) Project level a) BL Project management - Stephanie Kenna, Sam Tillett, Andy Appleyard, Sara Gould, Alison Selina. b) BL Finance support - Andy Wood, Kay Hodgson, c) BL Cataloguing support - Alan Danskin, Paula Shann, Marie Stanger, d) BL IT support - Bruce Herman, Paul Barnard. e) BL business analysis and project support – Suzy Robinson. f) Project management at Imperial College London – Nicola Wright, Jean Crawford, Frances Boyle, Daryl Yang 3) Delivery level a) BL project team leadership and co-ordination – Linda Grant, Yvonne Spurr, Rachel Richards, Alison Selina. b) BL Team management - Linda Grant, Yvonne Spurr, Jonathan Heath, c) Project coordinators at Imperial College London: Dan Crane, Chris Brown, John Hosking d) Project wrap-up at Imperial College London: Sian Haynes, Nova Larch, Sharona Rowe, Frances Boyle, Jack Robinson, Theo Stubbs

Advisory Board (Phase 1)

Regular Attendees

Member Organisation

Andy Appleyard British Library

Anne Bell Cardiff University

Dorothy Byatt University of Southampton

Wayne Connolly Newcastle University

Jean Crawford UKRR Project Manager, Imperial College London

Laura Dunn University of Liverpool

Steve Hewett University of Birmingham

Clare Jenkins Head of UKRR, Imperial College London

Stephanie Kenna British Library

Susanna Nutsford Imperial College London

Laura Oldham University of Liverpool

Hannah Porter British Library

Jon Purcell University of St Andrews

Tim Reeves Imperial College London (Secretariat)

Debby Shorley Head of UKRR, Imperial College London

Sam Tillett British Library

Nicola Wright UKRR Project Manager, Imperial College London

Alternates and Occasional Attendees

Amanda Boll Newcastle University

Vicky Comrie -

John Felcham -

Kathryn Hudson Cardiff University

Margaret Johnson -

Janet Jones University of Liverpool

Martin Myhill University of Exeter

Lee Snook University of Exeter

Ian Snowley British Library

Phil Sykes University of Liverpool

Ruth Thornton Cardiff University

TABLE 9: PHASE 1 ADVISORY BOARD MEETING ATTENDEES

Board members (Phases 2 & 3)

Board members

Member Organisation Dates

Chairs of the Board Sir Drummond Bone Balliol College Oxford 2010-2017 Sir Rick Trainor Exeter College Oxford 2017-2019 Heads of UKRR Deborah Shorley Imperial College London 2010-2016 Chris Banks Imperial College London 2016-2019 UKRR Project Managers Frances Boyle UKRR Project Manager 2010-2011 Daryl Yang UKRR Project Manager 2011-2019 HEFCE/Research England Representatives Paul Hubbard HEFCE 2010-2012 Vicky Jones HEFCE 2010-2015 Kim Hackett HEFCE 2012-2013 Steven Hill HEFCE/Research England 2013-2019 Ben Johnson HEFCE 2015-2016 Louise Evans HEFCE/Research England 2018-2019 British Library Representatives Andy Appleyard British Library 2010-2019 Caroline Brazier British Library 2015-2018 SCONUL Representatives Jane Core Northumbria University 2010-2011 Kitty Ingliss University of Sussex 2011-2017 RLUK Representatives Jan Wilkinson University of Manchester 2010-2018 Robin Green University of Warwick 2018-2019 British Academy Representatives Michael Crawford British Academy 2010-2019 David McKitterick British Academy 2017-2019 Royal Society Representative Stuart Taylor Royal Society 2010-2019 Other Board Members Michael Jubb Research Information Network 2010-2011 Robert Allison University of Sussex, Loughborough University 2010-2018 Mark Smith University of Warwick, Lancaster University 2010-2019 Neil Grindley Jisc 2017-2019 Secretariat Stephane Goldstein Research Information Network 2010-2011 Sharone Rowe Imperial College London 2012-2016, 2019 John Hosking UKRR 2016-2019 Jack Robinson Imperial College London 2019 Alternates and Other Occasional Attendees of Board Meetings Joanna Newman British Library 2010 Maja Maricevic British Library 2012 John Tuck Royal Holloway University of London, SCONUL 2015 Sara Gould British Library 2017 Paola Marchionni Jisc 2017 Marie-Helene Nienaltowski HEFCE 2017 Theo Stubbs Imperial College London 2018-2019

TABLE 10: PHASES 2 & 3 BOARD MEMERS

Appendix 2: Participating libraries The table below shows all participating libraries for each phase of the project and indicates whether they were Holding Libraries (HL), Principal Holding Libraries (PHL) and whether they were members of RLUK Library Phase Phase Phase HL PHL RLUK 1 2 3 University of Aberdeen    Aberystwyth University    University of Birmingham      University of Bristol     Cambridge University Library     Canterbury Christ Church University  Cardiff University   City, University of London  Durham University    University of East Anglia  University of Edinburgh     University of Exeter   University of Glasgow     Goldsmiths, University of London  Imperial College London      King’s College London     Kingston University  University of Leeds     University of Liverpool     London School of Economics and Political    Science University of Manchester     Newcastle University      Northumbria University   University of Nottingham     The Open University   Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford     Queen Mary, University of London   University of Reading     Rothamsted Research  Royal Holloway, University of London     Senate House Libraries, University of    London University of Sheffield     University of Southampton     University of St Andrews      University of Sussex     University College London   

TABLE 11: ALL UKRR PARTICIPATING LIBRARIES AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT

Appendix 3: EPICo Collaborators Osterreichischer Archivbestand (Austrian Shared Archiving Initiative), Austria Varastokirjasto (The National Repository Library), Finland Garantia d’Espai per la Preservació de l’Accés (GEPA; Guaranteed Space for the Preservation of Access), Catalonia, Spain The UK Research Reserve (UKRR), United Kingdom Centre technique du livre de l’enseignment supérieur (CTLes; The Technical Centre of the Book for Higher Education), Paris, France Kooperative Print-Archivierung (Swiss Cooperative Print Storage), Switzerland Nasjonalbiblioteket (National Library (Rana Branch)), Norway La Bibliothèque interuniversitaire de la Communauté française de Belgique (The Inter-University Library of the French Community of Belgium), Belgium

Appendix 4: Publications arising from the project Reports • Information Power. (2017). Feasibility study on monographs [Online]. Winchester: Information Power. [Viewed 16 August 2019]. Available from: https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Feasibility_Study_on_Monogr aphs_final_report_June_2017_0.pdf • Stubbs, T. (2018). An extension of UKRR into low-use monographs: does appetite exist? [Online]. London: UKRR. [Viewed 16 August 2019]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/69379 Presentations/Conference • Appleyard, A. (2018). Thinking outside the box – the British Library approach to storage. Kuopio Conference, March 2018, Basel, Switzerland. • Appleyard, A. (2018). UKRR journals – a sustainable service. RLUK Members Meeting, November 2018, Reading, United Kingdom. • Appleyard, A. (2019). UKRR: access and preservation. The Next Volume: UKRR from Project to Service, April 2019, London, United Kingdom. • Appleyard, A. (2019). UKRR – from project to service. Collection Management: Share the Experience, June 2019, Egham, United Kingdom. • Appleyard, A., Grindley, N. (2019). UKRR: data and discovery. The Next Volume: UKRR from Project to Service, April 2019, London, United Kingdom. • Appleyard, A. (2018). Monographs! The next chapter for UKRR?. RLUK Members Meeting, November 2018, Reading, United Kingdom. • Banks, C. (2018). Securing the Collaborative Collection Retention of print resources in the UK: UKRR from project to service. RLUK Members Meeting, November 2018, Reading, United Kingdom. • Banks, C. (2019). UKRR: partnership and collaboration. The Next Volume: UKRR from Project to Service, April 2019, London, United Kingdom. • Boyle, F. (2009). UK Research Reserve: the story continues. M25 Consortium AGM, June 2009. • Boyle, F. (2010). The UK Research Reserve: securing research information. SCONUL Conference, June 2010, London, United Kingdom. • Selina, A., Robinson, S. (2019). UKRR – the next chapter. SCONUL Conference, June 2019, Manchester, United Kingdom. • Shorley, D. (2009). UK Research collections: the future. ABES Conference, May 2009, Montpellier, France. • Shorley, D. (2009). UK Research Reserve. ILDS Conference, October 2009, Hanover, Germany. • Shorley, D. (2010). Collection de réserve britannique pour la recherche. Cartes documentaires et bibliothèques de référence, December 2010, Lyon, France. • Shorley, D. (2011). United Kingdom Research Reserve (UKRR): La solution d'aujourd'hui aux problèmes d'hier. FReDoc, October 2011, Bordeaux, France. • Shorley, D. (2012). UKRR three years on - the story so far. ABES Conference, June 2012, Montpellier, France. • Shorley, D. (2012). United Kingdom Research Reserve: a model of collaboration among HE libraries. HE Shared Services Forum, November 2012, London, United Kingdom. • Shorley, D., Boyle, F. (2009). UK Research Reserve: today's solution to a legacy problem. LIBER Conference, June 2009, Toulouse, France. • Stubbs, T. (2018). Sectoral appetite for collaborative management of low-use print monographs. RLUK Members Meeting, November 2018, Reading, United Kingdom. • Stubbs, T. (2019). UKRR: next steps for monographs. The Next Volume: UKRR from Project to Service, April 2019, London, United Kingdom.

• Stubbs, T. (2019). Visualising UKRR for monographs. Collection Management: Share the Experience, June 2019, Egham, United Kingdom. • Yang, D. (2012). UKRR: A 21st century solution to a legacy problem. SCONUL Conference, June 2012, Liverpool, United Kingdom. • Yang, D. (2012). UK Research Reserve - a sustainable model from print to e? IFLA 2012 Satellite meeting, August 2012, Kuopio, Finland. • Yang, D. (2012). UKRR: a 21st century solution to a legacy problem. IFLA World Library and Information Congress, August 2012, Helsinki, Finland. • Yang, D. (2012). Transition complete? RLUK Redefining the Research Library Model Workshop, November 2012, London, United Kingdom. • Yang, D. (2016). UK Research Reserve - the journey of de-duplication continues. LIBER 2016, June-July 2016, Helsinki, Finland. • Yang, D. (2018). UK Research Reserve, UKRR: our journey. Kuopio Conference, March 2018, Basel, Switzerland. • Yang, D. (2018). UK Research Reserve – our collaborative journey. RLUK Members Meeting, November 2018, Reading, United Kingdom. Journal articles • Boyle, F. (2010). The UK Research Reserve (UKRR) challenging identities, nurturing collections and delivering a service. Against the Grain. 22(5), 24-27. [Viewed 15 August 2019] Available from: doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.5642 • Boyle, F., Ashley-Smith, A. (2009). Innovative collaboration in action: UK Research Reserve. ALISS Quarterly. 4(3), 23-27. • Boyle, F., Brown, C. (2010). The UK Research Reserve (UKRR): machinations, mayhem and magic. Interlending & Document Supply. 38(3), 140-146. [Viewed 15 August 2019] Available from: doi.org/10.1108/02641611011072323 • Brown, C. (2012). Building the UK Research Reserve: Using coordinated de-duplication to create a collaborative print journal collection. The Serials Librarian. 63(1), 38-54. [Viewed 15 August 2019] Available from: doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2012.684857 • Crane, D. (2013). UK Research Reserve: Working together to establish a national collection. The Serials Librarian. 65(3-4), 286-294. [Viewed 15 August 2019] Available from: doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2013.833884 • Crawford, J. (2008). Securing access to print: the UKRR. Serials. 21(3), 232- 234. [Viewed 15 August 2019] Available from: doi.org/10.1629/21232 • Shorley, D. (2008). Past its shelve by date? United Kingdom Research Reserve (UKRR): a 21st century strategy to protect our research information for the future. New Review of Academic Librarianship. 14(1), 115-120. [Viewed 15 August 2019] Available from: doi.org/10.1080/13614530802519246 • Shorley, D. (2009). L’UKRR en pleniere: la collection reserve britannique pour la recherche. Arabesques. 56, 11. • Shorley, D.; Yang, D.; Kromp, B.; Mayer, W. (2015). Collections earning their keep. An overview of international archiving initiatives. 027.7. 3(1), 30-46. [Viewed 13 August 2019] Available from: doi.org/10.12685/027.7-3-1-58 • Wright, N. (2007). Protecting the UK's research collection: the UK Research Reserve project. SCONUL Focus. 40, 38-40. • Wright, N., Crawford, J. (2008). Supporting access to the UK's research collection: the UK Research Reserve project. Interlending & Document Supply. 36(4), 210-212. [Viewed 15 August 2019] Available from: doi.org/10.1108/02641610810919552 • Yang, D. (2013). UK Research Reserve - A sustainable model from print to E? Library Management. 34(4/5), 309-323. [Viewed 15 August 2019] Available from: doi.org/10.1108/01435121311328654 • Yang, D. (2013). UK Research Reserve - its aims, development and progress so far. ALISS Quarterly. 8(2), 30-33. • Yang, D. (2014). Collaboration in a time of change. The Serials Librarian. 66(1-4), 303- 313.[Viewed 13 August 2019] Available from: doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.879822

Appendix 5: Narrative case studies As is clear, UKRR has wrought a range of benefits to the community, and it is important to recognise not only how these benefits apply to participants in general, but also the individual effects seen at different institutions, the different reasons for involvement, and the journeys, successes, and changes seen as a result of participating. Fourteen institutions were kind enough to provide narrative case studies of aspects of their UKRR work, and these are included in full below. University of Aberdeen We became involved in UKRR from the first Cycle of Phase 2, in mid-2009, with a key driver being that the rent for our shared storage facility at the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh was set to double. At the time, we were in the process of building a new library and special collections centre and we were reviewing our print stock, and the need for ongoing additional storage facilities. Collection analysis of the material held across the university found that 56% of borrowable stock had never been borrowed, and concluded that money and space were being spent on local collection management when a more cost-effective solution could be found. In addition to this, library service surveys from around the time that involvement with UKRR began found that both students and staff overwhelmingly preferred accessing journal material electronically compared to in print, indicating that it would be possible to explore alternative ways to store print collections. The approach we took was a reasonably conservative one, only discarding format as opposed to content. We only proposed discarding print journals where secure electronic access was available in perpetuity. A key part of the approach taken was consultation with departments and schools at the university, and a number of cases made by departments about why certain material should not be removed were accepted and the print material kept. Even though this conservative, consultative approach was taken, concerns were still raised by academics, including in the following areas: • quality issues in older journals in which the electronic version had been created by scanning from print copies • the security of the in perpetuity access • loss of ability to browse print journals • the need to agree a definition on usage that recognized both immediate value and the need to consider longer term changing research interests We submitted material from 2009-2012, and over this time submitted over 3,300m of material. Our first submission was drawn from the materials stored in the NLS in Edinburgh. Journals stored here had originally been transferred as part of the CASS (The Collaborative Academic Store for Scotland) project – a precursor of UKRR. The collections originally placed there were all available electronically and 99% of it had never been used in the five years it had been stored in Edinburgh. After this we considered material held at other Aberdeen libraries. A key outcome of involvement in UKRR was that we did not need to build the planned new storage facility, leading to direct capital savings, as well as reducing and avoiding other ongoing rental and estates costs at other facilities. Beyond this key financial impact, involvement helped us to improve our holdings records, ensuring researchers and users both in and outside of the institution were using a better-quality library catalogue. We also liaised with publishers to ensure that the quality of scanning for electronic backfiles was improved. We found that our ongoing engagement with academics allowed for the development of trust and the strengthening of ties with the academic community. University of Birmingham University of Birmingham Library Services has participated in UKRR since the beginning of the project, and it has become an indispensable part of our decision-making process around withdrawal of journal holdings.

During the first Phase of UKRR, the University was in the position that the main library building and stores were both full, and so there was a need to create space in the stores to allow them to come back into active use. In addition, Library Services were keen to take the opportunity to experiment with a new model, and so signed up as one of the first group of Holding Libraries. During this phase, the majority of the low use journals in the store were submitted to UKRR. Thanks to the project, it was possible to clear enough space in the stores to allow them to be partially reorganised, and for enough relegation to take place from the Main Library to the stores to free space on the open shelves. We later switched focus to withdrawing print journals where electronic access was available and secure post-cancellation access was available, for example where the University had purchased electronic journal backfiles on a perpetual license agreement. As well as helping with ongoing space saving in the Main Library, the University was at the time planning for the move into a new Main Library building, and so disposal of journals under UKRR was part of an important process for rationalising the collections in preparation for the move. The process proved very successful in freeing space particularly from our ‘dark store’ of uncatalogued print journals which were being kept as insurance against loss of electronic access. More recently, in the last two years, we have been preparing for the redevelopment of a medical library, with the long-term plan to create more study and clinical space. The medical library housed two floors of print journals which were known to be low-use, and following discussions with the senior staff within the relevant colleges, we have submitted to UKRR the majority of holdings where the journals have a stable online equivalent and/or the title is widely available in the UK. Whilst participating in UKRR requires an administrative overhead in terms of preparing journal lists for submission, Library Services have realised significant benefits through our participation. UKRR has allowed to us to both dispose and also retain print journals with confidence, knowing that the scheme is working to protect the integrity of the national research collection. Conversations about withdrawal have been easier with academic colleagues who are reassured by the existence of a national framework ensuring long term access. Thanks to that reassurance, we have increasingly been able to move towards a criteria-based approach to disposal instead of needing to consult on a title-by-title basis. In total, we have been able to withdraw approximately 5300m of stock through UKRR. This has made a significant contribution to our ability to rationalise and consolidate low use collections into a closed access research reserve, and to focus on increasing amounts of high-quality study space in the rest of the library estate. University of Bristol Background Bristol had always been very receptive to the principle of UKRR. Around the time of the inception of the UKRR we already had an institutional policy which in practice was quite similar to the UKRR process, albeit operated unilaterally, which was sufficient for our space needs at the time. This explains our late engagement with the project. We had built into our Collection Development Policy the understanding that we would consider for withdrawal any print journals we held in perpetuity via what we considered to be a secure backfile purchase. Any titles meeting this criterion would then be assessed for Scarcity using SUNCAT before being put forward for disposal. We would retain any titles where our holdings weren’t replicated by the British Library and two other institutions. Our eventual engagement with UKRR was precipitated by a change in Library Management and the mooted development of a new University Library for Bristol. This, along with what we considered to be our ‘business as usual’ concerns over space due to the increased need for study seats, led us to seek a more intensive means of disposing content to free up space. Our needs would not be met just by releasing holdings against our electronic offering. Subscribing to UKRR gave our library stakeholders confidence in our removal of other lesser-used materials. In practice

One of our concerns about joining the UKRR, from the point of view of the functional team carrying out the work rather than as an institution, was that it would slow down our removal of journals compared to what we already felt was a fairly secure in-house process. This was borne out in our experience of the process. There were pinch points where we were required to react to institutional needs for space and a changing estates plan while not being able to secure the UKRR processing time required to deal with these things. Having said that, we are fully aware that we would not have been able to realise the amount of space clearance that we have without engaging with UKRR. We are also aware that we must have caused frustration for those planning demand for UKRR’s services when, due to other institutional pressures such as delays with recruitment out of our control, we were not able to submit the amount we had proposed. In summary, my main observation of this time is that while being fully supportive of the need for such a robust process, it seemed difficult for such a complex system to deal with serial disposal as quickly as is required by those trying to address the pressures affecting physical collections. Outcomes As a result of this, and with the long period of uncertainty surrounding the community based UKRR model, we have not committed to re-engage with the project at the time of writing, though we still strongly support the principles upon which it is based. We still have a need to create space in our collections through the responsible disposal of print journals and are currently discussing how that may be achieved. To date, we have released in the region of 3km of space across the library estate through our engagement with UKRR. Some of this has been to enable study spaces to be created in our branch libraries, and some to release much-needed storage space in our off-site storage facility, the Research Reserve. This is from a total metreage submitted of around 5.2km. University of Cambridge Cambridge University Library’s participation in the UK Research Reserve (UKRR) began in November 2009 at the beginning of UKRR Phase 2. Our joining UKRR coincided with a University wide consultation during the 2009/10 academic year concerning the nature of our own institutional long-term storage requirements. The University was asked to consider what print material, collected across a diverse network of over 50 separate libraries, was it desirable to retain and what was appropriate to discard. The clear consensus from this consultation was that the Cambridge community accepted the principle of de-duplication for low use material but also that at least one copy or set of any accessioned printed material be retained as a resource by the University for future research. Our activity within UKRR therefore has reflected this institutional preference and we have seen ourselves as a holding location within the retained National Print Collection from the beginning. What UKRR has done nationally over the last decade we also aim to do at the local level. Every periodical run that we have submitted to UKRR has already undergone a careful local process of de-duplication and we declare to UKRR staff that in all cases a complete print set of anything offered will be retained. Within Phase 3 of UKRR this role became more explicit as Cambridge, along with Oxford agreed to act as one of the two Principal Holding Libraries. Internal de-duplication templates, compatible for onward UKRR processing of appropriate serials and similar templates for monographs were introduced to the University alongside the concept of the National Print Collection as a valuable resource. We established detailed guidelines and procedures for the reporting to a central point of any proposed print disposals by the libraries of the University, however small, in order to dovetail our local requirements with the national initiative. One outcome of these local arrangements is that our submissions to UKRR over both Phase 2 and 3 have been modest in size compared with those of other institutions where print retention is not so prominent an issue in all subject areas. In all, 3,000 serial runs totalling just over 3,300 linear

metres have been submitted since our first list in April 2010. It can be noted that as the short Phase 3 of UKRR between July 2017 and January 2019 corresponded with a major piece of collection work that identified large numbers of duplicate sets. This period accounted for 45% of the linear metres and 58% of all titles submitted. The material identified for Cambridge submissions comes from a wide variety of quite small to very large projects carried out by a small team based in Cambridge University Library. Many Faculty and Departmental collections contributed incrementally to the UKRR programme as they have selectively weeded collections of print journals, often in advance of physical relocation into new buildings. Larger collections were also processed and over the last two years very large scientific and medical collections have been systematically de-duplicated on their return from temporary storage, with unique material being re-routed to ingest into our newly built Library Storage Facility (LSF). The immediate space benefits of print de-duplication within our Library community to this point have therefore been distributed throughout the University estate rather than focussed on a single or a small number of core free standing library buildings. While managed disposal has provided the opportunity for Faculties and Departments to repurpose and redesign ‘traditional’ library spaces, the other key principle of UKRR of managed retention has also been high on our local agenda. In order to meet the commitment for retention of a print copy in addition to disposal of duplicates we have driven forward with the planning and construction of the offsite Library Storage Facility as mentioned above. The LSF, a major University investment with a storage capacity of 106,000m, ingested its first material in May 2018. This will give Cambridge space security for the first time in many decades and unlock greater options for reimagining space within the Library estate. The work of UKRR, our membership of it and the inspiration for building our own collections infrastructure has provided the national context within which this capital project was developed. The value of UKRR and those who have worked on the project over the years is that it established policies and frameworks that give assurance to the academic community that the active management of collections and retention of printed material is important for future generations. This has been very important over a period of rapid cultural and technological change. Locally we have built on that foundation. Nationally we look forward to further collaboration and progress. Durham University The immediate rationale for Durham University’s involvement in the UKRR was the need to dispose of long runs of printed journals stored in an expensive remote store – journals for which we held licences guaranteeing perpetual access to the electronic version. As of 2009 Durham University had already relegated to this remote store over 2000 metres of printed journals for which we had electronic access. However, we were unable to get institutional buy-in for the disposal of this material, due to worries about possible loss of access to e-journals. In addition, there was a great deal of material on the open shelves of our libraries which was also covered by permanent electronic access. The UKRR project, with its’ creation of a distributed national collection, with at least two printed copies of every journal run in addition to the BL’s copy, was instrumental in getting institutional permission for the disposal of this material, and the £26.16 a metre paid for material submitted meant that the project was virtually cost-neutral, even taking into account staff time. In the end we submitted just over 3000 metres of material to the UKRR, and only had to keep a small percentage of this material permanently as part of the national collection. The actual UKRR process was relatively simple once we got into the swing of it – our main problems in making submissions to the UKRR arose from the rather chaotic way in which material had been relegated to our remote store rather than the process itself, and the UKRR and British Library staff we worked with showed infinite patience with the many delays to our submissions that arose from this!

As a result of the disposals facilitated by the UKRR we were able to end the expensive lease on the remote store and re-organise our main library, with all printed journals now able to fit into banks of newly-installed mobile shelving on the ground floor rather than being on open shelves on all floors. This helped open up more space for printed books and, most importantly, many more reader spaces on the other three floors of our library. Goldsmiths, University of London As a small, single site library with an ever-growing user group we were very much drawn to UKRR because of its emphasis on a shift from a just-in-case policy of retaining journals to a just-in- time policy of inter-lending between the research community. In our case we also had concerns around post-cancellation access (PCA) to online titles we also had print copies of. Through UKRR we were able to de-duplicate these titles safe in the knowledge that the scheme was there should our PCA ever be disputed with a publisher. The training and presentations we attended to understand the project and how we could get involved were superlative, and colleagues - in particular John Hosking - were tremendously helpful in making the process as straightforward as possible. As relative latecomers to the project we have to date offered a list to one Cycle. However, the c.40 metres of shelf space saved means we will be able to move one of our special collections from closed access storage on to open shelves. We're delighted that there is life in UKRR as the project becomes a service with the British Library and can certainly see ourselves making further submissions. King’s College London King’s has been submitting journals to UKRR since 2010, and in that time we have been able to free up around 3500m of space in our libraries and stores. Our main driver for involvement has been space- a need for renovation in some of our libraries to create more study space, as well as being able to cope with more monograph acquisitions due to reading list policies and increases in student numbers over the years. Involvement in UKRR has meant that we have been able to renovate three of our medical libraries. UKRR disposal reduced the journal stock in these libraries to a level such that we were able to relocate them in library stores across campus, and therefore gave us in effect a whole floor in each library to use for study space. We have continued space pressures at our largest library, which has meant that we have expanded our use of UKRR to include science, humanities and law journals. By combining UKRR submissions and journal offsiting, we hope to be able to free up a significant amount of space, which we will use to resequence the collections and create a better learning environment for our students. Being able to inform our academic colleagues of both the access and safeguarding that UKRR provides has been instrumental in our liaison work around journal disposal. From the renovation of the Weston Education Centre Library in 2013 In 2013 we had disposed of enough journals at the Weston Education Centre via UKRR to be able to move the remainder to closed access stores across our campuses. Both floors of the library were then totally renovated to create a new reception space, extra study spaces including group study rooms and pods, a new staff office and meeting room, and a coffee area for library users.

PHOTO 13 (ALSO PHOTO 9): BEFORE: GROUND FLOOR OF THE LIBRARY HELD JOURNAL STACKS AND A FEW STUDY SPACES, WITH BOOKS, RECEPTION AND FURTHER STUDY SPACES ON THE FIRST FLOOR. PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF KING’S COLLEGE LONDON, LIBRARIES AND COLLECTIONS, 2013.

PHOTO 14: DURING: WORKS ON THE FIRST FLOOR TO BUILD THE GROUP STUDY ROOMS. PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF KING’S COLLEGE LONDON, LIBRARIES AND COLLECTIONS, 2013.

PHOTOS 15-17 (PHOTO 16 IS ALSO PHOTO 10): AFTER: NEW RECEPTION AREA AND STUDY SPACES ON THE GROUND FLOOR, REPLACING THE JOURNAL STACK. PHOTOS USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF KING’S COLLEGE LONDON, LIBRARIES AND COLLECTIONS, 2013. Kingston University Kingston University joined UKRR in early 2009 as a Phase 2 partner. The project was well timed for us, as the University was beginning to discuss major alterations to its Penrhyn Road campus, which would have a direct impact on the Learning Resource Centre (LRC), giving us the opportunity to reconfigure the whole of the ground floor. At that stage, the ground floor of the LRC housed 1,200 linear metres of journals on a 2nd hand compact shelving unit which was rapidly coming to the end of its natural life. There was plenty of evidence to indicate that many of these journals were under-used and were gathering dust, having been superseded by e-journals. The unit was sitting in high-quality space next to a large open access student PC area, cutting out natural light and limiting any opportunities to use this space more imaginatively. Whilst Kingston University has four LRCs, it was clear that targeting Penrhyn Road in the first instance made sense as the proposed building project, if approved, would begin in June 2010. We would have two opportunities to submit material to UKRR, in the summer of 2009 and again in 2010, and it was an ideal opportunity to begin reducing stock. Selecting material for submission wasn’t too difficult. There were some obvious targets, for example titles now available electronically, long-cancelled titles and courses no longer running. However, we did underestimate the amount of staff time it would take to carry out all the necessary checks and prepare lists for submission. It has certainly been a learning curve! Nevertheless, the advantages are so clear that it really has been worth all the cross-checking. The old compact shelving unit has been removed, and the building project was completed in September 2010. The space vacated housed a new learning café with comfortable seating and Wi-Fi access. Our first payment from UKRR was used to provide power on study desks for the use of laptops.

We joined SUNCAT, which made Scarcity checking a bit easier and gave us a presence on a much- valued research resource. The exercise reminded us that we hold unique titles which we are happy to store on behalf of the research community. The impact of the project so far has been such that, although we are aware that continuing to identify material for inclusion might begin to become more a challenge, we are excited by the prospect of how much more we may be able to achieve. University of Leeds Leeds University Library joined the UKRR scheme in 2008, and it is a key part of our stock management processes. We have wide ranging historic print collections in our 5 libraries and 4 library stores. Using UKRR we have freed up valuable space so that we can upgrade the quality of our study areas. For a large research institution such as ours it is critical for us to know that we are acting responsibly in managing our collections. We recognise that our collections are of value beyond the University of Leeds, and that we have a responsibility to curate our collections with the needs of the wider, and future, research community in mind. Our membership of UKRR means that we can play our part in ensuring rare and valuable journals are retained whilst still extending and improving study space for today’s students and researchers.

PHOTO 18 (ALSO PHOTO 5): THE TYPE OF SPACES CREATED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS AS A RESULT OF THE REDUCTION IN PHYSICAL SHELF SPACE REQUIRED (PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS). In the first 10 years of our membership we submitted nearly 1000 titles to UKRR. We were asked to retain some 200 titles, to send 490 individual parts to the BL and overall saved 3000m of shelf space. We are still submitting titles to UKRR, and the scheme remains critical to us in the responsible management of our collections.

London School of Economics and Political Science LSE Library joined the UK Research Reserve (UKRR) scheme in 2011 as part of our commitment to safeguard research information and the need to free up space for students. As a designated national research library our collections provide a resource of national and international importance for researchers working in social sciences. It is therefore important to LSE Library that long-term access, to low-use print journal titles, is assured by the co-ordinated management of holdings. Since joining the scheme nearly 400 titles have been submitted to UKRR saving 1km of shelving space. Access to all withdrawn titles is assured through the British Library and other UKRR partners, while the Library has similarly retained significant titles in the core social sciences. In conjunction with space savings the UKRR process has helped LSE Library gain a greater awareness of its print journal holdings and improve bibliographic data. We are also able to offer timely access through the British Library On Demand document supply service. In 2016 the space released was a factor in enabling LSE Library to convert space and open LSE LIFE - a bright, open, welcoming space where students can meet and work together with students from other courses and departments and attend one-to-one sessions, workshops, and other unique events enabling students to learn more about the skills and personal interests they choose to explore. Membership of the UKRR community provides LSE Library with the opportunity to network with other research libraries on collection management activities. Our relationship with UKRR will continue to develop as LSE Library continues to rationalise the future storage of its printed collections. University of Manchester There were a number of drivers which formed the rationale for the University of Manchester Library’s involvement in the project. Perhaps foremost amongst these was the desire to contribute to the building of a national collection, which enabled the preservation of vital research material by completing the British Library’s collection. Our work on the project was balanced with our status as a National Research Library. A more flexible approach to the use of space within the Main Library enabled the creation of additional study areas for our students. The project coincided with enhancements to the availability and stability of electronic resources. The project was also timely in that work had recently started on a redevelopment project at the John Rylands Library, with planning for further redevelopments on other sites expected within a few years.

PHOTO 19: REDEVELOPED SPACE IN THE MAIN LIBRARY. PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER.

In terms of our experience of the process, an important enhancement was the move away from in-house Scarcity checking. We spent time at the start of the project identifying stable providers of electronic resources. Titles supplied by these providers formed the content of our early submissions. Subsequently, we began to rationalise our collection through the submission of duplicate titles and finally to offer unique, incomplete and short runs. This change in focus was enabled by strategic decisions made by the groups responsible for collection management within the Library. We continued to check for electronic access during the lifetime of the project. The detailed and time-consuming data gathering which formed part of the process of submission has also led to greater accuracy in our catalogue. The acquisition in 2015 of a new, off-site storage facility has enabled the creation of the UKRR Retains sequence, which brings together in one place all of the titles which we have pledged to maintain on behalf of the nation. Initially, we liaised with faculty team librarians on the content of the submissions. We continued to consult on titles in humanities subjects and on all titles published pre-1921 throughout the lifetime of the project. We held a consultation exercise with the University’s academic departments and also held discussions with senior leadership. Through positive emphasis of the benefits of the project, particularly in terms of the preservation of material, and careful selection processes to safeguard those titles which were not readily available elsewhere, the project became widely accepted amongst our academic colleagues. As a result of our involvement in the UKRR project, we rationalised the journal collection following the union of two academic institutions which took place in 2004. We were able to relocate our theses collection to an area previously occupied by journals in 2005, which in turn enabled the relocation of an entire department of staff. We were able to close some of our storage areas, relocating the material that we had positively identified for retention into more appropriate environments. This has reduced storage costs for the University of Manchester. We have been able to begin to bring our open access journals into a single sequence, which will be easier for our customers to use. The reduction in the volume of journals on open access has also enabled print journal surveys, which have informed decisions on subscriptions. Over the lifetime of the project, we have offered 5,482 linear metres of journals. We have created the following study spaces: • 86 study spaces at the Joule Library, giving us an opportunity to trial different styles of furniture, some of which were later installed in a newly-built Learning Commons. • 53 study spaces on Red 3.1 at Main Library.

PHOTO 20 (ALSO PHOTO 12): REDEVELOPED SPACE IN THE JOULE LIBRARY. PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER.

The forthcoming redevelopment of Main Library has been given a head start, following the relocation of 1,850 linear metres of stock on Green 1 which has been enabled by the project. Queen Mary, University of London When Phase 2 of UKRR began, plans were underway to rebuild the ground floor of Queen Mary’s main library during the summer of 2010. A new staff office was also planned to be created at the same time on the second floor. This rebuild meant losing a large closed access store on the ground floor and shelving to create the staff office. As a temporary measure, 2,000 metres of shelving were rented at the University of London’s depository in Egham. In addition student numbers were increasing and with that a need for more study spaces in the Library. It was noticeable that print journals were not being used, so significantly reducing them would be an easy way to create much needed space. It was important from the outset to get buy-in from academic members of staff. Before disposing of any journal, we carried out a full consultation. We felt that it was beneficial to be able to tell academic members of staff that the work that we were doing was part of a nationwide, recognised scheme that HE libraries had signed up to. It was also helpful, when consulting with academic members of staff, to be able to guarantee quick access to any journal that was disposed of through inter-library loan. We received high level support from the institution although there was opposition from some individuals. We did need to allocate specific staff resource to the actual tasks involved. However, we found the UKRR team very helpful. Mile End Library is not an entrenched space so we’ve faced challenges on space as we provide full facilities for the student experience within the Library building, including a Café. UKRR involvement has helped alleviate the pressure of increasing student numbers and enabled us to create various spaces over the years. These range from a dedicated Research Reading Room for researchers and staff, a PGT Reading Room, upgrading our Training Room from 20 to 56 study spaces, creating the Silent PC Room with 35 PCs, increasing the number of toilets by 14 with the introduction of the gender neutral toilets, 3 additional group study rooms and allowed us the opportunity to condense the collection further with the introduction of 62 study spaces in the main reading rooms. Since 2011, 227 additional study spaces have been created as a direct result of our involvement with UKRR and has helped shape our Library to be fit for purpose in the current climate.

University of Reading The University of Reading joined UKRR at the start of 2010 and our membership has coincided with a significant number of major developments. A few years prior to joining, the University had made the decision to close its Bulmershe campus, which had once been a teaching college and had merged with the University in 1989. This included a library, so a project was undertaken to work out how we could integrate the collections from this library into those of the main library, while moving lesser used materials from both collections into an external storage facility. In this respect the timing of UKRR was perfect, as it gave us the opportunity to rationalise our collections and provided us with the advocacy we needed in consultations with our academic staff. This led to the closure of Bulmershe campus and transfer of collections in 2011.

100

PHOTOS 21 & 22: A BEFORE AND AFTER SHOT OF SPACE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF READING. USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF READING.

101

Shortly after this, at the start of 2013, it was agreed that the library would receive investment to refurbish the upper floors of the library, which was where the majority of our collections were kept, over two summers. If UKRR had helped with the closure of the Bulmershe campus in a very practical way, this was the chance for UKRR to help us in a way which would really improve our student experience. We had two large double height spaces which had been reading rooms in the 1960s, but which had been filled with journals from the 1980s onwards. This was our chance to return to the original vision of the library by making better use of our space, helped by the amount of material we had withdrawn via UKRR. We could return these spaces to their original function as reading rooms, but with modern furniture which incorporated a variety of study spaces to suit different learning styles. The result was a huge success, as evidenced by our library NSS score going from 76% before we started the project to 91% after.

PHOTO 23: REDEVELOPED SPACE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF READING. USED WITH PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF READING. The success of this project led to more investment and a much more significant project to refurbish and re-model the entire library. For this we have had to store our print journals off-site in the Bodleian Storage Facility for two and a half years, but we have also had to reduce our holdings to fit our collections back on the new shelving. Once more our membership in UKRR has been critical, as it has allowed us to carry out a more comprehensive review of our print holdings against their electronic equivalents, which will allow us to fit the journals we still need back on the shelves when they return. We are almost at the end of this project and looking forward to completion of what will be a fantastic space for students in September 2019.

102

PHOTO 24: REDEVELOPED SPACE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF READING. USED WITH PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF READING. University of St Andrews The University of St Andrews has been fortunate to be a member of UKRR since its inception and has found the process to be a fantastic collaborative initiative, vital in the rationalisation of the Library’s print journal holdings. Being a member of UKRR has allowed us to free up physical space across the Library estate, knowing that access to low-use print for users would be available through the British Library’s Document Supply service. Over the last 10 years, UKRR has enabled the Library to rationalise its collections at critical stages of planning and helped us to deliver on key Estate projects. Fundamentally, through UKRR we have been able to reduce the need for temporary measures such as this:

103

PHOTO 25 (ALSO PHOTO 8): HELEN AMONGST THE STORAGE OF PRINT JOURNALS DURING A STOCK MOVE IN 2010. PHOTO TAKEN BY MARCUS GRAY AND USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS. Key Estate projects have included; the closure of the Central Academic Store in Edinburgh – we only needed to return a small number of UKRR retained titles, and were fortunately able to dispose of the rest, as we no longer had space to accommodate these collections.

104

PHOTO 26: BEFORE THE BUILDERS CAME ON SITE. PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS.

105

PHOTO 27: AFTER THE REFURBISHMENT. PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS.

106

PHOTO 28: LEVEL 4 PRIOR TO STOCK TRANSFERS TO STORE OR THROUGH DISPOSAL BY UKRR. PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS.

PHOTO 29: LEVEL 4 STOCK SPACE REPURPOSED FOR STUDY SPACES AFTER THE REFURBISHMENT. PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS.

107

More recently, UKRR has helped with ongoing activities in the Main Library, for example, the creation of an additional 70 study seats in summer 2018.

PHOTO 30: PHOTO USED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS. Other key benefits from being a UKRR member have been a greater awareness of collections, including material subsequently identified for Special Collections and improved bibliographic data of print journal holdings. We have also really enjoyed the opportunity to network with other research libraries on collection management activities and as we still have journal collections and other low use materials to assess, we look forward to continuing to work with the British Library in this area.

108

Appendix 6: UKRR Phase 2 Cycle List processing workflow

Swimlane Diagram of UKRR Cycle List Processing* (part 1 of 3) Phase 2

Selection of items List Submission of list for submission and (on UKRR Editing of list into LARCH

preparation of list template) Member Member library

Pre-cycle Yes preparations

Verification processes. Start cycle E.g. Any items requiring

editing/withdraw?

UKRR

/ Larch

Download cycle list data and enter into

BL BL’s system SUNCAT

*This diagram only illustrates cycle list processes . It does not include other UKRR activities For example, it does not include: • The list of any send-backs from the BL to the submitting Member Library at the transfer stage. • Internal data flow activity within each of the Member Library, BL, and SUNCAT data stores.

FIGURE 40: PART 1 OF THE SWIMLANE DIAGRAM OF UKRR CYCLE LIST PROCESSING

109

Swimlane Diagram of UKRR Cycle List Processing (part 2 of 3) Phase 2

Possible queries to Send sample

Member Library requests to BL Member Member library

Yes

Progress Summary Report

Sample requests UKRR No Finalizing cycle list

/ to issue? Larch

Progress timetable

BL checks list against own BL Response Import BL Response collection and file file into LARCH prepares BL Response file

Download cycle list

data and enter into BL BL’s system

SUNCAT BL Scarcity Import BL Scarcity Scarcity checking Request file file file into LARCH

SUNCAT holdings SUNCAT

search Results file SUNCAT

FIGURE 41: PART 2 OF THE SWIMLANE DIAGRAM OF UKRR CYCLE LIST PROCESSING

110

Swimlane Diagram of UKRR Cycle List Processing (part 3 of 3) Phase 2

Member Library’s collection and

catalogue altered Member library Member

UKRR Offered Holdings

/ Finalizing cycle list Report Larch

Ingest of any BL requested items

BL received from Member Library

Updating SUNCAT

data SUNCAT

FIGURE 42: PART 3 OF THE SWIMLANE DIAGRAM OF UKRR CYCLE LIST PROCESSING

111

UKRR Phase 3 Retention Decision diagram

Scarcity ≥ 2 “Dispose” BL Decision = Holding is disposed N

Retained by offering HL

“BL Dispose” Scarcity Scarcity ≥ 2 Any requested items sent to BL check BL Decision = and data Y rest of holding is disposed Offering member is a Retention Holding decision Library (HL)

Scarcity < 2 “Retain” BL shelf BL Decision = Holding is to be retained check N data

Who will retain?

“BL Retain” Scarcity < 2 Any requested items sent to BL BL Decision = and Y rest of holding is to be retained Offering member is a Contributing Library (CL)

OXF named Retained by CUL CUL in scarcity

CL sends the part of offered holding Decide OXF not requested by or CUL? BL, and OXF/CUL dispose of what they don’t need To be retained by Principle Holding CUL named Retained by OXF OXF Library (PL) (OXF or in scarcity CUL)

OXF only named at title level = Retained by OXF Neither OXF CUL only named at title level = Named at title nor CUL Decide OXF Retained by CUL level in SUNCAT named in or CUL? Neither named at title level = search scarcity Retained by OXF Both named at title level = Retained by OXF

FIGURE 43: UKRR RETENTION DECISION DIAGRAM

112

Appendix 7: Memoranda of Agreement As outlined on p.9, UKRR Holding and Principal Holding Libraries signed a Memorandum of Agreement, outlining their agreement to the principles and commitments of UKRR. This was initially introduced for Phase 2 (p.113), with an addendum added as Phase 2 was extended (p.114), and a new one was introduced for Phase 3 (p.114). This was replaced by the Collaborative Collection Retention Agreement (p.114), the principles of which have been agreed by RLUK libraries. Phase 2 Memorandum of Agreement The UK Research Reserve Memorandum of Agreement UK Research Reserve (UKRR) is a collaboration between the Higher Education sector and the British Library, funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). UKRR has been established to help alleviate the substantial shortage of storage space in HEI libraries and to preserve research access to print journals. To this end: - UKRR will de-duplicate low-use journal holdings across libraries; - The British Library will ingest and store journals it does not already hold, retain them for a minimum of 5 years from the beginning of UKRR phase 2, and make them accessible, through the existing document supply service and reading rooms in London and Boston Spa; - UKRR will coordinate the retention of three copies of each title - one at The British Library and another two in a distributed holding within the UK HE library network. - The British Library will provide an enhanced document supply service for UKRR subscribers; - Subscribing HEIs access HEFCE funding to offset costs incurred in the UKRR de- duplication process;

Membership Membership of UKRR is by 5 year subscription from 2009 and is subject to the agreement of the Advisory Board and to an institution becoming a signatory of this document. This agreement and accompanying documents will be reviewed at regular intervals, as determined by the UKRR Advisory Board. Changes will also be made to reflect improvements and service enhancements from the British Library. UKRR Memorandum of Agreement In signing this Agreement the representative of the participating institution is assumed to understand the ethos and principles of UKRR and to agree to uphold them. All signatories to this agreement recognise the role of the UKRR Advisory Board as set out in the UKRR Advisory Board Terms of Reference.23 In the event of irremediable breach of this agreement, the Advisory Board may suspend a membership and request that an institution withdraw from UKRR. The Parties to this Agreement agree to use their best endeavours to comply with their obligations as set out in the UKRR Handbook. Service Level Agreements with the British Library are also detailed in the UKRR Handbook.

23 The Advisory Board Terms of Reference are printed in full in the UKRR Handbook

113

Phase 2 Addendum The UK Research Reserve Addendum to Memorandum of Agreement UK Research Reserve (UKRR) Phase 2 has been further extended to 31 January 2016. As the community continues to work collaboratively to build up a national reserve, UKRR titles have been retained and managed by the British Library and UKRR members. In further signing this addendum, all UKRR holding libraries1 agree to keep UKRR holdings in perpetuity to safeguard the long-term future of the print collections for the UK’s research community. Phase 3 Memorandum of Agreement The UK Research Reserve Memorandum of Agreement UK Research Reserve (UKRR) is a collaboration between the Higher Education sector and the British Library, funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). UKRR has been established to help alleviate the substantial shortage of storage space in HEI libraries and to preserve research access to print journals. To this end: - UKRR will de-duplicate low-use journal holdings across libraries; - UKRR will coordinate the retention of three copies of each title - one at The British Library and another two in a distributed holding within the UK HE library network24; - The British Library will ingest and store journals it does not already hold, retain them in perpetuity25, and make them accessible, through the existing document supply service and reading rooms in London and Boston Spa; - The British Library will provide an enhanced document supply service for UKRR Holding Libraries; - UKRR Holding Libraries will de-duplicate through UKRR only to ensure scarce material is not lost; - UKRR Holding Libraries will retain (own) holdings identified to be scarce in perpetuity26; Together the UKRR community is committed to safeguard the long-term future of print research material for UK researchers.

Membership Participating libraries are committed to remain as Holding Libraries throughout the duration of Phase 3 and is subject to the agreement of the UKRR Board and to an institution becoming a signatory of this document. Phase 3 is scheduled to end in April 2020; this is subject to change due to HEFCE’s restructuring. Such change will be communicated with members promptly. This agreement and associated documents will be reviewed at regular intervals, as determined by the UKRR Board. Changes will also be made to reflect improvements and service enhancements. In signing this Agreement the representative of the participating institution is assumed to understand the ethos and principles of UKRR and to agree to uphold them.

24 Normally within the UKRR community 25 Phase 2 members and the British Library have agreed to retain scarce items identified during Phase 2 in perpetuity. This document follows the same principle and spirit. However, the definition of perpetuity will be reviewed regularly and/or when necessary in order to reflect the community’s wishes and to respond to constant changes the sector is facing. 26 Ditto.

114

All signatories to this agreement recognise the role of the UKRR Board as set out in the UKRR Advisory Board Terms of Reference.27 In the event of irremediable breach of this agreement, the Board may suspend a membership and request that an institution withdraw from UKRR. The Parties to this Agreement agree to use their best endeavours to comply with their obligations as set out in the UKRR Handbook. Service Level Agreements with the British Library are also detailed in the UKRR Handbook. Collaborative Collection Retention Agreement Research Libraries UK Collaborative Collection Retention Agreement Purpose of the Agreement For journals, to: - Ensure retention and preservation of print copies for the UK (and beyond) through a collective / above-individual library approach to maintaining a UK ‘research reserve’. This is to ensure that researchers, in the broadest sense, continue to have access to the materials they need - Support both individual organisational and collective/collaborative collection management - Ensure access is possible to physical copies - Maintain a minimum number of copies overall within the UK, including a minimum number of lending copies. Collection Retention Agreement As an integral aspect of their membership of Research Libraries UK, RLUK Members will continue to take an ongoing leadership role, working in collaboration with others, in supporting scholarship by enabling access to and ensuring preservation of physical collections held in their libraries, as a key element of a UK ‘research reserve’. For journals, RLUK members agree an individual and collective responsibility to maintaining a minimum number of UK holdings of journals. This minimum includes at least one restricted-use copy, e.g., as held in legal deposit libraries, and at least one copy potentially available for lending, as held in the British Library Lending Collection or in another library as part of the RLUK collective collection. When considering disposal of journals, each RLUK member agrees to undertake a detailed check of UK holdings against these criteria. Where the above minimums have been already been reached for a journal, the RLUK member commits to ensuring their copy remains within the collective collection. This might be by retaining the journal for as long as that condition applies, or through other means, such as transferring it to another member library that is willing to accept it together with the ongoing commitment to its retention.

27 The Advisory Board Terms of Reference are printed in full in the UKRR Handbook

115