Search

Public libraries submit the number of holdings and circulation of items in their collections to their state libraries annually, which in turn report these statistics to the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) Public Library Survey (PLS). The reported numbers qualify public libraries for federal and state funding. Additionally, the quantity of holdings (traditionally monographs, serials and physical popular media) is often compared to the circulation (number of check-outs) of those items to calculate a cost-per-circulation number. This calculation becomes complicated when a library's "holdings" become ephemeral due to the nature of digital media and digital licensing models. This article describes several existing metrics for assessing the holdings and circulation of digital assets within both public and academic libraries and argues for the adoption of post-custodial holding metrics used by archives to better represent items available to library patrons, especially those in traditionally underserved demographics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION This study compares the two most popular electronic theses and dissertation (ETD) management systems used in the American higher education community today: the commercial ProQuest dissertation publishing system and the university repository. METHODS Characteristics of these systems are identified and categorized to determine the features, functions, and policies common to both, and those that uniquely characterize one or the other system. Performing such a head-to-head comparison provides valuable information and insights to decision makers responsible for managing or overhauling their university's ETD program. RESULTS Comparison of characteristics shows the ProQuest system and the University Repository both provide functional solutions for submitting, storing, disseminating, and archiving ETD's using digital technology. Yet each system also has unique characteristics that distinguish it from the other. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION The authors conclude that there is no single 'best' system for ETD management overall. Rather, it is up to decision makers at each institution to choose an approach that best fits their university's values, goals, and needs. Additionally, the authors point out the need for a single portal for ETDs that allows for search and discovery of these unique works of scholarship wherever the full text resides. Future investigation into possible solutions for such an ETD portal would be a boon not only to universities and ETD authors, but to the diverse researchers, students, professionals, and interested citizenry who could benefit from easier access to this growing corpus of knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]