UK PBC FAQs

Retention statements

Is it desirable rather than compulsory to add retention statements for those who join as a participating institution?

It is desirable but not required for Participating members to use retention statements. Retaining and Receiving members are required to use retention statements.

Will the retention notes be displayed in Compare?

Work to enable this is underway.

Access and availability

With commitment to retain, are there any rules on how that item must be kept, i.e. reference only?

No. There are no specific requirements beyond wherever possible members are asked to facilitate access to copies that they retain. Please see the access section of the Memorandum of Understanding for more information.

Is there a threshold at which this would change? For example, if you hold the only copy of an item in the UK, would there be an expectation that this item should still be available for loan / ILL?

No. Inter-library loans are encouraged, but access can be facilitated in print or digitally within the constraints of the relevant legislation. Retained items do not have to be kept on the open shelves, but users should be able to access them.

We have copies in both our Special Collections and standard loan. Copies in Special Collections are kept permanently but are not available for loan. Should we discount these from our comparison?

They should both be included as part of the exercise.

Metadata quality and technical infrastructure

Our metadata is not very good. Should we delay joining the UK PBC until we have improved it?

No. Please don’t delay joining. The UK PBC is modelled on the metadata as it is. It is up to you whether you work to improve your metadata before running an exercise on Compare, but it should not delay you joining.

Can Jisc NBK offer any support to libraries when preparing their metadata ahead of running comparisons?

The Compare Results FAQs on the UK PBC website might help you with this. Jisc is also working on a document about how the matching process works. If you watch the video of the UK PBC launch, Geoff Lewis talks about the approach Warwick took to metadata improvements (time stamp 22:58).

Apart from selecting Print, which other filters are other people selecting on Compare?

You can also add Document Type – Book in addition to Document Format – Print.

Question for the pilot libraries: Where uniqueness is questionable due to poor metadata, have you felt happy to add retention statements and commit to retaining these items long term?

Yes. It is helpful to make improvements to your metadata before undertaking an exercise, but you cannot control everyone else’s metadata. There may therefore be fewer matches and more unique/ scarce items than you were expecting, but that is the safer way round and overall; you will benefit from being part of the UK PBC.

Scope and inclusion criteria

Why has the number 7 (7 libraries with a copy) been chosen?

For more information, please see the UK Print Book Collection minimum retention commitment. The number was chosen using analysis and consultation and is designed to be high enough to secure ongoing access to a given book, to be high enough to not need shelf checking, to be low enough to allow libraries to manage down print collections, and to be low enough to reflect that the matching mechanism used will be over reporting scarcity.

There may be items in all our collections that could be ephemeral and non-academic... Are we deeming everything as part of UK PBC regardless of what it is?

The UK PBC covers all print books with records in the National Bibliographic Knowledgebase. We will keep this under review, but for now such items are in scope.

Are there any caveats around editions? Does the policy only apply to the latest edition of a title or to pre-current editions too?

Different editions are seen as a different record, and you would have to retain them if you were one of the last 7 libraries with a copy. Without this approach in place, there is a danger that we will lose these older editions. You probably won’t be one of the last 7 that often, so it may be more of a hypothetical problem, but we will keep it under review. The items also do not have to be kept on the open shelves.

Would music collections (inc. CDs, records) be included as well?

They are not included. It is just print monographs.

Practical implementation

'Stock editing exercises' could run from very large projects to much smaller, business as usual activity – how big do you envisage an exercise being to trigger the reporting commitments?

Reporting commitments are required for all exercises, but they are unlikely to take more than a few minutes to complete.

Do we only match against libraries who have signed up for the scheme?

Matching is carried out against all libraries with holdings in the NBK.

Do we need to match the exact item? For example, the exact edition, printing, publisher, etc, or if the text is largely the same, will that suffice?

By using the Local Record Number, an exact match will be carried out for the specific edition, printing, publisher etc.

For older material which doesn’t have ISBNs and the only records on Library hub are brief, how can we accurately match items?

By using the Local Record Number, a match will be carried out regardless of whether a monograph has an ISBN recorded on their catalogue.

If an item is damaged, would we still have to retain it if less than 7 copies were available?

There is no requirement to check shelves to confirm the existence or condition of books, and a threshold of 7 gives a level of acceptance that some items will be missing or damaged.

In these days of squeezed budgets, I’m wondering about the practicalities and cost of passing on unwanted items to other institutions.

If you are one of the last 7 libraries with a copy of a monograph, you are asked to retain it wherever possible. Offering items to receiving libraries is very much a last resort if you just cannot retain an item.

What does the board see as potential drawbacks for libraries considering or on the fence about membership?

We do not see any drawbacks. UK PBC means that when you are undertaking stock assessment and editing as part of your normal routine, or in response to a project or need, you just have an extra criteria (retain if 7 or fewer libraries hold a copy) to add to your local policies round retention. The exercise may shine a light on your metadata and show that it could be improved, but that is all to the good.

If a library chooses not to be a member, but still contributes to NBK is that ok? And what happens if others have based their decisions on non-members who may then withdraw copies?

You don’t have to be a member of the UK PBC, but it works best if as many libraries join as possible. There is always a risk that non-members withdraw copies, but there is some buffer in the number 7.

If you sign up to be a receiving member but later want to change and just be a retaining member, would that be a problem?

You can change membership levels. Please just let the British Library know. Receiving members are not required to take books from other libraries, just to consider doing so. As a Receiving member, you will also let the British Library know what subject areas of books (by Library of Congress Subject Matter heading) you are interested in, so they will mainly only be contacting you about books that align with your interests.

How would the requirements work with the number of copies vs the number of holding libraries? e.g. If a library holds 7 copies but only 1 or 2 other libraries hold the item, would a library be required to keep more than 1 copy?

UK PBC is a distributed approach, and we want 7 libraries with a copy. You only have to keep one copy, but if you think you’ve got all/most of the copies, please contact the British Library.

What safeguards are there, say if we see 15 copies are available nationally, so all holder of that book think, great, we can deaccession, then suddenly there are less than 7, maybe even none?

It is unlikely that too many libraries would be undertaking a stock assessment or editing process at a similar time and/ or would be interested in deaccessioning the same item. Jisc suppression guidance (UKPBC-discard-records.pdf) should help with this. It is also important to keep your records in the NBK up to date.

What level of granularity will Receiving libraries be able to specify for areas they will receive? How will areas be identified when different classification systems might mean overlap is not obvious

Library of Congress Subject Matter headings and subheadings.

We aren’t planning on doing a stock assessment this year, so why do we need to join up?

There are benefits to individual libraries joining the UK PBC, but there are also benefits to the UK PBC of libraries joining. It is about supporting the wider national objectives around ensuring preservation and access to print materials. By joining the scheme, you provide reassurance that you will retain a monograph when you are one of the last 7 libraries with a copy. You also make it more likely that other libraries will join. The UK PBC relies on member libraries working together to retain sufficient copies across the nation to preserve access to content.

Communication and advocacy

Have you tackled selling this approach to academic staff yet?

We have an academic representative on our Board. It is important to remember that UK PBC effectively adds another safeguarding criteria to local library policies around retention. UK PBC is about retaining 7 copies across 7 libraries; it is not about withdrawing the 8th copy. It is for libraries to follow their normal local practices and policies around copies that UK PBC does not require them to retain.

Some academics will say 'you mean making things more difficult to obtain'... is there national advocacy going on to the academic community in the UK?

There will be more communications and advocacy now that we have gone live. The UK PBC is about preservation and access. It safeguards against withdrawal of the last copies. Libraries will undertake stock assessment and editing from time to time anyway and apply local retention policies. UK PBC provides an extra layer of safeguarding.