Purdue University Purdue University
Purdue e-Pubs Purdue e-Pubs
Libraries Faculty and Staff Scholarship and
Research
Purdue Libraries and School of Information
Studies
2022
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is: A Values-Based Evaluation Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is: A Values-Based Evaluation
Tool for Collections Decisions Tool for Collections Decisions
Heather A. Howard
Purdue University
, [email protected]
Dave Zwicky
Purdue University
Danielle Walker
USPTO
, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocs
Part of the Collection Development and Management Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Howard, Heather A.; Zwicky, Dave; and Walker, Danielle, "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is: A Values-
Based Evaluation Tool for Collections Decisions" (2022).
Libraries Faculty and Staff Scholarship and
Research.
Paper 268.
http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2022.2150733
This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries.
Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information.
ABSTRACT
As libraries and communities consider institutional values and ethical standards, there is a need
to scrutinize how those values and standards connect with collections decisions. An existing body
of literature about the contents of the collections exists, with respect to issues like decolonization
and open access, but little about the business relationships libraries maintain in order to acquire
these collections. In this paper, librarians from Purdue University take a critical approach to
identifying the values of their institution at multiple levels, including a newly released Libraries
strategic plan, to create a values-based evaluation tool for future collection assessment.
KEYWORDS
Critical librarianship; values; collections management; critical collections; business ethics
INTRODUCTION
“Cecil Graham: What is a cynic?
Lord Darlington: A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.”
— Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere’s Fan
The last few years, with their devastating global pandemic and long overdue reckoning on race
and justice, have led many in the library community, and in academia more generally, to grapple
with how they react to and interact with the world around them. What does a library mean when
it says that it values, for example, equity and diversity, and how does that relate to the work
libraries do with their collections? Librarians, individually or collectively, may have high ideals,
but how are those ideals acted upon when it comes time to make collections decisions and spend
institutional funds? This project aims to address some of these questions, in finding ways to
assess how the values professed by libraries are reflected in the actions of our partners in the
publishing world.
The impetus for this project was the development of a new strategic plan for 2021-2024
at Purdue Libraries and School of Information Studies. With the assistance of a management
consulting firm, the Libraries settled on the following values (Purdue University Libraries &
School of Information Studies, 2021):
● Innovation - “We encourage new ideas and creative approaches in all we do.”
● Collaboration - “We work together, with campus and others, to find solutions.”
● Agility - “We embrace change and shift nimbly to meet emerging needs.”
● Equity - “We advance access, diversity, inclusion, and a sense of belonging.”
● Stewardship - “We thoughtfully harness and leverage our human and financial resources
for maximum impact.”
● Service - “We gladly share our knowledge and expertise with Purdue students, faculty,
and staff and beyond.”
Over the course of multiple discussions on both high-level value statements and
implementation plans, libraries faculty and staff developed an understanding of a new vision for
the Purdue Libraries and how this vision could potentially impact work across the organization.
Several subject-specialist faculty who work with library collections started thinking about how
these values connected with not only their own collections decisions, but with library vendors. If
the Libraries state a particular value, but their vendors are behaving in ways that work counter to
those values, to what extent are the Libraries working against themselves? A prime example of
this would be the recent revelations of Elsevier’s support of the fossil fuel industry (Westervelt
2022). If a library has a stated value of sustainability, should they give money to a corporation
clearly operating in violation of this value?
To this end, these Libraries faculty members developed an evaluation tool based on the
values in the new strategic plan combined with Purdue University’s stated values, with the intent
of using business information resources to research vendors and determine how their statements
and actions aligned with the institution’s values. It should be noted that the intent of this
evaluation tool is to provide information for decision-makers that could supplement other forms
of collections and circulation data, not to be a prescriptive tool that would supersede other
considerations. It is also not intended for title level evaluations, but rather at the level of the
library-vendor relationship.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In recent years, there has been a move towards developing more holistic evaluation procedures
for collections that incorporate a mix of quantitative and qualitative information. Foudy and
McManus (2005) developed a tool that attempted to mix qualitative metrics, such as subject
specialist feedback, with quantitative ones, such as cost-effectiveness, in order to identify
cancelable products during a budget crisis. Later efforts by researchers like Harker, Crawford,
and Enoch (2014), Nuth (2018), and Durrant (2021) built on this work in different ways to
develop rubrics, decision grids, and scoring systems that could be leveraged to assist in making
these collections decisions. Of particular note here is work by O’Gara and Osterman (2017), who
developed their rubric to reflect the values of the Virtual Library of Virginia (VIVA) consortium,
“... which include an emphasis on open initiatives, independent publishers, COUNTER-
compliant statistics, and the importance of specific usage rights, such as those for Interlibrary
Loan” (p. 182) However, all of these tools were built upon data internal to library systems and
subject librarian expertise with resources in their areas.
Work has also been done to analyze library holdings through a critical lens. Using book
reviews, Sweetland and Christensen found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual titles are held by
OCLC libraries at a lower rate than other titles, suggesting bias on the part of librarians (1995).
Hughes-Hassell, Overberg, and Harris found that school libraries are generally undercollecting
LGBTQ-themed titles (2013). Proctor explored multiple methods of assessment for collections
focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) content
(2020). Other libraries are performing more broad-based diversity audits. Ciszek and Young
examined different methods of diversity-related collection assessment for large academic
libraries (2010). Kristick used literary awards to create a comparative list to assess the diversity
and inclusiveness of a library collection (2020). Similarly, Emerson and Lehman identified gaps
in their collection on the basis of differing races/ethnicities, gender, and sexual orientations
(Emerson and Lehman 2022). Bowers, Crowe, and Keeran critique collections in terms of absent
Native American voices and the predominantly white and male perspective they currently
contain (2017).
While all of these methods are valuable, none focus on the contracts and business
relationships librarians form with vendors. Data from the National Center for Education
Statistics shows that libraries are spending tremendously more money each year on recurring
subscriptions for electronic resources than on one-time purchases (2017), highlighting the
importance of investigating if the vendors with whom libraries spend this money run their
businesses in a way that aligns with library values.
METHODS
Developing the evaluation tool
The first step we took in producing a values-based evaluation tool for collections is identifying
our institutional values. While we were able to glean these from our library’s strategic plan, we
realized that there could be additional values to consider. If a library is part of a larger
organization, in our case a university, that organization’s values could be applicable to this type
of discussion. Other potentially relevant groups could include consortial partners, specific units
or departments within the university, etc. If this evaluation tool was being developed for, as an
example, a standalone chemistry library, it would have been worthwhile to see if the associated
chemistry department has additional stated values (e.g. safety) to consider.
In the case of our evaluation tool for Purdue Libraries as a whole, the other relevant
source of values was determined to be Purdue University. Thus, in addition to the values
identified in the Libraries’ strategic plan, the University’s statement of values was found and
examined. From the “We are Purdue” statement (Purdue University, 2021), the university’s “six
pillars” consist of Integrity, Respect, Honor, Inclusion, Innovation, and Growth. While this list
does, in the authors’ estimation, overlap with the Libraries’ values, it was determined that the
Libraries values could be supplemented in this effort by the addition of an additional item related
to integrity and honor. This produced a final list of seven values to be assessed: Innovation,
Collaboration, Agility, Equity, Stewardship, Service, and Integrity & Honor.
The next step we took in producing this evaluation tool was determining how the values
connect to the context of library collections. What does, for example, Innovation look like, and
how can we assess it? After robust discussion between the authors, as well as with the Libraries’
Information Resources Council (the committee overseeing collections) and the Assistant Dean
for Collections and Access (the administrator overseeing the committee), each value was
translated into one or more criteria (see Table 1).
Table 1: Translating Values into Collections Context
Value
Collections Context for [Redacted] University
Innovation
● Adapting to changing technologies
● Willingness to explore alternate funding and access
models
Collaboration
● Willingness to collaborate with faculty, staff, and other
researchers on projects of mutual interest
Agility
● Flexibility in a crisis (i.e. 2020-2021)
● Embrace of new trends in scholarship
Equity
● Addressing systemic concerns about diversity, equity,
and inclusion
● Accessibility, broadly defined
Stewardship
● Fair rate increases, including a willingness to be flexible
in budget crunch situations
● Treatment of their own employees
● Social responsibility
Service
● Flexibility in terms of access for community users, off-
campus students, and distance students
● Service to their own communities
Integrity &
Honor
● Ethical business practices
● Impact on society more generally
This exploration of criteria for each of the identified institutional values was the starting
point for our evaluation tool, but each piece now needed to be broken down into specific
indicators and areas of concern that could be described as aligning, or not, with the appropriate
values. As an example, when assessing Collaboration, a publisher having an advisory board with
input from librarians could be an indicator that the publisher’s actions align with that particular
value. The presence of a non-library board could indicate partial alignment, and no board could
indicate a lack of alignment. After more robust discussion among all the previously mentioned
parties, our evaluation tool was finalized, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: [Redacted] Libraries’ Values-Based Evaluation Tool
Innovation
Collaboration
Equity
Aligns with
values
* Updated platform and
content
* Transformative
agreements (willingness
to explore alternate
models of
funding/access)
* Responsive to
changing technical
needs (accessibility,
mobile, etc.)
* Has an advisory board
with librarian input
* Open to consortial
negotiation
* Reasonable copyright
terms for authors (e.g.
allows addendas to
publication agreements)
* Willing to go in on
research projects with
faculty and staff
* Accessibility:
Exceeds compliance
* Actionable EDI
policy/statement
Aligns with
some values
* Some updates to
platform and/or content
* Offers some OA
options
* Some technical
updates
* Has an advisory
board, but no librarians
are included
* Resistant to consortial
negotiation, but it is
possible
* Flexible on copyright
terms for authors, but
takes a hard line
* Unwilling to work on
research projects with
faculty and staff
without remuneration
* Has an EDI statement
or policy
* Accessibility: WCAG
compliant
Does not
align with
values
* Stagnant platform and
content
* Only supports
traditional license /
contract arrangements
* Outdated technology /
platform
* No advisory board
* No consortial
negotiation
* No flexibility on
copyright agreements
* Staff unable to work
on outside projects
* Does not address EDI
/ has received negative
press related to EDI
* Does not meet any
accessibility standards
* Lawsuits
Stewardship
Service
Aligns with
values
* Fair rate of price
increases and flexibility
with library budget
crunches
* Transparency in
employee pay equity
* Company investments
and lobbying are
socially responsible
* Flexibility on license
terms (non-affiliated,
walk-ins, SSO, etc.)
* Full campus access
* Service to local
communities
Aligns with
some values
* Fair rate of price
increases, no flexibility
with library budget
crunches
* Employee pay equity
statement, but no
supporting data
* No data found
regarding company
investments and
lobbying
* Mid to high employee
turnover
* Limited flexibility in
negotiating some
license terms
* Restrictions on off-
campus access
* No local community
service
Does not
align with
values
* Unreasonable price
increases
* Employee pay equity
not addressed
* Company investments
and lobbying are
socially irresponsible or
harmful
* High employee
turnover
* Inflexible negotiation
practices
* Actively making their
community a worse
place
Applying the evaluation tool
Several strategies were employed when finding information about vendors for each of the
evaluation tool categories. The authors do not advise taking on a task like this as an individual,
but rather working with a team of people to gather information and analyze what is found. Table
3 includes the top tier indicators for the evaluation tool and the sources used to find information
on these topics.
Table 3: Evaluation Tool Information Sources
Innovation Rubric Alignment Indicators
Information Sources
Updated platform and content
Platform evaluation
Transformative agreements (willingness to
explore alternate models of funding/access)
Internal negotiation information, conversations
with other libraries, conversations with vendor
representatives, published news
Responsive to changing technical needs
(accessibility, mobile, etc.)
Platform evaluation
Collaboration Rubric Alignment Indicators
Information Sources
Has an advisory board with librarian input
Company website, conversations with other
libraries, conversations with vendor
representatives
Open to consortial negotiation
Internal negotiation information, conversations
with other libraries, published news
Reasonable copyright terms for authors (e.g.
allows addendums to publication agreements)
Company website, internal negotiation
information, conversations with other libraries,
conversations with vendor representatives
Willing to go in on research projects with faculty
and staff
Internal knowledge, conversations with faculty,
conversations with other libraries, conversations
with vendor representatives
Agility Rubric Alignment Indicators
Information Sources
Flexibility when presented with crises, such as the
COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, etc.
Internal knowledge/prior experience,
conversations with other libraries, conversations
with vendor representatives,
Willingness to embrace new trends in scholarship
responsibly
Internal knowledge/prior experience, publisher
website, conversations with other librarians
Equity Rubric Alignment Indicators
Information Sources
Accessibility: Exceeds compliance
Company website, news searches, platform
accessibility evaluation
(https://libraryaccessibility.org/testing)
Actionable EDI policy/statement
Company website, NexisUni, company annual
reports (EDGAR, Mergent, S&P Capital IQ, D&B
Hoovers, etc.)
Stewardship Rubric Alignment Indicators
Information Sources
Fair rate of price increases and flexibility with
library budget crunches
Prior experience / renewal information,
conversations with other libraries, conversations
with vendor representatives
Transparency in employee pay equity
Glassdoor, conversations with vendor
representatives, company website, company
annual reports
Company investments and lobbying are socially
S&P Capital IQ or Refinitiv investment data, news
responsible
searches
Service Rubric Alignment Indicators
Information Sources
Flexibility on license terms (non-affiliated, walk-
ins, SSO, etc.)
Current contract, prior experience, conversations
with other libraries, conversations with vendor
representatives
Full campus access
Current contract, prior experience, conversations
with other libraries, conversations with vendor
representatives
Service to local communities
Company website, company annual reports, news
searches, conversations with vendors. If operating
a separate 501(c)(3), investigate with Charity
Navigator website
Integrity Rubric Alignment Indicators
Information Sources
Demonstrates ethical business practices
Prior experience, conversations with other
libraries, conversations with vendor
representatives, company annual reports, third
party investment reports (Mergent, Refinitiv,
Business Source Complete), news searches
Impact on society generally positive
Conversations with vendor representatives,
company annual reports, third party investment
reports (Mergent, Refinitiv, Business Source
Complete), environmental, social, and governance
factors (ESG) available in Refinitiv, Bloomberg,
and Capital IQ, news searches
The information and rankings determined by this information gathering are not meant to
be prescriptive when making a purchase or renewal decision. The librarians at Purdue University
are not assigning scores or using this as a standalone evaluative tool. Rather, it is designed to be
used alongside other more traditional evaluation tools, such as cost-per-use, procurement rules,
and accreditation requirements, and to facilitate important and sometimes difficult conversations
among those making collections decisions. If a publisher does poorly on the values evaluation
tool, it does not automatically mean the contract will not be renewed or the resource purchased.
Instead, a conversation will occur including topics such as requirements for accreditation,
research needs, possible alternative sources for the information, etc.
CASE STUDY
In order to see if the evaluation tool was viable and functioned as intended, two test vendors
were evaluated as pilot cases, one a large public company and the other a small private company.
Both of these were for contracts currently up for renewal, so the authors were able to also use
this as a way to showcase how the evaluation tool would work to members of the Information
Resources Council. Both publishers were contacted for clarification when information could not
be found from other sources and were provided with a copy of the evaluation tool for full
context.
This process was completed by one business librarian, one chemistry librarian, and one
agriculture librarian, all of whom serve on the library’s Information Resources Council. The
business librarian provided expertise and guided the group through the information gathering
process. It took approximately two hours to collect the information for these case studies using
the evaluation tool.
Large public company
Innovation - Good
This publisher has signed at least two transformative agreements. They have a public statement
supporting the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Open Access Policy.
Collaboration - Good
It is unclear if this publisher has academic advisory boards. Tangential projects do have advisory
boards that include librarians. They participate in consortial negotiation.
Agility - Good
The publisher made health science resources related to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
freely available during the pandemic. The publisher has a history of embracing new trends in
scholarship responsibility.
Equity - Good
Both the publisher and their parent company have Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility
(DEIA) statements and women in top leadership positions. They have gone above and beyond
with accessibility work.
Stewardship - Good
The publisher is working to become a sustainable and positive impact business. They have
positive reviews from former and current employees on Glassdoor (glassdoor.com). Nothing
clearly problematic was found in the company’s investments. They have a history of fair price
increases.
Service - Good
The company does local community service and provides support for researchers in developing
countries. They offer flexible contracts.
Integrity & Honor - Mid
There were recent mass resignations of editorial boards at two journals, one over publisher
interference and conflicts of interest in selection of a new editor, the other over terminating an
editor’s contract. No major lawsuits were found in NexisUni.
Small private company
Innovation - Good
The publisher has some open access content. Their platform is functional, but nothing
particularly innovative. The vendor provided information that the site is device-intuitive. One
example was found of a transformative agreement, and the vendor provided information that they
have several more Read and Publish agreements in the works.
Collaboration - Good
The vendor has an advisory board made up of the Editors-in-Chief of each journal. Pre-pandemic
they had a library advisory board that last met at the Charleston Conference in 2019. They have
stated it is a priority to reassemble this board in 2022. The publisher has ample consortial
agreements. The publisher uses standard copyright agreements.
Agility - Good
The publisher made health science resources related to COVID-19 freely available during the
pandemic and published freely available papers for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and World Health Organization (WHO) regarding COVID-19. They provide
free access to all of their content to developing regions all around the world through an
agreement with Research4Life - Hinari. They made all of their content free to all researchers in
the Ukraine upon the invasion by Russia in 2022.
Equity - Mid
There is no public statement regarding accessibility on the publisher’s website. Upon request the
vendor did provide a Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) compliance report. There
is no DEIA language on the publisher’s website and they received a bad DEIA related review on
Glassdoor.
Stewardship - Poor
This publisher has a history of large percentage price increases, including a 20% increase that
caused Purdue Libraries to previously cancel their resources. They have been difficult to deal
with, in terms of negotiation, although they seem to be a bit better coming up to this renewal.
They have middling to poor reviews on Glassdoor.
Service - Mid
This publisher has a history of inflexible negotiation practices. There is nothing on their website
regarding any ways in which they are working to better their community. When asked, the
vendor provided information regarding a philanthropic organization they own and operate to
support women in research. This nonprofit organization received a passing score from Charity
Navigator (charitynavigator.org).
Integrity & Honor - Good
A search of Retraction Watch (retractionwatch.com) shows a relatively prompt and open
response to allegations of fraud in journals. A search of NexisUni shows one dismissed lawsuit
against the publisher. As they are a private company, there was little to no information found in
company databases (e.g. Mergent).
DISCUSSION
With an evaluation tool completed and trialed with two test cases, the next step will be
implementation on a higher level. This process is ongoing, but the current plan is to incorporate
values evaluative information into the decision-making process for each new acquisition or
renewal. This will require extensive staff coordination and training so that the burden of finding
all of this information does not fall on one person. Again, the intention is not to supersede other
decision-making criteria or other sources of information, but to supplement them. Even if
implementation of the evaluation tool does not result in significant changes to library collections,
it can still signal to library vendors that the organization is taking them seriously as partners.
Anecdotally, vendor representatives approached about this idea at the 2021 Charleston
Conference saw it as an opportunity both to showcase their employers’ good works (if aligned)
and to encourage change from within (if not). One vendor subsequently set up a campus visit
after the conference and brought additional members of their leadership team to discuss the
evaluation tool and our institutional values, and several others requested copies of the
presentation and evaluation tool to take back to others in their offices.
The case study provided the authors with the opportunity to present this evaluation tool to
the Information Resources Council for feedback. They found it valuable and did consider the
results in the renewal process for both vendors, both of which were renewed. The authors also
found it valuable to go through the process to find and discuss the information. The Information
Resources Council agreed that it was helpful to have this type of information and conversation
formalized and standardized so that they were providing a more equitable evaluation of all
vendors, not just discussing these issues when they showed up in a negative news story. In this
case, all librarians reached consensus regarding the analysis of each vendor after discussion. This
involved reflecting upon the institutional values that helped create the evaluation tool, and
ensuring personal values were not being considered. However, this may not always be the case
and methods for forming consensus in a disagreement should be considered when implementing
this type of tool.
With all of the positives inherent in this type of analysis, in terms of putting institutional
values into practice, it is worth also discussing the limitations and drawbacks of this style of
evaluation tool. First, this analysis is limited by and to the stated values. One might ask why
values such as academic freedom, sustainability, viewpoint objectivity, or anti-capitalism are not
included in the evaluation tool presented in this article, and the simple answer is that those
values, even though held by individuals within the organization, are not part of the organization’s
strategic plan. The specific evaluation tool presented here only applies to Purdue Libraries at
Purdue University. Different organizations will have different priorities and stated values, and
the values-based evaluation tools they create using the process outlined in this paper will express
those differences. Second, this form of analysis is dependent on access to some pieces of
information which not every library acquires in the course of its regular operations. It requires
robust (and not-inexpensive) business information resources, as well as significant expertise in
navigating and querying those resources. Purdue Libraries have extensive business information
resources in addition to Libraries faculty with extensive knowledge of and aptitude with said
resources, but the authors recognize that not every library is this well-resourced or well-staffed.
An area for future work could be to create a shared repository of collected intelligence to assist
libraries that are not as well-resourced. Third, the efficacy of an evaluation tool like this one on
creating actual change in either a library’s collections or in library-vendor relationships more
broadly will depend heavily on other factors over which the library may not have much control.
If a resource is, for example, required for accreditation, and there is no other source for this data,
other factors may simply not matter in terms of what decisions are ultimately made. Other
factors, such as state or consortial procurement rules may also limit actions taken. Finally,
completing this process takes staff time and labor, which are always in short supply.
Ultimately, incorporating a values-based evaluation tool into collections decision-making
will allow a library, as an institution, to signal and uphold the values it professes through the
ways in which it spends its money. As an adjunct to other forms of analysis, it can help
collections managers more fully engage with vendors and create collections that reflect not only
an institution’s curricula and areas of research, but also its higher aspirations.
CONCLUSION
Collections are at the heart of most libraries, and we must carefully consider what we choose to
add, or not, to them. Libraries are stewards of our institution’s resources, and indirectly our
patrons’ investment, and it is reliant upon us to spend this capital in responsible ways that align
with our stated values. This evaluation tool represents an additional item in our metaphorical
collection management toolbox, allowing us to examine our vendor relationships and determine
whether we are being the good stewards we imagine ourselves to be.
Next steps for this project will include working with e-resources staff and the Information
Resources Council to determine a sustainable way to implement this evaluation tool for both
contract renewals and new contracts. As a living document, the values evaluation tool will be
updated as institutional values change over time, and, we hope, provide a guiding light for
collections decisions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the Purdue Libraries and School of Information Studies’ administration
and the Information Resources Council for their interest and support of this project.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare and are not speaking on behalf of
their institutions.
REFERENCES
Bowers, Jennifer, Katherine Crowe, and Peggy Keeran. 2017. “‘If You Want the History of a
White Man, You Go to the Library’ : Critiquing Our Legacy, Addressing Our Library
Collections Gaps.” Collection Management 42 (3–4): 159–79.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1329104.
Ciszek, Matthew P., and Courtney L. Young. 2010. “Diversity Collection Assessment in Large
Academic Libraries.” Collection Building 29 (4): 154–61.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01604951011088899.
Durrant, Summer. 2021. “Using an Evaluation Grid to Holistically Assess Library Databases.”
Collection Management 47 (1): 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2021.1958723.
Emerson, María Evelia, and Lauryn Grace Lehman. 2022. “Who Are We Missing? Conducting a
Diversity Audit in a Liberal Arts College Library.” The Journal of Academic
Librarianship 48 (3): 102517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102517.
Foudy, Gerri, and Alesia McManus. 2005. “Using a Decision Grid Process to Build Consensus in
Electronic Resources Cancellation Decisions.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship
31 (6): 533–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2005.08.005.
Genya O’Gara and Anne Osterman. 2017. “Determining Value: The Development of Evaluation
Metrics for Shared Content.” In At the Helm: Leading Transformation: The Proceedings
of the ACRL 2017 Conference. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research
Libraries.
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/201
7/DeterminingValue.pdf.
Harker, Karen, Laurel Crawford, and Todd Enoch. 2014. “Keeping It Real: A Comprehensive
and Transparent Evaluation of Electronic Resources.” In Charleston Conference
Proceedings 2014. Charleston, SC. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284315563.
Hughes-Hassell, Sandra, Elizabeth Overberg, and Shannon Harris. 2013. “Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ)-Themed Literature for Teens: Are
School Libraries Providing Adequate Collections?” School Library Research 16.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012828.
Kristick, Laurel. 2020. “Diversity Literary Awards: A Tool for Assessing an Academic Library’s
Collection.” Collection Management 45 (2): 151–61.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2019.1675209.
Nuth, Alana M. 2018. “Consistent, Holistic, and Objective: Using a Scorecard for Electronic
Resource Evaluation and Renewal Decision-Making.” Collection Management 43 (3):
209–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2018.1472049.
Proctor, Julia. 2020. “Representation in the Collection: Assessing Coverage of LGBTQ Content
in an Academic Library Collection.” Collection Management 45 (3): 223–34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2019.1708835.
Purdue University. (2021). We Are Purdue—Statement of Values.
https://www.purdue.edu/president/images/messages/We-Are-Purdue-Statement-of-
Values.pdf
Purdue University Libraries & School of Information Studies. (2021). Strategic Plan 2021—
2024. https://www.lib.purdue.edu/sites/default/files/admin/LSIS_Strategic_Plan_2021-
2024.pdf
Sweetland, James H., and Peter G. Christensen. 1995. “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Titles: Their
Treatment in the Review Media and Their Selection by Libraries.” Collection Building 14
(2): 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb023399.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2017. “Expenditures and
Interlibrary Services at Title IV Degree-Granting Institutions Reporting Greater than
$100,000 in Library Expenditures, by Level and Control of Institution and Type of
Expenditure or Interlibrary Service: United States, Fiscal Year 2016.” IPEDS Data
Explorer. 2017.
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Search?query=library&query2=library&resultType=all&page=1
&sortBy=relevance&overlayTableId=25305.
Westervelt, Amy. 2022. “Revealed: Leading Climate Research Publisher Helps Fuel Oil and Gas
Drilling.” The Guardian, February 24, 2022, sec. Environment.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/24/elsevier-publishing-climate-
science-fossil-fuels.