Bound Volume Survey Results

The JSTOR Bound Volume Survey was conducted for the fourth time in October of 2003. As in previous versions, the survey included questions about moving bound volumes to remote storage, discarding, and other cost and space saving solutions. We were pleased this year to receive responses from 337 individuals representing at least 207 unique participating institutions.

Survey Results - Highlights

Has your library moved any of the bound volumes of titles included in JSTOR to remote storage?

• 77 institutions (23% of the 337 respondents to this question) have moved JSTOR journals to remote storage.
• In 2002, 56 institutions (23% of 240 respondents) had moved JSTOR journals to remote storage.
• In 2000, 34 institutions (25% of 138 respondents) had moved JSTOR journals to remote storage.
• In 1999, 42 institutions (20% of 214 respondents) had moved JSTOR journals to remote storage.

Survey Year	Number of institutions	Percentage of respondents
2003	77	23%
2002	56	23%
2000	34	25%
1999	42	20%

If no, do you have any plans to move bound volumes of titles included in JSTOR to remote storage in the near future?

• 44 institutions (17% of the 265 respondents to this question) have plans to move JSTOR journals to remote storage.
• In 2002, 29 institutions (12% of 240 respondents) had plans to move JSTOR journals to remote storage.
• In 2000, 27 institutions (20% of 138 respondents) had plans to move JSTOR journals to remote storage.
• In 1999, 52 institutions (24% of 214 respondents) had plans to move JSTOR journals to remote storage.

Survey Year	Number of institutions	Percentage of respondents
2003	44	17%
2002	29	12%
2000	27	20%
1999	52	24%

Has your library discarded outright any of the bound volumes of titles included in JSTOR?

• 97 institutions (29% of the 337 respondents to this question) have discarded titles.
• In 2002, 32 institutions (13% of 240 respondents) had discarded titles.
• In 2000, 31 institutions (22% of 138 respondents) had discarded titles.
• In 1999, 28 institutions (13% of 214 respondents) had discarded titles.

Survey Year	Number of institutions	Percentage of respondents
2003	97	29%
2002	32	13%
2000	31	22%
1999	28	13%

If no, do you have any plans to discard the bound volumes of titles included in JSTOR in the near future?

• 40 institutions (17% of the 239 respondents to this question) have plans to discard titles.
• In 2002, 48 institutions (20% of 240 respondents) had plans to discard titles.
• In 2000, 30 institutions (22% of 138 respondents) had plans to discard titles.
• In 1999, 54 institutions (25% of 214 respondents) had plans to discard titles.

Survey Year	Number of institutions	Percentage of respondents
2003	40	17%
2002	48	20%
2000	30	22%
1999	54	25%

Has your library entered into a group remote storage project with other JSTOR participating institutions to consolidate your print collections, given the availability of the titles in JSTOR?

• 13 institutions (4% of the 331 respondents to this question) have entered into such arrangements.
• In 2002, 14 institutions (6% of 240 respondents) had entered into such arrangements.
• In 2000, 4 institutions (3% of 138 respondents) had entered into such arrangements.
• In 1999, 4 institutions (2% of 214 respondents) had entered into such arrangements.

Survey Year	Number of institutions	Percentage of respondents
2003	13	4%
2002	14	6%
2000	4	3%
1999	4	2%

Has your library discontinued binding recent issues as a result of your JSTOR access?

• 110 institutions (33% of the 333 responses to this question) have stopped binding recent issues.
• In 2002, 52 institutions (22% of 240 respondents) had stopped binding recent issues.
• In 2000, 21 institutions (15% of 138 respondents) had stopped binding recent issues.
• In 1999, 30 institutions (14% of 214 respondents) had stopped binding recent issues.

Survey Year	Number of institutions	Percentage of respondents
2003	110	33%
2002	52	22%
2000	21	15%
1999	30	14%

Has your library developed, or made plans to develop, other cost or shelf-space saving solutions as a result of your JSTOR access?

Sample responses in 2003:

• Discontinued/condensed microfilm collections
• Compact storage or rolling stacks
• Remove duplicate items
• Collaborative retention programs with other local institutions

Sample responses in 2002:

• Discontinue microform/microfiche backup copies
• Obtain microform as a backup to JSTOR rather than retain print
• Remove duplicate items
• Compact shelving

Sample responses in 2000:

• Discontinue microform backup copies
• Remove duplicate items and items in broken runs

Sample responses in 1999:

• Discontinue purchasing of microfilm backruns
• Remove duplicate items
• No replacement of lost or damaged print issues
• Compact shelving

For more detailed information about the results of the 2003 Bound Volume Survey, please feel free to contact JSTOR User Services using the "Contact JSTOR" link below.

Last updated on September 8, 2006