29
National Bibliographic Knowledgebase Community Survey: Overall Figures
National Bibliographic KnowledgebaseCommunity Survey: Overall Figures
Overall ObjectiveTo inform the development of the National Bibliographic Knowledgebase with comprehensive feedback from existing and potential contributors.
Core Research Objectives
» Understand the requirements of the library community, and any difference in experience by library;
» Explore rationale for contributing and the potential benefits of the NBK;
» Understand the use of data suppliers;
» Explore approaches to data and metadata, including data sharing;
» Test the attractiveness of potential support mechanisms for the NBK.
Objectives and response rate
99responses
30 minute online survey with institutional responses requested
Survey In Field:
4th June – 19th July 2018
About your Library Management System
3
Library Management System used
1%
2%
2%
3%
9%
10%
10%
13%
15%
34%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Horizon
Voyager
Worldshare Management…
Millenium
Alto
Aleph
Symphony
Sierra
Other
Alma
Which LMS do you currently use?
4
Other: Koha (5), Soutron (4), OLE (Open Library Environment (1), Out to tender (1), EOS Sirsidynix (1), Don’t have one (1), Heritage Cirqa (1)
5
10
14
27
50
76
0 20 40 60 80
MODS
Other
BIBFRAME
Dublin Core
MARCXML
MARC exchange
Which format(s) can your LMS use to store and ingest bibliographic records?
Library Management System support
Yes76%
No11%
Don't know13%
Does your LMS provide guidance on how to export large datasets to external databases
5
96%
71%
91%
1%
18%
7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mailing list
Online forum
User group
Is your library involved in any of the following support networks for your LMS?
Yes No This doesn't exist for my LMS
About your data suppliers
6
Record supply systems
4%
8%
12%
21%
22%
39%
41%
48%
49%
61%
76%
92%
87%
84%
67%
76%
57%
59%
49%
36%
29%
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CERL
NLS
ESTC
SUNCAT
BNB/LDSCP
Other source
RLUK database
LMS e.g. Alma Community Zone
Library of Congress
OCLC
Vendor/Shelf ready
In the last year, how often has your library used the following services for record supply/download?
More than 10 times 5-10 times 2-4 times Once We don't use this service
7
Checking bibliographic records
3
6
41
46
50
57
84
0 20 40 60 80 100
None
Other
Global editing using externalsoftware
Sample checking
Global editing using LMSfunctionality
Record update or overlay
Cataloguer undertakes individualchecks
Please tell us if you undertake any of the following activities to check the quality and
accuracy of the bibliographic records?
8
Yes49%
No47%
Don't know5%
Do you report back errors in the bibliographic records to suppliers?
Yes No Don't know
Data and metadata
9
Working with metadata
26%
30%
68%
86%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Continuing resources – electronic
Continuing resources - physical
Books/monographs - electronic
Books/monographs - physical
On average, how often does your library work on the following types of metadata?
Daily Weekly Fortnightly Monthly Less often N/A
10
Quality of metadata – last five years
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Continuing resources – electronic
Books/monographs - electronic
Continuing resources - physical
Books/monographs - physical
How would your library rate the quality of metadata that has been added to your catalogue in the last 5 years?
1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent) N/A
11
Quality of metadata – older than five years
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Books/monographs - electronic
Books/monographs - physical
Continuing resources – electronic
Continuing resources - physical
How would your library rate the quality of legacy metadata (i.e. older than 5 years)
1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent) N/A
12
Working with metadata
3
11
72
76
78
79
0 20 40 60 80 100
We do not edit our existingmetadata
Other
Vendor/system data is too basic fordiscovery
To meet a national cataloguingstandard
To apply a local cataloguingstandard for consistency
To meet user expectations
For which of these reasons would you edit your existing metadata?
13
Yes38%
No44%
Don't know12%
N/A6%
Does your library consider the IFLA FRBR model when creating or amending bibliographic
records?
Yes No Don't know N/A
Cataloguing standards, authority schema
1
11
22
31
87
95
0 20 40 60 80 100
BIBCO
Other
DCRM
AACR
RDA
AACR2
Which cataloguing standard(s) are represented in your bibliographic records?
14
13
20
22
66
78
0 20 40 60 80 100
FAST
MESH
Other
LC Names (NAF)
LCSH
Which authority schema do you maintain in your bibliographic records?
Data manipulation tools
6
17
19
59
72
79
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
No current capability in-house
Other
OpenRefine
Excel
MarcEdit
Data Manipulation tools within your LMS
Which of the following tools does your library use for data matching and manipulation?
15
Data sharing
16
Original cataloguing
17
Yes97%
No3%
Does your library do original cataloguing?
Yes No
Yes56%
No42%
Don't know2%
(If yes) Do you catalogue with sharing of records in mind?
Yes No Don't know
Contributing to shared services
25%
25%
31%
34%
1%
22%
18%
20%
1%
16%
16%
13%
39%
17%
15%
16%
33%
14%
13%
10%
1%
6%
7%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
SUNCAT
Copac
NBK
OCLC Worldcat
What type of record/data types does your library contribute to the following shared services?
We don't contribute to this service Print book records eBook records Print journal records eJournal records Other
18
Processes: manual or automated
37%
52%
61%
58%
31%
26%
16%
21%
32%
23%
24%
21%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
SUNCAT
Copac
NBK
OCLC Worldcat
Is your process manual or automated?
We don't contribute to this service Manual Automated
19
Library in-house expertise
9
52
69
75
88
91
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Other
Ability to merge selected fields ONLY into matched local records from anincoming file of full bib records
Selective matching and merging of full bibliographic records from a file
Selective matching and importing of full bibliographic records from a fil
Batch exporting of selected bibliographic records
Batch importing of files of bibliographic records
Which of the following functions is your library able to perform with your current LMS and in-house expertise.
20
Updating records based on automated error reports
Yes25%
No66%
Don't know
9%
Does your library update your bibliographic records based on
automated error reports from shared services?
21
*The majority of ‘other’ responses fall into the theme of we don’t receive automated error reports, or we don’t contribute to shared services
Contributing to the NBK
22
Drivers influencing the decision to contribute
20%
26%
39%
61%
33%
38%
30%
26%
27%
29%
22%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Reporting/analytics
Prestige/institutional visibility
Enabling collection development/management
Discovery of your collections
Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not so important Not at all important
Q25: How important are the following drivers in the decision to contribute bibliographic records to shared services?
Benefits of the NBK
21%
21%
28%
29%
35%
38%
42%
43%
47%
62%
38%
39%
36%
34%
46%
44%
37%
32%
29%
31%
30%
35%
28%
33%
13%
13%
16%
16%
23%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Potential to link to other data sources and services (e.g. usage…
Potential for collaboration with other libraries
Access to open access collections
Providing a one-stop-shop for finding locations for Interlibrary Loans…
More efficient and better-quality resource description across the…
Collaborating with other academic and specialist libraries across the…
Development of collection management tools to support…
A consolidated source of high quality metadata for import or…
Increased discoverability of special collections
Helping researchers find and access the resources they need
Extremely important Very important Somewhat important Not so important Not at all important
Q26: Thinking about the following future benefits of the NBK, how important are each of these to your library?
Using the NBK to improve metadata
17%
19%
21%
22%
26%
27%
30%
33%
40%
46%
22%
44%
27%
33%
34%
32%
34%
36%
37%
34%
36%
23%
29%
26%
28%
26%
21%
19%
14%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Import NBK system no. for collection management
Upgrade an individual record completely to an NBK record
Import authorised headings
Upgrade to RDA where available
Upgrade a batch of records completely to NBK records
Import additional metadata from an NBK record
Correct errors identified by automated checks
Download records in batches
Download individual records
Upgrade very brief records
Extremely interested Very interested Somewhat interested Slightly interested Not at all interested
Q27: How interested would your library be in using the NBK to improve its metadata in the following ways?
Barriers to contributing data to the NBK
Q28: Do you consider any of the following to be barriers to you contributing your data to the NBK? (Please select all that apply)?
Support and documentation
27
Existing support mechanisms
6%
4%
3%
4%
30%
31%
27%
24%
18%
20%
20%
15%
11%
11%
8%
42%
51%
60%
64%
40%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Potential contributor information
Data supply supporting documentation
Data supply workflow
Data sharing FAQ
One to one interactions with NBK staff
Extremely useful Useful Somewhat useful Not very useful Not at all useful I haven't used this
Q29: How useful have you found the existing NBK support mechanisms)?
Ongoing support
14%
20%
21%
25%
26%
28%
29%
31%
40%
49%
58%
58%
52%
50%
47%
47%
47%
51%
42%
43%
46%
30%
30%
36%
29%
27%
30%
24%
22%
18%
26%
21%
13%
13%
8%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Case studies from other institutions
Webinars
Regular updates from Jisc on product development
Access to an expert advisor from a peer organisation
Video tutorials demonstrating NBK workflows
A dedicated mailing list for NBK contributors
Access to an expert advisor from Jisc
Becoming part of an active NBK User Group community
A shared online support space/forum for asking questions and…
Vendor specific technical advice on preparation for exporting records…
Guidance to support decision making on who owns MARC records…
Clear documentation on which records to submit to the NBK
Extremely useful Useful Somewhat useful Not very useful Not at all useful
Q30: Please tell us how useful the following types of ongoing support would be for your library
