Introduction

The principal goal of reference books is to provide up-to-date information. This need for currency is particularly crucial in the health sciences field. In 1982, James Rettig observed that for reference materials to be effective, their information must be current and warned that outdated content may not only be misleading, but potentially harmful to users (p. 7). This concern is especially critical in the context of medical and health-related resources. Weeding, an integral part of collection management, remains a recurring topic in library literature, with many libraries undertaking the process of removing outdated reference materials early in the century. However, the topic of weeding reference material continually recirculates in journals and on listservs (Johnson, 2023). Literature identifies many reasons why librarians may avoid weeding, including that it is a time-consuming, frustrating, and labor-intensive task. Additionally, some librarians express emotional attachment to books or fear of discarding scarce works (Tobia, 2002; Dubicki, 2008; Prosser, 2020). Discussing the weeding process at the LaGuardia Community College Library, McHale, Egger-Sider, Fluk, and Ovadia noted that "pulling books from the shelves is the easiest part of the weeding process; everything leading up to this moment can take much more time" (2017, p. 94).

Objective

In the spring of 2023, the George F. Smith Library of Health Sciences found itself facing an overdue collection management project triggered by anticipated renovation plans. Since 1975, the Smith Library served the constituencies of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) until it merged with Rutgers University in 2013. Since the merger, a comprehensive weeding project has not been conducted, due to a historical emphasis on "preserving medical literature" (A functional building program..., 1967).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Rutgers University Libraries (RUL), composed of 16 units, adopted a collection development policy that emphasizes acquiring material in electronic format. This new "e-preference" policy, along with the lack of funds, contributed to the Smith Library reference collection not being updated. After the pandemic, the use of physical collections declined, especially as users grew accustomed to libraries providing remote access to point-of-need resources.

The primary objective of this "crash weeding" project was to remove all materials from the area designated for space repurposing. Secondary goals included reducing duplication within the RUL system and making informed decisions regarding the disposition of "last institutional copies."

Method

Our weeding project followed a multi-stage methodology. After agreeing on the criteria, we ran an ALMA analytics report to identify all volumes in the area designated for renovation. The report revealed that almost 3,000 reference volumes spanned nearly five decades, from 1970 to 2019. Although the librarians observed that the books were rarely used, they lacked quantitative data to support this observation, a common difficulty for reference books, which typically do not circulate.

The initial, quantitative phase focused on discarding items to which the RUL had persistent electronic access and material in obsolete formats (e.g., DVDs, CD-ROMs), which constituted about 3% of the collection. We also established that approximately 30% of the volumes had duplicates within the RUL system. Only one-third of all the books in the reference collection were unique to the Smith Library.

Verifying duplicates proved to be a long process requiring checking shelves in various Rutgers University libraries to confirm that the books were available. This was further complicated by the fact that the Smith Library reference collection was split between two classification systems: 53% cataloged in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) classification and 47% in the Library of Congress (LC) classification, while other Rutgers libraries use only the LC classification.

Disposition of Last Institutional Copies

The second part of the project was qualitative, involving disciplinary knowledge for the disposition of the "last institutional copy." The process involved verifying availability first in WorldCat. Halfway through the project, the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA), of which Rutgers University is a part, acquired GoldRush, a collection evaluation tool that expedited the verification process for copies available in the consortium. The items selected for retention were evaluated based on their uniqueness and research value.

Final Review and Conclusion

At the end of our weeding process, 75% of the reference books were discarded, 19% were integrated into the circulating collection, and only 6% of unique materials were selected for permanent retention. Discarded books were sent to Better World Books (BWB).

The project's success led to an important procedural enhancement: a retention note indicating that a book is the "last institutional copy" has been added to the cataloging record, which can enhance future weeding projects within the RUL system. Ensuring that the "last institutional copy" note is now included in the system with a commitment to retain that copy will also potentially benefit the BTAA consortium.

The deselection process also served as a valuable collection inventory, revealing books that were missing from the shelves. These inconsistencies were updated in the library catalog. Furthermore, the ALMA report indicated that over 60 linear feet of reference books were still stored in the library's basement, including old indexes and dictionaries, which meant that the reference holding code cannot be fully retired until this material is addressed. Though the work was physically demanding, the project proved to be a valuable learning experience for the library staff, who plan to weed out the general collection next.

References

A functional building program for a new health sciences library. (1967). In R. U. A. S. Collections (Ed.), New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry Library, (Vol. GFS RG C-5A-Z, pp. 11). New Jersey: George F. Smith Library.

Biggs Mary, B. V. (1987). Reference Collection Development in Academic Libraries: Report of a Survey. RQ, 27(1), 67-79.

Dubicki, E. (2008). Weeding: facing the fears. Collection Building, 27(4), 132-135. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950810913689

Johnson, K. (2023). Thoughts on Maintaining or Dismantling Print Reference Collections in Academic Libraries. In ALA Connect. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

McHale, C., Egger-Sider, F., Fluk, L., & Ovadia, S. (2017). Weeding without Walking: A Mediated Approach to List-Based Deselection. Collection Management, 42(2), 92-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1318729

Prosser, D. (2020). Affect and Deaccessioning in the Academic Library: Feelings about Books and Place. Library Trends, 68(3), 506-520. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2020.0003

Rettig, J. (1982). Love Canal in the Reference Stacks. Reference Services Review, 10(4), 7-7. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb048768

Tobia, R. C. (2002). Comprehensive weeding of an academic health sciences collection: the Briscoe Library experience. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(1), 94-98.

Editor's note: This article is based on a case study written by the author and published in Medical Reference Services Quarterly that you can access here.

DCT Featured Article - January 13, 2026