





































Panel Discussions  131

“The Life-Changing 
Magic of Tidying Up”
The Art of Decluttering and Organizing 
Library Collections
By Michelle Spomer, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; Suzanne Estelle-Holmer, Yale 

Divinity School; Amy Limpitlaw, Boston University School of Theology

ABSTR ACT “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up” recalls Marie 
Kondo’s 2014 influential book of the same name,1 from which we took 
our inspiration. The panelists discussed how “tidying up” parts of their 
collections, while in some ways a daunting process, is nevertheless a 
worthwhile and important endeavor for libraries. Each panelist included 
a summary of what part of the collection needed tidying, how they 
undertook the process, and what were the results of the process. The 
parts of the library collection considered in this presentation specifically 
were periodical subscriptions, reference works, and standing orders for 
book series. 

Periodical Subscriptions  
By Michelle Spomer

WHAT NEEDED TIDYING?

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary has been interested in renovating the 
library for quite some time, and the pursuit of this has had a few starts 
and stops over the years. In 2014, a new renovation committee was 
formed. This committee engaged an architectural firm out of Boston 
(Perry, Dean, Rogers) to create a preliminary design for the renovation. 
This firm produced a report in the summer of 2015, at which point the 
new seminary president, Dr. David Esterline, put a halt to the process in 
order to hire a library director. I became the library director in early 2016, 
and hit the ground running with the renovation process. Thankfully, 



132  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

the report produced by Perry, Dean, Rogers provided much of the 
groundwork needed for a design, so I didn’t have to start from scratch. 
In part of this report, it was recommended that 2,500 linear feet of 
materials should be permanently relocated outside of the library in 
order to create additional space for the design. It didn’t seem sustain-
able to me to maintain a separate collection outside of the library, 
and I also knew that the collection had not gone through any signifi-
cant weeding in the last several years, if ever. I decided that I would 
try to completely withdraw 2,500 linear feet of materials from the 
collection.

In the fall of 2016, it was determined that we would not continue 
the renovation process with Perry, Dean, Rogers, and that we would 
instead hire a local architect. LGA Partners became the new architec-
tural firm, and they began working on a new design, using some of the 
data in the Perry, Dean, Rogers report as a starting point. Even though 
we went with a new firm and had them create a new design, it was clear 
that removing 2,500 linear feet of materials would still be advanta-
geous in meeting some of the goals of the renovation (more space, 
more light, more lounge/study areas). I began working with my staff 
to identify and remove the “low-hanging fruit” from the collection. 
This mainly consisted of duplicate copies in the circulating collec-
tion, dated reference works, and print journals. For the purposes of 
this panel, I will focus on the process of deselecting journals.

WHAT WAS THE PROCESS?

A little over a year is not a lot of time to plan for and then implement 
the removal of 2,500 linear feet of materials. Here is a timeline and 
overview of the main aspects of the deselection process:

 •  March 2016 Criteria were created for removing duplicate copies 
from the circulating collection.

 • June 2016 Criteria were created for journal deselection.

 •  July 2016 A list of journal titles that we had both in JSTOR and 
in print was created. Faculty were asked for input (e.g., were 
there titles they wanted to keep in print even though they were 
duplicated in JSTOR?).



Panel Discussions  133

 •  October 2016 A list of current print subscriptions was given to 
the faculty for input (i.e., Which titles were they interested in? 
Did it matter if they were in print or online?).

 • March 2017 A list of non-current print journals was created.
 •  June 2017 The deselection process was completed (just in time 

for us to start moving everything out of the library building).

The journal deselection process had several phases. First, I wanted to 
see how much overlap we had between our print titles (both current 
and non-current) and our online titles. Since the JSTOR platform 
provides perpetual access to purchased journal collections, print 
titles that are duplicated in JSTOR would be good candidates for with-
drawal. After consulting with faculty (by providing them with a check-
list of journal titles), several print journals were deselected that were 
included in our JSTOR collections. A similar process was followed with 
the current print subscriptions—faculty were consulted, and several 
more print journals were either completely deselected or moved to 
an online-only subscription.

The last phase of journal deselection considered only non-current 
journal titles that were not in JSTOR. For these journals, we used one 
or more of the following criteria to determine what should be done:

 • Is it relevant to Reformed/Presbyterian/Methodist traditions?

 • Is it relevant to curriculum/research needs?

 • Is it an incomplete run (<=10 volumes/issues)?

 • Is it available in full-text in ATLAS or Academic Search Premier?

 • Are there >=100 US libraries that own this journal?

 • Is it available in HathiTrust or Internet Archive?

 • What is the physical condition?

WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?

Given the amount of time we had, our deselection process was success-
ful. We were able to remove 2,621 linear feet of library materials, 
including the “low-hanging fruit” of duplicate book copies, obsolete 
reference works (encyclopedia sets, biographical dictionaries, etc.), 
and print journals. I am satisfied with the result now, but know that we 
may discover down the road things we should have done differently. 



134  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

Reference Works 
By Suzanne Estelle-Holmer

WHAT NEEDED TIDYING?

Judging from my reading and experience talking with other librar-
ians, weeding is a task that frequently creates anxiety and doubt and 
is avoided until necessary. Many of us have inherited collections that 
we haven’t created, and we aren’t familiar with the principles that 
guided selection decisions. Especially in academic libraries, where 
outdated materials are often kept for use in future research, it can be 
difficult to decide whether to withdraw outdated materials or send 
them to storage (if available). Usually there’s an exigency or need that 
forces us to undertake a major de-selection project. 

This presentation will document the weeding of a large reference 
collection that was carried out at the Yale Divinity Library during the 
summer months of 2017. The Divinity Library is part of the larger 
Yale University Library and is fortunate to have access to a library 
storage facility where rarely used or outdated materials can be stored 
and retrieved. Despite this, there frequently are limits on the number 
of volumes that can be sent in one year, and items from the general 
collections often took precedence. On occasion, some obvious items 
like print indexes and other outmoded formats were removed, but on 
the whole my attempts at weeding the reference collection had been 
half-hearted. 

During Spring 2017 there was renewed urgency to reduce the size 
of the reference collection. The dean had funds to completely refur-
bish the Trowbridge Reference Room and restore it to its historic 
grandeur. He was eager to start the work as soon as possible so that it 
would be ready for the start of the next academic year. It was decided 
that everything would be overhauled: carpeting, light fixtures, and 
furnishings, were all removed. In addition, all the books would need 
to be removed from the shelves in order to repaint the built-in shelves. 
Metal shelving, which had been used to extend shelving capacity, was 
removed, thus reducing the number of volumes that could be housed 
by roughly 1,000. This meant that as books were removed from the 
bookcases and put on book trucks, I would then have the opportu-
nity to examine and evaluate every volume in the collection! Marie 



Panel Discussions  135

Kondo’s advice to “place every item of clothing in the house on the 
floor”2 seems relevant here. 

WHAT WAS THE PROCESS?

The reference collection was composed of three sections, each of 
which was shelved separately. On the highest shelves, accessible only 
by ladder, was an extensive collection of North American and Euro-
pean denominational directories and yearbooks. Before the Internet, 
these were valuable sources for addresses and biographical informa-
tion. Now this information is readily available on denominational web 
sites. We decided to send most of these volumes to the shelving facility 
and in many cases cancelled our subscriptions. The only directories 
we now house in the reference collection are current issues for the 
main denominations represented at YDS.

The second discrete “collection” in the Reference Room was LC 
Subject Class Z, including book history, library science, bibliographies 
(general and subject), library catalogs, and publishing. At some point 
in the past, a decision was made to house all Zs in the reference room 
and to make them non-circulating. The range and completeness of 
Yale’s collection of theological bibliographies and printed library cata-
logs has long been a strength of the Divinity library, but many of these 
volumes were rarely consulted and took a large amount of room on 
the shelves. Weeding this portion of the collection caused me the most 
indecision and angst. Many of these works are the record of unique 
collections and publication history. It was hard to face the fact that 
most would have to go into storage. The one consolation was that they 
would circulate and still be available for research. 

The third section comprised general reference works relating to 
philosophy, theology, biblical studies, practical theology, and history 
of Christianity. For this collection, books were removed and reshelved 
on temporary shelving. I soon discovered, however, that it was easiest 
to work from a book truck and to evaluate each book individually. This 
enabled me to check our catalog for other copies in the library system 
and to gauge the uniqueness of the work. Since we had no circulation 
or shelving data for the books (we don’t discharge reference volumes 
on tables or book trucks), I had to depend on my observation and 
knowledge of how the collection was used. In the process, I developed 
the following criteria:



136  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

QUESTIONS:

 •  How much dust is on the book? A thick layer of dust generally 
indicates lack of use.

 •  Is the content outdated? The approach or context in which infor-
mation is presented can be an indicator, as well as the publica-
tion date. 

 •  Is the work available in electronic format? This may not always 
be a reason to remove the print volumes from the reference 
collection. Some researchers may prefer to use print. However, 
for works that support theological studies, like music or art 
history encyclopedias, it may be advisable to withdraw the print. 

 •  Was the topic once trendy and now outdated? This is especially 
true of subject bibliographies and dated monographs (that some-
how had been added to the reference collection many years ago).

 •  Reference works in supporting disciplines (music, art history, 
sociology, psychology, etc.), especially if available elsewhere on 
campus. 

 •  Is there too much on the same topic? Try to achieve a manage-
able collection of works on a topic.  

After deciding which books would remain in the reference room and 
which would be moved to storage or withdrawn, books were trans-
ferred to technical services. There they were searched against the Yale 
University Library catalog to determine if the title was already housed 
in storage, or if not, if it should be moved there. We were fortunate to 
have an already established workflow for sending close to 2,000 to 
5,000 volumes to storage every summer.

WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?

In my opinion, the project was an enormous success. I was able to 
reduce the size of the reference collection by close to 2,500 volumes. 
The shelves are now more orderly and attractive. There is adequate 
room on each shelf for growth. The call number sequence in the room 
is easy to follow so that students can identify and locate what they 
need. Important works stand out on the shelves, and resources are 
getting more use than in the past. Subject areas are more scalable; 
instead of twenty books on a subject, there now are five or six. Another 



Panel Discussions  137

benefit is that I am better able to note gaps or assess areas where the 
collection could be expanded. Best of all, after a full academic year, 
there have been no complaints from faculty or students that favorite 
books are missing! 

Standing Orders 
By Amy Limpitlaw

WHAT NEEDED TIDYING?

Like many libraries, the Theology Library at the Boston University 
School of Theology has numerous standing orders. Standing orders 
are typically agreements set up with publishers or vendors so that 
whenever a new title is published within a particular series, the title 
will be sent automatically to the library for purchase. The advantage 
of using a standing order is that it saves staff time by eliminating the 
need to select and order each title in the series individually. Another 
advantage is that the library is assured that it won’t miss receiving all 
the titles in the series. The disadvantage of using a standing order is 
that the library may receive some individual titles that do not fit the 
library’s collection plan.

Over a number of years, it became clear to me that our standing 
orders needed considerable tidying. Every so often, I would notice that 
we had recently received a title that had little relevance or connection 
to our collection goals. When I investigated further, I discovered that 
there had been little to no circulation for many of these titles, and 
some of them had been quite expensive. Moreover, I discovered that 
many of the titles received in print on standing order were already 
available through one of the university’s e-book collections. It became 
increasingly clear that we were simply wasting money purchasing 
books that were already available electronically, were quite expensive, 
and/or were of little relevance to our collection goals.

WHAT WAS THE PROCESS?

The process of tidying up our standing orders involved first, figuring 
out what standing orders we had and which were current. I quickly 



138  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

discovered that our records were a mess. For some standings orders, 
we had a record in the catalog for the standing order itself, but for 
others for which we were currently receiving titles, we had no record 
at all. We also had no history of when or why the standing order had 
been set up in the first place. I had no way of knowing if a particular 
standing order had been set up at the request of a particular faculty 
member who possibly had retired years ago. And there were also 
records for standing orders for series which seemed to no longer be 
in publication.

The process, then, initially involved a fair amount of detective 
work, including occasionally contacting publishers to find out if a 
series was simply on pause or if it had completed its publication. Once 
we had a sense of which series were still active, the question became 
one of making the decision whether or not to continue the standing 
order for the series, as well as whether or not to set up new standing 
orders for other series. Questions asked during this process were as 
follows: 

 •  Are the titles within the series already held by another Boston 
University library or duplicated by one of BU’s e-book collec-
tions?

 •  Are the titles easily available from other libraries in our local 
consortia—Boston Theological Institute (BTI) and Boston Library 
Consortium (BLC)?

 •  For series for which we already had a standing order, what has 
been the circulation for individual titles?

 • How much do individual titles within the series cost, on average?

WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?

While the process took a considerable amount of time and effort on 
the part of the staff, in the end it seemed worthwhile. We were able 
to determine that sixty of our standing orders were inactive. We also 
learned that four standing orders were for series that had been contin-
ued under a new name. We ended up canceling fifty standing orders, 
and decided to continue sixty-three standing orders that had already 
been set up. As for new standing orders, this part of the process is 
currently ongoing, and involves soliciting faculty input about book 



Panel Discussions  139

series in their disciplines. So far we have added eight new standing 
orders. Finally, the tidying up has resulted in much more accurate 
record-keeping as we have been able to update the records in our 
catalog to accurately reflect the series we are receiving on standing 
order and the individual titles received.

Some important lessons were learned in the process as well. One is 
that librarians should think very carefully before setting up a standing 
order, to make sure that the library really needs to receive all the titles 
within the series. In most cases, titles within a book series can always 
be purchased individually, and sometimes this makes more sense. It 
is also important to solicit faculty input on the important series within 
their disciplines. And it is a good idea to periodically check what you 
are already receiving on standing order to make sure the series and 
individual titles still fit within your collection goals and are not being 
duplicated elsewhere (by e-book packages, for example). You also 
want to keep an eye out to see if a series has completed publication. 
I would recommend taking the time to periodically review and “tidy 
up” your standing orders every three-to-five years. And most impor-
tantly, keep notes on your standing orders—on when and why they 
were set up and when and why they were canceled. This will help for 
future planning and decision-making.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arbeeny, Pamela and Lloyd Chittenden. “An Ugly Weed: Innovative 
Deselection to Address a Shelf Space Crisis.” Journal of Library 
Innovation 5, no. 1 (2014): 78-90.

Breaux, Ann-Marie. “Purchasing Continuations from a Monograph 
Vendor: Some Considerations.” Library Collections, Acquisitions, 
and Technical Services 25, no. 3 (2001): 329-335. 

Cross, Roger L. “Hunting in the Shadows for Savings: Reevaluating 
Standing Orders.” The Bottom Line 23, no. 3 (2010): 90-96. 

Flowers, Janet L. “Standing Orders: Considerations for Acquisitions 
Method.” Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 25, 
no. 3 (2001): 323-328. 

Kondo, Marie. The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of 
Decluttering and Organizing. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, 2014.



140  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

Langendorfer, Jeanne M. and Michele L. Hurst. “Comparison 
Shopping: Purchasing Continuations as Standing Orders or on 
Approval.” Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 
27, no. 2 (2003): 169-172. 

Rouzer, Steven M. “Acquiring Monographic Series by Approval Plan: 
Is the Standing Order Obsolescent?” Library Acquisitions: Practice 
& Theory 19, no. 4 (1995): 395-401.

Texas State Library and Archives. “CREW: A Weeding Manual  
for Modern Libraries.” 2012. Accessed June 7, 2018.  
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ld/pubs/crew/index.html.

Ward, Suzanne M. Rightsizing the Academic Library Collection. Chicago, 
IL: ALA Editions, 2015.

NOTES

1 Marie Kondo, The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese 
Art of Decluttering and Organizing (Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, 
2014).

2 Kondo, 66.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ld/pubs/crew/index.html

