| KRATKA VSEBINA | Namen: Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica (NUK) od leta 2005 sistematično dopolnjuje svojo zbirko tudi z odpisanim gradivom iz drugih knjižnic. S seznamov izbira predvsem sloveniko in jugoslaviko do leta 1991. Od leta 2014 sistem COBISS omogoča učinkovito avtomatsko preverjanje seznamov. Pri drugih seznamih je možnost napak večja, kar je opazno v veliki razliki med poslanim in dejansko postavljenimgradivom. Namen prispevka je poiskati vzroke za tako stanje in ugotoviti, kako bi sistem preverjanja lahko izboljšali, da bi se razlike zmanjšale. Metodologija: V članku je podana statistična analiza podatkov o odpisanem gradivu v letih 2011-2016, poslanih v NUK s pomočjo podatkov Centra za razvoj knjižnic, in evidenc ponujenega gradiva s seznamov knjižnic ter dejansko poslanega gradiva, ki ga vodijo v Službi za pridobivanje gradiva. Rezultati: Na podlagi dobljenih rezultatov v omenjenem obdobju odpisujejo gradivo vse splošne knjižnice, zastarelo gradivo, ki bi bilo za NUK še uporabno, pa le polovica splošnih knjižnic. 55 % visokošolskih knjižnic odpisuje gradivo, zastarelo gradivo, ki bi bilo za NUK še uporabno, le 14 %, samo 29 % specialnih knjižnic odpisuje gradivo, od tega le 10 % zastarelo gradivo, ki bi bilo za NUK še uporabno. Za šolske knjižnice so zbrani podatki samo za leto 2016, ko je odpisovalo 72 % knjižnic, zastarelogradivo, ki bi bilo za NUK še uporabno, pa 6 % knjižnic. Od vseh pregledanih naslovov s seznamov odpisanega gradiva NUK izbere le 4 % gradiva. Izračunan je čas, ki ga NUK potrebuje za preverjanje seznamov in obdelavo izbranega gradiva. Omejitve: Nobena nacionalna knjižnica nima podobnega načina pridobivanja gradiva, zato je raziskava omejena samo na slovenski prostor. Izvirnost/uporabnost raziskave: Raziskava odgovarja na vprašanje, ali naj NUK z razpoložljivimi resursi še pridobiva gradivo za dopolnjevanje nacionalne zbirke na ta način ali zgolj z avtomatskimi seznami. // Purpose: Since 2005, the National and University Library (NUL) has been systematically building its collection by materials withdrawn fromother Slovenian libraries. It selects ''slovenica'', and ''jugoslavica'' published until 1991 from the lists of withdrawn materials from all types of libraries. Since 2014, the COBISS system has been providing an automaticcomparison of the volumes data and NUL holdings when the lists of withdrawnmaterials are prepared as a defined computer print-out. If the lists are not prepared by this tool, the possibility of error is greater, which is obvious by a big difference between the number of items sent to NUL and thenumber of items added to NUL collection. The paper aims to identify the reasons for this disproportion and the solutions on how the procedures could be improved to reduce the differences. Methodology/approach: The paper presents an analysis of the Slovenian libraries' weeding statistics and the records of the offered withdrawn materials and the volumes actuallysent to NUL. The data on weeding statistics was collected by the Library System Development Centre, and the records on offered and sent material were kept by the Acquisition Department at NUL during the period 2011-2016.Results: In this period, the results showed that all public libraries deselected library materials but only half of them deselected the obsolete materials which would be useful for NUL collection. Deselection of materials was carried out in 55% of higher- education libraries of which only 14% deselected the obsolete materials useful for NUL collection, and in 29% of special libraries of which only 10% deselected the obsolete materials. For school libraries, the data have been collected only for 2016. 72% of school libraries deselected materials of which 6% deselected the obsolete materials useful for NUL collection. NUL has selected only 4% of all the titles on the lists of withdrawn materials. The time needed to check the titles from the lists in the catalogue and to process the received material was calculated. Research limitation: As there are no similar models of acquisition in other national libraries, the study is limited to Slovenian libraries. Originality/practical implications: The study answers the question of whether or not the Library should continue tobuild the national collection in this way. Another possibility would be to accept only the defined computer print-outs. |