Course Reserve Access Recertification Review

Protocol status

A reserve list is trustworthy when each item shows its access basis, its current link or location, its audience, and its expiry; a list that only shows a title cannot distinguish a licensed copy from an unlicensed scan.

This page describes a review design and its proposed controls. It does not report an executed sample, measured outcomes, or evidence that the controls improved performance.

Review protocol

Planned review sequence

1. Define the population as every active reserve item for a fixed term, including physical items, licensed electronic copies, open access links, and instructor-provided files. Record the term, the extract date, the courses, and the count.
2. List the fields required for each item
3. Name the source for the access basis. A library catalog record supports ownership; a license record supports concurrent access; a permission letter supports a specific use. A file in a shared drive does not establish permission by itself.
4. Sample across formats, course sizes, and request channels. Include items added late, items with a personal copy, and items that were renewed from a prior term.
5. Classify exceptions as missing access basis, expired permission, broken link, wrong edition, over-broad audience, inaccessible file, missing loan rule, or overdue takedown. Assign an owner and a correction date.
6. Report the population, sample, exceptions, and limits. Retain the list version, the access evidence, and the takedown log. The protocol does not decide whether a particular use is fair use.

Operational implications

Ownership, licensing, and permission are different access bases.

A working link does not prove that the use is permitted.

Expiry dates belong beside the item, not only in a calendar reminder.

Accessibility is part of readiness, not a separate project.

Takedown should be recorded with a date and a disposition.

The review tests the record, not the legal conclusion.