By Rachel Simcock, Collections Team Leader (Document Delivery), Library & University Collections, University of Edinburgh and FIL
‘Bookshelves’ by The CCAC North Campus library, licensed under CC BY 2.0 [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/]
What emerged was a surprisingly strong level of consistency across the sector.
Nearly all respondents described applying higher security controls to ILL materials than to their own circulating stock. Staff mediation, restricted access, and controlled handover points appear to be the norm from start to finish. Self-service or open shelf access is very much the exception, and usually only considered where the perceived risk is minimal.
Some of the clearest patterns included:
17 respondents store ILLs in staff-controlled, restricted, or lockable areas rather than on open shelves.
16 respondents issue ILLs only via library staff rather than self-service.
16 respondents also require returns directly to staff or designated drop points.
13 respondents manage ‘library use only’ items through supervised access, often retaining the user’s ID during consultation.
No respondents offer postal home loans of physical ILLs to students.
Only two respondents reported allowing standard physical ILLs to be collected from open shelves, and even then, only for unrestricted loans.
One interesting point was that, while most libraries maintain tight operational control over ILL handling, relatively few use formal tracking systems beyond normal institutional processes. A handful of libraries keep spreadsheets, logbooks, or signed tracking sheets for parcels moving through mailrooms, particularly for international or higher-value items. Most, however, rely on established workflows, staff-only areas, and the general reliability of university postal and facilities teams.
The responses also highlighted how much the smooth running of ILL services depends on colleagues outside the library. In many institutions, library staff are not directly involved at every stage once items enter the university post system, but handover points are still almost always restricted access or staff-only. Libraries generally expressed confidence in these arrangements, helped by the fact that missing ILL parcels appear to be extremely rare in practice.
Perhaps the most reassuring finding was that no library reported having zero staff or security oversight of physical ILLs. Even where additional tracking measures are minimal, there is still a clear culture of controlled handling and professional stewardship surrounding these materials.
Overall, the responses suggest that the current balance of secure spaces, staff mediation, and trusted institutional processes is working well. It was also genuinely interesting to see how much quiet consistency exists across the community. Different libraries may use slightly different workflows, but the underlying principle seems widely shared: physical ILLs are treated with a little extra care, and for good reason.