ACQNET v1n016 (January 29, 1991) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/serials/stacks/acqnet/acq-v1n016 ACQNET, Vol 1, No. 16, January 29, 1991 ======================================= (1) FROM: Editor SUBJECT: New members, directory corrections, headers (29 lines) (2) FROM: Editor SUBJECT: Editorial policy (27 lines) (3) FROM: Karen Schmidt SUBJECT: Proposed ALCTS Collection Management Section (9 lines) (4) FROM: Judith Niles SUBJECT: Proposed ALCTS Collection Management Section (7 lines) (5) FROM: Christian Boissonnas SUBJECT: Proposed ALCTS Collection Management Section (32 lines) (6) FROM: Marsha Hamilton SUBJECT: ACQNET, UK/US approval plans, mentioning vendors by name, US belles lettres approval plan (52 lines) (1) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FROM: Editor SUBJECT: Various DATE: January 29, 1991 You may remember that, in no. 15, I said I couldn't do anything about the three screens of addresses that you had to plough through before getting to the important stuff. So, of course, I did. While I was sending no. 15, yet. I figured out a decidedly low tech temporary solution: to split the address file in two and send issue twice instead of once. So, you now get to scroll through half of the names instead of all the names. It only costs me about 30 seconds of time. That's progress. Remember to let me have directory corrections. Three of you have. There's got to be more, considering the varied sources I was using. To keep you posted on new members between directory releases, I have decided to accept October Ivins's suggestion and introduce them here when they join. So, since the weekend, we welcome: Judith Niles, University of Louisville Jana Stevens, Hofstra University FRANK MOLS, SUNY BINGHAMTON DIANE KOST, SUNY BINGHAMTON They have been duly indoctrinated by receiving an avalanche of e-mail, all at one time. By the way, I'd love to know if those of you who joined lately really welcomed this sudden glut of acquisitions news. Sooner or later I'm going to have to stop sending everything simply because I won't have room to store everything. (2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FROM: Editor SUBJECT: Editorial policy DATE: January 29, 1991 When I was at ALA, a couple of people expressed some surprise about the fact that I had not edited out some of the things they wrote in earlier postings. Wondering what limits I should have, I kicked this issue to the Editorial Board. As a result we now have our first editorial policy statement: ACQNET derives much of its appeal from the fact that it is current, allowing contributors to express concerns and opinions and get very rapid feedback. In addition the community of librarians that participate in ACQNET is a close-knit group of people, many of whom are close friends, quite willing to be outspoken with each other, articulate, and definitely possessed with a sense of humor. The editor wishes to preserve these attributes of the community into ACQNET issues. Contributors are therefore advised that editing of the messages that they send is kept to a minimum. It is limited to looking for offensive or erroneous information, and organizing the postings so that they are as easy to read as possible. Contributors who send the editor information which they would not want to see disseminated to the membership at large must indicate to the editor clearly what they want him to withhold. They also need to ask themselves why they are sending it at all, since the whole premise of ACQNET is the prompt sharing of information. (3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 January 1991 12:47:22 CST From: Karen Schmidt Subject: Proposed ALCTS Collection Management Section Re: The new collection management section: nothing like being a day late and a dollar short, I say... Does anyone know how much this change will cost us to keep abreast of CD work? Thanks for all the information anyway - this will teach me to pay a bit more attention! (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 14:36:55 EST From: Judith Niles Subject: Proposed ALCTS Collection Management Section It will be interesting to see the fallout. I share your reservations, but it does appear to be a fait accompli. (5) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: January 29, 1991 From: Christian Boissonnas Subject: Proposed ALCTS Collection Management Section Karen, in her message suggests that she wasn't paying enough attention to what was going on. I certainly was asleep at the wheel, with even less excuse. I attended some meetings that she didn't attend where this was discussed. She raises a really good question. It will cost plenty, and it shouldn't. It's inevitable that the split will isolate us from one another and, let me say it again, at a time when precisely the opposite should be happening. Where are those librarians who perform both functions going to go? I bet that it will be impossible for them to attend meetings of both Sections since the chance that their meeting times will conflict are high. Not only that, the number of meetings which they should attend to develop as good librarians will have at least doubled. So they, as all of us, are going to have to choose. The CMDC arguments for becoming a section and the rationale of the RS Policy and Planning Committee are not exactly overwhelming. All they will really achieve is to make us sound more important (a section is better than a commit- tee, right?) without really making us change what we do. It is precisely changing what we do that is needed. Instead of having the Acquisitions Committee and CMDC working in splendid isolation from one another, as they do now developing programs and guides, they should coordinate approach- es for dealing with the problems we all face. Judith, you say that it appears to be a fait accompli. I don't buy that. There are elections to be held on this issue. If we feel strongly enough about it we can derail this train. We sure can try, at least. The question is, do we really feel strongly about it? From the comments so far, I really don't know. I don't even know how many people think of it as a problem. I really wish more ACQNET members would speak up on this. (6) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 09:15 EST From: "Marsha Hamilton" To: CRI@CORNELLC.BITNET>BITNET Subject: ACQNET, UK/US approval plans, mentioning vendors by name, US belles lettres approval plans I would like to speak for at least one person who is sitting out here reading ACQNET and not joining the conversation. Some of us have antiquated e-mail systems (very user unfriendly) which hamper some flow of thought however I find ACQNET very enjoyable and assume others like myself will jump in when the spirit moves us. In response to comments from others regarding names--I would very much like to see names of vendors, publishers and libraries used as I find studies of Vendor A versus Vendor B where I don't happen to know the inside story pretty useless. I think we can restrain ourselves and not say anything libelous. On the issue of U.S./U.K. duplication--The Ohio State University Libraries has had a problem for years with this, esp. with Cambridge but also with other multi- nationals. The British ship first but the U.S. edition is cheaper. We tried various options, none of which worked well. 1) Blackwell's G.B. was to send British edition, Baker & Taylor was to send only original American ones. Result: B&T still sent dups of ones received from BHB. 2) We set up a separate standing order plan with Cambridge/Oxford. Result: (this was many years ago) extra work and vendor supplied better service. 3) We returned to a vendor and asked BNA to coordinate with BHB to send only one copy. Result: Got more dups than ever. 4) Went back to BHB and B&T supplying titles as before. We identify dups before they are displayed for review by collection managers. That means we do not always get the best price but going to slips would up our in-house labor costs to an unacceptable level (we are very understaffed) and holding for a U.S. edition would send our faculty into fits due to the question of timely access. Anyone resolved this yet? Two more points: 1) OSU returns dups to the approval vendor. Before budget constraints set in, our returns with most plans hovered around 8% with about 1/3 of those being returns due to the U.S./U.K. problem, dups of titles firm ordered, and received through other means (e.g. monographic series on continuation not yet blocked with approval vendor). 2) Speed and fulfillment rate getting U.K. titles through U.S. vendor and vice versa was not acceptable in our experience. I realize we all want to save money but aren't some services worth paying for? We toyed with the idea of not displaying dups to collection managers, just returning them, but they seem to want a second chance. In response to Janet Flowers' question about belles lettres on approval, OSUL attempts to collect one copy of each first edition of American fiction exclud- ing the genres of romantic, fantasy, western, and devotional fiction. Yes, we buy sci/fi and detective novels as well as the "real" stuff. Baker & Taylor handles this profile well although we quibble about nationality of some few authors. We are pleased with the first printings we get. These are a part of our Charvat Collection of American fiction and are non-circulating. We save Styron and Stephen King for posterity. If anyone would like more info. they can contact me directly at (614) 292-6314. Using our e-mail system is too cumbersome for long messages. Christian--you have created an e-mail monster -- no one will ever get access to this shared pc again! ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE *****