ACQNET v1n050 (March 27, 1991) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/serials/stacks/acqnet/acq-v1n050 ACQNET, Vol 1, No. 50, March 27, 1991 ===================================== (1) FROM: Joe Barker SUBJECT: ACQNET directories (13 lines) (2) FROM: Donna Alsbury SUBJECT: ACQNET directories (8 lines) (3) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: ACQNET directories (40 lines) (4) FROM: John Saylor SUBJECT: Theft alert, SAE microfiche theft (22 lines) (5) FROM: Deana Astle SUBJECT: Pre-bound paperback monographs (17 lines) (6) FROM: Janet Flowers SUBJECT: Single source publishers (19 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 08:01:57 PST From: Joe Barker Subject: ACQNET directories The directories are long, but they are very useful. We need not only to hear from one another via ACQNET, but also to be able to reach one for less gen- eral-interest discussions. Do we want to limit what we send because some of our systems are less cumber- some to use than others? I think the real question here is: How often are the directories necessary? Maybe twice a year with a supplement when Christian thinks there's enough to report. Once we all get wired, we may need a cumula- tion updated annually. (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 09:12:05 EST From: Donna Alsbury Subject: Directory of list members While I symphatize with Ann Okerson (I would hate to have to page through every screen to receive or delete my mail), I find the directories EXTREMELY useful and wouldn't want to see them issued less frequently. Other options would be acceptable. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: March 27, 1991 From: Christian Subject: ACQNET directories I didn't really think we were going to talk about that. It seems so mundane. But they fill a need for a surprising number of people. A need that is being met, or not met as easily elsewhere by traditional sources. I wonder why. So let me say quickly what these directories mean for me, what I can, and what I can't do. I regenerate the directories weekly for my own use. We are adding members that fast. My own use means not only as ACQNET editor, but also as acquisitions librarian. It is, by far, the easiest source I have at my disposal for finding information about where you are. Not only that, it is current. It is also far easier for me to maintain than my rolodex file. What makes this possible is a little procedure which I wrote which takes the contents of my names file which I have downloaded to my PC, then creates a dBase file which I then index and manipulate to create the various listings. These I upload to the mainframe and ship them off. I could have done the same in SAS on the mainframe, but I'm better with dBase. The point is, I only have to input each member's vital statistics once. The current files reside on my mainframe minidisk. I can send them on a schedule, on demand, or both. I send them to all new members. When these people get them, they are current to the extent that they miss no more than one week's worth of new names. So, I can do practically anything you want: Send them to everybody on a twice- yearly schedule (after ALA conferences on the assumption that we'll pick up a bagful of new members as a result of the meetings), or some other schedule. For those of you who want them more frequently, you can fire off a message and request the current version whenever you want. Or whatever. I really don't care and would prefer for you to tell me. Sending these things off is the easy part. Deciding when is the hard part. I'm willing to do the easy part, but you have to do the hard part. Fair trade, right? (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Mar 91 14:01:18 From: John Saylor Subject: SAE Microfiche theft [This item is more about de-acquiring than it is about acquisitions, but I think it is important enough to be widely circulated. I urge you to check your holdings of these and similar works and ponder the implications of this message. Those of you on other networks, please pass it on. C.] On March 24, a student filing SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) Technical Papers on Microfiche in the Engineering Library at Cornell University noticed that the entire years of 1973-1989 were missing from the cabinet drawers. Since he had been filing fiche in the same collection 10 days prior to this, he notified us that 20 linear feet (200-250 lbs) of microfiche were gone. We notified public safety and I sent out a message on the internet to LIBADMIN-L as well as SCILIB-L (two online discussion groups that I thought we be interested) describing the apparent theft. Yesterday, I found that Syracuse University, after having read my internet alert checked their SAE collection and discovered they were missing 1965-1972 on microfiche. I called SAE to alert them and was told it would cost $1075/year minus a 10% discount to replace what we are missing ($16,448 for 17 years). (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 10:52 EST From: "Deana Astle" Subject: Pre-bound paperback monographs To respond to Jana Stevens's query on prebinding paperback books by a vendor, we have had very good success with this process with two of our suppliers. We were very picky about the quality of the binding and did not agree to have them supply pre-bound paperbacks until we approved the product. Both vendors now use the same binder and charge around $3.75. If the binding is defective, the vendors accept it back the same as they would any defective book. Our policy is to buy in paper when possible and prebind. The money then comes from the acquisitions funds rather than from scarce binding funds, and puts the charge where it should be as part of the cost of acquiring the book. We are satisfied with the product and feel it helps us make the best use of our scarce resources. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 08:30 EST From: "Janet L Flowers" Subject: Single source publishers An Oxford University Press representative called me recently to see if we would be interested in ordering directly from them (especially since their offices are now in Cary, NC). She was unhappy with my response that we obtained our OUP titles through an approval plan with a vendor and did not wish to order direct. She queried me as to whether I really wanted to pay more for the titles because I could get a better deal by ordering from OUP. I explained that shipments from the approval plan vendor are easier for my staff to handle because they are mainstreamed with other university press titles and contain packs with bibliographic information. She was amazed at my position and indicated that OUP was considering not supplying to vendors any more. Has anyone else had this discussion with OUP? Do others agree with my logic regarding this matter? How can we get our message across to publishers most effectively? Vendors provide a valuable service that we need! ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE *****