ACQNET v2n012 (February 2, 1992) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/serials/stacks/acqnet/acq-v2n012 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 12, February 2, 1992 ======================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Lyman Newlin (17 lines) (2) FROM: Ian Nelson SUBJECT: Serials-to-monographs ratio, budgeting (51 lines) (3) FROM: Lawrence Caylor SUBJECT: Edward Hamilton Bookseller (9 lines) (4) FROM: Margaret Axtmann SUBJECT: Firm order returns (21 lines) (5) FROM: Stephen Marine SUBJECT: Request for discussion topics, ALA, San Francisco (13 lines) (6) FROM: Rachel Miller SUBJECT: Security strips (12 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 16:14:31 EST From: Christian Subject: Lyman Newlin I talked with Lyman today. He sounded pretty good. He and his family have temporarily moved to a house on the same block as their house. It is a very nice house, he said, and he was grateful to be able to be there. He called me to talk about what to do with his books, many of which were saved although they are wet. I put him in touch with John Dean, our Conservation Librarian, who is one of the foremost experts in the field. John immediately set out to find one of the two mobile conservation units which he knows are in the area so that Lyman could get immediate help. Lyman is aware that a lot of people are concerned for him, and he very much appreciates this. I know that he would like to hear from others. You may write to him directly at: P.O. Box 278, Lewiston, NY 14092. (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 10:43 CST From: Ian C.Nelson Subject: Ratio of Serials to Books Regarding William Meneely's query, at the University of Saskatchewan the method of categorizing the 'mix' (i.e. what is included in serials) is the same. We have a broad university program which includes a number of professional colleges (including Health Sciences, Law, Veterinary Medicine, Commerce, Education, Engineering, et al.). In overall terms we would like to achieve a 60:40 ratio but haven't been at that level for over a decade. We have gone as far as 80:20, but most recently have hovered around the 66:34 or 67:33 mark. With the volatility of serial prices, I feel that 80:20 is just too dangerous-- in fact about 5 years ago when we were at this level, the market really threatened to wipe out our book budget within a year or two if we were to maintain our subscriptions. This would have been quite unacceptable to the humanities and social sciences of course. Fortunately Librarians and Faculty were able to rally around the issue and our University Administration responded with an enlightened move to index the library for a set number of serials subscriptions and the acquisition of a certain number of monographs -- what was established as a norm for our institu- tion. The market and our own management of acquisitions made this a reasonably comfortable arrangement for the initial years (we were even able to move to electronic formats for a healthy number of reference tool subscriptions), and we even 'handed back' funds to the University in years where the indexed figures were achieved under the estimated budget. Unfortunately we were not able to have our indexed base increase to a more realistic level (given our mix of disciplines) during this 'period of comfort'. Because of the crisis we had encountered with an 80:20 mix, we had been able to pull up our monograph budgets somewhat parallel to serials (although our indexing hinged upon numbers of acquisitions of course). This year we've experienced the same serials stress as everyone, which is currently threatening our index arrangement with the Board of Governors. Fortunately our management of book acquisitions is allowing us to have a 'net' effect in acquisitions which is less alarming, BUT we are in effect back to some very vigorous re-examination of the worth particularly of expensive serials and serials which have increased dramatically in price. The bottom line is, of course, the dollar: even if some journals are giving more issues, thicker issues and arguably more information for that alarming increase in price. The crunch there is that this 'additional information' is not in a discrete form which we can choose to receive or not; it is squeezed into what looks like a stable base of subscriptions!! All this to say that although extremely few of our disciplines actually have a ratio of serials: monographs of 60:40 (Chemistry for example is 93:7), for the overall mix of our program and for 'safety', we keep striving for 60:40. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 12:02:05 -0500 From: Lawrence Caylor Subject: E. Hamilton Edward Hamilton has a great catalog, but is difficult to work with. He will send an invoice which can be use to prepay the bill. If prepayment is not an option, then contact Nicholas Books in Williamstown, MA, explain what you want, and they will handle the transaction in a more normal fashion. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 13:05:59 EST From: Margaret Axtmann Subject: Returns I'd like to hear some discussion of personal philosophy and/or library policy on the topic of returning items received on a firm order. My personal philoso- phy has always been that returns should only be requested in rare instances -- unintentional duplicates, materials ordered in error, materials that do not match the bibliographic or narrative descriptions gleaned from selection tools, etc. When vendors get a certain amount of our business, they are usually willing to accept a small number of returns. Now I'm working in a library where selectors review all new books before they are processed and have the opportunity to change their minds about their selections. It seems to me that we have an unnaceptable rate of return, though I'm still trying to gather the statistics on that. Is there an acceptable rate of return on firm orders? Does it depend on the library's relationship with the vendor? Should our primary concern be ethics, economics, or expediency? (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 10:53 EST From: Stephen Marine Subject: Request for discussion topic The chair and vice-chair of the ALCTS Automated Acquisitions/In-Process Control Systems Discussion Group are considering topics for the group's meeting in San Francisco this summer. If you have suggestions, please contact Stephen Marine (chair) at: phone: (513) 556-5880 Bitnet: marine@ucbeh Internet: marine@ucbeh.san.uc.edu Some possible topics to consider include: electronic ordering, acquisitions workflow in an integrated system environment, and the potential impact of the X12 standard on automated acquisitions. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Feb 92 09:53:40 CST From: Rachel B. Miller Subject: Security strips We have a question about security strips: Is placing security strips in books and serials a task that libraries tend to do immediately on receipt in Acquisi- tions, or later in processing? In our library this step takes place in Cataloging. We are considering whether it should occur earlier, for improved security, and would appreciate hearing from other libraries on their experi- ence. If you strip books immediately on receipt, has it had any effect on your ability to return them to vendors? Please respond to: Rachel Miller, Universi- ty of Kansas (rmiller@ukanvm). ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 12 ****** END OF FILE *******