ACQNET v2n022 (February 16, 1992) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/serials/stacks/acqnet/acq-v2n022 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 22, February 16, 1992 ========================================= (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (8 lines) (2) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: New ACQNET directories have been sent (18 lines) (3) FROM: Carol Hawks SUBJECT: _LAPT_ Research Award reminder (9 lines) (4) FROM: Jeffry Larson SUBJECT: French library suppliers directory (15 lines) (5) FROM: Marsha Hamilton SUBJECT: Firm order claiming (27 lines) (6) FROM: Jim Logue SUBJECT: Library education (17 lines) (7) FROM: Kathryn Henderson SUBJECT: Library education, acquisitions education (16 lines) (8) FROM: Carol Hawks SUBJECT: Ross Atkinson's "Acquisitions Librarians as Change Agents ..." (20 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: February 16, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today William W. Wan Martin Cohen Coordinator for Technical Services Head, Acquisitions Dept. Texas Woman's University Library McGill University Library E-mail: S_WAN@TWU.BITNET E-mail: COHEN@LIB1.LAN.MCGILL.CA (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: February 16, 1992 From: Christian Subject: New ACQNET directories have been sent Earlier today I sent the updated ACQNET directories to everybody. They come in three parts: Part 1 is the alphabetical listing by last name. It is the only one that includes each subscriber's complete address and numbers. Part two is the listing by e-mail address. I often use this one as I often received unsigned messages with the e-mail address in the header providing the only way to identify the senders. Part three is a geographical listing. I don't use it much but I find it interesting to see where we all are. Maybe some of you will as well. Part 1 is the longest and may get hung up in some systems. I know of only one subscriber who will not be able to get it for sure. If you don't get it, before asking me to send it again, please make sure that there is room for it on your disk. I will not resend returned directories unless I am specifically asked for them. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 14:08 EST From: Carol P. Hawks Subject: LAPT Research Award Just a reminder that proposals for the _Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory_ Research Award are due March 15, 1992. Send proposals to: Carol Pitts Hawks, Editor, _Library Acquisitions_ 5380K Coachman Road, Columbus, OH 43220 (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Feb 1992 10:15:49 U From: Jeffry Larson Subject: French library suppliers directory Herewith is an annotation I have drafted for the bibliographic column of the WESS Newsletter: _Biblioguide: Guide de l'acheteur a l'usage des bibliotheques et centres de documentation_. Paris: Synergie, 1990. 131 p. ISBN: 2-908533-00-6. $27.06. A directory with ads of library suppliers in France, arranged in four catego- ries: professional <>, suppliers of furniture and equipment, sources of computer ware, and materials agents, with a 4-page index. No claim to exhaustivity; e. g., Aux Amateurs de Livres is listed under antiquarian dealers, but not under book or subscription agents. A second more complete edition is promised. May prove useful if consulted with caution. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 09:31 EST From: Marsha Hamilton Subject: Claiming In response to Caleb Hanson's question about claiming... We too are an INNOVACQ library. Until recently, we had one moderate level staff position (LMTA2) devoting about half time to monographic claiming. We separate claims by priority: rush and pre-pay claims are reviewed monthly, every two months we review funds which have to be expended within a set time period. The rest of the file is reviewed every three months. Our range of when a title appears in the claims file is wide - from 90 days for a regular domestic order to 365 days for orders to mainland China or many African countries. We visually review each record in the claim file before producing a claim to insure it does not have a vendor report of "not yet published", "delay claim", etc. After two machine claims, we try to turn to phone, fax or letter. We recently lost our claims position. We are now trying to fold this responsi- bility into the four pre-order searcher positions (also LMTA2). I know my colleagues at the OSU Health Sciences and Law libraries have a much smaller volume of orders and are able to claim more frequently. We will probably review the file quarterly under our new system. This is an interesting question because we need to determine the optimum claim cycle for vendors/publishers. Many complain of being flooded with claims and yet we still miss out on materials that are reported as op before they can be supplied. (Lets not get into accuracy of vendor reports here.) Caleb may also be interested in posting this question to the INNOPAC list at Maine. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 08:44 MDT From: Jim Logue Subject: MLS or not to MLS I must agree with many of you that the MLS does provide librarians with a common basis to work from and to communicate with each other. I submit, however, that this is not necessarily a good thing. Once someone learns the rules, it is extremely difficult to break them. We are limited by the context we are given and fail to see beyond the artificial boundaries placed by a specialized education. I believe this is the key to our problem. It's time to start breaking the rules. Our research is focused on making the library work. It should rather be looking at WHY the library should work, because the answers to this are changing as fast as the technologies we use. Core principals are just as dynamic as the supporting strands of knowledge. The MLS shows us the strand, but to see the core, we require a broader multi-disciplinary view, a view an MLS program is not equipped to provide. (7) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 10:43:59 -0600 From: Kathie Henderson Subject:Library education As a new member of ACQNET and as one who teaches a course in Technical Services Functions, I was interested in the comments about library education. It seems to me that there is value in including acquisitions as a component of a general technical services course. Then the relationship of acquisitions to collection development, preservation, and cataloging can be made evident. Not just those who aspire to be acquisitions librarians need to know about the functions, practices, trends, and issues of acquisitions. An interesting trend in the enrollment in my course over the dozen years that I have taught it is the increase in the number of students who enroll who do not aspire to work in technical services but who want to work well with those in technical services. As the lines between the services blur, I find this an encouraging trend. I will encourage my students to join ACQNET to learn from each of you. (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 14:07 EST From: "Carol P. Hawks" Subject: Ross Atkinson's article My assistant director, Jennifer Younger, and I had an extended conversation this week about Ross Atkinson's most recent article. I agree with Richard Jasper that this is likely to become a seminal article in our field building on the more informal proposal from John Corbin and Irene Hoadley in _American Libraries_ in fall 1990. They recommended the combination of ILL and Acquisi- tion. I very enthusiastically support Atkinson's view of our role in the delivery process. However, I seriously question the library's role in publishing and editing. Richard Dougherty and others have espoused the position urging universities to "take back" the publication role. I doubt that this will ever come to fruition. However, it is the editing role that Atkinson suggests which cause the most serious questions in my mind. Editing requires subject exper- tise and the credentials to make that editing acceptable to potential authors. I strongly believe that acquisitions professional have the wherewithal to do almost anything we set our minds to. However, I doubt that we could ever become the editors in a traditional sense. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 22 ****** END OF FILE *******