Statistics for electronic resources (2 messages) Marcia Tuttle 26 Oct 2000 13:39 UTC
----------(1) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:40:52 -0400 From: "Thompson, Jane (THOMPSJL)" <THOMPSJL@UCMAIL.UC.EDU> To: SEREDIT@LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: Statistics for elec. resources (Donnice Cochenour) We do not count volumes of electronic journals, only the title itself. Our volume count is generated by your method, plus a count of what we call "pre-bound continuations," which are things like the Medical Clinics of N.A. I certainly would not count the vols of electronic journals--they are too slippery. Jane Thompson Journals Collection Development Librarian University of Cincinnati Health Sciences Library thompsjl@ucmail.uc.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:14:05 -0600 From: Donnice Cochenour <dcocheno@manta.library.ColoState.EDU> Subject: statistics for elec. resources In a recent local review of how we are counting "volumes held" for our print collection, the discussion was raised about counting volumes for electronic journals. I would like to know if others are including volume counts for their electronic subscriptions (i.e. JSTOR titles or IDEAL-Academic Press titles). We currently count active and inactive subscriptions by title and volume counts are generated by our binding process. So these electronic-only titles are not being counted at the "volumes held" level. My Asst. Dean has asked me to query other libraries to see how they are handling this issue. Thanks in advance for any/all responses. Donnice Donnice Cochenour Serials Librarian Colorado State University Libraries Ft.Collins, CO 80523-1019 Voice (970) 491-1821 Fax (970) 491-4611 Internet: dcocheno@manta.library.colostate.edu ----------(2) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:07:51 -0400 From: Frank Sadowski <fsadowski@RCL.LIB.ROCHESTER.EDU> Subject: Re: Statistics for elec. resources (Donnice Cochenour) I basically agree with the principle implied in your statement: "volume counts are generated by our binding process. So these electronic-only titles are not being counted at the 'volumes held' level." This is basically how we count them. The volumes held count is an "item count" = how many pieces are on the shelves. To add in a pseudo-volume count for electronic resources would mean changing the volume count to a "bibliographic volumes to which our patrons have access" count -- quite a different thing. Just think what that would mean for those titles where each bibliographic volume is bound in multiple physical volumes or where several bibliographic volumes are bound in one physical volume. This is akin to the volume equivalent count for microforms. The volume count which one reports to ARL, etc. IMHO should remain the number of physical pieces one actually owns, and electronic-only titles should remain separate. ------------------------- Frank E. Sadowski Jr. Head, Catalog Department River Campus Libraries University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627-0055