Re: Standard practices re: vol. numbers for combined issues or skipped issues? Skwor, Jeanette 06 Mar 2007 20:49 UTC
I agree, but would push a lttle harder for combined numbers rather than skipped. If I am expecting vol. 22, no. 1 for Jan, 2 for Feb, and Mar/April is 3, I am left with a pattern expecting the wrong numbers for the rest of the year (e.g. May #5, not 4). And yes yes yes, thank you for asking! Jeanette L. Skwor Serials Dept., Cofrin Library University of WI-Green Bay 2420 Nicolet Drive Green Bay, WI 54311-7003 "Libraries will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no libraries." Anne Herbert, The Whole Earth Catalog -----Original Message----- From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of BLACK, STEVE Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:28 AM To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Standard practices re: vol. numbers for combined issues or skipped issues? First, thank you for asking! It's refreshing to have a publisher care about our viewpoints on matters like this. Second, the most important thing is to communicate in the published issues exactly what you're doing, and to spell out what the change is and how enumeration of future issues will be affected. If numbers correspond to weeks of the year, my personal preference would be to combine the numbers, e.g. 26/27, so that no.28 still corresponds with the 28th week of the year. That's not a standard, but it would work and make sense. You will want to call it a combined issue rather than a skipped (or omitted) issue if you go that route. If you do just skip a number, have it say clearly in the issues before and after the skipped one what you did. Steve Black Reference, Serials, and Instruction Librarian Neil Hellman Library The College of Saint Rose 392 Western Ave. Albany, NY 12203 (518) 458-5494 blacks@strose.edu -----Original Message----- From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Mari Keefe Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 12:21 PM To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: [SERIALST] Standard practices re: vol. numbers for combined issues or skipped issues? Hello all- I hope this is not a repeat request and that it is an appropriate request. I did try to search the archives. This is an area outside my expertise. I have been asked to find out if there are standard practices for numbering volumes that serials engage in in when issues are combined or skipped. Right now we include a Vol. number , with No. X," where X corresponds to the week of the year. We'll be producing one combined issue this year, so we will effectively be skipping an issue. Is it standard practice to *not* skip a number, even though we're skipping an issue? How do other magazines that do double issues during the year treat this? Thank you, Mari Mari Keefe Research Manager Computerworld mari_keefe@computerworld.com Know an IT Leader? Is there someone you'd like to recommend for next year's Premier 100 IT Leaders list? Nominate that person today at http://www.computerworld.com/p100nominations08 **** Computerworld is seeking nominations for truly new and innovative corporate or consumer technologies for our third annual Horizon Awards. Click for more information: http://survey.computerworld.com/surveys/horizon07/horizon07.htm **** Computerworld is seeking to identify 40 innovative technology people to watch, under the age of 40. Nominations information here: http://survey.computerworld.com/surveys/40under40/40under40.htm **** Want to be notified about next year's Best Places to Work in IT program? Email me at mari_keefe@computerworld.com I'll put you on my alerts list! **** Find information about all Computerworld's Editorial Research Projects and Awards at http://www.computerworld.com/html/research