Email list hosting service & mailing list manager


Re: Cease claiming, checking in, binding (Diane Westerfield) Rick Anderson 20 Jan 2010 15:22 UTC

>   When eliminating check-in and claiming, how do institutions handle the
> following problems:   a) Delayed publication titles - the titles that get
> behind and then when they resume publication, the publisher doesn't send you
> the issues you already paid for.  How will you know to claim the issues?

Good question.  The answer will depend on the cost and importance of the
title in question.  If it's an expensive and heavily-used title, then it
probably makes sense to control it more closely than if it's a cheap,
low-use title.  The best approach might be to approach your journal list
with a no-check-in/no-claiming assumption, and then make exceptions only as
needed.  But remember that the staff time spent in carefully monitoring any
journal is time that can't be spent doing something else -- and if there's
another activity that would serve patrons better than they'll be served by
minimizing the risk of missing an issue, then that other activity is what
you should do.  The purpose of the journal collection is not to be complete;
its purpose is to serve patrons.

> What about art journals which are frequently stolen, and whose online
> equivalents are often missing illustrations for copyright reasons?
> Illustrations that are in the print version may show up as blank boxes in the
> online version.  They will come out as bad B&W scans via ILL (assuming the
> interested patron has time to wait)

Same answer.  If your patrons' needs are such that the print version of a
particular journal is the best or only way to meet them, and if the journal
is at high risk of mutilation or loss, then you need to get that journal in
print and take good care of it.  (Of course, if the risk of mutilation or
loss is that high, you shouldn't be storing it on open shelving.)

The argument against check-in and claiming is not an argument for every
library to do everything the same way with every title.  It's an argument
for being careful and rational about cost, benefit, and risk rather than
doctrinaire about the sacredness of completeness and control.

--
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dir. for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library
Univ. of Utah
rick.anderson@utah.edu
(801) 721-1687