ACQNET v1n131 (December 3, 1991) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v1n131 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 1, No. 131, December 3, 1991 ========================================= (1) FROM: Frank Mols SUBJECT: French language approval vendors, Touzot (15 lines) (2) FROM: Peter Stevens SUBJECT: Princeton vs. Pergamon (23 lines) (3) FROM: Gene Dewey SUBJECT: American Book Company (9 lines) (4) FROM: Ron Ray SUBJECT: Remote technical services (90 lines) (5) FROM: Joe Barker SUBJECT: _LAPT_ contents on ACQNET (18 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 91 16:08:52 ECT From: Frank Mols Subject: French Language Approval Vendor To: Christian Boissonnas Does anyone use Jean Touzot Librarie as their French language approval vendor? How do you rate their service? Here at Binghamton we have been experiencing some problems with receipts this semester. Their shipments have been very sparse--to the point where we probably will not expend the budget allocated for this vendor. Are other institutions experiencing the same decrease in receipts? Are there other French vendors with a good track record for approval plans? Can anyone comment on Aux Amateurs de Livres? Thanks in advance for any informa- tion on these topics!! (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 08:45:42 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Stevens Subject: Princeton versus Pergamon Subscribers to several lists (including SERIALST) will have already seen a copy of a letter dated 12 November 1991 from Donald Koepp (University Librarian at Princeton) to Michael Boswood (Managing Director at Pergamon) regarding what Koepp describes as Pergamon's "astounding journal price increases for 1992." The letter should be of interest to all acquisitions librarians. In it, Koepp reports that faculty from six Princeton academic departments in concert with library staff agreed to cancel sufficient Pergamon journals so that the 1992 total cost would not exceed the 1991 cost (plus an unreported inflation allowance). The result is to be a cancellation of 25% of Princeton's Pergamon subscription titles. The letter goes on to point out that this decision was not prompted by "absolute financial necessity" but by Princeton's belief that Pergamon this year exceeded the limits of what should be paid for "traditional- ly published" scientific material. A copy of Koepp's letter also went to all ARL directors, so other ARL institutions may decide to follow Princeton's lead. [The full text of Koepp's letter and 2 additional pertinent letters were included in the _Newsletter for Serial Pricing Issues_ which was published this morning (Dec. 3, 1991). For copies of the issue, send an e-mail message to the Editor, Marcia Tuttle (TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET) C.] (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 11:36 CST From: Gene Dewey Subject: Query regarding service from American Book Company We have received an advertisement from American Book Company (Authorized GPO Discount Wholesalers) in Washington, DC offering their service of obtaining GPO publications at a 10% discount. Payment in advance or a deposit account is required. Has any library used this service? How would you rate their service? (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1991 13:16 EST From: "RON L. RAY" Subject: Remote Tech Services [This past Fall I was inquiring about recently built technical services facilities. I felt that the report which Ron prepared for me would be of interest to others. He graciously acceded my request to include it in ACQNET. C.] I'll run through what I view as the advantages and disadvantages of working in a technical services building located apart from any library but, first, a bit of background: Central Technical Services at Rutgers consists of 3 operations: Acquisitions (monographic), Cataloging , and Systems, which serve eighteen Rutgers libraries located on three major campuses. Nearly 3 years ago (3/89) these departments moved (3 miles) from the basement of the largest library to a new building specifically constructed for technical services. The closest library (sciences and medicine) is about a mile distant. ADVANTAGES The most appreciated advantage is a spacious work area, free from competition for elbow room and equipment by other library departments. Furniture and equipment in the building were acquired with technical services work in mind--thus all the furniture is ergonomically suited to our extensive terminal- dependent activities. Our roomy quarters allowed us to establish a dedicated approval review area last year. Formerly, we had 3 separate approval plans coming into 3 libraries. Now our approval profile is integrated for the whole library system. The central review area here has improved coordination between selectors in different libraries, particularly for cross disciplinary subject areas. Of course when the approval area in central TS was proposed, the selectors screamed bloody murder at having to travel outside their local library to see approval books. But because we're able to provide a better facility for approval work than any of the individual libraries can, I no longer hear the gnashing of teeth outside my office that, for the first few weeks, announced the arrival of each selector. We have terminals available in the review area with better access to RLIN, e-mail, local systems, and BNA's NTO than many selectors can get in their own libraries or offices. Also, we provide excel- lent coffee. We have a spacious conference room, with state of the art networking, which makes it ideal for training sessions, as well as for meetings. We make it available to any library committee on a sign-up basis, which reduces our isolation by bringing a lot of non-tech services librarians/staff into the building. The conference room is quite popular across the library system since, being located on a less congested part of campus, we're also free from competition for parking. The building is easily accessible by the campus bus service as well. DISADVANTAGES To me the greatest frustration is not having ready access to the library collection, particularly reference and periodical materials. Of course we have our own copies of regularly used reference sources, but naturally we don't use some titles enough to cost justify having our own copies, and so will have to call or drive over to a library to look something up. Isolation from other library operations is not such a severe disadvantage with the advent of e-mail and fax. Being a scattered library system, we're all very e-mail dependent in any case (to be honest, I no longer communicate face-to- face even with catalogers whose desks are just across the room--our exchanges are 90% electronic). Rush order requests, which in the planning stages caused some concern, are easily e-mailed or faxed to Acquisitions. The real disadvantage to being remote is the loss of casual, informal contact with other staff, librarians, and patrons--in the elevator, at the catalog, in the parking lot, etc. As I said, the popularity of our conference room helps bring in some outside traffic, but technical services in general tend to be isolated (or at least perceived as such) and a remote building heightens that sense, rather than diminishing it. One other disadvantage, a minor one, is having to box up materials so they can be delivered to circulation, etc., as opposed to just wheeling them out on a booktruck. In sum though, I prefer our present setting to the accomodations any of the Rutgers library buildings could offer us. Oh, and I should make a comment about one political advantage of being in a neutral location. Before moving, central tech services was always being accused of giving favored treatment to the library where we were located (e.g. their books were ordered faster; their books were cataloged faster). Though we consciously gave each library equal treatment, it is true that librarians/staff in the same building could always walk into TS and by their physical presence get more immediate attention. Our claim that each library gets equal treatment has gained credibility with our separate location. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 12:31:17 PST From: Joe Barker Subject: _LAPT_ contents on ACQNET This dialogue has already lingered on for longer than it seems worth. We should all support the ACQNET policy to accept TOC's from any publisher. Now, if word were sent to publishers that this is the policy, we would be above reproach for commercialism or advertising -- whatever "commercialism" or "advertising" may eventually be defined as. Let's remember the point: Exchange of ideas, professional growth, information exchange. Let's not become bureaucrats unable to foster our goals because of fear of being misinterpreted somewhere. Let's not worry about who's going to volunteer or pay for the TOC's: if publishers want us to hear via this newsletter, it's up to them; if we want them to contribute, let's encourage them to do so. We could each approach someone in our favorite journal and recommend subscribing to our journal, ACQNET, if he/she doesn't already. Let's have some guts, take safe risks, and not look for problems we don't have to have. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 1, No. 131 ****** END OF FILE *******