ACQNET v1n137 (December 16, 1991) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v1n137 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 1, No. 137, December 16, 1991 ========================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (13 lines) (2) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: ACQNET delivery errors (15 lines) (3) FROM: Janet Flowers SUBJECT: ACQNET's silent members (16 lines) (4) FROM: Janet Flowers SUBJECT: The Challenge (12 lines) (5) FROM: Georgina Sorrentino SUBJECT: Paperbacks vs. hardcovers (24 lines) (6) FROM: Nancy Knipe SUBJECT: Paperbacks vs. hardcovers (7 lines) (7) FROM: Donna Signori SUBJECT: Paperbacks vs. hardcovers (13 lines) (8) FROM: Sheila Mangum SUBJECT: Paperbacks vs. hardcovers (35 lines) (9) FROM: Miriam Palm SUBJECT: Oxford University Press recall (11 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: December 16, 1991 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Randall J. Snyder Law Librarian U.S. Dept. of State, Office of the Legal Adviser E-mail: RJSDOS@GWUVM.BITNET Jeanne Brown Architecture Librarian University of Nevada - Las Vegas Library E-mail: JEANNEB@NEVADA2.BITNET (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 12:51:15 EST From: Christian Subject: ACQNET delivery errors I have received a message which suggested that some subscribers whom I reach through ALANET either did not receive Vol. 1:136, or received a truncated issue. This would be mostly, if not exclusively, vendor subscribers. Unfortu- nately that message was garbled so I'm not sure who was affected. Rather than re-sending the issue to everybody, if you subscribe through ALANET and you had a problem with no. 136, let me know and I'll re-send it to you. You'll know you had a problem because either you didn't get the issue or you received an issue which didn't have the following end-of-file marker: ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 1, No. 136 ****** END OF FILE ******* (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 16:27 EST From: Janet L. Flowers Subject: Acqnet at One Year Congratulations on a successful first year! I, as one of the silent majority, would like to write about the influence ACQNET has had upon me. I have always wondered if other acquisitions librarians spend their days like me dealing with local matters. It was reassuring to hear that Christian might have two operating modes also. Often I find that I do not act upon the good intentions set while at a conference. ACQNET has served as a reminder that I belong to a speciality within a profession and am not just a generic office manager. I have been silent this past year because my department was automated and I just did not have time to respond. Many issues struck a chord however, either because they were problems we have had or concerns we share. I feel much closer to the ACQNET community just from reading the comments. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 16:30 EST From: Janet L. Flowers Subject: The Challenge Regarding what our profession needs most, I would suggest that we need to talk more with professionals in other areas, such as telecommunications, marketing, or business. We need fresh perspectives on the issues facing the information communities. Some of these other professions are also managing information resources. Perhaps we can glean strategies or join forces with them. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 11:39 EDT From: Georgina Sorrentino Subject: Barbara Swetman's Question RE Paperback vs. Hardcover The following statement appears in our library's Collection Development Policy: As a rule hardbound editions are purchased because they are more durable. However, if there is a significant difference in price, a paperback may be ordered. Other considerations in choosing paperback editions include the following: -A hardbound edition is unavailable. -The title is of narrow interest and not likely to circulate frequently. -The title is of highly ephemeral interest or will likely become outdated after a relatively short period of time. In practice "significant difference in price" is a judgment call that is made as needed. The likelihood of low circulation or outdating of publications is most often made known to us by the faculty member requesting the title. Some academic departments have indicated a preference for paperbacks since we are not a research library and retaining dated material for historical research is not a priority. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 09:45 MST From: Nancy Knipe Subject: Paperbacks vs. hardcovers Although any determination may be arbitrary, unless hardbound is specifically requested, we order paper when the price for hard is twice or more the cost of paper. (7) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 09:52:28 PST From: Donna Signori Subject: Paperbacks vs. hardcovers Lucky you to be able to afford purchasing hardcover titles! We noted as well sometime ago that the prices between the two, especially the British and German titles, could vary significantly. It now costs us about $11.00 CDN to bind our titles by a local binder (far too much, but we're looking into a cheaper one). Therefore our guideline is to purchase paperback when the difference is over $11.00, in otherwords it's cheaper (in price only) to bind it ourselves. This is the guideline I have given my subject selectors. If you try to predict the use a book may receive it begins to be too tedious and very subjective. Hope this helps. (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 10:33:05 LCL From: Sheila Mangum Subject: Paperbacks vs. Hardcovers Financial necessity forced us to begin selectively substituting paperbacks for hardbacks some time ago. Double or triple price differences as well as inferior bindings of many cloth editions were also factors in our decision. Our main targets were titles we felt were really overpriced, e.g. $60 cloth vs. $25 paper editions. Our approval profile has a $40/book price limit (with a few exceptions) for automatic shipment; everything higher comes on a form. After selecting from the forms we check availability of paper editions. If there's a $10+ differ- ence we annotate the selection form with the revised ISBN & "PA" before returning it to our vendor (Ballen) who has agreed to supply these editions on request. For us, those publishers most often switched have been Cambridge, Oxford, SUNY Albany, Princeton, Routledge & imprints distributed by Taylor & Francis. For firm order books we often substitute if the cloth price is over $30 and the paperback at least $10 cheaper. We usually don't bind paperbacks until they've been used enough to need it. Odds show us that many will never be used at all. During the last few years I've noticed that more and more of the paperbacks we've bought are printed on acid-free stock. Some of the publishers I've talked with have confirmed that the same paper stock is used for both. Part of a run may stay unbound in inventory until it's determined if it's needed for the cloth or paper edition. It's generally not cost effective for printers to change the big rolls of paper when producing the smaller runs of books targeted for the academic market. Our preservationist tells me that the initial resistance of paper plants to producing acid-free paper lessened as they discovered that their equipment lasts longer with this process and it's not more expensive to produce. As equipment wears out it's likely that more plants will make the switch. What's arising now are questions about recycled paper -- an acid-free stock can be made, but it's not as strong as regular acid-free paper. (9) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 16:42:17 PST From: MIRIAM PALM Subject: Oxford University Press recall What does anyone know about the intriguing message this morning on OCLC about OUP wanting (actually, demanding) a particular book be returned to them?? If you haven't seen it, they are asking all owners of Paul Murphy's _The Shaping of the First Amendment_ (cloth ISBN 109-505556-X; paper ISBM 019-5055578) returned to them; it's being "recalled"! We have pulled it from our stacks and it's sitting in my office awaiting further information; I don't have enough to go on at this time to feel like sending it back to them. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 1, No. 137 ****** END OF FILE *******