ACQNET v2n037 (March 17, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n037 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 37, March 17, 1992 ====================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (13 lines) (2) FROM: David Block SUBJECT: Fernando Garcia Cambeiro (12 lines) (3) FROM: Thyra Russell SUBJECT: Publishers' catalogs (16 lines) (4) FROM: Donna Signori SUBJECT: Publishers' catalogs (23 lines) (5) FROM: Meta Nissley SUBJECT: Electronic orders (14 lines) (6) FROM: David Marshall SUBJECT: Replacement charges (12 lines) (7) FROM: David Marshall SUBJECT: Ordering staff productivity (20 lines) (8) FROM: Janet Flowers SUBJECT: Ordering staff productivity, purchase order production (15 lines) (9) FROM: Nancy Stanley SUBJECT: Vendor surveys (16 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: March 17, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Janice Lynn Flug Head, Acquisitions Department The American University Library E-mail: JFLUG@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU Marilyn Ruth Wenzel Assistant Librarian Concordia University E-mail: CRFWENZELMR@CRF.CUIS.EDU (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 08:50:31 EST From: David Block Subject: Fernando Garcia Cambeiro There is a recent posting on concerning Garcia Cambeiro (the Argentine vendor's) change of address. The new U.S. address is: Fernando Garcia Cambeiro, Box 014 Skyway USA, 7331 N.W. 35 St., Miami, FL 33122. This is, of course, an address of convenience. The bookseller remains at Cochabamba 244, 1150 Buenos Aires, Argentina Phone (541)361-0473 FAX (541)361-0493. [Thanks to Scott Wicks, Gene Dewey, and Marsha Clark who also sent in Garcia Cambeiro's new US address. C.] (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 11:18:51 CDT From: Thyra Russell Subject: Publishers' Catalogs Here is an answer to the question on publishers' catalogs. The library at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale is a divisional library. We send catalogs on specific subjects to the head of each division. Multi-subject catalogs are routed and then returned to us and either filed or tossed. We do not keep sale catalogs on file. We do, however, keep an active file (alpha- betically by publisher) of "selected" American and a few foreign publishers. This file usually contains the publisher's "complete catalog," not individual brochures (although those are sometimes kept). This file is weeded when a new catalog arrives or at least on an annual basis. We use the publishers' catalog file as a last resort for pre-publication information but they are occasionally used to answer a reference question from public service librarians or telephone inquiries. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 12:43:30 PST From: Donna Signori Subject: Publishers' catalogs With the introduction of subject selector librarians, our once easy method of distribution by geographic origin became something of a nightmare. Since our assumption of serials selection as well we now receive all the blurbs for serials as well. I am ever trying to refine and reduce the amount we circu- late. My personal view on the serials catalogues is that the single blurbs should be thrown away and only the major publishers' annual catalogues retained for referral use only. We receive Blackwell's new serials printouts, Swets printouts and have access to Ebsconet on-line which includes new titles on a regular basis. Of the catalogues which are multi-disciplinary we have reduced circulation to those listing Canadian titles or from Canadian publishers. These are used primarily for pre-publication awareness. We also circulate all small press stuff, and out of country ones as well. We agreed that subject specific catalogues and blurbs should continue to be sent out to selectors. We retain a major publishers file of several pamphlet boxes (these always need weeding). Any blurbs and catalogues which accompany the orders are filed by Acquisitions. I would like to reduce this considerably, but staff time is the problem. These are our latest guidelines, admittedly not perfect but some guidelines anyway. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Mar 92 13:48:20 U From: Meta Nissley Subject: Electronic orders Spurred by Christian's comments that he reviews outstanding orders for claiming purposes, I took a look at our list recently. I had naively assumed that the process of review had continued during my sabbatical leave; it did not. I have now discovered a number of interesting problems to solve, but one which is new to me. In April of 1991 we transmitted 25 orders electronically to a vendor and they have since turned up on the outstanding orders claims list. Upon further investigation, the orders were apparently never received by the vendor although there appeared to be no difficulty from our end in transmitting them. What I would like to know from others is, what sort of check system do you use to guarantee the vendor receives electronically transmitted orders? (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 15:51 EST From: David Marshall Subject: Replacement charges The policy for lost book charges at Georgetown is set by the Circulation Department. The prices are updated annually using the Bowker Annual index of current book prices. Therefore, the replacement price varies following the macro breakdown of the LC classification schedule. To this cost is added a $25 processing fee. The Circulation Dept. informs me that there is no written policy on charging for damaged material. Decisions are made on a case by case basis. (7) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 16:31 EST From: David Marshall Subject: Ordering staff productivity I would like to send up a warning flag on this subject. To those using the information coming forth make sure that you are not comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. I was very impressed with the figures Peter Stevens presented for a GEAC site. We are a GEAC site also. Here the work flow must be organized radically different [I hope!] - we count searches completed, not just orders input, and still only average 570 per month. The full-time searchers even fall considerably below that mark. It is the high output of our student assistants that brings the average up. They of course do the quickly eliminated or easily added requests. We have no positions that just input. Our staff do full searching on and off-line. They have other duties to alleviate terminal torture including library wide committee work. While we have no written guidelines at this time, but probably should, I would still want to know the duties assigned the "same" position in another library before adopting or adapting their guidelines. (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 09:14 EST From: Janet L Flowers Subject: Order Production I have followed the comments about order production with interest. When we implemented Innopac last May, we found keying to be a challenge because we had always photocopied the request. We have picked up speed finally and are now averaging 180 orders per day. I have two other questions about order produc- tion. What use do others make of students for this task? How well does it work? I also want to know how much revision of the orders is done (on-line and the purchase order itself). We revise all firm orders before releasing them for printing. We also scan the purchase orders quickly to catch glaring problems, such as the wrong vendor assigned. We have found that the more accurate the information, the fewer problems we have with receiving, claiming, and paying. What to the rest of you do? (9) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 10:33 EST From: Nancy Stanley Subject: Vendor Survey We recently received from Academic Book Center a two-page survey asking for our impressions of 1) what we think are appropriate discounts and charges for firm order services, 2) how we rate Academic's various services, and 3) how Academic's services compare with specifically named vendors who provide same or similar services. The cover letter and the survey instrument clearly indicate that our responses will be handled anonymously and the information will be strictly for internal use guaranteeing no public release of this survey. This is the first survey that we have seen where one vendor requests informa- tion about other specifically named vendors' services. Given Academic's assurance of anonymity, etc., are there any ethical concerns about this survey? ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 37 ****** END OF FILE *******