ACQNET v2n039 (March 19, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n039 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 39, March 19, 1992 ====================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Library school students: Where are you? (28 lines) (2) FROM: Martin Cohen SUBJECT: Academic Book Center survey (21 lines) (3) FROM: Ann O'Neill SUBJECT: Academic Book Center survey (20 lines) (4) FROM: Peter Stevens SUBJECT: Academic Book Center survey (15 lines) (5) FROM: Gay Dannelly SUBJECT: Academic Book Center survey (35 lines) (6) FROM: Alex Bloss SUBJECT: ALCTS Preconference on Electronic Data Interchange and the Library (27 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: March 19, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Library school students: Where are you? A couple of months ago I signed up a whole class of library school students from the University of Kentucky College of Library and Information Science plus a couple from some other places. That got a bunch of us excited. Considering how much we had been crabbing over the years about library education, the lack of a meaningful relationship between technical services practitioners and library educators, having students to talk to through ACQNET seemed like a great improvement. Except that we're not talking. Why? Various possibilities come to mind: The students are too busy learning to become information scientists rather than librarians; we simply aren't as interesting as we think we are; we worry about little picayune things like fill rates, discounts, and who uses this or that vendor and they're trying to understand document delivery in the library of the future; they are a particularly bland crop of students and they really have nothing to say; they think that we are so fantastic that they can't possibly measure up and are considering career changes; and so on .... The problem is, if we are serious about how great acquisitions work is, we need to ensure that the work continues after we are gone. For that we need to present a good case for our existence to our putative successors. So, how about it, dear students? What kind of a case are we building here? We really would like to know. (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday, 19 March 1992, 07:50:07 EST From: Martin Cohen Subject: Academic Book Center Survey You can add me to the list of those who objected to the survey; in fact, I trashed it and sent nothing. For one thing, this sort of comparison might be OK for soap powder (and I'm not sure whether it's OK for soap powder either), but is unethical for vendor services, where a lot of details are the subject of individual negotiation. For another, my reply would have got back to them with, of course, a Canadian stamp on the envelope; and the Canadian library world is small enough, and has a good enough grapevine, that it would be dead easy to identify, say, McGill on the basis of vendors used and not used, let alone dispraised. Nor do I want to commit myself to particular terms with a vendor with whom I now do only a small amount of business, but might have cause to expand that in the future. The unfortunate thing about confidentiality of surveys, despite all good intentions, is that there is ALWAYS a leak or leaks; sorry about the cynicism, but there speaks my experience. And so a word to vendors from this acquisitions librarian: send me your rep, and I'll happily say in no uncertain terms whether I like your service or not. But I will NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, tell you what I think of Ballen or BNA. I hope enough people out there share my sentiments. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 08:36 From: Ann O'Neill Subject: Academic Book Center survey I've been thinking about the recent survey that people have received from Academic Book Center (I have not seen it) and am trying to decide if such a practice is ethical and I was somewhat ambivalent about my feelings. Reading the responses this morning has helped to clear my thinking. I know the people at Academic from dealing with them at the University of California at Riverside and talking to them at various conferences. I have always found them to be honest and open, but also unwilling to "gossip" about the competition. My belief is that if they say this is confidential, they will keep it this way. In these tough times this seems a reasonable way to find out how to improve their services. The world of jobbers is small, and I'm sure every vendor has an idea of the services their competitors offer, this is just a way to find out what customers think of their own and others services. My concerns over ethics dealt with discounts, and Joe Barker's approach seems to be the best. It is up to each librarian to decide how much information to provide. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 12:57:48 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Stevens Subject: Academic Book Center survey Since I take a somewhat different viewpoint than that of my peers on ACQNET, let me contribute my two cents' worth. I filled out that survey as completely as I could. We aggressively pursue discount here and make vendor assignments for domestic publishers from a list I maintain of about 600 publishers, each with a vendor code assigned plus the discount that vendor provides. Using this list, we average about 17% discount on domestic firm orders to our six main US vendors (after shipping costs). Each new edition of this list is shared with the vendors on the list, plus any vendor who wishes to be a part of this list -- so this list is pretty public a document. Using this list allows us to buy more books with our monograph budget since we maintain such a high average discount. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:20 EST From: Gay N. Dannelly Subject: Academic Book Center survey It is my contention that both vendors and libraries, and the librarians who represent them in purchasing/leasing arrangements, have an ethical responsibil- ity to each other. Part of this responsibility is to communicate regularly and honestly about both the good things and the bad things that happen in such a working arrangement. This includes the library's budget situation, the vendor's changes in staff support of their operations and similar issues. It is also my opinion that, in general, specific information about any vendor's services or activities should be between the library and the vendor. In vendor evaluation studies that are shared between libraries or are published, I prefer that vendor names be masked. This is not because I think the information is "secret" but because there are always individual operational idiosyncracies that impact such studies and that these are seldom adequately represented in the finished product. Certainly we all share some information of this type on an informal basis, but to provide it in a public forum calls for much more careful analysis and presentation. In this particular situation, I do not find the provision of specific informa- tion about a specific vendor to another vendor to be an appropriate profession- al communication. It would be more helpful, I think, for the respondent to such a survey to identify a variety of services or capabilities that are of value to the library, but not identify them by the vendor supplying them. In addition, there may be legal implications that are not apparent. I would also remind ACQNET readers of the general outrage at a request for information on serials cancellation programs purportedly coming from an independent survey organization and the outcry when the sponsoring organization was identified. In this case, Academic Book Center is certainly up front about their desire for information, but I am dismayed that they are, as represented in the ACQNET request for assistance, asking for specific information about other vendors and asking that these other vendors be identified by name. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 March 1992 09:43:39 CST From: Alex Bloss Subject: Electronic Data Interchange Joe Santosuosso's response to Meta Nissley's question on electronic order confirmation gives me the happy opportunity to promote an ALCTS preconference (at which Joe will speak) on "Electronic Data Interchange and the Library." The preconference is scheduled for June 25 in San Francisco. It will feature public, corporate and academic librarians who are (or will be) using EDI, and automation and materials vendors who are developing and providing EDI. Participants will gain an understanding of EDI and ASC X12 and their relevance to library applications; learn how EDI standards are being developed and implemented; analyze the current situation and future trends; and become aware of how important the interdependency of libraries, automation vendors, and materials vendors really is. A vast number of representatives from vendors, subscription agencies, and automation vendors will be there to speak and to demonstrate their services. Registration fees will be $105 for ALCTS members and members of BISG, DISA, and NISO, who are co-sponsoring the program. For ALA personal members, it will be $140, and non-ALA members $175. A special $10 discount will be given to people who also register for the preconference "Implementing USMARC Format Integra- tion" being offered the next day, Friday June 26. For further information and registration forms, interested parties may contact the ALCTS Office, e-mail U47209@UICVM, or call 800-545-2433, ext 5032. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 39 ****** END OF FILE *******