ACQNET v2n044 (March 26, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n044 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 44, March 26, 1992 ====================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (18 lines) (2) FROM: JoAnne Deeken SUBJECT: Budget formulae (12 lines) (3) FROM: Hannah King SUBJECT: Vendor performance, discounts, ethics (12 lines) (4) FROM: Lynn Brown SUBJECT: Pre-publication orders (11 lines) (5) FROM: Barbara Nelson SUBJECT: Pre-publication orders (17 lines) (6) FROM: Barbara Nelson SUBJECT: Purchase requests (28 lines) (7) FROM: Heather Miller SUBJECT: Purchase requests (11 lines) (8) FROM: Mitzi Williams SUBJECT: Acquisitions education (26 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: March 26, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today John W. Heaton Acquisitions Librarian Appalachian State University E-mail: HEATONJW@APPSTATE.BITNET Jeanne-Elizabeth Combs Database Services Coordinator PALINET E-mail: PALINET@DUVM Stephanie Edwards Acquisitions Department University of Pennsylvania Law Library E-mail: SEDWARDS@OYEZ.LAW.UPENN.EDU (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 16:20 EST From: JoAnne Deeken Subject: Allocation formulae Clemson University is in the process of reconsidering its present allocation formula. I would like to have examples of other library's formulae. While copies of formulae from any library would be appreciated, those from research institutions would be of the greatest help. If you could send copies of your library's formula directly to me, I'll summarize the types of items included for the list. If you would like to mail them to me, please call at (803) 656-1114 and I'll provide my mail and fax addresses. Thanks in advance for all your help. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 07:44 EDT From: Hannah King Subject: Vendor performance, discounts, ethics Why do we consider sharing information on vendor discounts to be unethical? Why are we so hesitant to publicly rate vendor performance? If a library has information that reflects negatively on a vendor or vendors, why should that be kept secret? Certainly, products are rated in public forums. The New York _Times_ business section reports on the personnel, financial and legal prob- lems, and the "coups" of businesses to help people and organizations make better investments. Only librarians and subscription vendors appear to make reticence about service and performance a sign of high moral character. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 09:24 EST From: Lynne Branche Brown Subject: Ordering NYP books I agree with Martin Cohen about ordering books that are not yet published. Send the order to a vendor, and let them monitor the publication's status. You can review the order as part of your regular claiming process for unfilled orders. I would also only return the request to the selector if the vendor eventually responded that the publication was abandoned. It's not their job to monitor publication status, but they may want to know that it is never going to come. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE: 26 MAR 1992 09:53 -06 FROM: Barbara K. Nelson SUBJECT: Pre-publication orders We try not to order books that we know will not be published for some time. We don't spend a great deal of time ascertaining the due date, but the OCLC record for CIP items gives some clue. Sometimes the blurb will contain that informa- tion as well. We occasionally load a record into NOTIS, set an Action Date for 6-8 months to check OCLC to see if there are holdings yet. Then the requestor knows we are dealing with the order. When the budget is tight we pay closer attention to this than otherwise especially for books which cost over $75-$100. Sometimes we don't know that the book will be delayed and order it anyway. We claim it a few times and if it still is not published a year or so later, we cancel the order. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE: 26 MAR 1992 09:53 -06 FROM: Barbara K. Nelson SUBJECT: Purchase requests We used to require submission of an 8 1/2 x 11 request form. This size gave us a great deal of flexibility and encouraged the requestor to give more informa- tion that might have been possible on a 3 x 5 card. They often attached the catalog or a copy of the blurb to the back of the form. Once our Collection Development librarians in our reference departments gained access to OCLC, they wanted to submit an OCLC printout instead of typing orders. Since this made good sense, we developed a 2"x 4" stamp which was given to each department. This included spaces for essential information. They have used this since then for everything except those titles not on OCLC; for these they send one of the regular 8 1/2 x 11 forms. Requests from faculty still come on 8 1/2 x 11 forms and go to the Collection Development librarians who have a preliminary OCLC search made and send the printout stapled to the request to Acquisitions. (Our staff does all the final pre-order verification.) This has worked very well. We never really had much problem getting people to submit standardized requests. When orders were sent directly to Acquisitions from the faculty, improper requests were sent back to that department's book chairman who had them typed. Some orders may go to the Collection Development people from faculty who haven't filled out the form, but they never send us anything that way. The only exception is an occasional out-of-print book catalog. (7) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 08:40 EST From: Heather Miller Subject: Purchase requests I'd like to second Pamela Rose's comments on transferring order requests to an automated system AND using and keeping that system's paper output in order to record searching information, etc. We have done almost exactly the same thing since we automated using the Geac system in 1986. We are now about to go to a new system and our bid specifications require a similar paper output. We have discussed living without it, but do not feel we can do so. The uniformity it imposes and the historical record it provides are essential. (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 14:05:16 EST From: Mitzi Russell Williams Subject: Acquisitions Education I am enrolled in Miko Pattie's Technical Services class at the University of Kentucky. Reading ACQNET has been very informative for me. The College of Library and Information Science at UK does not offer a separate course in Acquisitions. I will be making a class presentation and argue that a separate class would be beneficial. (My college work study assignment was in the Acquisitions Department and I loved it when the new books came in!) From participants in ACQNET who have had a separate Acquisitions course, I would like to receive comments on what they learned practically that was useful in their job. I am also interested in what was not included in their course that would have been helpful to them. Did their class include a lot of lecture information that has not proved useful? From participants in ACQNET who have not had a separate Acquisitions course, I would like to receive comments on what they wish they had known prior to starting a job as an acquisitions librarian. I would also be interested if acquisitions librarians think part of the class should be "on the job." Would acquisitions students be helpful paraprofession- als to you while providing them with valuable practical training? Input I acquire from this will be used and appreciated! Thank you! ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 44 ****** END OF FILE *******