ACQNET v2n066 (June 18, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n066 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 66, June 18, 1992 ===================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (13 lines) (2) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: ACQNET suspended for five weeks (9 lines) (3) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: Acquisina (18 lines) (4) FROM: Katy Ginanni SUBJECT: Revolving door in acquisitions (20 lines) (5) FROM: Judith Wann SUBJECT: Documents acquisitions (13 lines) (6) FROM: Barbara Nelson SUBJECT: Downloading MARC records (25 lines) (7) FROM: Christian Boissonnas SUBJECT: PUBNET (58 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: June 18, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Lynda L. Erickson Beth Tuttle Stiel Acquisitions Librarian Acquisitions Librarian Old Dominion University Library California State University - Fullerton E-mail: LLE100U@ODUVM.BITNET E-mail: BSTIEL@FULLERTON.EDU Nancy A. Glasscock Acquisitions Librarian Castleton State College Library E-mail: GLASSCOCKN@VSCNET.BITNET (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: June 18, 1992 From: Christian Subject: ACQNET suspended for five weeks Tonight's issues (there will be 3 or 4) will be the last sent until I return from vacation on or about July 21. You may continue to send postings but nothing will happen to them until I come back. I look forward to seeing many of you at ALA next week. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 09:29:29 EDT From: Richard Jasper (Emory University) Subject: Deities I don't know whether it is "Acquisina," "Acquizina," or "Acquizeema," never having had the good fortune to attend a Feather River meeting. However, I do know that one well-known West Coast acquisitions librarian once opined that we ought to come up with a good, memorable nickname for the Acquisitions Librari- ans/Vendors of Library Materials Discussion Group, e.g., something like "Aqua-Velva." In this regard, "Acquizeema," the skin cream goddess, makes sense. What is the practice of acquisitions, after all, other than to "make face" or sometimes even "save face" with our internal and external constituen- cies? Turning-beet-red-ly yours... Richard P.S. Your wife is right--we all need a vacation! A raise would be nice, too! (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 09:28:19 EDT From: Katy Ginanni (Old Dominion University) Subject: The Revolving Door in Acquisitions, an Ethical Dilemma? After reading David Marshall's posting, I'm not sure I understand his question. Admittedly, I am not terribly familiar, either, with the specifics of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. Does David suggest that 1) librarians not work for materials/systems vendors until a year after their library service has elapsed, or 2) vendor reps should not work in libraries until that year has passed? What about librarians who move from one library to another? Should they not make any decisions about changes in vendors until a year has elapsed? And vendor reps who move from one company to another? Should they not make business calls on prospective, or current, customers until a year has passed? It seems to me that a vendor rep should be able to provide better service to a customer if he or she can bring knowledge of the acquisitions process from a library's perspective into the negotiations. Conversely, a librarian who has worked in the vendor field can provide insights to the process that can benefit the library. Where is the impropriety in that? (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Jun 92 17:12:32 U From: Judith Wann (Oregon State Library) Subject: Acquisitions & depository docs Because of staff reorganization and cuts, the acquisitions-related duties that previously belonged to the Documents Librarian are now mine. Overall, I think this is a fine thing. However, I have some uncertainty about how to handle the GPO depository program. (We are a selective depository library.) My inclina- tion is to keep selecting, deselecting, receiving, and claiming of federal depository items totally separate from acquisitions work flow (which is how it's been up until now). Do any other Acquisitions folks have responsibility for the GPO depository program? How do you handle it? (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE: 16 JUN 1992 11:09 -05 FROM: Barbara K. Nelson (Auburn University) SUBJECT: Downloading MARC Records At Auburn we have downloaded records in the Monographic & Serials Acquisitions departments since 1984. In Monographic Acquisitions, authorities are checked for non-LC records with 100 fields. We do not check other access points at this time. If there is a discrepancy, a librarian tries to resolve it with the information at hand. If no decision can be made, it is left until the book comes in and the Authority Unit deals with it in Cataloging. If it can be resolved, then the change is made and a 940 note is added to the record indicating that the 100 field was altered to match an authority record. The OCLC symbol is added after the book is cataloged. We did not want ILL to get requests for books that had not been added to the collection. We have no problems with our procedures. Part of the reason is because most of the acquisitions librarians at Auburn have had some cataloging background and the ones who don't are trained to recognize and deal with at least surface problems. If we have a question, we consult a cataloger. This was our idea when we first went on NOTIS and we have seen nothing to indicate that this was a mistake. We feel it cuts down on duplicates to do this as part of the pre-order process. Because we are very picky in Acquisi- tions to begin with, we have had few complaints from catalogers. (7) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 18:47:58 EDT From: Christian Boissonnas (Cornell University) Subject: PUBNET The Publishers Development Group was formed in 1990 by three former executives of Facts on File, Inc. Its primary focus, according to Rachel Ginsburg, one three people, is "to work with publishers interested in entering the library market." The following is extracted from a letter from Ms Ginsburg to me and describes their current assignment. I thought you might be interested in reading about it. ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Our goal is to determine the practicality of expanding PUBNET's services to the U.S. university, public and school libraries. The focus of this market research effort would be on: (a) gauging the libraries' general receptivity to the concept of PUBNET, (b) identifying PUBNET's strengths and weaknesses as perceived by library decision-makers, (c) determining the major obstacles and sales objections that will have to be overcome to achieve success, (d) survey- ing and analyzing the competitive electronic ordering services offered by wholesalers and library service organizations such as OCLC, and (e) defining the market segment likely to derive the greatest benefits from use of PUBNET's services. We're seeking answers to a number of questions, including the following: 1. What benefits do librarians perceive would be derived from placing their orders directly with publishers via PUBNET? 2. Which of these benefits are most important to librarians? 3. What do librarians perceive to be the disadvantages of using a system such as PUBNET to place their orders? 4. Which of these pose the most significant obstacles to recruiting library subscribers to PUBNET? 5. Within libraries, what positions typically would have the greatest influence in making a decision to use PUBNET? 6. What are the major existing on-line order processing systems current- ly in use? What are perceived as their strengths and weaknesses? What do they offer that PUBNET does not and visa versa? 7. Are there changes that could be made or new features added that would make PUBNET significantly more attractive to librarians? 8. What are the most popular order processing programs currently in use and could they be easily modified to offer a PUBNET ordering option? 9. What additional participating publishers to those already participat- ing would make PUBNET more appealing to libraries? 10. What common characteristics are shared by libraries that respond favorably to the PUBNET concept? By those that respond unfavorably? 11. Does the shutdown of ALANET offer any special opportunities for PUBNET? If so, what should be done to take advantage of these opportunities? We plan to recruit 6-8 libraries willing to function as Beta testing sites using the existing PUBNET system during the period August 1-October 1, 1992. The objective of the Beta test will be to get direct librarian input on the advantages and disadvantages of using PUBNET. Needless to say, the AAP is hoping to find there's interest in PUBNET among librarians as a supplement to wholesaler and other systems of ordering -- not as the one and only -- and one that other vendors might even welcome! ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 66 ****** END OF FILE *******