ACQNET v2n086 (September 7, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n086 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 86, September 7, 1992 ========================================= (1) FROM: Christian Boissonnas SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (8 lines) (2) FROM: Ann Okerson SUBJECT: Co-publishing, E-BIP (51 lines) (3) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: Co-publishing (33 lines) (4) FROM: Caroline Early SUBJECT: Co-publishing (11 lines) (5) FROM: Christian Boissonnas SUBJECT: ALCTS reorganization (57 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: September 7, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Barbara Halporn Head of Collection Development Department Harvard University Widener Library E-mail: HALPORN.WIDENER1%@MHSGW.HARVARD.EDU (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 11:03:19 EDT From: Ann Okerson (ARL) Subject: COPUB Forward -- FYI From: Michael Jensen (Univ. of Nebraska Press) Subject: Re: Copubs: A Librarian's Response To: Multiple recipients of list AAUP-L [In reply to an earlier posting which referred to a statement at the bottom of every copub description that says "For sale in the United States and Canada only." -- C.] I would tend to call that "sales restriction" data, rather than co-pub data, though the effect is the same. But do librarians recognize this? If we have a line that says "copublished for distribution in X, Y, and Z by ABC Press," that indicates something different than "US and Canada only." I'm thinking that the wholesalers and other resellers hitting the library market aren't going to tell the librarians that a copub is available cheaper here. The librarians are going to need an easy way to check the titles somehow, and so the term "copubli- cation" should, I'd guess, appear early in the display. [In reply to a posting asking about feedback from librarians on how frequently they would access an e-BIP. The questionnaire referred to appeared in ACQNET 2:61.--C.] Yep, the response from the librarians was exceedingly positive. Most said they'd check it more than once a month, most also said they'd want to make it available to the "customers" as well. Most information-specialists/university computing directors said they'd want to make it part of the CWIS--the Campus- Wide Information System. Finally, at this juncture, the system (which has not yet been programmed, so this is supposition) is designed to allow a librarian to push a button and get an e-mailed order form, which the librarian can then print out and send. Until encryption systems are improved, it's dangerous to have POs and Visa/MC numbers flying about the web. With the 800 numbers and the e-mail order forms, the librarians have two methods to order via the online catalog. Also, it became clear via the survey that librarians and scholars had binarily- divided interests (almost to a human) in what they were most interested in seeing. Librarians wanted CIP/biblio information first; scholars wanted descriptions of the book first, and hang the CIP/biblio. So the system's design has an opening screen that will (we hope, once again depending on the program- ming) provide a choice of "display modes"--one for librarians and the like, the other for scholars and the like. I'm more than willing to receive suggestions on these matters, of course. What I've been trying to do is design an easy-to-program, easy-to-use system that is functional without being overloaded with bells'n'whistles. Until we get confirmation and some clear proposals from the various parties likely to actually do the thing, it's vaporware, but so far, everyone says the mock-up/ demo I devised is very do-able. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 13:08:04 EDT From: Richard Jasper (Emory University) Subject: Co-pubs I'll try to be succinct for once. If I'm redundant, please forgive: (1) I buy books from distributors (generally), not publishers. Ergo, I don't see how I could ever be considered in violation of a sales agreement between two publishers. Perhaps publishers should consider negotiating sales agreements with distributors? Yes, I can hear the tittering over that one. (2) Although the US print is currently generally cheaper than the UK price on these titles, that isn't always and hasn't always been the case. Have publishers forgotten the mid-1980s when the dollar was extremely high against European currencies and titles were being priced in (extremely expensive) US dollars? I know this applied more to serials than to monographs but it certainly created an impetus for wanting to purchase the overseas rather than US editions. (3) I can understand publishers' pique that things don't always work out they way they would like them to but I think they would be better served by trying to sell more books in general (how about a price break, fellas? How about reining in your colleagues on the journal side of the business?) than worrying about who sells to whom. We've told you time and again: We love your books and journals but we don't want to buy them direct! Stop nagging and start talking, guys! (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Sep 92 11:36:00 EDT From: Caroline Early (National Agricultural Library) Subject: Co-publishing I have heard this issue discussed for years, but remember hearing contradictory things about whether US or UK origin titles were cheaper or appeared faster. In some cases our vendors would tell us one way was advantageous, but our own analysis of titles we ordered would show otherwise. Perhaps the advantage shifts... At any rate, our conclusion at a previous job was that UK origin titles came with UKMARC records, causing delays and human expense in processing them. The UKMARC records required more authority work, editing, etc., and it was better to prefer US origin--when we were aware of the US edition. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: September 7, 1992 From: Christian Boissonnas (Cornell University) Subject: ALCTS reorganization I was glad to read the exchange between Ann O'Neill (ACQNET 2:76) and Arnold Hirshon (ACQNET 2:79 and 2:80). I had begun to wonder if the concerns raised earlier by Richard Jasper about the reorganization proposals (ACQNET 2:72) were ever going to be addressed. Well, they weren't. Hirshon did a nice job of proving that O'Neill's characterization of ALCTS as a "catalogers' division" was incorrect, but he didn't address her organizational concerns. O'Neill suggested that the proposed organization structure does not encourage participation. She aligns herself with Jasper who felt that a flattened hierarchy would concentrate power in the hands of a few leaders, thereby alienating a whole bunch of people. The past and current chairs of PLMS issued a report in which they say that they do not believe that a flattened organiza- tion necessarily improves efficiency. Neither do I. On the other hand I'm not sure that I understand the problem for which the ALCTS Organizational Structure Task Force is trying to find solu- tions. I assume it has something to do with the usual criticisms that the organization is too slow, unresponsive, alienates members and the like, criticisms that I have heard expressed one way or another for as long as I have been a member. I have generally found ALCTS to be as responsive as it could, given the fact that it is strangling on its own rules and policies. I have been well supported by the staff whenever I have been a committee chair, and I have always found them willing to try and accommodate my needs, even if unconventional. Most of the contacts and friendships that I have made over the years have happened within ALCTS. Having said that, however, I do see three major problems facing ALCTS. The organization, as currently set up, is incapable of deciding anything quickly enough. Nothing can get decided quickly, therefore nothing can get done fast. In this day and age, it's a very serious, maybe fatal, flaw. The world has changed and the organization hasn't adapted fast enough for the changes. The two annual conferences still dictate the organization's biorhythm and that's wrong. Decisions need to be made daily or weekly, not semi-annually. ALCTS needs to change into an organization in which there are not fewer layers, but in which executives at each layer are empowered to make decisions continu- ously. In other words, it's not necessarily the structure that needs changing, but the decision-making process. The second major problem confronting ALCTS is that it is a division of ALA. I cannot think of anything worthwhile for us members that results from that relationship. All it does is make us dissipate our energies in ways that are unproductive, aside from forcing us to meet in huge unpleasant cities because of our size. The last problem is that, except for the people who are in it and doing the best they can, no one seems to care a whole lot. How else can I explain the lack of interest on this newsletter? Yes, I know, we are all busy. I am busy too, which is why I reserved two hours of my Labor Day holiday to write this thing up. A possible alternative is that we, from the Organizational Structure Task Force, to PLMS, Jasper, O'Neill, Hirschon, and I are wrong, that we are wasting our time fussing about this stuff, that we are so out of touch with the rest of you that we're barking up the wrong tree. That could be. How are we to know? ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 86 ****** END OF FILE *******