ACQNET v4n051 (October 29, 1994) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v4n051 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 4, No. 51, October 29, 1994 ======================================== (1) FROM: Wei Ma & Daniel A. Evans SUBJECT: BIP+ Networking Solutions [2 messages] (25 lines) (2) FROM: Peter Stevens SUBJECT: An Acquisitions Dept. Annual Report (10 lines) (3) FROM: Carol Bell & Peter Stevens SUBJECT: OP Search Success Rates [2 messages] (50 lines) (4) FROM: Stephanie Allen SUBJECT: Automating an Exchange Program (27 lines) (5) FROM: Ron Ray SUBJECT: 1995 Feather River Institute: Call for Papers (65 lines) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wei Ma (Occidental College) Subject: Re: Books In Print Plus Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 15:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Mark Braden forward this message to me. We had some problems with BIP+ until we did the following: In the BIP+ batch file, add a line: set cdbufs=4, and remove the BANNER REVC.PIC line. After these changes in the batch files, BIP+ could be run on PS/2 286 machines without any problems. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Daniel A. Evans (Lafayette College) Subject: Networked version of BIP+ Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 10:27:28 -0500 (CDT) The networked version of BIP+ was recently installed on our academic computer. It has been running well on the IBM and compatible (provided that they are at least 386 machines and level 5 or greater DOS). The heaviest use so far has been from the library, book store and several dozen faculty. We have experienced an intermittent bumping problem at several sites. Please contact me if you would like more information. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Stevens (Univ. of Washington) Subject: An Acquisitions Dept. Annual Report Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 18:30:11 -0400 I'd like to offer my annual report, which is available online from me at the e-mail address above, to anyone interested. It covers activities in the fiscal year that ended June 30th for an acquisitions department that handles just monographs--no serials--for a university of 36,000 students and about 70 selectors. Highlights include migration from the Geac to the Innovative acquisitions module, approval program data and some vendor evaluations. The report, with appendices and organization chart, runs about 700 lines. (3)---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Bell (Northwestern Univ.) Subject: OP searching stats Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 17:44:51 -0400 I waited to respond to Peter Stevens' request last month until I had finished my annual statistics for OP. (Our FY ends Aug. 31). We have just finished a full year of OP searching using various vendors and keeping detailed statistics. My figures come to an average of approx. 38% total fill rate. The materials being searched are mostly more recent OP titles, though, not older titles in bad condition. We have automatic OP searching plans set up with several of our vendors, BNA, Lindsay & Howes, Midwest, Harrassowitz, etc. We also send titles to them directly when we know they are OP. We have been very pleased with these programs. I would be happy to discuss this with anyone who wishes to e-mail me directly. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Peter Stevens (Univ. of Washington) Subject: OP search success rates Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 12:26:08 -0400 Marsha Hamilton's message on OP search fulfillment rates (in ACQNET 4:49) was the seventh response to my query in ACQNET 4:47 on this topic. Her method of acquiring a photocopy is similar to what I do if our OP searches fail and a selector insists on the very laborious, slow and costly photocopy route. Such photocopies, which often must be bound in two volumes, usually require expensive original cataloging, in addition to the hassle of borrowing a copy that can be photocopied. Since our interlibrary loan operation is so busy, Acquisitions must perform all the ILL work to acquire a copy that we can photocopy. Having walked in their shoes, now, I'm less enthused about combining acquisitions and interlibrary loan operations, since the latter make the former look quite simple by comparison. Several of the responses I received were from staff whose jobs are chiefly focused on OP searching. They quoted OP success rates of 20% to 48%, using ads in a publication called The Library Bookseller (recommended by several respondents) and two high-yield OP vendors: Jay Rausch and Serendipity Books. High yields were sometimes linked to relatively recent US publications. For sci-tech OP titles, one person wrote the author or editor of the title and sometimes turned up titles this way (which is again too time-consuming for my operation). My new method to raise my OP search fulfillment rate is to screen what I put on OP search in the first place, returning to selectors any title that is unlikely to turn up on an OP search. Hopefully, not many selectors will chose the costly photocopy route. So far, I'm turning back 50% of OP search requests (all those Peruvian imprints from the previous century, for instance). (4)---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Allen (Yale Univ.) Subject: Automating an Exchange Program Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 17:25:46 -0400 I am looking at options for automating our exchange program here at the Sterling Memorial Library, Yale University, and would appreciate hearing from anyone who'd be willing to describe what they have done in this area. We have about 1300 exchange partners around the world, and we exchange both monographs and serials with them. We originally used card files to record agreement details, check in materials received, and record materials sent to partners. This information is now spread among NOTIS bibliographic and order records and various types of WordPerfect files, including WordPerfect mailing lists. I would like to store our exchange information in a user-friendly PC-based database that would, among other things, allow us to make global changes to mailing lists and run reports comparing the value of materials sent to the value of materials received. Have other libraries automated exchange programs with PC-based databases? Did you use software designed for library use, or did you adapt a general-use database program? Have you been satisfied with the results? Does your software perform all of the functions that you need it to? Has the lack of integration of your exchange database into your library-wide online system (such as NOTIS or III) caused problems? Is there a software package you would recommend? Please reply directly to me, and I will summarize responses for ACQNET. I greatly appreciate any and all replies. (5)---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Ray (University of the Pacific) Subject: 1995 Feather River Call for Papers Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 08:43:56 -0700 (PDT) CALL FOR PAPERS THE 1995 FEATHER RIVER INSTITUTE May 18 - 21, 1995 at Blairsden in the Northern California Sierra Nevada Mountains We welcome abstracts of papers: SUGGESTED THEMES . . . . GREAT DEBATES and CONTROVERSIES in ACQUISITIONS: * Cost-plus pricing * The love-hate relationship between acquisitions and collection development * Will the library be better served by--An Expanding Acquisitions Department?: combining with Document Delivery/ILL, copy cataloging, electronic networking and licensing services? OR: A Contracting Acquisitions Department? : Outsourcing some or all of Acquisitions THE CULTURE of ACQUISITIONS/MATERIALS VENDING: * Are we managers of clerks and accounts, or librarians in a fuller sense? * What values do an acquisitions librarian or vendor represent? and who should care? * What value, if any, do acquisitions librarians add to information resources? * In outsourcing, are there cultural implications for shifting services from acquisitions to vendors? * How might our culture and values (acquisitions librarians'/vendors') hinder or help in the electronic library? A HIGHLIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE WILL BE A SERIES OF SHORT DEBATES Please help us identify acquisitions issues that can be explored from pro and con points of view Mark your calendars and let your travel budget administrators know that you can't afford to miss this small (attendance limited to 65) but stimulating conference and still be the enlightened professional you're otherwise known to be! As always, The Feather River Institute provides a full smorgasbord of ideas, food, drink, colleagues, and nature, in rustic surroundings, with fireplace chats, ping-pong, golf, golf cart riding, horseshoes, swimming, mind-games, tarot readings, fun, frolicking, and outrageous visits from the Pantheon of Acquisitions Goddesses. Send your ideas for papers (200 word abstract) no later than December 1, 1994 to: Feather River Institute University of the Pacific Libraries 3601 Pacific Avenue Stockton, CA 95211 Also, feel free to contact the program co-chairs directly with ideas: Meta Nissley, e-mail: meta_nissley@msmailgw.csuchico.edu phone: (916) 898-6710 Richard Brumley, e-mail: brumleyr@ccmail.orst.edu phone: (503) 737-2118 ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 4, No. 51 ****** END OF FILE ******