Original posting on this topic is reproduced below; the responses follow it:
From: Kim Hale <kah000_at_mail.lib.colum.edu>
This message has been sent to other lists; please forgive the duplication.
We are considering changing our processing procedure for books received on
approval. Rather than shelving them for review, we are proposing to
accept all items received, and accept the few titles that may be
considered marginal.
Over the past two years, we have refined our approval profile such that it
would be more economical in the long-run to accept all titles rather than
making them available for selector review.
Have any other libraries decided to do the same, and was it successful?
How did your selectors/bibliographers react? What arguments for or
against should we consider?
All responses are welcome.
Thank you,
Kimberly Hale, Acquisitions Librarian/Coordinator of Collection Development
Library, Columbia College Chicago
624 South Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60605
(312)344-7355(voice) / (312)344-8062(fax)
=============================================================================
(1) From: Sara Williams <saraw_at_aztec.lib.utk.edu>
A little over a year ago, we began outsourcing cataloging and shelf
processing for books from our principle approval vendor. According to the
agreement, pre-processed books cannot be returned to the vendor. We made
some profile adjustments to cut down on returns (our rate was already
quite low), but our subject librarians and a few of the faculty were
reluctant to give up the review.
We have compromised on a one-week review period, i.e. books are placed on
the review shelves in Technical Services on Friday, then sent to the
public "New Books" display area one week later. The location of the
approval books is tracked through our on-line catalog.
Now I don't get a lot of complaints about large numbers of marginal
materials being received on approval, so I think the only remaining
purpose of the review is for current awareness. We are encouraging the
faculty to examine new materials at the "New Books" area and, since that
space has better light and comfortable chairs, they seem to find this an
acceptable alternative. The issue of whether subject selectors want to
continue the review will probably be taken up again in the fall.
My suggestion would be to find out what purpose the review has really been
serving: Is it to monitor the performance of your profile? Or is it to
keep people informed of what new materials are coming in? If the profile
is already performing well, you may be able to find another way to provide
notice of newly-received materials.
*********************************************
Sara R. Williams
Collection Management Coordinator
552B Hodges Library
University of Tennessee
Knoxville TN 37996-1000
Phone:(865) 974-6949
FAX:(865) 974-9242
E-mail: Sara-Williams_at_utk.edu
saraw_at_aztec.lib.utk.edu
=============================================================================
(2) From: Ellen Chapman <ellen_at_hawaii.edu>
The University of Hawaii Library began accepting all approval plan books
a few years ago. I am no longer a selector, so don't have recent info.
But, at the time I was reviewing selections, the new policy went well. We
were anxious at first, but it saved so much time that we thought it was a
good trade-off. We too had fine-tuned the profiles over the years and our
return rate was low. Under the new policy, we could still return items
that were clearly outside the profiles (and damaged books). We griped
about a few inappropriate titles, but they were few, and the jobber's tags
did fit our profile. We can still change the profiles at any time, or
query a questionable trend. All in all it went well. If you need more
current assessments, I can give you the name of a person to contact.
Aloha
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Ellen L. Chapman
Archivist for Congressional Papers voice: (808) 944-7656
University of Hawaii at Manoa Library fax: (808) 956-5968
2550 The Mall email: ellen_at_hawaii.edu
Honolulu, HI 96822 USA
==============================================================================
(3) From: "Janellyn P Kleiner" <jkleiner_at_lsu.edu>
We have been doing this for some time. It has worked so well that we now
have our books delivered "shelf-ready." They are in the OPAC and on the
shelves within 24 hours. It saves us money and staff time and the error
rate has been 1% or less. Changes such as this and outsourcing much of our
original cataloging frees staff to provide access/links to all of our
electronic resources (including full-text titles in our aggregator
databases), do away with our backlog, and initiate CORC as well as other
activities. We opted to add links to our records when we own the title
rather than add separate records. Our users love this approach since it's
basically "one-stop-shopping" for journals.
Jane Kleiner
Associate Dean of Libraries for Collection Services
The LSU Libraries
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Phone: 225-388-2217
Fax: 225-388-6825
E-Mail: jkleiner_at_lsu.edu
==============================================================================
(4) From: Tom Izbicki <izbicki_at_jhu.edu>
I understand that the University of Maryland does this with domestic
approvals since adopting PromptCat. Personally, I don't like the idea. A
vendor can get sloppy if not kept on its toes.
Tom Izbicki
Johns Hopkins
==============================================================================
(5) From: Karla Hahn <kh86_at_umail.umd.edu>
The University of Maryland Libraries converted its approval plan
completely to a purchase plan two years ago. Selectors still review
incoming materials, mainly to identify reference works, to identify
locations for the occasional book that comes through without a
classification number, and to tweak our mapping of call numbers to
branch locations. The review period was shortened from a week to three
days when the plan was converted. We load records for purchase plan
books via Promptcat. These practices have greatly reduced processing
time for purchase plan items. The change has been quite uncontroversial.
The main discussion point was the need to continue to review shipments
to make decisions about locating materials among our various
collections. On one or two occasions we have withdrawn books at
selectors' request but the current process greatly reduces our own
overhead and substantially improves our turnaround on new materials.
Currently the purchase plan accounts for roughly half our monographic
spending. We've continued to make minor profile modifications since
implementing the purchase plan. There have been no significant problems
with the purchase plan as a whole.
Karla Hahn, PhD
Collection Management Team Leader
University of Maryland Libraries
kh86_at_umail.umd.edu
301.405.9117(voice)
301.405.9191(fax)
Received on Tue May 29 2001 - 10:50:08 EDT