CDL: Preference for Paperbacks (response 2-6)

[original posting followed by response.]

Preference for Paperbacks: CD Policies?, experience?

Hi,  I'm going to have to make an adjustment in our allocation for
printed books.  I encourage selectors to buy paperbacks instead of
cloth when (a) the cloth is noticeably more expensive; (b) the
paperback is high quality w/ high quality paper; and (c) the book is
not expected to see heavy use.  However, this is not a policy, and
some selectors choose cloth if available.

If we make a policy to prefer paperbacks then we can get more books
with our money?  Can somebody point me to any of the following:
Collection Development policies that reflect a preference for
Paperbacks; written discussions of the pluses & minuses of buying
paperbacks; and documentation that the quality of paperbacks printed
today (at least by University/academic presses) is adequate for
academic libraries.  One person I talked to here is concerned about
shelving problems if we have mostly paperbacks; another thought it
possible that paperbacks actually hold up better than modern cloth
bindings.

Thanks,
Fran


Fran Rosen
Collection Development and Acquisitions Librarian
FLITE: Ferris Library for Information, Technology, & Education
Ferris State University
1010 Campus Drive
Big Rapids MI  49307
Phone: 231-591-3043

==#2==

"Waldman, Glenys" <gawaldman_at_pagrandlodge.org>

We are a large "special" library, with only a small circulating 
collection.  Hardbound books are preferred, but we buy paperbacks if 
necessary, and often have them bound right away, so that they don't 
get tattered.

We have many 19th century book(let)s and pamphlets, which are still in 
good shape because they were bound (sometimes together, into rather 
large books). Now, as we recatalogue, we disbind, because those old 
bindings were, of course, acidic. Each pamphlet goes into its own 
acid-free envelope (onto which the bibliographic info. and call number 
are typed), often within an acid-free folder to keep fingers off 
except during actual reading, to prevent undue tattering and help 
contain any fragments.

Best,
Glenys A. Waldman
Librarian
The Masonic Library and Museum of Pennsylvania
One North Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107-2520
www.pagrandlodge.org

==#3==

Paul Staincliffe <stainclp_at_waikato.ac.nz>

Fran Rosen asked about policies with regard to preferences for
purchasing paperbacks.

At the University of Waikato we do not have a formal policy, but we
endeavour to only purchase paperback where there is a choice. The only
reason for this is the cheaper cost of the paperback. However, we have
not undertaken any analysis to see whether this is a valid reason.

We would only purchase cloth when no paperback is available or in
exceptional circumstances where the item is a heritage item.

My personal opinion is that as an academic library we should strive to
purchase cloth. They generally have greater wear and tear resistance and
aesthetically are more appealing. Not sure what you mean by "shelving
problems". Flimsy or odd size paperbacks are susceptible to damage on
the shelf and do tend to become grubby a lot quicker than cloth.

I would be interested to hear if anybody has done a cost analysis of
paperback versus cloth.

Regards,
Paul
Paul Staincliffe
University of Waikato Library
Hamilton, NZ

==#4==

"Jenkins, Paul" <Paul_Jenkins_at_mail.msj.edu>

I wrote an article about this, though it may now be somewhat dated.

"Some Thoughts on Purchasing Paperback Books for Small College
Libraries," College and Undergraduate Libraries 4 (1, 1997), 25-28.

Thanks, POJ

Paul O. Jenkins
Director of Library Services
College of Mount St. Joseph
5701 Delhi Road
Cincinnati, OH 45233
513-244-4351
fax: 513-244-4355
paul_jenkins_at_mail.msj.edu

==#5==

From: Fred.Jenkins_at_notes.udayton.edu

See Brian J. Baird and Jana Krentz, "Findings from the Condition 
Surveys Conducted by the University of Kansas Libaries,"  College & 
Research Libraries 58.2  (March 1997), 115ff.   which suggests trade 
paperbacks hold up as well or better than cloth in many cases.

Fred W. Jenkins, Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Collections & Operations
  & Professor
University of Dayton Libraries

110 Roesch Library                           (937) 229-4272
300 College Park                               (937) 229-4590 (fax)
Dayton, OH 45469-1360

==#6==

From:  John Abbott abbottjp_at_appstate.edu

An analysis of our ordering through our vendor, YBP, for our approvals 
only (not firm orders) showed this in 2005:

During a sample period, we spent ~$48,000 in the approval account. 
During this time, there were 277 paper alternate titles.  We would 
have saved approximately $3600 in this sample time period by going 
paper preferred, taking into account the reduced discount on paper 
editions.  That $3600 could represent an additional
100 titles we could have purchased.

We have nothing but hearsay but many of my colleagues
suspect that paperbacks may circulate more than cloth because the
potential reader can learn something about the book from the details
on the back of a paperback, which aren't available on cloth unless
there is a dust jacket and that the jacket is retained.

Buying cloth is a bet on heavy enough use that the book will suffer or
deteriorate from that use.  I don't know if that is a winning bet.

Cloth editions come out before the pbk in most cases, so if timeliness
is important for a particular title, then cloth is the choice to get
it on the shelf.

John Abbott
Appalachian State Univ.