When in doubt, Lyfguard

Publishers of serials like to keep things interesting -

two cases in point.

When ArtUS changed titles from ArtText in 2003, the first issue of the new title was called an ‘Inaugural Issue,’ and the subsequent issue was called ‘no. 1′.

This is further complicated by the fact that, in our holdings, we are missing issue no. 1 of ArtUS, but we retain the inaugural issue and issue no. 2.

To both effectively communicate to our patrons what we have in our holdings, as well as to bind these issues in a sensible way, we decided to

1) Lyfguard (laminate) the ‘inaugural issue’

2) Bind issues 2-10 together

3) Compose the holdings statement: Lib. has 2003 Inaugural issue, 2 (2004)- 14 (2007), 16 (2007)-

such that the inaugural issue will sit laminated on the shelf and all other issues will be bound.

Likewise, when Sinorama changed titles to Taiwan Panorama in 2006, the last issue of Sinorama was v. 31 no. 1 and the first issue of Taiwan Panorama was v. 31 no. 2.

One proposed solution was to bind the last issue of Sinorama (31:1) with volume 30, but volume 30 was already bound and we were hesitant to tear it apart again.

The solution we agreed to involved Lyfguarding 31:1 of Sinorama and binding Taiwan Panorama beginning with v. 31 no. 2.

Apparently, when in doubt, Lyfguard.

Are serials keeping your life interesting?  Comment and let us know!

Holdings Statements – Where a Little White Lie Never Hurt Anyone

In an effort to keep myself busy during the lull that follows subscription renewals, I’ve been working on a multi-faceted project to clean-up our local and UL holdings statements.

One thing I noticed about how my predecessor handled closing out holdings statements was that she always waited to close out a statement until that statement could be ‘true’.  For instance, in the case of a journal title we bind, she would wait until the last received volume had returned from the bindery and was assigned an item record before closing out the holdings statement for that title.

The problem with this approach is that it relied heavily on the attention to detail of our student workers, as they were the ones responsible for collecting and preparing volumes for binding and then processing volumes returned from the bindery.  They would have to notice that a volume was the last we’d receive for a title, make a note of this, and see or remember the note when the piece returned from the bindery, and then communicate this information to the full time staff member responsible for updating our holdings in the ILS and UL.

In the past year that I’ve worked in this library, I’ve discovered that the majority of our local holdings statements that should have been closed were in fact left open, and that an even greater number of union listings in OCLC were never closed.  This leads to problems with both our local and ILL patrons who assume, based on an open holdings statement, that we receive or retain all current issues of a journal, when, in fact, we don’t.

I’ve since changed the protocol for closing holdings statements in what may appear to be a dramatic way: I close holdings statements as soon as I know a title has changed, ceased, or our subscription has been canceled.  Yes, these preemptively closed holdings statements are just as wrong for the duration of our active subscription as the holdings statements that were left open, since they state that we’ve received pieces that we haven’t.  However, in the long run I’ve found that far fewer holdings statements slip through the cracks when they’ve been closed preemptively.

For the next few weeks I’ll be hunting down and closing out the holdings statements that my predecessor missed.  In this case, I think it’s better to tell a white lie – that is, to close out a holdings statement while our subscription is still ‘open’ – than to be leading patrons on long into the future.

How do you manage print subscrition cancellations and title changes/cessations with regards to holdings statements?