Rick,
We’ve gone online as much as we can or as much as faculty will let us in the last 10 years. We only have 306 print serial titles left in our current periodicals room. 30-40 of those
306 titles are “keep current x years only” (popular type) titles, of which 20 of those I added this past spring. We don’t bind JSTOR or Project Muse titles. Money is tight, so we cannot really replace back volumes with electronic on a wide scale. We’ve
been cut over 150K out of our budget (collections and staff) in the last couple years (and now are on performance funding from the state and could lose more $$); however, we have managed to purchase new JSTOR collections this past FY. Being a state school,
we’re obligated to be responsible with what we’ve spent state money on. I have overflowing shelves and need to do something with them. We could put tattle strips in each issue, but I’m sure that would be more than sending them to be bound.
Mykie
From: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG]
On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 10:54 AM
To: SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] making the case for binding
Mykie, can you tell us why you’d rather bind than replace back volumes with online access?
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum <SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG> on behalf of Mykie
Howard <my.howard@MOREHEADSTATE.EDU>
Reply-To: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum <SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG>
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 8:24 AM
To: "SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG" <SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG>
Subject: [SERIALST] making the case for binding