Hi Barbara,

We have from 1907-1992 with most of it in print except for the first 10 years being on microfilm. We also have SciFinder; however, we’re holding on to the physical materials since historically there have been faculty requests to keep them despite the coverage online. We house them in our offsite storage and since we’re not hurting for space yet it hasn’t been a problem but they do take up a full wall. All of our other abstracts were weeded a few years ago. I’m interested in hearing from those who have weeded Chem Abstracts.

Best,

Amy

Amy Castillo
Coordinator for Periodicals & Electronic Resources

Tarleton State University - Dick Smith Library

254.968.9868 | acastillo@tarleton.edu

From: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG] On Behalf Of Barbara Pope
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 4:44 PM
To: SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG
Subject: [SERIALST] Retention of Chem Abstracts Print Index Volumes

Hello, everyone.

We have bound volumes of Chemical Abstracts beginning with volume 1 published in 1907, but I am not sure of the rest of our holdings as they were never checked into our ILS. We are wondering if other universities and colleges that also subscribe to SciFinder find retaining the print volumes to be of value. If you do retain them, do you consider that the coverage in SciFinder is not comprehensive enough or does not go back far enough? If you did decide to weed, do you now consider SciFinder indexing to be adequate for your institution's needs? Are there other reasons you have decided to retain or discard the print volumes. Thank you for your help. Apologies for later cross posting this message to other lists.

Sincerely,

Barbara M. Pope, MALS
Periodicals/Reference Librarian
Axe Library
Pittsburg State University
1701 S. Broadway
Pittsburg KS 66762
620-235-4884
bpope@pittstate.edu

To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list, click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1