Greetings Tracey!
I am struggling with the same issue being torn between the list's purpose
vs its management nightmare. If the list is to inform patrons what serials
are available in my library, then the list must be comprehensive and
actually list what truly is available regardless of format. However, such
a list does date itself very quickly and especially in our case, would be
a really MAJOR undertaking to produce (we literally have hundreds of full
text on-line titles available). The fact that we have a very limited
number of hardcopy periodicals vs. what is available out there also
factors in. I have to agree with the comment that for large collections,
maintaining a paper list has past its time. But if there is significant
doubt as to whether you have a title, then the list still merits a place
next to your computers.
I currently maintain an excel copy of our holdings by title, volume, date
and format for hard copy only. We have other means of access to on-line
titles. Your concern regarding multiple lists to consult is very real. One
is the max, only the desperate or the dedicated seem to go to additional
lists. Produce the list as cheaply as possible; "pretty" publications
aren't worth the additional expense. Since I don't like flipping from
screen to screen to see what our holdings are, I maintain our list in
hardcopy with a listing on our website.
Bottom line, why do you have the list? If it is to inform patrons of what
is available to them, you should maintain the whole enchilada. If it is to
tell them what is "permanently" in your collection, then do the in house
only list. But, isn't that like deleting all books in storage from the
database because they aren't on your shelves? Ah, but isn't the electronic
world fun. And administrators think we need less personnel and time to
deal with these issues because they are all "automated" and "everything"
is on-line. Good luck!
**************************
*
JOHN D. CRISSINGER *
NEWARK CAMPUS LIBRARY * Tele: 740-366-9306
OSU-N/COTC * Fax: 740-366-9264
1179 UNIVERSITY DR. * email: crissinger.5@osu.edu
NEWARK, OH 43055 *
*
**************************
"Geographers never get lost,
they are only exploring unfamiliar places!"
At 10:31 PM 9/20/00 -0400, Tracey DeLillo wrote:
>I am in need of some input/advice regarding Holdings Lists for
>periodicals. I am in the process of revising our current Periodicals
>Holdings List, and had decided to create 2 separate lists: one for print
>and microfilm holdings (i.e. items housed IN the library), and one for
>full-text electronic holdings. Our old PHL had combined everything into
>one massive list, which was nicely and expensively professionally printed,
>and was largely obsolete within a month due to changes in databases and
>other online availability. The other problem I encounter daily with
>this comprehensive list, is that patrons come to my office to complain
>that, for example, "Private Placement Reporter" isn't on the shelves,
>because they don't notice that it says "ELECTRONIC, LEXIS-NEXIS"
>underneath instead of "PERIODICAL SHELVES". These are just two of my
>favorite reasons for deciding to split the lists. Some of my coworkers,
>however, have concerns about my plan. They feel that the patrons won't
>like having to look 2 separate places to see where they can get an
>article. They think it will be time consuming and confusing. They are
>afraid that patrons will be misled regarding our holdings and will be
>disgruntled, not to mention an expected increase in unnecessary I.L.L.
>requests for materials we really do have access to.
>
>I am now in a quandry. How do other libraries format their PHL's? Are
>electronic sources listed? Are they combined with print, or listed
>separately? Are the PHL's available in hardcopy, or are they only online?
>
>Any input will be greatly appreciated. Feel free to email me directly, or
>post to the list if others think this is of broad interest.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Tracey DeLillo
>Serials Librarian
>Texas A&M - Corpus Christi
><<tdelillo@FALCON.TAMUCC.EDU>
