----------(1)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:40:52 -0400
From: "Thompson, Jane (THOMPSJL)" <THOMPSJL@UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
To: SEREDIT@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: Statistics for elec. resources (Donnice Cochenour)

We do not count volumes of electronic journals, only the title itself.
Our volume count is generated by your method, plus a count of what we
call "pre-bound continuations," which are things like the Medical Clinics
of N.A. I certainly would not count the vols of electronic journals--they
are too slippery.

Jane Thompson
Journals Collection Development Librarian
University of Cincinnati Health Sciences Library
thompsjl@ucmail.uc.edu

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:14:05 -0600
From: Donnice Cochenour <dcocheno@manta.library.ColoState.EDU>
Subject: statistics for elec. resources

In a recent local review of how we are counting "volumes held" for
our print collection, the discussion was raised about counting
volumes for electronic journals.  I would like to know if others are
including volume counts for their electronic subscriptions (i.e.
JSTOR titles or IDEAL-Academic Press titles).

We currently count active and inactive subscriptions by title and
volume counts are generated by our binding process.  So these
electronic-only titles are not being counted at the "volumes held"
level.  My Asst. Dean has asked me to query other libraries to see
how they are handling this issue.

Thanks in advance for any/all responses.
Donnice

Donnice Cochenour
Serials Librarian
Colorado State University Libraries
Ft.Collins, CO 80523-1019
Voice (970) 491-1821
Fax (970) 491-4611
Internet: dcocheno@manta.library.colostate.edu

----------(2)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:07:51 -0400
From: Frank Sadowski <fsadowski@RCL.LIB.ROCHESTER.EDU>
Subject: Re: Statistics for elec. resources (Donnice Cochenour)

I basically agree with the principle implied in your statement: "volume
counts are generated by our binding process.  So these electronic-only
titles are not being counted at the 'volumes held' level."  This is
basically how we count them.

The volumes held count is an "item count" = how many pieces are on the
shelves.  To add in a pseudo-volume count for electronic resources would
mean changing the volume count to a "bibliographic volumes to which our
patrons have access" count -- quite a different thing.  Just think what
that would mean for those titles where each bibliographic volume is bound
in multiple physical volumes or where several bibliographic volumes are
bound in one physical volume.  This is akin to the volume equivalent count
for microforms.  The volume count which one reports to ARL, etc. IMHO
should remain the number of physical pieces one actually owns, and
electronic-only titles should remain separate.

-------------------------
Frank E. Sadowski Jr. Head, Catalog Department River Campus Libraries
University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627-0055