We are actually contemplating the reverse, going from main entry (that's right) to LC classification.  The most valid reason in my book is that it keeps the runs together.  However, I am actually opposed to it because I think it creates a barrier to access.  Once the user has the citation, they must jump through the hoop of getting the call #.

If you do decide to convert to title, make sure you do it by TITLE, not main entry.  Here at UMKC, the collection is arranged by main entry.  This works most of the time, but makes those titles with an author main entry impossible to find without asking for help.  It is quite challenging to explain to someone that Focus on the Center for Research Libraries is actually in the C's for Center for Research Libraries.  It is even more fun trying to explain why that is the case...

Buddy Pennington
Serials Acquisitions Librarian
Miller Nichols Library
University of Missouri - Kansas City
800 E. 51st Street
Kansas City, MO  64110
816-235-1548
816-333-5584 (fax)
penningtonb@umkc.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Elizabeth Henry
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 10:05 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [SERIALST] subject vs. title arrangement

We have our current periodicals classified and arranged
on the shelves in call number order.  We are considering
changing to to title arrangement.  I know the usual pros
and cons, so my questions are 1) has anyone made a
arrangement change lately, and if so, in which direction and
2) how do you think if affected usage?  Usage information
doesn't have to be documented, anecdotal is fine.

Thanks,
Beth Henry
________________________
Elizabeth C. Henry
Acquisitions/Serials Librarian
North Hall Library
Mansfield University
Mansfield, PA  16933
570.662.4673