Cynthia,

Could you give the citation to  the article?  I hadn't heard about what seems
to be the beginning of  another irresponsible management fad.

Until I read the article, I am holding off on giving advice, but I do have
questions and comments.  How, for instance, are you ever going to know
whether you did or did not receive a particular issue?  How can you do any
claiming if you don't know it's missing? What about when you pull a group
of issues for binding?  Is that when you're supposed to find out if a
particular issue arrived?  If you don't have it, are you going to look for
it?  What's the point of looking for it if you may never have had it?

I suppose you can create a situation where *some* serials are still
checked in, as you mention, but then you'll have to look up whether you
check it in or not.  Now where would an item of information like that be
recorded?  The check-in record!

This reminds me of the abandonment of authority control in the 70's and
80's.  We didn't really *need* it, did we, until we tried to create an
online catalog from the mess of unlinked names created under a mix of
rules?  Then each library had to "clean up" it's database, at a phenomenal
cost.  I would love to see the total dollar amount that had to go into all
these clean-up projects all over the U.S.

People really need to think this check-in business through.  If check-in
is eliminated, you can't get that data back again without re-inventorying
the collection, if this fad runs out of steam.  And it's going to cost ...
I don't know, in my mind the expression is ringing, "There's no free
lunch".

Rick  Gildemeister
RGildem550@aol.com