It looks like the UNLV vs. UNR confusion has been cleared up, but I'd like
that to add that UNLV finds the idea of dropping check-in very intriguing
and may follow suit.  In which case, we have dibs on that body-throwing
offer Rick made earlier. :-)

UNLV has about 6,000 serials (journal) subscriptions of which only some
are critical to our collection mission in terms of having them around for
years to come.  We have a growing online collection that takes more time
and different tasks to manage.  While it may be the more expensive part of
our serials collection, what's more important is that our users rely on
online more, so it would make sense to focus our energies in that
direction.

In the meantime, we have reduced our claiming efforts quite a bit during
the past year, given the fall-off in publisher responses after that first
claim.

Reeta
------------------------------------------------
Reeta Sinha
Head, Collection Development
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
reeta.sinha@ccmail.nevada.edu

Rick Anderson <rickand@UNR.EDU> wrote:

I'm going to stay faithful to my promise not to engage in this argument
on-list, but I do want to remind everyone that we're the University of
Nevada, Reno -- not Las Vegas.

I'll also point out that our number of print journal subscriptions was
probably about average for a medium-sized land grant institution, and
that answers to most of Mary's concerns below can be found in the
article.

----
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273
rickand@unr.edu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
> [mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Mary Grenci
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 10:06 AM
> To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SERIALST] dropping serial check-in?
>
> If I'm correctly remembering the workshop I attended awhile
> ago, the Univ.
> of Nevada-Las Vegas has very few print subscriptions compared to other
> institutions its size. They rely much more on online
> subscriptions which
> (again, if I'm remembering correctly) are checked in. They stopped
> check-in of print so they could concentrate on check-in and other
> management actitivites for the largest and most expensive
> part of their
> periodical collection: the online subs. Also, I think
> check-in of print
> was taking much more time than it should have, much more than
> it usually
> does at other institutions, and this was one way around that problem.
>
> As for my thoughts on eliminating serial check-in:
>
> * If we rely on everybody in the serials chain remaining
> honest, you must
> still consider all the issues that don't arrive and that currently are
> claimed. How many broken runs would you have? Do you care?
> Would you still
> expect to claim things, just at a later date? Not realistic, I think.
>
> * If we consider human nature might eventually take over,
> what's to stop a
> publisher or vendor from simply never sending a few issues
> here and there,
> knowing you won't notice until it's too late and that even
> then you won't
> be sure it wasn't rec'd? On the other side of the coin, how
> could vendors
> be confident that the claims that do come in are valid? They
> will know the
> library trend is to not check things in, so they will know you have no
> idea whether something was received. Can we really expect
> them to continue
> to provide claimed issues in that environment? I think not.
>
> Granted, I don't think dishonesty and a lack of mutual trust
> would be an
> immediate problem.  The current environment of honesty and mutual
> trust has built up over a number of years and won't
> immediately go out the
> window. I can see it happening in the future, though.
>
> * If it's wanted enough that you pay for it, you should make
> sure you get
> what you pay for. (Gift subs. are another matter and could be
> considered
> separately. Perhaps this is a category where eliminating
> check-in wouldn't
> have dire consequences.) If you don't care enough to make sure you get
> your money's worth, stop buying it altogether.
>
> * If you do drop check-in of some or all of your print collection, you
> should also drop all claiming of those titles.
>
> * If the unthinkable happens and this becomes a wider trend,
> don't expect
> vendors/publishers to change their claiming policies just because
> libraries have tried to streamline. That would just be translating
> our savings into added costs for them. It would be unfair to them and
> would, in any case, result in higher subscription costs for libraries.
>
> Mary Grenci
> Serials Team Leader & Metadata Librarian
> Metada & Digital Library Services
> University of Oregon Libraries
> mgrenci@darkwing.uoregon.edu
>