Thanks to all who responded to my request for input from libraries that
have experimented with the elimination of periodical check-in.  In
addition to those responses, I was also flooded with requests from
librarians wanting to know what the responses were.  Instead of
answering those requests individually, it was suggested by several
people that I summarize the responses to the list, so here goes.

By the way, I'm not going to identify the responding libraries in this
message, but will leave it up to them to decide whether they want to be
publicly identified.  Brackets show where I have redacted information to
conceal the library's identity.

Response 1:

"[Our library] is moving to a core title list (244 titles) for
check-in and binding. We have an additional 324 titles (non-core titles)

that initially for 2006 we will receive but not check-in or bind. As we
reorganize our [current periodicals area] from over the next few months,
we
will only keep 135 of the non-core titles where we lack an acceptable
online equivalent (its print only or online access is not stable, say
via
an aggregator). The other non-core titles, where online access is
acceptable, will be discarded. We are moving to e-only subscriptions
wherever possible.

"BTW, we just met with our [faculty advisory body] today and they fully
support our decision on reduced check-in. Their only questions concerned

archival access.

"My big challenge is retraining staff to handle e-resource work--I'm
making
it up as I go with slow but steady progress."

Response 2:

"We have begun to evaluate the possibility of eliminating the entire
check-in
process and have stopped checking in newspapers as a means of reviewing
the
process and evaluating the repercussions of such a change."

Response 3:

"We have stopped newspaper check-in and are drastically cutting
claiming.
We've talked about cutting check-in, but there are strong advocates on
both
sides, so we are at a stalemate right now."

Response #4:

"I did a cost analysis study a while ago [...] to quantify the cost of
checking in an issue of a periodical and made the suggestion as a result

that we should not check in most daily or weekly publications.  That
suggestion, unfortunately, did not go very far, but we (I) have been
looking
more carefully at whether it's worth the cost, especially for dailies."

Response #5:

"[Our library] has decided to eliminate a good portion of serial
check-in.
We are only going to check-in copies received for the Main Library.  I
believe that this decision was made because the branches (we have 21 of
them)
did not really even use the summary of holdings statements.  They also
didn't
think their patrons relied on them either.  However, the Main Library
(as
they keep store the back issues for the entire library system) felt that
it
would be important for them to have some listing of what they owned.

"All of our check-in (except for newspapers) is done at the Main
Library, so
the branches have some delay in receiving their copies.  They decided
that
they would rather have the magazines quicker, and if they could be
delivered
directly to them if they did not have to get checked in at the Main
Library.
(I think that there was some talk of having check-in done at the branch,
but
it was decided that it was not worth the trouble since very few said
they
even used the information generated by check-in.)  We are going to have
to
phase this in over the next several years because apparently the
addresses
on some of the subscriptions could only be changed when they are up for
renewal.  Branches are to notify our Acquisitions Department if an issue

needs to be claimed (this is pretty much how things are done now)."

Response #6:

"We eliminated check in for the following types of material:

	all daily publications
	all weekly serials (journals, newsletters, etc.)
	all titles designated "current year only retained"
	all "advance sheets" for law reporters which are superseded
almost
	 immediately

"we also, simultaneously, discontinued labelling all material in our
state
and federal collections (we can get away with that since law
collections,
even though classified in LC, are generally arranged by jurisdiction).
We do barcode them and check them in, because this material is allowed
to
circulate, but we do not make call number labels anymore.

"These changes, and others having to do with processing, were adopted
with
virtually no argument.  Since we were not adding staff, it was the only
way
we were going to survive.  These changes may not seem like much they
have
allowed us to keep up with the material that does require tracking,
primarily regularly issued looseleaf material.

"Another reason we moved as we did was to avoid having to create
publication
patterns for all these types of material, which we knew would be very
time-
consuming.  Since we were migrating from one ILS to another at the same
time, it seemed a logical point at which to institute the changes.

"We have had very few negative comments about the decision to stop check
in
for these kinds of publications.  (And I'm sure we would have heard from
our
reference and research departments if they were displeased.)"

Response #7:

"We've eliminated it as of July on a trial basis that has been extended
to
July 2006.  Because we are continuing to bind, we are having problems
with
the binding workflow."

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