--- Forwarded message --- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:22:30 -0400 From: "Bill Cohen, Publisher, The Haworth Press, Inc." <bcohen7719@aol.com> Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Standing Order Model Dear Kathy: Many, many thanks for your kind and thoughtful letter. Kathy, Haworth Press had a great turn-around of library science editors when a large "segment" of editors who were in their mid-40's when they began with the firm when into their mid 50's and then mid 60's. I would not wish to announce anyone's age over the internet. We had to scramble, recruit, and work with new Editors who were in suddenly a new position in their professional career: Editor of a professional librarianship journal. It is very, very difficult to hit the ground running. Unlike traditional science journals which may have backlogs of articles from publish-or-perish scientists, Haworth's library science journals are a combination of science, scholarship, and practice. Each Editor has to woo and cajole articles from authors who decide to share their years of wisdom with their colleagues--a task made easier by the fact that professional librarians are, on the whole, a great deal more collaborative and helpful for each other than scientists who are competing for professional fame and grant funds. We have largely succeeded, and we anticipate the grouping of late journals will be off-pres and in distribution by mid-year next. However, I have gotten away from your most practical question about /ordering/, and for this, please forgive me: 1) When a library orders /direct/, we essentially have a standing order. About 20% of our customers order directly, so essentially they have standing orders; 2) When a library orders through an agent, we have a third party involved. But believe me, all agents I have known are very, very hard working, and do their best to help both library and publisher. One person in particular from EBSCO, Mr. Dan Tonkery, just wrote to us and gave us a lot of extremely helpful information on the special problems of academic year journals, which we will try to apply to this problem, and where the problem seems to cause the most headaches. The larger agencies do, we know, stop paying for a journal when it is more than "X" volumes late, and so there is one type of giant "standing order program" actually in place already, and the over-all budgetary needs you discuss are being attended to. The subscription agency here deserves the credit. 3) Harking back to timing: when you say that you cannot pay for something that will not arrive later than a year for accounting reasons, I understand this to be absolutely correct. I believe the same rule holds both ways: the publisher cannot advertise for goods that cannot be shipped past a year. However, as you note, the rules are indeed more liberal for subscription items. What should the publisher do, then, who was behind 2 or 3 volumes, and then suddenly catches up? Your letter suggests strongly that we as publishers must have better communications with the librarian: to let you know what is happening, to assure you that issues are "in the works," and to beg for consideration based on our history. We will get this in the works tomorrow morning. It is also suggested that at our end, we really do have to provide the best possible quality, and try to make each library reader as satisfied as possible with the material that they get. I would not argue that a journal which is not useful shouldn't, actually, be canceled. It should. Your letter was so beautifully written and insightful that I hope every listserve member reads it several times. We treasure your kind comments at the end, and you have motivated us to even try and do more for you. I can make a firm promise that we will do very, very well by you within the year. Bill Cohen, /Publisher & Editor-in-Chief/ The Haworth Press, Inc. www.HaworthPress.com bowersox@LIB.SUBR.EDU wrote: > Dear Mr Cohen, > > I've been following the SERIALS discussion on the unpredictability of > many Haworth quarterly journals. > > Have you considered publishing under a STANDING ORDER plan, as opposed > to the "subscription" model? Where a subscription is paid in advance, a > standing order is paid when a volume or issue is published and > distributed. Standing orders work great for annuals and unpredictable > publications. > > Subscriptions work best when a periodicity is stated and the schedule is > fulfilled within a given time frame (usually 12 months). On the other > hand, a standing order is paid when the item is actually published and > distributed, thus saving a library from paying in advance for a volume > that may not appear for 2 or 3 years (a scary situation when the > legislative auditor comes around.) > > I have many Standing Order (SO) titles included in my current > subscription with EBSCO. The SO permits some ambiguity regarding > expenditures for the coming subscripton year. We can track receipt > history (and thus actual publication pattern) and, in combination with > the publisher's announced schedule, we can make a good guess on how many > issues/volumes to expect and set aside the funding for a particular > title. The SO allows wiggle room for the publisher's production > schedule, and it also allows the subscriber some wiggle room for > funding. The SO is not a carte blanche -- reasonable adherence to an > announced publishing forecast would still be expected from the > publisher, and the SO subscriber is expected to pay for all issues > published. > > Thomson/Gale has really cleaned up their act in the last 2 or 3 years. > Of the 100 volumes expected from my SO last year, only 3 were not > received on schedule. They were a week late. That's pretty good. And > I knew exactly how much funding to set aside to cover that publication > schedule. > > I hated to do it, but I cancelled all but one of my library's Haworth > journal subscriptions back in 2002. We just could not absorb the > unexpected cost of multiple volumes in a single subscription year. I > especially wanted to keep our subscriptions to the library journals, as > most issues were on current topics, readable and very informative. > Since they were published simultaneously as monographs, we decided that > we could order individual titles for the really important ones. That has > not happened in practice. > > As I recall, Haworth would announce a 4-issue volume along with its > price. The volume would arrive complete in 1 or 2 physical issues, > which in itself is acceptable. The kicker came when the next volume was > announced only 6 months after the previous volume's announcement. That > publishing pattern is what we call "Two 4-issue volumes per year," and > the frequency is eight no. per year. And the publisher gets paid twice > for what we expected to be a single subscription term. > > Many of your journals (at least the ones I read) could easily work into > a standing order plan. Acquisitions and serials librarians are the most > upset at having to pay upfront for issues that don't come for months and > years. This isn't only a matter of inconvenience, personal risk is > involved. > > I must justify every expense to the auditors, and we're not supposed to > pay for anything that was not received within the same fiscal year. > The auditors make a small exception for subscriptions which must be paid > in advance, but they still expect all issues to arrive within the first > 6 months of the next fiscal year. I personally risk punitive fines and > prison time every time a publisher does not meet an announced > publication schedule. Believe me, Haworth isn't worth it! > > But, I still want to get your journals. If Haworth was to offer > standing orders for Reference Librarian, Serials Librarian, Cataloging > and Classification Quarterly, Collection Management, etc., you just > might be pleased at the response. > > Just a thought. > > Kathy > > Kathlyn A. Bowersox E-mail: bowersox@lib.subr.edu > Cataloging/Serials Librarian Office: (225) 771-2863 > John B. Cade Library Fax: (225) 771-2866 > Southern University > Baton Rouge, LA 70813
