Sarah:

We will add that note to the comprehensive plan that I had sent you
separately off-list.

Many, many thanks!   We will work on this with all energies, but make
sure that the
needs of subscription agencies are also taken into account.   We know
that some librarians
may question the traditional library-agency-publisher relationship, but
I believe this three-way
alliance is more important than ever.

At the same time, we are working to bring our journals back on schedule
this very year,
and anticipate this "off-cycle disruption" will be a one-time event.
What would help would be some
data on "off-cycle disruption" from other publishing houses, and see if
this set of problems was
caused more by the problems initiated by a combination of academic year
journals combined with
calendar year journals, as predicted as possible by one subscription
agency which is looking into the
matter further.

Bill Cohen, /Publisher & Editor-in-Chief/
The Haworth Press, Inc.
www.HaworthPress.com

tusa@ALMARK.LAMAR.EDU wrote:
> The standing order model is alive and well, and I tend to agree that the
> Haworth Press "journals" would better fit that model.
>
> I do agree, however, that standing orders can be difficult to monitor.  (And
> I'm glad to hear that someone has had better luck with EBSCO on that score
> than I have!)  Still, given the fact that Haworth Press does not comply with
> the standard subscription models very well (if at all), that may well be the
> better way to go (i.e., as standing order titles), especially in light of
> budgetary and auditing concerns.
>
> For either model to work, however, the publisher must be responsive to status
> inquiries and/or claims.
>
> Another two-cent deposit from:
> Sarah Tusa
> Lamar University
>