We shelve by the correct title, as catalogued.  It's not any more confusing than "Journal for" vs "Journal of" and "Journal of the".

In addition, I think it would be more confusing to come bearing citation and find JAMA is shelved not under JA, but in the middle of the Jo section.

Jeanette L. Skwor
Serials Dept., Cofrin Library
University of WI-Green Bay
2420 Nicolet Drive
Green Bay, WI  54311-7001

"Libraries will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no libraries."
                              Anne Herbert, The Whole Earth Catalog

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Beth Shively Wages
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:31 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [SERIALST] Shelving organization

My library is in the process of cleaning up and reevaluating our serials
collection. The collection is stored alphabetically in one location. We
currently have a few journals shelved by their initials (for example, JAMA),
with the rest shelved by full name. My concern is that using both could
potentially be confusing for students.

My question to the forum is about how those of you with alphabetized
collections handle shelving location for journals that are known by their
initials, either officially or unofficially. Do you shelve by initials to
use a more commonly known name, or by official journal title to maintain
consistency?

I'm relatively new to this position and don't know if there is any common
school of thought.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide!

Beth Shively Wages
Serials Specialist
Lee and Jim Vann Library
University of Saint Francis
eshively@sf.edu