RE:  Ron Nimmer's questions about the impact of shelving current issues
     by title vs. call number.  Below is a slightly modified version of
     a response which I had originally sent directly to him.  This is per
     Jan Anderson's (Utah State) wish for public responses.

RE:  Your message on Serialst about shelving methods.  The University of
Vermont recently completed a project which involved the re-shelving of all
our current issues (approx. 3600 titles) from shelving by main entry to
shelving by LC classification number.  This means that the library currently
has two periodical shelving schemes.  Our bound volumes are still shelved
by main entry.  We agreed to class current issues after several years of
lobbying by one dept. in particular. (I think, in the end, it goes to show
that perserverance furthers one's cause;  user surveys had been undertaken
some years ago, which specifically asked preferences about shelving by LC class
vs. main entry; surveys indicated that users were split 50-50 on this issue --
not a strong enough sentiment for classification, it was felt, at that time).

A number of folks were quite disgruntled when they found the current issues
area arranged by LC call number.  (We did the bulk of the project in the summer
of 1990, so folks were surprised when returning from their summer breaks),
especially older faculty who were well used to the alpha arrangement.  Over
time, however, I think people have gotten used to looking in the online
catalog to find locations for specific issues.

As far as shelving goes, it has been noted that it does seem to take longer
to shelve current issues (arranged by call #) than it used to (when they
were arranged by alphabetically).  There's also been some speculation (although
no official studies) that things are more likely to get shelved in the wrong
places with the LC call numbers than they were with main entry shelving.
This could, in turn, result in more missing issues when it comes time for
bindery shipments.

Our periodical stacks are open (unrestricted access).  It seems like arguments
could be made for either shelving arrangement.  There are pros and cons
for each.  We're wondering now, with our two shelving arrangements, if
there will eventually be a movement for uniformity that will lead to our
going back to class our bound volumes.  Roll on millennium!!

Birdie MacLennan
Serials Cataloger
Bailey/Howe Library
University of Vermont
E-Mail: BMACLENN@UVMVM.BITNET
        BMACLENN@UVMVM.UVM.EDU