----------------------------Original message----------------------------
In response to Regina Renyolds' 4/27/92 information and inquiry:

In the interest in keeping things simple (especially now that so many
*true* supplements & special issues are being published which must be
handled as separates), I enthusiastically support a single ISSN & a single
bibliographic record.  This approach also makes sense in light of the
publisher's response that they don't consider the customized issues to be
"editions", are not using edition statements, and are not using different
numbering.  Even before this (welcome) discussion on SERIALST, I had decided
that if at all possible, I would keep the record set-up very simple for the
customized issues: ideally, if no new ISSN were assigned to the customized
issues/inserts, if the inserts do not have separate numbering, and if they
are interfilmed with the "regular" issues on the micofilm edition, then use
the existing _Newsweek_ bibliographic, holdings, & issue records with
explanatory notes as necessary.

If I may also slip in a response to Jim Mouw's (perhaps rhetorical) question,
"Do readers really want it?":  Last week, on a local NPR affiliate station
in Kansas City, a panel discussed these new customized  _Newsweek_ issues, and
the response from individual subscribers, especially members of the news media,
is extremely enthusiatic.

Thanks, Regina, for initiating the phone calls to the publisher and UMI -- I
look forward to future postings from you when you receive additional informa-
tion -- especially UMI's response.

E. Gaele Gillespie / Asst. Head, Serials     University of Kansas Libraries
(913)864-3535   e-mail:  GGILLESP@UKANVM.BITNET     Lawrence, KS   66045-2800