I've been following these claiming problems and thought I'd add my 2
cents worth.  A couple of years ago I was getting EXTREMELY frustrated
with the number of unfilled 1st & 2nd & 3rd &.... claims I had out
there.  The publishers/vendors for our standing order series were
especially frustrating because it usually took 2 to 3 claims just to get
a card or form letter requesting more information (and yes, our claims
also list vol., no., & date of expected issue, where applicable).  After
some discussion with the library director, we had a rubber stamp made
which says:     Claim doublechecked
                by:_________ on:_________
                Issue(s) listed below
                CONFIRMED MISSING

I scribble my initials, stamp the date and send them off.

Seems like a lot of extra work, right?  Wrong:  Since I've been stamping
this on every claim sent, I've been getting useful responses to the 1st
claim most of the time (either the issue or a reason why the issue
hasn't arrived).  Second claims are unusual, except for overseas publishers,
and third claims are extremely rare.  It may take me a little longer to
include this stamp, but I'm saving the hassle of the 2nd and 3rd and
successive claims.

One of the reasons we decided to use the stamp was that one of the
publishers I called (after becoming frustrated by a lack of response to
claims) told me that they routinely ignored the first 2 computer-generated
claims because they'd had so many erroneous computer-generated claims,
often for non-existent issues, that they assumed libraries weren't checking
the claims before they were sent.  We always check our claims, I think
most libraries do, but the publishers don't know that unless we tell them.

Of course, I still have a couple of publishers who are nearly impossible
to get missing issues from, no matter what I do.... :-/

Di Neumeister                   e-mail: drneumei@lcac1.loras.edu
Serials Asst.                           (NOTE:That's LCAC1)
Wahlert Memorial Library
Loras College

---------

On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, Linda Cranston wrote:

> We have found that the first claim seems to generate that type of postcard
> response or worse, no response at all. Only the second claim seems to produce
> results.
>
> Linda Cranston
> lcransto@lwcvm1.lwc.edu
>