4 messages:
1)_____
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:02:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Charles F. Tremper" <cftrempe@library.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: No. of Issues per Vol. -- Query from Publisher (Richard Gedy
Your inclination is good: leave well enough alone.
Original message:
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:10:12 +0100
From: GEDYE Richard <GEDYER@OUP.CO.UK>
Subject: Is there an optimum number of issues in a volume?
I wonder if I could turn to SERIALST readers for a small piece of advice.
One of our journals is published in annual volumes of 12 monthly issues. Each
issue has approximately 240 pages.
The editor is now asking that from 1999 we should publish the 12 issues as 2
volumes of 6 issues rather than one volume of 12 issues. Our inclination is to
stick with the status quo. But what do you think? Would 2 volumes of 6 issues
be more convenient? Or would the change just add yet another unwelcome piece of
extra administration?
Any views would be most helpful.
Richard Gedye
===========================
Richard Gedye
Journals Marketing Director
Oxford University Press
Great Clarendon Street
Oxford
OX2 6DP
England
Tel: +44 1865 267785 (direct)
Fax: +44 1865 267835
E-mail: gedyer@oup.co.uk
World Wide Web site: http://www.oup.co.uk/
===========================
Charles F. Tremper
Head, Serials Unit and Serials Catalog Libn.
Syracuse University Library
Syracuse, N.Y. 13210
Phone: (315) 443-9775
Email: cftrempe@library.syr.edu
*********************************************
Charles F. Tremper
Head, Serials Unit and Serials Catalogue Libn.
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Syracuse University Library
Syracuse, N.Y. 13244
telephone: (315) 443-9775
email: cftrempe@hawk.syr.edu
2)_____
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:05:51 -0400
From: Louise Pierce <lpierce@EAGLE.YCP.EDU>
Subject: Re: No. of Issues per Vol. -- Query from Publisher (Richard Gedye)
I appreciate your polling the listserv about this change in numbering. To
me it makes no difference how many issues are in a volume. It's the
changing from one scheme to another that creates headaches for us. Please
advise your editor to leave well enough alone.
Louise Pierce
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Louise Pierce
Periodicals Specialist
York College of Pennsylvania
York, PA 17405-7199
(717)815-1224
lpierce@ycp.edu
fax (717)849-1608
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3)______
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:06:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Borries <MSBBH@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: Re: No. of Issues per Vol. -- Query from Publisher (Richard Gedye)
It would definitely "add yet another unwelcome piece of administration." And
some confusion, although not as much as some journals. In the abstract, I
see nothing to recommend one volume over two, or vice versa, except perhaps
that the first is more customary, and will likely result in fewer citations
going wrong (either the citation is really incorrect, or the reader looks
in the wrong place).
But when a journal has started publishing one way, and then changes, it
increases the likelihood that citations will go wrong. Of course, it
means added notes on the catalog record (and then the reader has to read
the note). It can also cause confusion in claiming missing issues.
Catalogers and, I suspect, readers would prefer consistency, not change.
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
555 West 57th Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10019
msbbh@cunyvm.cuny.edu
(212) 541-0376
4)______
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 09:25:02 -0600
From: Michael Thompson <thompson@RESOURCENTER.COM>
Subject: Re: No. of Issues per Vol. -- Query from Publisher (Richard Gedye)
I know the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England
Journal of Medicine do this. It's apparently related to the number of pages.
Put all 12 of those large issues into a volume and it becomes kind of
unwieldy. Creates a mass of numbers in citations as well. I don't know that
this is their motivation, but it does seem like one possibility.
******Michael P. Thompson******
****Director of Communications***
***thompson@resourcenter.com***
