Re: Journal supplement numbering --an editor asks us for input Shirley Rais 03 Dec 2004 20:31 UTC
Option 2 makes more sense for those of us who bind our journals. Shirley Rais, Serials Librarian Loma Linda University Libraries 11072 Anderson St. Loma Linda, CA 92350-0001 Phone: (909) 558-4583 FAX: (909) 558-4919 Srais@llu.edu -----Original Message----- From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Naomi Young Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 2:07 PM To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: [SERIALST] Journal supplement numbering --an editor asks us for input Forwarding this from a colleague in the serial industry... Please send to me personally at Naomi@uflib.ufl.edu, or direct to the originator of the message (zeditor@sunflower.com); I will summarize for the list responses I receive. Calling all librarians -- I know you're out there. <g> For several years now we have published annual supplements containing Web-exclusive articles that appeared on our site during the past six months. We have never numbered these supplements but have simply referred to them as "supplements" for the purposes of mailing requirements. The articles are typeset and paginated in a numbering scheme that is separate from the regular in-print volumes (for example, articles on the Web in 2004 would be numbered W4-nn, and so on). They are identified by their date of posting instead of a volume/issue number. (A picture is worth a thousand words: see content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/reprint/hlthaff.w4.534v1 for a live example.) Our preference for articles in these supplements is to have them cited by their online identifiers (date of posting, URL, no page numbers). However, it's been pointed out to us that having the supplements numbered could allow authors to cite Web-exclusive articles as in-print publications for skittish tenure committees who *still* don't view online publishing (even in a peer-reviewed environment) as counting toward publishing requirements. Here's the problem. Because of production lag times, we publish the Web articles from July-December of a given year in a supplement that is mailed with the second issue (Mar/Apr) of the following year. Articles from January-June of a given year are published in a supplement mailed with the fifth issue (Sep/Oct) of the same year. We could number our supplements in one of two ways, either of which is bound to confuse and annoy someone. Option 1 would be to number them with the volume year in which the articles appeared on the Web, even though the actual supplement volume wouldn't be produced until the next year (so supplement 1 of vol. 23, 2004, would consist of articles published in Jan-June 2004 but wouldn't be produced until Sept. 2004; supplement 2 of vol. 23, 2004, would be produced in March 2005). Option 2 would be to number the supplements according to when the in-print supplement is produced, regardless of whether the articles themselves were produced that year or the prior year (so supplement 1 of vol. 24, 2005, would contain articles from July-Dec 2004 and would come out in March 2005; supplement 2 of vol. 24, 2005, would contain articles from Jan-June 2005 and would come out in Sept 2005). Do those of you who manage citations and journal collections have a preference for which of two evils we should pursue? Does it really matter? Should we bother? Many thanks, and sorry for the convoluted explanation. ---- End forwarded message. Naomi K. Young Principal Serials Cataloger Cataloging & Metadata Dept. University of Florida naomi@uflib.ufl.edu 352 392-0355 ext. 234 My title has changed, but my contact information has not.