Re: New Statesman - Numbering Problem Bennett, Karla 31 Jan 2005 20:37 UTC
Thank you for sharing this information. It was very helpful since we
received our Jan 24th issue today.
From: Koveleskie, Judith [mailto:kovelesk@SETONHILL.EDU]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 2:09 PM
Subject: [SERIALST] New Statesman - Numbering Problem
I thought others would like to know the response that came from the
publisher regarding the numbering of this title.
Judith A. Koveleskie
Seton Hill University
Reeves Memorial Library
Greensburg, PA 15601
This document may contain confidential information and is intended solely
for the use of the addressee. If you received it in error, please contact
the sender at once and destroy the document. The document may contain
information subject to restrictions of the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Acts. Such information may not be
disclosed or used in any fashion outside the scope of the service for which
you are receiving the information.
The publisher had a problem with their numering which was to be
corrected with the Jan 24th issue. If you have the 1/17 you should not be
missing anything. Below is some information I received from the publisher a
couple weeks ago. Thanks- Carissa
Unfortunately, despite my instructions the numbering of the double issues
was done incorrectly and this hasn't been rectified for the start of 2005 -
sooooooooo........Jan 10th is actually 4722 and January 17th should be 4723.
The sequence will be corrected for next week so Jan 24th will be 4724.
The January 24, 2005 issue of New Statesman is predicted as Vol.
134, No. 4723 (New Statesman & Society Vol. 18, no. 842 is the alternate
numbering. However, the issue itself is numbered Vol. 134, No. 4724 (New
Statesman & Society Vol. 18, no. 843).
I don't think we missed an issue because we have January 17. Things like
this drive librarians crazy.