Re: Taylor & Francis, Haworth, and pages per volume William Cohen 15 Jul 2006 01:03 UTC
Colleagues: Over the past several years, Haworth Press has really had much more pressure to publish more pages per volume "as a whole" over a long-term period of time. Mitch provides wonderful insights, but might add even more more about profit vs. non-profit postage rates, and then also domestic vs. international? On top of this, the postage rate for a pdf is about...what...? Tonight's ominous and raging clouds of war reminds us all how simpler everything was only five years ago. Bill Cohen, Publisher The Haworth Press, Inc. www.HaworthPress.com turitz@SFSU.EDU wrote: > OK, I am going to add my $0.37 to this issue. I checked with the U.S. > Postal Service web site and found the following: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > http://pe.usps.gov/mpdesign/misc_docs/mqc_html/mqc_2.htm > > WHAT IS PERIODICALS MAIL? > > Periodicals mail consists of newspapers and periodical publications, > including magazines, published on a regular basis, at least four times > per year. [Emphasis mine - MT] > > Only publications that meet the eligibility standards in Domestic Mail > Manual 707.4.0 can qualify for Periodicals mailing privileges. To be > eligible, a publication must fulfill specific qualification standards > and meet the preparation requirements for the applicable presort > levels, rates, and discounts. > Basic Characteristics > > All authorized Periodicals publications must have the following > characteristics: > > * The publication must exhibit continuity from issue to issue (it > is the same publication). > * The primary purpose of the publication is the transmission of > information. It may not be designed primarily for advertising purposes. > * The publication must be issued at a specific, regular frequency. > This frequency must be at least four times a year, with the intent to > continue publishing indefinitely. > * The publication is formed of printed sheets. > * The publisher maintains a known office of publication from which > the business of the publication is transacted. This location must be > accessible during normal business hours and must be where the > circulation records are maintained, or where they may be made > available for examination and review. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > OK, so what does this mean in terms of our publishers' frequencies? > Clearly, in order to qualify for the USPS discount rate, the > publication must be published at least 4 times per year. What happens > if a publisher CLAIMS that it publishes 4 issues per year, but > sometimes issues a combined issue? Does that still count as 4 issues > a year? If yes, then that may explain why some publishers appear to > only publish twice or three times a year, but number the volumes with > combined issues. I am not suggesting that such publishers are trying > to thwart the USPS' regulations, when for practical reasons they fall > behind due to production problems. However, this may explain how a > possible loophole allows publishers to have a frequency that varies > without losing their status for the discounted mailing rate. > > I am not accusing any publishers of doing anything illegal or immoral, > but am offering an explanation for why the publishers' stated > frequency do not always match up with the officially stated > publication frequency. > > So what I am saying here is we should not be vendor-bashing without > knowing all the facts. Publishers frequently do not publish their > products according to AACR2, but according to their own needs and > purposes. It is our job, as Serialists, to figure out what is going > on with their publications and apply them to the cataloging rules we > have established and how to make their publications work with our > systems. > If we start basing publishers for not keeping up with their own stated > frequencies, then what's next? Complaining that they have not put the > ISSN on their publications? Or telling them that the ISSN is not > enough and they must have included the SICI (extended ISSN which > includes vol/issue information), OCLC number, and LCCN as well? Should > we complain loudly that a publisher has changed their volume numbering > without sufficient reason and demand that they change it back? It's > their publications and it's their decisions on how to publish them. > > Just my opinions, > > -- Mitch >