Re: Use of discard lists Dan Lester 06 Apr 2007 18:48 UTC
My personal belief is that the days of needing to fill in perfectly are long gone.
Several reasons immediately come to mind.
1. As your boss noted, it is labor intensive.
2. You could probably buy the microfilm of that volume cheaper and easier.
3. What are the chances that someone who wants to read The Journal of Underwater Basketweaving will actually need Volume 5, 1967?
4. Are the journals you're working so hard to fill in even worth keeping at all?
5. ILL is so cheap and fast with electronic document delivery, it has become a much more practical solution than it was 20 years ago.
6. No collection can ever be complete, even in a specialized collection.
7. There are some places that will recycle books and journals. You can perhaps find some locally.
In my personal and professional opinion your boss is right.
Show Up, Suit Up, Shut Up, and Follow Directions
Dan Lester, Boise, Idaho, USA
----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "R Davis" <RDAVIS@STARK.KENT.EDU>
Received: 4/6/2007 11:15:40 AM
Subject: [SERIALST] Use of discard lists
>In the last year I have completed 82 volumes and now have 15 more titles
>with complete uninterrupted runs from a discard list. However, our library
>director has decided it is a waste of time to use discard lists for collection
>fulfillment. Of course, my belief has always been to keep surplus issues out
>of the landfills and give them to libraries that could use them. I thought all
>libraries wanted the most complete collection possible. Has there been a
>change in library philosophy that I missed? I would appreciate (off-list) any
>insights or responses to this policy change.
>(at an academic college library)