FW: [SERIALST] Use of discard lists Ian Woodward 09 Apr 2007 12:13 UTC

I would take exception to point # 2.  In my experience, the invoice
charges for a roll of microfilm will exceed by a considerable multiple
the charges for purchased back issue (should UMI or Gale happen to
traffic in that title).  IW

I.  Woodward
Serials Office
Colgate University Libraries
Case Library and Geyer Center for Information Technology
13 Oak Drive
Hamilton, N.Y. 13346
Ph.:   315-228-7306
Fax:   315-228-7029

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Dan Lester
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Use of discard lists

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
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 ----------------------------------------
  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
  >with complete uninterrupted runs from a discard list. However, our
  >director has decided it is a waste of time to use discard lists for
  >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.

  >Roger Davis
  >Serials Librarian
  >(at an academic college library)