I still claim late/missing issues, and count claimed issues. A fair percentage of issues turning up on the problem list tend to be misunderstandings or downright overlooking of renewal periods/renewals. Another constant percentage are subs that go to someone else on campus because of poor addressing.
With moving more and more of our titles to online only format, the job takes an increasingly smaller portion of my time, but remains valuable, IMO.
Jeanette L. Skwor
Serials Dept., Cofrin Library
University of WI-Green Bay
2420 Nicolet Drive
Green Bay, WI 54311-7003
"Libraries will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no libraries."
Anne Herbert, The Whole Earth Catalog
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Pennington, Buddy D.
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:48 AM
Subject: [SERIALST] Serials claims measures
We claim on a weekly basis and continue to manually tally the number of claims sent to our agents. Our Innovative ILS tallies the total sent each week and our serials assistant then totals those weekly tallies by hand for a monthly total.
We've made a push to automate our statistics collection, and I was thinking that we might switch from claims sent to # of claimed issues as a monthly measure of the work we have done for claiming late issues. We could easily collect the number of claimed issues for the month using Innovative's Create Lists function.
I was wondering a couple of things:
1. How many libraries continue to claim late issues? I have heard
that a number of libraries have given this up.
2. If so, how do you measure that work? Claims sent? Does anyone
measure it in the way I described above?
Serial Acquisitions Librarian
University of Missouri - Kansas City
800 E. 51st Street
Kansas City, MO 64110
UMKC University Libraries: Discovery. Knowledge. Empowerment.