Kevin M. Randall <kmr@nwu.edu> wrote:
>I have been noticing an increasing trend for journals to combine the last
>number of a volume with the first number of the next volume, and it is very
>disturbing.  Does anyone have any idea of how we can broadcast our extreme
>displeasure about this?

And Tim Lawrence replied:
 find this annoying as well, but how is it our business to criticize this?
It makes sense to howl about bad title changes, because these are bad for
everybody in the end, including publishers and subscribers. But end of year
combined issues are for the most part awkward only to us. And by far the
biggest reason they are awkward is that our automated prediction systems
aren't designed to handle them, and that's nobody's trouble but ours.
Patrons might find such citations irritating enough to just skip sometimes,
but this isn't going to hurt a major popular weekly.

Tim,

I disagree with you on this issue.  Combining issues, is a standard practice
for publishers wanting to "catch=up" or get back on track with thier
publishing schedule.  Combining the last issue of a volume with the first
issue of another volume does create minor havoc.  In popular titles, it is
less apparent, but in peer reviewed journals, this creates problems with both
microfilming and with binding.

While we do not bind major popular weeklys, we do get them on microfilm, and
it is confusing for the patron when trying to locate that first issue of
volume xx.

This is my $.02 worth, but I would also like publishers to use better
judgement when combining issues.

Judith Cerqua
Head, Acquisitions/Processing
State Library of Ohio
jcerqua@slonet.ohio.gov