Re: Claims study? (Rose LaJudice) Marcia Tuttle 16 Feb 1999 16:05 UTC

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:32:00 -0500
From: "LaJudice, Rose" <>
Subject: RE: Claims study? (Stephen D. Corrsin)

That sounds exaggerated to me.  Most journals have a limited time
that you can claim.  3 month to 6 months in some cases.  Our
online serials module allows us to input a 30 day waiting time for
issues not received.  That is we expect the issue to arrive Feb 2, but
the claim is not generated until March 2 nd.  I run a monthly
claim report and always double check the current stacks.  So I
think this eliminates a lot of errors.  I find I need to claim directly
to the journals as going through our vendor takes too long.
Often going past the deadline that a journal will send
missing issues.

Rose M. LaJudice
Aaron Health Sciences Library
Buffalo, NY

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:03:59 -0500
From: Stephen D Corrsin <sdc16@COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject: claims study?

At Midwinter, a vendor rep told me about a study he said had been done a
few years ago by, I believe, a university in Maine, with the cooperation
of a vendor. The study concerned the university library's serials claiming
practices. The vendor rep told me that "over 90%" of the claims were
"invalid" -- apparently meaning too early, or for issues that didn't exist
(e.g., issue #5 of a quarterly), or for titles that were not actually on
order with the particular vendor.

This report sounds somewhat exaggerated to me; the rep was trying to
convince me that automated claims systems (or rather as in our case,
NOTIS, not generated
automatically but lists are generated from which staff produce claims)
create a lot of work to little purpose.

Can anyone confirm the existence of such a study, or can provide the
details for anything similar?

thanks, in advance,
Steve Corrsin
Head, Serials Acquisitions
Columbia University