Minutes for July 8, 2003 meeting

Gracemary Smulewitz [chair], Peggy Gerenza, Mary Page, Cathy Pecoraro, Melody Tomaszewicz, Kayla Reichardt, Elizabeth Leister, Janet Howard, Paul Cabelli, Chris Sterback, Iliana Bernal and Andrea Lakios [conference call], Jean Madden [conference call], Linda Turzynski [recorder]


  1. Proposed standardization of RUL cancellation processes


Building emergencies necessitated a late start of 10:30 am.

  1. G. Smulewitz distributed a document "Cancellations-sequencing and considerations" as a starting point for discussion. While cancellations can occur at any time, this discussion was targeted primarily for the big annual cancellation list. Each of the three RUL campuses gets a target figure for expenditures from the AUL for Collection Development. It is given to the library representative on Collection Services Council. Selectors, working from that target figure, also get a list of journals per fund code with the previous years expenditure. Presently, the DANA and ROBESON libraries work from the renewal list; it was suggested that a Unicorn report could be run for both sites from the fund code because it can be imported into excel and the selectors have a basis to perform cancellation analysis.
  2. It was strongly recommended that each campus keep a spreadsheet of potential cancellations; this is, in fact, done on all 3 campuses. A template spreadsheet was suggested-on the order of one distributed--with some elements being necessary (title, library, fund code, format : paper; paper/online; online, notes, credit expected). Such a spreadsheet will allow for monitoring.
  3. It is important to note whether a title currently received in paper also has online holdings, as cancellation of the paper copies only could affect the online subscription. RU-ONLINE can only be valid if all 3 campuses can connect to the online version; this sometimes requires multi-site licenses.
  4. Where there is online access with paper and only the paper is being cancelled, the online title should be given to C. Pecoraro (Acquisitions) to investigate fully any of these ramifications. It would be useful if the units did some preliminary investigation with the vendor, but vendors may not know or have all the information that the provider has. She will also help to cancel "online only" subscriptions. The library will notify the vendor and then forward the title to CP for further cancellation processes. "Paper only" cancellations can proceed without investigation. Decisions involving cancellations where there are online issues (of whatever kind) should be validated by the appropriate selectors.
  5. There are a number of timing issues to consider. The cancellation must be made before the payment is made. If this cannot be done for whatever reason (e.g., date of subscription renewal), the order record can be manipulated through the "cancellation segment." The record would be flagged so it comes up before rollover. There are frequent difficulties with last copy invoices from small publishers. Any cancellation correspondence should be dated and should indicate what the last copy will be. We know there is some slippage in invoicing, and that we are not always receiving credits due us. Order record should not be deleted until credit is received. Credits should be reflected in the invoice.
  6. Two reports are helpful to evaluate subscriptions. They are run by systems and be distributed to the libraries by G. Smulewitz as was done this year. They should be run in the spring, then at the end of the fiscal year and again at the very beginning of the new fiscal year for the previous fy titles. They are: titles encumbered and not paid, and those not encumbered and not paid.
  7. An online cancellation form was endorsed by the group. Requested information would be title, PO number, fund code. The form would be housed on the Serials page.
  8. The cancellation lists, once validated by the appropriate parties and cancelled with the vendor by the Coll Svcs or Tech Svcs staff should be forwarded to M. Page for the order cancellation.
  9. Claims for pending issues on cancelled subscriptions should have status marked CANCEL so that they can be identified to be claimed quickly. Then titles can be bound and holding records closed.
  10. Once a title has been marked for cancellation, the predictions should be deleted in the serials control record. Once all billing issues are resolved, and all issues received to the cancellation date then the entire record control record should be deleted. The CURRENT Marc Holdings record should be removed if all issues have been bound and there is a BOUND Marc Holding record. These procedures should be overseen by the local area coordinators.
  11. The suggestions were made that we would wait up to 6 months for a claimed item, while missing items would be replaced immediately.


Next recorder: Melody Tomaszewicz

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/ts-core/minutes/holdings_wg_03-07-08.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries