My apologies for the delay in posting this.  I’m reposting my original query, with the responses below.

I’ve included private responses, as well as those that were previously published on the list (or at least the ones that I saved at the time).

At the end, I’m tell you what we decided to do and how it seems to be working.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

From: Steve Murden [ mailto:stevemurden@mindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:38 PM
To: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
Subject: handling unbound periodical issues.

 I have a question that dovetails nicely with the one that Bill Maravetz
posted on Tues., about relocation of periodicals.

Context:
I am volunteering in an art museum library.  We are preparing the collection
for a physical move into the new wing that is under construction.  As part of
this process, we are classifying a previously unclassified serials collection.
The bound journals are (and will continue to be) in closed stacks and the
current issues are (and will be) browsable in the publicly-accessible portion
of the library.  We do not plan to put call numbers on the unbound new issues,
but the shelf labels will have both title and call number.

Problem:
While large portions of the serials are bound, and it is relatively easy to affix
call number spine labels, there are large sections of the collection (small runs
of some titles that are otherwise bound, as well as years worth of unbound
runs for some titles) that have never been bound.  There is no money in the
current budget for extra binding.

The unbound issues are generally kept in a variety of open-sided (Princeton)
boxes or plastic holders.  We would prefer not to affix call number labels to every
unbound issue.  We would like ideas for how others physically house and label
issues stored like this.  For example, if you use Princeton boxes, do you put
labels on each individual box?  If so, do the labels have title, call number, and/or
date/volume range for each box?  (While the bound volumes have the titles on
the spine, the boxes sometimes obscure the spine titles on the unbound issues.)
What about boxes that are only 1/2 full and you're adding to them constantly?  

While we don't plan to put call numbers on individual issues (either in the stacks
or on the current shelves), are there advantages to doing so?   If others have
chosen not to do so, what were the factors that led to that decision?  And are
you happy with the way you do it?  Would you prefer changing your system?

The questions are pretty amorphous and we are interested in ideas that are
working (or more importantly, are not working) in other libraries.  Obviously, our
closed stack arrangement is not the norm, and will color our final decisions,
but we are open to any helpful suggestions.  Please feel free to post to the
list, or to send me private responses at steve.murden@vmfa.museum.  I will
send a composite post of any private responses, if there's any interest.

Thanks.

Steve Murden
Volunteer, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts Library

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 From: Rouillard, Marilee [ mailto:mrouilla@keene.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 3:22 PM
To: Murden, Steve (VMFA)
Subject: periodicals

About ten years ago when we were undergoing an expansion and complete remodeling I saw the need to rearrange our collection by call number.  I knew that the librarians on the way up wanted that and the timing was right.  I polled everyone and searched the literature and found it was an evenly divided issue.  When Middlebury decided to switch to call numbers, that tipped the balance here.  We did it and it was really the right way to go.

It helps with locating titles and keeps like with like, especially when titles change.  I no longer use Princeton files since we bind them, but if I did, I would only put the title on a current box.  Anything full would need the dates, etc.

We also switched from closed stacks to open which makes staffing easier but results in more lost and stolen items.

Using call numbers helps organize and computers make labels pretty easily­it is part of our systems checkin.  The barcodes have our name and cost only 2 cents each (I think) so we have our ‘print’ on everything.

 Regardless of what you do, enjoy it.

Marilee
 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:42:11 -0500
From: Barbara Pope <bpope@pittstate.edu>
To: stevemurden@MINDSPRING.COM
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] handling unbound periodical issues.

I disagree somewhat with Wilma's post. I think it would depend on
three things: the size of your collection, the amount of usage, and
who does your shelving. If your collection has a lot of usage and you
have someone else doing the shelving, I would think labels may be
important. Otherwise, it seems to me that staff may be spending a lot
of time looking up call numbers for each title every time they are
used. I have students who do the majority of the shelving and I would
not expect them to know the call number for a certain journal.
However, if you have a small collection and not a lot of usage, this
may not be a big deal for you. This is just may 2 cents. Please use
or discard at will.

Sincerely,

Barbara M. Pope, MALS
Periodicals/Reference Librarian
Axe Library
Pittsburg State University
1701 S. Broadway
Pittsburg KS 66762
620-235-4884
bpope@pittstate.edu

Wilma Dague wrote:

 >If they are not to be checked out and to be in closed , there is no
>reason to label every issue. It's easy enough to look up a call
>number if a journal were to be separated from its box. We have a
>similar situation with some physics journals and we just label the
>boxes and file the by volume,

>Best regards,

>Wilma Weant Dague
>Serials Coordinator
>Benedictine College Library
>St. Benedict's Abbey Library
>1020 North 2nd St.
>Atchison, KS 66002
>(913) 360-7610

>wdague@benedictine.edu < mailto:wdague@benedictine.edu>

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sender: kteel.work@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:05:29 -0700
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] handling unbound periodical issues.
From: Kay Teel <kteel@stanford.edu>
To: stevemurden@MINDSPRING.COM

We have lots of branch libraries and lots of serials, so our scale is somewhat bigger, but we do put call numbers on individual unbound issues. It helps staff at binding time to know that the issues they have all belong together, and they can enter the call number in the bindery information. We write the call number on the issues (yes, by hand!) with a permanent marker. We used to use pencils, but it became increasingly impractical with glossy papers. For dark covers, we use light-colored gel pen. The call number is written by staff at the point of check-in.

Our current periodicals area in the main library is arranged by title. The unbound issues are kept in princeton boxes. There is a label on each box with the title of the periodical and its call number. The call number info is useful for patrons who need to consult back issues (which are bound and kept in Stacks under call #) and for staff doing bindery preparation.

We have some unbound periodicals in our stacks, also in princeton boxes. Each piece has the call number written on it -- it's essential here, in case the piece wanders from its box -- and the boxes do, as well, since they are shelved by call #. The titles are on the box label, sometimes written by hand, sometimes typed or printed (the method has varied over the years).

This works for us because of our size, and it's never been a big problem for us to write the call #s on the pieces. For a smaller library, it might not be necessary, especially if it's not a hassle to look up the call # of an unbound issue that's strayed from its box.
--
Kay Teel
Serials and Arts Resources
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
Stanford, California 94305
kteel@stanford.edu
(650) 724-7346

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Subject: FW: [SERIALST] handling unbound periodical issues.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:54:45 -0700
From: "Bluhm-Stieber, Hella" < Hella.Bluhm-Stieber@hhs.sccgov.org>
To: "Steve Murden" < stevemurden@MINDSPRING.COM>

Hello Steve,
We stopped binding most of our journals because of budget reasons, so we have many loose issues in boxes. Since we have our titles arranged by alphabet our situation is a little different than yours. We label all of our boxes and created a template. I am attaching a sample. In your case you could just add another line for the call number to the label.
Good luck,
Hella
 
Hella Bluhm-Stieber, MLIS, AHIP
Medical Librarian
Milton J. Chatton Medical Library
Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System
751 S. Bascom Ave.
San Jose, CA 95128
(408) 885-5654
Fax (408) 885-5655
hella.bluhm-stieber@hhs.sccgov.org
Monday-Thursday, 9am - 1pm, closed Fridays and county holidays.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 Subject:    Response to [SERIALST] Relocation of periodicals collection
Date:       Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:16:21 -0500
From:       Laytham, C. Melissa <claytham@northpark.edu >
To:   'william.maravetz@uni.edu' <william.maravetz@uni.edu >


Bill,

This email is in response to your question on SERIALST.

We have shelved our periodicals loose issues, bound volumes and back runs of microform side-by-side for at least 10 years.  Our journals are arranged alphabetically but, due to space, are split between two floors (1990-present on a main floor and through 1989 on a lower level).

Generally, I like that the loose issues are shelved beside the bound volumes.  I have never thought the microform arrangement makes sense.

We are heavily reliant upon students to shelve issues, pull issues for binding, search for missing issues, etc.  The arrangement works for them because they can look at bound volumes when they are getting ready to pull for bindery.  If they have any questions, the previous bound volume is right there for the students to compare.  We also have a number of classes in which professors instruct students to go browse a certain title.  It is much easier for them when everything is shelved together.

And on at least two occasions this past summer, we had faculty members search through every issue of a journal title (once to see how the journal had changed over time and once to evaluate the percentage of articles that had been accepted on various topics).

There are a few things that I don't like about this arrangement.  First, I think a lot of space is wasted.  We try to shift the collection so that there is always room for five more years of bound journals.  Then we also must leave space for a pamphlet box (Princeton file) to hold the loose issues.  Every time that I think we have shifted properly, then we have our annual meeting and cancel and add many titles.  Then we have to make significant shifting adjustments.  We have solved part of this problem by placing a white dot on the last volume of any cancelled title in the collection.  Then we can snug up the collection wherever we have closed titles.

A second problem is that we use pamphlet boxes that are open on one side so that students can slide issues in and out of the box.  We try to face the boxes out so that users can see the title of the journal.  When space gets tight or the journal is small, then we turn it so that the spine shows.  The pamphlet boxes are great for some journals, but others are much too heavy or much too thin.  The heavy ones make the pamphlet boxes fall over.  The thin ones begin to curl before we have enough to bind.  I have never been satisfied with our storage options for loose materials.

Finally, be prepared to lose more issues if you move them out of a controlled reading area.  I have students shelf read one range of the journal collection every day (18 ranges).  We have had a number of issues go missing over the years.  And we have had a number of cases in which users have collected all their research material on a topic and "borrowed" a pamphlet box to hold their materials (which they try to cleverly hide within the journal ranges).

I am sure that we will not change the arrangement in our library as our library director really likes it.  I hope that this information helps in your decision making process.

 
Regards,

C. Melissa Laytham
Head of Technical Services
Brandel Library
North Park University
3225 W. Foster Avenue
Chicago, IL  60625
(773) 244-5248

claytham@northpark.edu

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 Back to me.

 This is what we did.   We added call numbers to all of the bound serial vols.  For the unbound titles, we added shelf labels, using a Brother label maker.  Where the title is visible on the spines of the issues, the shelf label just has the call number.  Where the title is only evident by removing the individual issues from their boxes, we put both the call number and title on the label.  The labels are affixed to the front of the shelf on magnetic strips, so that they can be easily moved when shifting is necessary.  So far, this seems to be working well.  It’s extremely helpful for the staff who have to retrieve materials for patrons (they are mostly part-time non-librarians or volunteers).  The professional staff of the museum seem to appreciate the arrangement as well (once they got used to the idea of non-alphabetical arrangement).

 Again, my apologies for taking so long to post this, especially for those people who expressed an interest in knowing the results of my survey.  The move and subsequent clean-up and problem solving took far longer than I would have expected.  I also doesn’t help that I only work 1 or 2 days a week - and only when I feel like it.  ;-)


Steve Murden