[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[PADG:1047] Re: Paperback Preferred Question (fwd)
We've had deferred binding for a very long time, and also went to a
paperback preferred approval plan several years ago so
we have a double set of issues to address. Since I also do some
collection development I've been somewhat surprised at how
my own decision making about what format to buy has been influenced
by price differences solely when wearing my other hat.
As for binding of paperbacks, what we are reconsidering now is the
process for selecting books for binding after they have circulated,
whether
to still use a process involving quick staff review for making a
decision or go with an automatic process based solely on number of
circulations.
We used to be concerned that binding automatically after just one or
two circulations would be making a newer book unavailable at the
point at which it might be of greater need --of particular importance
at a campus with a large undergraduate population on the quarter
system. If something is stored off-site or at the bindery, the
undergrads usually just give up on that title. If anyone has policies
or thoughts about the
best timing of deferred binding, please share online or offline and
I will summarize
This discussion reminds me that the question of approaching binding
allocations as a percentage of the collections budget still comes up
from time to time from administration, sometimes using comparisons of
other institutions binding to collections budgets ratios. We are
usually successful in bringing that conversation back to a needs
based approach rather than looking just at the ratio of binding
budget to collection budget. But I was wondering if there is any
recommended written material on needs based binding to use as in
these discussions.
Perhaps there is also some opportunity for a publication or at least
a discussion group topic on how to project binding needs in this
shift to paperback.
Karen Mokrzycki
Preservation and Collection Planning
University Library (292 McHenry)
University of California
1156 High Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
kmm@xxxxxxxx
831-459-2021
On Jun 6, 2006, at 5:44 AM, Sue Davis wrote:
Let me add my institution's practice to this bandwagon. We chose the
paperback-preferred model many years ago, primarily for cost
savings. At that time we were commercially binding all upon
receipt. Now we follow a similar policy Andrew describes below by
sorting paperbacks upon receipt. Some do get sent for immediate
binding (I think we're running about 40-50%), but that includes gift
items that are older and more worn. It seems the best compromise
between saving money at the purchase end and saving money in the
binding budgets. And, yes, there is additional preservation staff
time involved, but it was the one place we could make preservation
judgments. We've also noticed that our users prefer attractive
books, so when we try to save as many covers as possible, either
copied as outside covers or bound inside to save the extra info.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Monday, June 05, 2006 4:22 PM -0400
From: Andrew Hart <ashart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: padg@xxxxxxx
Subject: [PADG:1029] Re: Paperback Preferred Question
For much the same reasons Shannon summed up, we have had a
paperback preferred profile on our approval plans for about five(?)
years now. We made this change around the same time we started
deferring binding until evidence of demand for a lot of our
circulating paperbacks. Neither change caused any serious problems
that I know of and the amount of money saved is significant.
However, while the internal costs are in the ballpark for what we
expected, I think they are more than most people working in the
library would guess. In this library, for example, there's a cost
for the labor that goes into decision-making for what gets deferred
and what gets bound. If we buy more of our books in softcover then
we have to make more deferred binding decisions. Even if this is
done very efficiently, the time starts to add up. In a library
that stiffens all paperbacks, there's a cost for that treatment
that might be obvious to people working in collections conservation
but poorly understood for most everyone else.
Shannon's point about dust jackets is something I've also thought
about some and I know it has come up in various PARS discussions.
I would guess that most research libraries discard dust jackets
because we have generally thought the cost outweighs the benefits
of keeping them -- but patrons do like them and they sometimes have
information that is not repeated within the book. For both our
in-house bindings (something akin to stiffening) and commercial
bindings, we almost always bind in a paperback's cover. There are
pros and cons for binding a cover inside a book or using the
services Shannon described to keep the cover on the outside but
either way the paperback winds up retaining more of its original
presentation than a hardcover with a dust jacket.
Andy
Andrew Hart
Preservation Librarian
CB#3910, Davis Library
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Tel. 919-962-8047
Fax 919-962-4450
ashart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shannon Zachary wrote:
I have now recommended paperback preferred to a number of
selectors.
First, recent surveys have shown me that the great majority of
books published in the US/Canada, Western Europe, Israel, and
Japan are now on alkaline-processed paper. I have contacted
several scholarly publishers individually; all respond that the
*only* difference between the paper and the hardcover versions
is the binding. The difference in price, however, often far
exceeds what I know is the cost of the binding for the
publisher--and exceeds our cost to have the library binder
rebind the paperback.
Next, my observation has been that publishers' hardcover bindings
have been getting shoddier and shoddier over the past twenty
years, what with paper covering materials, burst-bind leaf
attachment, and those wretched stiff spine pieces. Meanwhile,
paperback bindings have tended to become sturdier and sturdier.
It now makes sense to me to buy paperback and bind if and when
the paperback circulates. (Oversize, thin, landscape, and
spiral-bound paperbacks I prefer to bind upfront--these
structures tend to get destroyed just sitting on the shelf.)
I now have options to ask our library binder to bind paperbacks
with the original cover over boards or with the original cover
hinged in. Usually the same information that appears on the
hardcover dust jacket is printed on the paperback cover. I'm not
allowed (in most instances) to save the dust jackets, but I do
have options for saving the paperback covers. The libraries and
patrons love it.
Shannon Zachary, Head, Preservation and Conservation
University Library
The University of Michigan
837 Greene St. / 3202 Buhr Bldg.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1048
Phone: 734/763-6980 Fax: 734/763-7886
email: szachary@xxxxxxxxx
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
---------------------------------------
Sue Davis
Vanderbilt University Library
419 21st. Ave. South
Nashville, TN 37240
Email: sue.davis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 615-322-2464