Enumeration....and publication statement

Ok. There is a journal I've had problems with for the past couple of years. It often combines issues in the middle of a volume (a problem for me because I bind the title and the issues are usually combined across the months that I bind -- messing up my pattern!). Now, though, is has this to say in its publication statement:"_____ Libraries is published 10 times yearly by the ALA"! and then -- it does not say what months it omits. No problem, right? So, why do I have issue 11 in hand? and it looks like their might be an issue number 12 this year too (next month). Any ideas why a LIBRARY magazine can't redo its publication statement to match the issues it publishes? I thought serials *issues* were supposed to be caused by disconnected bureaucratic publishers, not organizations in our own field. Is it January yet? January is the month I expect things to crop up. This has been a banner year for odd things in serials, though, I might have to do a "year in strange serials" review...!

Most Creative Use of Numeration Award goes to...!

I understand that some journals are not doing well financially and that submissions have not kept up with publication schedules. However, I do not think creating bizarre enumeration is the answer.


I have in hand a math journal that was behind in publishing. Instead of just waiting and publishing one issue and creating the cover chronology of v. 46/47 2008-09, which would have been the most sensible thing to do, they came up with a creative (read nightmarish) solution of their own.


Each new issue now says v. 46/47 Jan/Feb 2009 no. 1, v. 46/47 May/Jun 2009 no. 2 and such. I am grateful that I bind this journal and as soon as number 4 is in my hands, off it will go...and I will also change the MARC record to collapse these two volumes into one. Only math geniuses could be this creative in creating enumeration.

Top 5 annoyances for serials for 2009

On the fifth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me... Oops. Wrong season. Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, publishers are not sweet...

5) Changing formats and making the new one useless to libraries. (2 examples come to mind -- one has gone to pdf editions that will be emailed to the subscribers and the other is one that has gone to biweekly digital "updates" that require a single username and password)

4) Changing publication schedules from a regular one to an irregular one (This one is a newspaper that went from daily to "occassional" with no set pattern!)

3) One publisher selling all of its journals and content to another publisher and making the old content near to impossible to get to during the "transfer."

2) Size changes for no apparent reason and improvement in quality

But the number 1 annoyance for 2009 serials is... (drum roll...)

1) Publishers or editors that do not understand the REASON for Roman Numerals was for a "shorthand" and a "standardized" way of counting. Hence, XXXXVI does not exist. 3 X's in a row is the maximum. Weird versions of a number are also annoying -- hence "XLX" is mere nonsense. Yes, it does equal out to "50" if you do the math, but there is a REASON that "L" was put into the system!

I'm thinking Psalms are too complex a literary form for this publishing group. Maybe I can come up with a Limerick for March.

New and Interesting twist to Enumeration

This has got to be a new occurence....even for the serials world.


"T....is published monthly in January, February, March, April, May, September, October and November/December by the Association for Career and Technical Education Inc...."


Ok. I count up to 8. Why do I have v. 83 no. 9 January 2009 in my hand? The only thing I can figure is that each year issues are pushed onto the next year till they hit 9. That is going to make it fun in 2009 --- February will be v. 84 no. 1, January 2010 will be no. 8 and February 2010 will be no. 9....making v. 85 no. 1 start in March 2010.


Maybe it's an oversight and the publishers are in the middle of changing enumeration and months to match and 2009 will be an anomaly and 2010 will be perfectly normal and logical in its numbering....!?

Resurrection and the life beyond

See my previous post on this topic of resurrection and American Heritage...


My favorite inconsistent magazine of the moment is at it again. They still purport to publish quarterly, but volume 58 number 6 was just delivered today.


If anyone knows of a nice home or retreat center for semi-sane people (driven insane by serials), please let me know. I'm not quite retirement age, but a retreat to a nice publisher-free and editor-free zone might be in order. :)

Name change and enumeration

OK. Editors are not the most logical people in the world, anyone who works in the serials world knows that.

However, if you change the title, the size and the issn of a serial, shouldn't you also change the numbering or at least start a new volume?

Journal "G" was a title that just "transitioned" to a new title, more pages and a new issn. But, the editors decided to keep going with the volume and numbers from the old title.

So, now I have two records that are going to be fun to deal with. Journal "G" now has volume 53 nos. 1-8 (January-August) 2008. And, now, we have the new title -- Journal "E" -- which has a different layout, a different scope, a different number of pages per issue, different issn and new title -- but has volume 53 nos. 9-12 in 2008.

Luckily enough, we don't bind this title -- which would have been a real nightmare to do! However, we do receive it on microfiche and I'm struggling how to figure out to alert the patron that the last 4 issues of that volume are shelved somewhere entirely different (we shelve microfiche alphabetically and do not keep name changes together).

If the patron should look in the OPAC for the record, there are 780 fields that tell them "continues" and "continued by"....but most of the times patrons are here on weekends and are simply "browsing" through a title on fiche or not sure which card it is on and pull a stack to look through on the viewer.

Numbering systems

I know I have blogged about numbering systems before...but... Can someone tell me the point of having the volume, number and whole number plus the date all for enumeration? Or for continuing to use two numbering systems for more than a century (e.g. Old Series Volume and Number, plus New Series Volume and Number)? Or for just abandoning all numbering and changing to month and year only (without any notice, of course)? And is there any sensible reason to change a publishing schedule in the middle of the volume, but with the same numbering but different chronology (thus making predictions and MARC records near to impossible!)? Do the publishers make rational decisions on these things or is it at the whim of the newest editor du jour? "Inquiring minds want to know...." (if you grew up in the 1980's you'll recognize the reference to bad tv commercials for the National Enquirer)

Hidden enumeration

It might be too much to ask for a standardization of where enumeration and chronology are placed on a journal. So, I am content to hunt for it on the spine, the front cover, the back cover, the title page or within the publishing information. I have found a pattern of the news and sports magazines putting this information at the end of the editorial section on the last page and that is all right too. I am befuddled, though, at the publishers who cannot consistently put this information in one place. It might hold allure as a scavenger hunt for my assistants if it happened only occassionally, but....it has become a pattern for several journals. There is an entertainment magazine that I have given up predicting enumeration for. I only do cover chronology for that title anymore.