Search results

Standing orders are remnants of an early period of library acquisition, and while they can provide a useful service in limited cases most have outlived that usefulness and should be cancelled. In a period of restricted funding and increased digital reliance the need for standing orders has diminished; indeed often the standing orders received are no longer relevant to an institution's mission. However, identifying standing orders is complicated by the nature of their classification as a serial rather than a book or monograph. This paper aims to describe the various types of standing orders and how to identify them.

The paper distinguishes between the yearbook or annual standing order and the non‐sequential and often irregularly published books charged to the serial fund code. The latter type, in the author's experience, makes up the majority of standing orders, and this work argues that on the basis of collection development principles and budgetary realities the majority of standing orders should be cancelled.

The paper finds that it is necessary to create a stand‐alone database to ensure all standing orders are represented. The review of standing orders cuts materials expenditures, clarifies actual holdings, and eliminates unexpected delivery of materials.

Collection development principles require accountability for resource delivery. Standing orders falsely offer ease at the expense of this responsibility.

Very little is written on evaluating standing orders as a separate entity among library holdings. This paper addresses the dual nature of standing orders that allows them to maintain their shadowy existence on serials' accounts as neither book nor journal.

The paper seeks to propose that librarians act to ensure the continued existence of small, specialized, and non‐profit publishers as avenues of intellectual and academic discourse in an era of growing publishing monopolies.

The paper reviews the profitability of commercial publishers and their plans for expansion in the digital book market, and contrasts this with the continued financial hardships of public‐welfare academic publishers.

The problems for non‐profit academic publishers will not be solved by simply “going digital”.

Librarians need to exclude small academic publishers from further burdening through collective collection development.

The paper reviews developments in digital book publication from the perspective of a 1997 conference on the “crisis” in academic publishing with current business practices and expansions by large publishing houses.

The rise of academic librarian professionalism coincided with the consolidation and centralization of university libraries. The resulting consolidation of the materials budget offered a revenue stream exploited by increasingly large publishers. Since publishers will always attempt to maximize their profits, the only way to restrict unlimited access to library funds is through reverting to decentralization. One such method is the creation of modules without overlapping funding. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these issues.

This paper relies on a wide range of academic library economic literature in an attempt to clarify the structural problem of library budgeting as well as to find means to reverse the slide into budgetary collapse.

Professional librarians have over‐centralized academic libraries. This has provided publishers in the past with profitable revenue streams that continue to expand even while the library's ability to maintain funding has contracted. Since publishers will not impose limits on maximizing their profits, it is up to the librarian to impose strictures on available funding.

This paper argues that there is a causal relation between the rise of increasingly large for‐profit publishing and the rise of the centralized big academic library run by library professionals. It proposes the decentralization of academic library budgets as a means to regain fiscal control.

The purpose of this paper is to address the irrationality of making budget decisions without awareness of the economic foundation of these decisions. It aims to propose that, in lieu of a universal economic principle, librarians should at least adopt the maxim, “first, do no harm.”

The paper argues the need to review budgetary distribution models in terms of economic principles and the argument incorporates the author's recent implementation of material cuts at his institution.

The paper finds that application of across‐the‐board materials cuts is inequitable and resembles a regressive flat‐tax.

The paper argues that sound economic principles are being ignored in budget decision making.

Libraries should evaluate the economic principles they apply, especially when they involve distributions of available funds.

The paper encourages readers to think about the economic impact of their actions.

Budget allocation formulas claim objectivity, and hence fairness. But factors composing the formula are limited to supply, demand, and cost. Attempts to correct for this imbalance of empirical data like usage have led to the use of weighted values in the formulas. This paper seeks to argue that assigning “weight” in a formula introduces value judgments and subjectivity, leaving only the misplaced illusion of objectivity.

The paper surveys the published literature on the use of monograph budget allocation formulas and provides analysis to highlight the underlying problems of allocation formulas.

Over the past several decades numerous permutations of the monograph allocation formula have been proposed and published. But there is no magic in formulas once value judgments are introduced. Instead, one is only left with the appearance of objectivity.

This paper is a review of the philosophical and economic underpinnings in the library literature on allocation formulas and subsequent budget distribution. It seeks to demonstrate the subjective nature of these formulas, once they are separated from empirical data. The paper seeks to demonstrate the dangerous illusion of objectivity that formulas can create when implemented.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

The librarian and researcher have to be able to uncover specific articles in their areas of interest. This Bibliography is designed to help. Volume IV, like Volume III, contains features to help the reader to retrieve relevant literature from MCB University Press' considerable output. Each entry within has been indexed according to author(s) and the Fifth Edition of the SCIMP/SCAMP Thesaurus. The latter thus provides a full subject index to facilitate rapid retrieval. Each article or book is assigned its own unique number and this is used in both the subject and author index. This Volume indexes 29 journals indicating the depth, coverage and expansion of MCB's portfolio.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

This study examines the impact of MNC parents on the cost of doing business abroad (CDBA) of their foreign subsidiaries in emerging markets. Based on a case research, we found that MNC HQs can influence the activity‐based CDBA of their foreign subsidiaries through policies on technology royalties, expatriate expenses, and through helping the export business of their subsidiaries. Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.