I think, by default, it's safer to assume that unless a book specifically identifies itself as a serial, people will assume it is not. Don't you?
But it does
specifically identify itself as part of Star Trek: The Fall
. It doesn't say DS9 on the cover, it says The Fall
. It's not hard to guess that that's the title of a miniseries. It's separate from the title Revelation and Dust
, so it's clearly part of a larger whole to which RaD belongs; yet the title The Fall
sounds like a reference to a specific event or process rather than an ongoing status quo, so it doesn't suggest an open-ended series. So if you see a book titled Star Trek: The Fall
followed by an individual book title, it's pretty easy to deduce that it's one installment of a limited series of books focusing on a specific event.
I can sympathize with your argument about wanting a book to be complete within itself even if it's part of a larger arc. I tend to feel the same way. But I can't agree with you that this book is somehow hiding the fact that it's part of an arc. The title alone indicates that.
Star Trek Titan, Typhon Pact, etc, etc were part of such "series". And they have self-contained books.
Indeed, this is the general rule for published books. Unless you have a book 1 of X on the cover, the book is self-contained.
As such, for a casual buyer/casual trek fan, this book is marketed as a self-contained book, not as a serial. He/she will buy and read it as such - the experience being underwhelming.