- Email: [email protected]
2009 TEDSIG Spring Meeting: Electronic Serials: Getting Them and Keeping Them
Blythe / Serials Review 35 (2009) 170–192
"Mining the OPAC: Next Generation Catalog Panel"
also pleased with being able to view other libraries' holdings as well as the “FRBR-ization” of records which eliminates duplicate listings of items. Usability tests and a survey revealed that 70 percent of respondents thought WorldCat Local was better than the library catalog. On the negative side, Green reported that the system often slows down or times out, and some local notes fields don't display. An area of confusion is that WorldCat local contains some records for journal articles, which might lead users to think that the MIT Libraries only have those articles that appear in a WorldCat Local search. MIT also wants to load theses and technical reports, and records not in MARC format, such as items from DSpace, MIT's open-source platform for accessing, managing, and preserving scholarly works. Green noted that WorldCat Local has inspired them to clean up WorldCat holdings for deleted items, and to investigate batch reclamation for items they have but are not in WorldCat.
The conference concluded with a panel of three librarians who discussed catalog innovations at their respective institutions. Daniel Lovins (metadata and emerging technologies librarian, Sterling Library, Yale University) spoke about Yale's next generation OPAC, which is based on the open-source VuFind software created by Villanova University. After deciding that the traditional vendorsupplied OPAC was technologically obsolescent, the Sterling Library received a Mellon grant to implement their version of VuFind, “YuFind.” YuFind has many OPAC 2.0 features such as faceted navigation, relevancy rankings, circulation status, integration with Google book search, RSS feeds, links to Wikipedia, cover images from Syndetic Solutions, and social tagging. Lovins found that while the open software made experimentation easy, a lot of customization was needed, especially to tweak relevancy rankings. The faceted data exposed inconsistencies in their records that had built up for three hundred years. Catalogers are developing work flows to query the database for all records that meet certain criteria and then update records and codes as needed. The OPAC 2.0 has raised questions about cataloging standards and what is necessary versus optional in a record. Librarians are asking how users interact with records in a faceted, relevancy-ranked environment, and what is the core set of metadata elements that every record has to have.
doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2009.05.010
2009 TEDSIG Spring Meeting: Electronic Serials: Getting Them and Keeping Them
Kevin Kidd (library applications and systems manager, O'Neill Library, Boston College) discussed Boston College's implementation of Primo, an ExLibris OPAC 2.0 product, and their efforts to decouple online library services from silo-based applications. Primo provides a single, Google-like search across all local collections and supports user tagging, ratings and reviews, relevancy ranking, RSS feeds, and faceted searching. Primo allows researchers to search across the library catalog, online databases, the institutional repository, and a federated search system. Kidd also described Boston College's Aerie Project, a Web services development infrastructure to aggregate and customize unrelated systems. The Aerie Project will enable individual library system components to be embedded in other systems. For example, students can click on a course and access documents on reserve without searching the catalog. Faculty can search and request documents to place on reserve while viewing their teaching schedules. Any user can create an individualized “e-shelf” and have it accessible in multiple campus applications. A “resource recommender” allows bibliographers to publish useful sources to people enrolled in a particular course. The last speaker of the day was Remlee Green, librarian for Web technologies and neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering and Science Libraries. Green discussed why the MIT Libraries implemented WorldCat Local, several of the challenges encountered during implementation, and the pros and cons of adopting the system. Green explained that MIT had been looking at catalog alternatives for five years in an attempt to find something more intuitive and user-friendly. They decided to implement WorldCat Local because of its OPAC 2.0 features and general usability, low maintenance needs, relatively inexpensive cost, and links to Boston Library Consortium holdings. Green feels that OCLC is still working out some kinks in the system, although they've been responsive to problems and concerns. Since WorldCat Local is based on OCLC holdings, it only contains about 90 percent of MIT's holdings, so it is not the equivalent of the library catalog, which users need to understand. Green also finds it frustrating that the library cannot troubleshoot the system; problems must be reported. Green reported that users like features such as faceted browsing, user profiles, and being able to access WorldCat Local on their mobile phones. They are
Kristine Kinzer Electronic serials were the focus of the Academic Library Association of Ohio's Technical, Electronic, and Digital Services Interest Group (TEDSIG) spring meeting held in Dublin, Ohio, on April 24, 2009. Regina Romano Reynolds, ISSN coordinator at the Library of Congress, was the keynote speaker. The second part of the meeting featured a panel consisting of Ohio academic librarians who work with e-serials. Susan Banoun (University of Cincinnati), Barbara Dunham (Ohio State University), Deberah England (Wright State University), and Yuezeng Shen (Cleveland State University) gave presentations on e-serials in relation to their individual libraries. The meeting ended with a question-and-answer session with the four panelists and Reynolds.
Keynote Speaker: Regina Romano Reynolds “Taming the E-Serials Beast: Challenges and Solutions” Reynolds, an informative and engaging speaker, began her keynote, entitled “Taming the E-Serials Beast: Challenges and Solutions,” with an overview that included an aside about how she unearthed some ISSN gems while weeding and moving her office and the ISSN office files. Reynolds discussed the history of serials and their challenges by use of concrete examples. The first modern serial Le Iovrnal des Scavans (Le Journal des Scavans) was published in 1665 and changed its title 112 years later. Title changes are one of myriad problems facing the serials community to this day. Fast forward to the 1970s and Publisher's Weekly is the journal with the lowest-numbered ISSN (0000–0019, for those who are interested). In the 1980s e-serials emerged, but rules for cataloging them did not yet exist. A flurry of amateur publishing in the 1990s contributed numerous challenges to the e-serials cataloging community. Amateur publishing is problematic because there is much less predictability in presentation of information and no standardization of information submitted by amateurs.
188
Blythe / Serials Review 35 (2009) 170–192
Other past challenges include the proliferation of electronic formats, including ASCII, HTML, and PDFs; the birth of zines; and the effect of e-versions of newsletters, magazines and journals on their print counterparts. Add to the mix ongoing cataloging challenges including determining what and how to catalog; how to address multiple versions; and the transition from fairly standardized print versions to unique Web formats. The CONSER Cataloging Manual, Module 31 (1995)1, provided documentation specifically directed towards the cataloging of e-serials, and AACR2's 2002 revision introduced the concepts of continuing and integrating resources. Substantial areas of current e-serials challenges are format and presentation issues. For instance, Web sites that include e-serials are confusing and inconsistent in terms of where to find a journal and then how to navigate it. Similarly, the e-serials cataloger must contend with a hunt for bibliographic data as there is no standardization of what and where to input data. Finally, there are the inevitable ISSN issues. Some e-journals do not have e-ISSNs as not all publishers are aware of the need for separate ISSNs for multiple formats; in fact, although the situation is improving, some publishers use print ISSNs for e-serials. However, the ISSN International Centre, the United States ISSN Center, and OCLC's xISSN Web service are working to raise awareness of these topics in the information community and to provide ways to obtain ISSNs for related versions if the ISSN of one version is known.
electronic resources management systems information; xISSN service returning incorrect diagrams; staff time being occupied with resolving the issue; and, most importantly, users not finding the information they desire. Concerns about the presentation of e-journals are not new. In fact, in 1993 CONSER proposed the formation of a working group to develop a National Information Standards Organization (NISO) standard for e-serials, although the effort was felt to be premature. Most of the early e-serials presentation problems have persisted (and even increased) into the 2000s, including the fact that old titles disappear after titles changes; titles are displayed in differing ways; there is a lack of information about downloading and storage of e-serials; publishers either provide no ISSN or use the print ISSN for e-serials; and, finding no publisher information about providing back issue access.
Best Practices or Standards
In regards to presentation, Reynolds feels that the ideal e-journal would include such features as a home page with traditional masthead information; consistent title presentation; stable URLs; access to back issues; the old title retained on back issues; and, information about the different formats in which the journal appears. Similarly, the ideal aggregator would include clear information about titles including which titles and years are full text and which are abstracts. Also, the aggregator would notify subscribers of any changes; carry both the print and e-serial ISSN numbers; and, have direct links to specific journals. Title presentation, multiple versions, and dirty data are all additional wrinkles in the e-serial fabric. In terms of title presentation, frequently former titles are not listed or cited on the Web site of the current incarnation of a given e-journal. As for multiple versions, once there were only two flavors of serials (print and microform), but now there are many more. Today, the debate continues about whether to use a single record or multiple records for multiple versions. While there are compelling arguments in favor of single records, including ease of patron interpretation and reference staff preference, there are also compelling reasons for separate records. Vendor record sets are easy to use; multiple records afford the ability to better indicate differences between the print and electronic versions; and, increasingly, the e-version is the primary (or only) version. There is clear need for a better solution than trying to fit the square peg in the round hole of single records, if for no other reason than to settle what to do when a journal ceases to publish in print, but continues on as an e-journal.
In 2009 a new effort to develop best practices guidelines (as opposed to standards) began and is in the process of being proposed to NISO. The idea behind the proposal is that best practices are easier to develop than standards. Also, it is clear that publishers and content providers still need guidance and that best practices provide solid and reliable information for libraries, catalogers, publishers, and content providers. The need for best practices is obvious because currently publishers and content providers are not able to keep libraries informed about pertinent eserials information, and if content providers were following best practices, catalogers would be able to perform their jobs more effectively. After taking the TEDSIG group through the past and into the realm of present e-serials challenges, Reynolds talked in depth about a current hot issue, exemplified by the challenges faced by a hypothetical student, the son of “Serials Sam,” and his fictitious search for a 1922 journal article. Son of Sam wants to find a specific 1922 journal article online. He has to click many times and do a considerable amount of searching to try and locate an electronic version of a journal whose title has changed since the article was written. Reynolds illustrates how content published under an old (changed) title is now listed in the current title, with the former title not even listed in the publisher's index. The problem is compounded when content providers try to update citations to the original content. Since citations in printed works cannot be updated and since some online versions are not updated, the problem is now compounded by the potential for the same article being cited in multiple ways. Reynolds demonstrated how performing a search in Google for the original article might still bring up the correct citation, thereby creating confusion when publishers and content providers try to rewrite history and pretend the original title did not exist. Taken on the whole, this demonstration illustrates how useful it would be for content providers to list content under original titles and ISSNs and have all titles (including title changes) indexed. JSTOR is an excellent example of how all this is done well.
Problems with Dirty Data in the Serials World
Questions to Consider
“Dirty data” (that is, data which are corrupt, incomplete, or inaccurate) is a huge problem in the e-serials world because once dirty data enters the information supply chain it infects every other stop down the line. Dirty data can be introduced by publishers, aggregators, vendors, library catalogs, serials, directories, registries, indexing and abstracting services, and knowledge bases. Consequences of dirty data are OpenURL link failure; inaccurate
Several discussion questions were posed by Reynolds at this point. The first question was: should best practices for title changes and the overall presentation of issues be put into one best practices document or split into two? Secondly, are there additional best practices the group would like to see included besides the ones already mentioned? The third question was do you think content providers will follow best practices? The final question was how
The Ideal E-Journal
189
Blythe / Serials Review 35 (2009) 170–192
should best practices be publicized? The audience discussed how beneficial it would be to promote best practices to outside communities, including scholarly journals and content providers. In other words, we need to get the message out to the correct communities and quit preaching to the choir. We need to persuade content providers that it is in their best interests to implement best practices. For example, if content providers indexed and listed each title change separately, they could promote a larger collection and thus promote their product on the basis of providing greater value based on the increase in title holdings.
and libraries cooperate in thinking about future researchers, sharing expertise and educating each other, tolerating experimentation, and being flexible, much can be accomplished, not the least of which is better relationships, ease of use for patrons, and more effective workflow for e-serials catalogers. In terms of automation, it is clear that the flood of data, and data associated with e-serials will only continue to balloon. Therefore, more automation and collaboration is needed to assist in bibliographic control. If content providers share their metadata with libraries, libraries batch process metadata, and there is ISSN collaboration with publishers, the e-serials beast has a good chance of being tamed.
Solutions and Implementation The final section of Reynolds' presentation focused on potential solutions to current problems. Aside from implementing best practices, one possible solution is through implementation of the linking ISSN or ISSN-L. An ISSN-L is a grouping mechanism for titles with multiple formats. It can be embedded in other identifiers including DOI, URN and OpenURL. There is no separate metadata record for ISSN-L, but it can be found in the database maintained by the ISSN International Centre (available as the ISSN Portal, a subscription product). As new records enter the registry, the first recorded ISSN is also the ISSN-L, even though it may not be the lowest ISSN numerically. OCLC plans to implement the ISSN-L subfields “l” and “m” for linking ISSNs and cancelled linking ISSNs, respectively, in summer 2009. OCLC introduced a Web service called xISSN which allows users to enter an ISSN and receive a diagram containing earlier and later titles as well as different manifestation versions. The visual display is easy to read and understand, and Reynolds noted the clarity of the OCLC diagrams as a potential model to help users understand the various title changes and multiple formats in which a serial might be available. OpenURL is another tool which connects users to content in a multiple versions world and holds both challenges and promise for the future. The promise is the way OpenURL allows a user to see the various ways she has access to a desired citation available at her institution. However, problems arise if there are dirty data, bad formatting, and/or content providers who are not OpenURLenabled. Knowledge Bases and Related Tools (KBART) and Project TRANSFER are two United Kingdom projects which bode well for the future of e-serials. KBART is a joint initiative between NISO and United Kingdom Serials Group with the goal of better data for all. The KBART working group is establishing best practices, education, and support for all involved in the e-serials supply chain. Meanwhile, the Project TRANSFER working group is involved with improving the transfer of journals between publishers and/or content providers. TRANSFER's best practices are aimed at ensuring that libraries retain access to paid-for content regardless of publisher changes. One carrot offered with Project TRANSFER is that content providers who agree to the best practices can sign up and advertise themselves as being TRANSFER-compliant. Some general observations of Reynolds on the future of serials are that individual journals will continue at least for the immediate future due to their key role as brands in faculty tenure and promotion consideration. Electronic reading devices such as the Kindle will play an increasing role, and “Electronic Ink,” that is, charge-carrying ink on an electronic paper display, which is thin, lightweight and requires no power source, might provide a portable format for newspapers and magazines. According the Reynolds, the future of e-serials is complex, but filled with opportunities with the keys being partnership, collaboration and automation. For example, if content providers
Afternoon Panel: E-Serials Topics “Catch a Tiger by Its Tail? The Challenges of Cataloging Electronic Resources” The afternoon panel session convened four presenters on any eserials topic of their choosing. The first panelist was Susan Merrill Banoun (cataloging unit head, University of Cincinnati (UC)) whose presentation was entitled “Catch a Tiger by its Tail? The Challenges of Cataloging Electronic Resources.” Banoun began by defining cataloging as the process of describing resources at a certain level and determining on what platforms the resources should be retrieved. She noted ensuing challenges included deciding what to catalog; determining whether to use brief or full records; deciding if everything should be added to the catalog; determining if there should be single or multiple record access; and, deciding if the resources should be added only to the catalog, or to other information “silos,” as well. Banoun expanded on the above issues by examining the local practices at UC. She noted all journals and e-resources go into the UC integrated library system (ILS); only databases populate their electronic resource management system (ERMS); and, their ejournals are included in a Serials Solutions A-to-Z list. In other words, all UC's journals and databases are fully cataloged in the ILS and are also included in other information silos. Having so many eresources is bound to cause challenges. Some UC e-serials challenges are inconsistent downloading practices; inconsistent practice of adding URLs to print records; ERMS implementation; and, the OhioLINK 856/956 management of URLs. Additional challenges include the level of specificity in URLs, and use of subfield 3; inclusion of over 500,000 URLs in the catalog, but no URL checker; generally inconsistent procedures which promulgate inconsistent information for users; and, myriad vendor MARC record complications. Finally, there are several OhioLINK issues which involve the Electronic Journal Center; whether or not to contribute to the central catalog; proxy versus central sign in; and, OCLC TechPro cataloging. Having thus explained some UC challenges, Banoun closed by outlining the opportunities presented by those challenges. For instance, UC is now undertaking to more fully implement their ERMS, as well as develop best practices for records, URLs, and ERMS policies.
“E-Serials are Like Herding Cats” The second panelist was Barbara Dunham (electronic resources librarian, Ohio State University (OSU)) whose session presented general e-serials issues, as well as those specific to her library. There are over 61,000 e-serials at OSU, which makes plenty of work for the two librarians and two support staff in the Serials and Electronic Resources Department. The staff's key functions are acquisitions, access, support and trouble shooting, licensing, and budgeting of electronic resources.
190
Blythe / Serials Review 35 (2009) 170–192
The bulk of Dunham's presentation revolved around the problem of “missing” e-journals. As anyone who works with eserials knows, there is potential for problems on a daily basis at many stops down the e-serials supply chain, any one of which could cause a journal to go missing. Maintenance on the content provider's site; journals switching publishers; licensing hiccups; title changes; or a variety of local issues, including software compatibility, IP addresses, or billing and payment snags also could create a missing journal situation. Once a journal is reported missing by library staff or users, finding it and then re-establishing access are the primary concerns. Dunham and her staff investigate all the stops along the supply chain to determine when and where the journal was lost. Once that is determined then Dunham can re-establish access. OSU provides access in two main venues with the first being via their e-journal portal, and the second being through their catalog. Managing access is generally maintained by utilizing their ERM (in Millennium), Serials Solutions A-to-Z list, and by monitoring local support listservs.
developing new products and services to increase their value to library customers. Brokers, ILS and ERM vendors, aggregators, and public access management systems (PAMS) are also players in the e-serials supply chain. Brokers serve as intermediaries between content or service providers and institutional subscribers. They may host the content, but typically the content is in non-journal format. ILS and ERM vendors install and maintain subscription purchasing systems and provide systems to manage e-serials. Aggregators, like LexisNexis, compile content from multiple sources on a single platform. PAMS track titles, and provide MARC records, discovery tools, and knowledge bases. England moved briskly forward and discussed “things to know” in the e-serials world. Project TRANSFER and KBART, already discussed by keynote speaker Reynolds were again mentioned, as were institutional identifiers, WorldCat Registry, COUNTER usage statistics, CORE for data acquisition sharing, ONIX for licensing, and SERU as an alternative to traditional licensing. In addition to terminology with which to be familiar, England also mentioned concrete examples of what e-resources staff can do to make their jobs easier. The tips included: track the library's resources; learn acquisitions; understand renewal terms and processes; improve technology skills; notify chain entities of the correct library contact person, and be consistent with that contact; register e-serials; use a link evaluator; adopt SERU, sign up for WorldCat Registry; negotiate compliance in licensing; and, notify users and staff of licenses' terms and conditions.
“Welcome to the Jungle: E-Beasts and the Quest to Cage Them” Deberah England (electronic resources librarian, Wright State University) delivered a presentation on the e-serials supply chain entitled “Welcome to the Jungle: E-Beasts and the Quest to Cage Them.” England's session teased out the players and their roles in the e-supply chain, which is important because there are numerous players in the electronic world, and the player's roles are often unclear. An example is EBSCO, which supplies, among other products and services, a subscription agent, an ERM supplier, and a content provider. A key player group in the e-serials supply chain is publishers, who vary greatly by size and content offered. Publishers usually deal with both print and electronic formats, have little understanding of metadata, lack best practices for registration and activation, and rely heavily on antiquated accounting methods. Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis are huge content providers, and own a good 50 percent of the market share. These four are publicly owned, quick to invest in new technologies, and own the lion's share of consortia deals. There are also small commercial publishers who often cater to a niche market and are privately owned. Next come society presses, who are generally privately funded by membership dollars, are frequently left out of consortia deals, are small albeit with large readerships, and are often hosted on third-party content provider sites. University Presses are also publishers who tend to be small and funded through universities. Third-party platform hosts are also players in the e-serials supply chain. They provide the platform for publishers to use as the base for their e-serials. However, they all operate differently and usually lack best practices. The access they provide may be the host's interface, or it may be a “masked” public interface. Most third-party platform hosts provide some sort of administrator gateway that allows retrieval of online usage statistics. Other key plays are the subscription agents, who serve as intermediaries between publishers and content providers and libraries. Subscription agents process orders and provide service contracts for library customers, charging a fee above the cost of the journal, and they also provide propriety journal management systems. Subscription agents have been impacted by large consortia deals and large publisher deals. A consequence is that subscription agents are now enhancing current products or
“Electronic Serials: Collaborative Management Across Departments” Yuezeng Shen (head of cataloging, Cleveland State University (CSU)), was the final panelist. “Electronic Serials: Collaborative Management Across Departments” dealt with the specifics of how CSU acquires and maintains e-serials. CSU is a medium-sized library with over 46,000 unique e-journals (including locally subscribed materials, OhioLINK titles, and free e-journals) with no single dedicated serials staff person. Instead, cataloging and acquisitions work together in dealing with e-serials. Shen began by discussing CSU's process of setting up license agreements. She distinguished between new electronic resources, and those whose online access comes with print subscriptions. At CSU the license has to be approved by the library director and the university's legal department. Once an agreement is reached and registration and access instructions are received an order record is created and then the process moves into the cataloging department. At CSU e-serials access is provided and maintained by utilizing a number of information silos. These include the library catalog, Olinks, WorldCat, and an A-to-Z journal title list. Quality control in maintained by using CONSER MARC records; single record representation; license restrictions; authentication methods; and, metadata control. The benefits at CSU are that Serials Solutions provides monthly record updates; patrons can link to e-serials from the library catalog; and, patrons receive the same results whether searching in the catalog, or in the A-Z list. The downsides are that (when used) brief records do not have subject headings, and a change to MARC records takes about a month.
Conclusion: Question-and-Answer Session The final segment of the TEDSIG meeting was a question-andanswer session for the convened panel plus Regina Romano Reynolds.
191
Blythe / Serials Review 35 (2009) 170–192
Question: How to enter titles into Olinks if there is no ISSN. Answer: An ISSN must be included; it may be necessary to go back to machine assigned ISSNs, despite the problems associated with that method. Question: About the importance of retraining serials staff who only know print resource procedures. Answer: Cross training is a good way to offset the work flow; indeed, it will become necessary. E-resource librarians will welcome the assistance, and cross training will ease the stress of transition from print to ever increasing e-resources. Question: Had anyone ever sued over SERU or had been sued by a SERU publisher. Answer: No, but libraries had been contacted by publishers, who told them access to a specific IP address was in danger of being turned off because of abuse of access. In other words, publishers do monitor access closely and will notify those who abuse the agreement.
Question: Dealt with the proliferation of Google as a search tool and how to advocate and promote e-resources. Answers: Public services librarians work with faculty to promote specific e-resources; librarians need to market eresources as opposed to simply marketing the library; librarians should embed resources into the teaching tool (e.g., Blackboard); Serials Solutions points a user searching Google for articles on campus to results in university databases.
Note 1. Melissa Beck et al., "Module 31, Remote Access Computer File Serials," in CONSER Cataloging Manual (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1995), 1–37; Cataloging Committee for Cartographic Materials. Cartographic Materials: A Manual of Interpretation for AACR2, 2002 Revision (Chicago: American Library Association, 2003).
doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2009.05.008
192
"Mining the OPAC: Next Generation Catalog Panel"
also pleased with being able to view other libraries' holdings as well as the “FRBR-ization” of records which eliminates duplicate listings of items. Usability tests and a survey revealed that 70 percent of respondents thought WorldCat Local was better than the library catalog. On the negative side, Green reported that the system often slows down or times out, and some local notes fields don't display. An area of confusion is that WorldCat local contains some records for journal articles, which might lead users to think that the MIT Libraries only have those articles that appear in a WorldCat Local search. MIT also wants to load theses and technical reports, and records not in MARC format, such as items from DSpace, MIT's open-source platform for accessing, managing, and preserving scholarly works. Green noted that WorldCat Local has inspired them to clean up WorldCat holdings for deleted items, and to investigate batch reclamation for items they have but are not in WorldCat.
The conference concluded with a panel of three librarians who discussed catalog innovations at their respective institutions. Daniel Lovins (metadata and emerging technologies librarian, Sterling Library, Yale University) spoke about Yale's next generation OPAC, which is based on the open-source VuFind software created by Villanova University. After deciding that the traditional vendorsupplied OPAC was technologically obsolescent, the Sterling Library received a Mellon grant to implement their version of VuFind, “YuFind.” YuFind has many OPAC 2.0 features such as faceted navigation, relevancy rankings, circulation status, integration with Google book search, RSS feeds, links to Wikipedia, cover images from Syndetic Solutions, and social tagging. Lovins found that while the open software made experimentation easy, a lot of customization was needed, especially to tweak relevancy rankings. The faceted data exposed inconsistencies in their records that had built up for three hundred years. Catalogers are developing work flows to query the database for all records that meet certain criteria and then update records and codes as needed. The OPAC 2.0 has raised questions about cataloging standards and what is necessary versus optional in a record. Librarians are asking how users interact with records in a faceted, relevancy-ranked environment, and what is the core set of metadata elements that every record has to have.
doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2009.05.010
2009 TEDSIG Spring Meeting: Electronic Serials: Getting Them and Keeping Them
Kevin Kidd (library applications and systems manager, O'Neill Library, Boston College) discussed Boston College's implementation of Primo, an ExLibris OPAC 2.0 product, and their efforts to decouple online library services from silo-based applications. Primo provides a single, Google-like search across all local collections and supports user tagging, ratings and reviews, relevancy ranking, RSS feeds, and faceted searching. Primo allows researchers to search across the library catalog, online databases, the institutional repository, and a federated search system. Kidd also described Boston College's Aerie Project, a Web services development infrastructure to aggregate and customize unrelated systems. The Aerie Project will enable individual library system components to be embedded in other systems. For example, students can click on a course and access documents on reserve without searching the catalog. Faculty can search and request documents to place on reserve while viewing their teaching schedules. Any user can create an individualized “e-shelf” and have it accessible in multiple campus applications. A “resource recommender” allows bibliographers to publish useful sources to people enrolled in a particular course. The last speaker of the day was Remlee Green, librarian for Web technologies and neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering and Science Libraries. Green discussed why the MIT Libraries implemented WorldCat Local, several of the challenges encountered during implementation, and the pros and cons of adopting the system. Green explained that MIT had been looking at catalog alternatives for five years in an attempt to find something more intuitive and user-friendly. They decided to implement WorldCat Local because of its OPAC 2.0 features and general usability, low maintenance needs, relatively inexpensive cost, and links to Boston Library Consortium holdings. Green feels that OCLC is still working out some kinks in the system, although they've been responsive to problems and concerns. Since WorldCat Local is based on OCLC holdings, it only contains about 90 percent of MIT's holdings, so it is not the equivalent of the library catalog, which users need to understand. Green also finds it frustrating that the library cannot troubleshoot the system; problems must be reported. Green reported that users like features such as faceted browsing, user profiles, and being able to access WorldCat Local on their mobile phones. They are
Kristine Kinzer Electronic serials were the focus of the Academic Library Association of Ohio's Technical, Electronic, and Digital Services Interest Group (TEDSIG) spring meeting held in Dublin, Ohio, on April 24, 2009. Regina Romano Reynolds, ISSN coordinator at the Library of Congress, was the keynote speaker. The second part of the meeting featured a panel consisting of Ohio academic librarians who work with e-serials. Susan Banoun (University of Cincinnati), Barbara Dunham (Ohio State University), Deberah England (Wright State University), and Yuezeng Shen (Cleveland State University) gave presentations on e-serials in relation to their individual libraries. The meeting ended with a question-and-answer session with the four panelists and Reynolds.
Keynote Speaker: Regina Romano Reynolds “Taming the E-Serials Beast: Challenges and Solutions” Reynolds, an informative and engaging speaker, began her keynote, entitled “Taming the E-Serials Beast: Challenges and Solutions,” with an overview that included an aside about how she unearthed some ISSN gems while weeding and moving her office and the ISSN office files. Reynolds discussed the history of serials and their challenges by use of concrete examples. The first modern serial Le Iovrnal des Scavans (Le Journal des Scavans) was published in 1665 and changed its title 112 years later. Title changes are one of myriad problems facing the serials community to this day. Fast forward to the 1970s and Publisher's Weekly is the journal with the lowest-numbered ISSN (0000–0019, for those who are interested). In the 1980s e-serials emerged, but rules for cataloging them did not yet exist. A flurry of amateur publishing in the 1990s contributed numerous challenges to the e-serials cataloging community. Amateur publishing is problematic because there is much less predictability in presentation of information and no standardization of information submitted by amateurs.
188
Blythe / Serials Review 35 (2009) 170–192
Other past challenges include the proliferation of electronic formats, including ASCII, HTML, and PDFs; the birth of zines; and the effect of e-versions of newsletters, magazines and journals on their print counterparts. Add to the mix ongoing cataloging challenges including determining what and how to catalog; how to address multiple versions; and the transition from fairly standardized print versions to unique Web formats. The CONSER Cataloging Manual, Module 31 (1995)1, provided documentation specifically directed towards the cataloging of e-serials, and AACR2's 2002 revision introduced the concepts of continuing and integrating resources. Substantial areas of current e-serials challenges are format and presentation issues. For instance, Web sites that include e-serials are confusing and inconsistent in terms of where to find a journal and then how to navigate it. Similarly, the e-serials cataloger must contend with a hunt for bibliographic data as there is no standardization of what and where to input data. Finally, there are the inevitable ISSN issues. Some e-journals do not have e-ISSNs as not all publishers are aware of the need for separate ISSNs for multiple formats; in fact, although the situation is improving, some publishers use print ISSNs for e-serials. However, the ISSN International Centre, the United States ISSN Center, and OCLC's xISSN Web service are working to raise awareness of these topics in the information community and to provide ways to obtain ISSNs for related versions if the ISSN of one version is known.
electronic resources management systems information; xISSN service returning incorrect diagrams; staff time being occupied with resolving the issue; and, most importantly, users not finding the information they desire. Concerns about the presentation of e-journals are not new. In fact, in 1993 CONSER proposed the formation of a working group to develop a National Information Standards Organization (NISO) standard for e-serials, although the effort was felt to be premature. Most of the early e-serials presentation problems have persisted (and even increased) into the 2000s, including the fact that old titles disappear after titles changes; titles are displayed in differing ways; there is a lack of information about downloading and storage of e-serials; publishers either provide no ISSN or use the print ISSN for e-serials; and, finding no publisher information about providing back issue access.
Best Practices or Standards
In regards to presentation, Reynolds feels that the ideal e-journal would include such features as a home page with traditional masthead information; consistent title presentation; stable URLs; access to back issues; the old title retained on back issues; and, information about the different formats in which the journal appears. Similarly, the ideal aggregator would include clear information about titles including which titles and years are full text and which are abstracts. Also, the aggregator would notify subscribers of any changes; carry both the print and e-serial ISSN numbers; and, have direct links to specific journals. Title presentation, multiple versions, and dirty data are all additional wrinkles in the e-serial fabric. In terms of title presentation, frequently former titles are not listed or cited on the Web site of the current incarnation of a given e-journal. As for multiple versions, once there were only two flavors of serials (print and microform), but now there are many more. Today, the debate continues about whether to use a single record or multiple records for multiple versions. While there are compelling arguments in favor of single records, including ease of patron interpretation and reference staff preference, there are also compelling reasons for separate records. Vendor record sets are easy to use; multiple records afford the ability to better indicate differences between the print and electronic versions; and, increasingly, the e-version is the primary (or only) version. There is clear need for a better solution than trying to fit the square peg in the round hole of single records, if for no other reason than to settle what to do when a journal ceases to publish in print, but continues on as an e-journal.
In 2009 a new effort to develop best practices guidelines (as opposed to standards) began and is in the process of being proposed to NISO. The idea behind the proposal is that best practices are easier to develop than standards. Also, it is clear that publishers and content providers still need guidance and that best practices provide solid and reliable information for libraries, catalogers, publishers, and content providers. The need for best practices is obvious because currently publishers and content providers are not able to keep libraries informed about pertinent eserials information, and if content providers were following best practices, catalogers would be able to perform their jobs more effectively. After taking the TEDSIG group through the past and into the realm of present e-serials challenges, Reynolds talked in depth about a current hot issue, exemplified by the challenges faced by a hypothetical student, the son of “Serials Sam,” and his fictitious search for a 1922 journal article. Son of Sam wants to find a specific 1922 journal article online. He has to click many times and do a considerable amount of searching to try and locate an electronic version of a journal whose title has changed since the article was written. Reynolds illustrates how content published under an old (changed) title is now listed in the current title, with the former title not even listed in the publisher's index. The problem is compounded when content providers try to update citations to the original content. Since citations in printed works cannot be updated and since some online versions are not updated, the problem is now compounded by the potential for the same article being cited in multiple ways. Reynolds demonstrated how performing a search in Google for the original article might still bring up the correct citation, thereby creating confusion when publishers and content providers try to rewrite history and pretend the original title did not exist. Taken on the whole, this demonstration illustrates how useful it would be for content providers to list content under original titles and ISSNs and have all titles (including title changes) indexed. JSTOR is an excellent example of how all this is done well.
Problems with Dirty Data in the Serials World
Questions to Consider
“Dirty data” (that is, data which are corrupt, incomplete, or inaccurate) is a huge problem in the e-serials world because once dirty data enters the information supply chain it infects every other stop down the line. Dirty data can be introduced by publishers, aggregators, vendors, library catalogs, serials, directories, registries, indexing and abstracting services, and knowledge bases. Consequences of dirty data are OpenURL link failure; inaccurate
Several discussion questions were posed by Reynolds at this point. The first question was: should best practices for title changes and the overall presentation of issues be put into one best practices document or split into two? Secondly, are there additional best practices the group would like to see included besides the ones already mentioned? The third question was do you think content providers will follow best practices? The final question was how
The Ideal E-Journal
189
Blythe / Serials Review 35 (2009) 170–192
should best practices be publicized? The audience discussed how beneficial it would be to promote best practices to outside communities, including scholarly journals and content providers. In other words, we need to get the message out to the correct communities and quit preaching to the choir. We need to persuade content providers that it is in their best interests to implement best practices. For example, if content providers indexed and listed each title change separately, they could promote a larger collection and thus promote their product on the basis of providing greater value based on the increase in title holdings.
and libraries cooperate in thinking about future researchers, sharing expertise and educating each other, tolerating experimentation, and being flexible, much can be accomplished, not the least of which is better relationships, ease of use for patrons, and more effective workflow for e-serials catalogers. In terms of automation, it is clear that the flood of data, and data associated with e-serials will only continue to balloon. Therefore, more automation and collaboration is needed to assist in bibliographic control. If content providers share their metadata with libraries, libraries batch process metadata, and there is ISSN collaboration with publishers, the e-serials beast has a good chance of being tamed.
Solutions and Implementation The final section of Reynolds' presentation focused on potential solutions to current problems. Aside from implementing best practices, one possible solution is through implementation of the linking ISSN or ISSN-L. An ISSN-L is a grouping mechanism for titles with multiple formats. It can be embedded in other identifiers including DOI, URN and OpenURL. There is no separate metadata record for ISSN-L, but it can be found in the database maintained by the ISSN International Centre (available as the ISSN Portal, a subscription product). As new records enter the registry, the first recorded ISSN is also the ISSN-L, even though it may not be the lowest ISSN numerically. OCLC plans to implement the ISSN-L subfields “l” and “m” for linking ISSNs and cancelled linking ISSNs, respectively, in summer 2009. OCLC introduced a Web service called xISSN which allows users to enter an ISSN and receive a diagram containing earlier and later titles as well as different manifestation versions. The visual display is easy to read and understand, and Reynolds noted the clarity of the OCLC diagrams as a potential model to help users understand the various title changes and multiple formats in which a serial might be available. OpenURL is another tool which connects users to content in a multiple versions world and holds both challenges and promise for the future. The promise is the way OpenURL allows a user to see the various ways she has access to a desired citation available at her institution. However, problems arise if there are dirty data, bad formatting, and/or content providers who are not OpenURLenabled. Knowledge Bases and Related Tools (KBART) and Project TRANSFER are two United Kingdom projects which bode well for the future of e-serials. KBART is a joint initiative between NISO and United Kingdom Serials Group with the goal of better data for all. The KBART working group is establishing best practices, education, and support for all involved in the e-serials supply chain. Meanwhile, the Project TRANSFER working group is involved with improving the transfer of journals between publishers and/or content providers. TRANSFER's best practices are aimed at ensuring that libraries retain access to paid-for content regardless of publisher changes. One carrot offered with Project TRANSFER is that content providers who agree to the best practices can sign up and advertise themselves as being TRANSFER-compliant. Some general observations of Reynolds on the future of serials are that individual journals will continue at least for the immediate future due to their key role as brands in faculty tenure and promotion consideration. Electronic reading devices such as the Kindle will play an increasing role, and “Electronic Ink,” that is, charge-carrying ink on an electronic paper display, which is thin, lightweight and requires no power source, might provide a portable format for newspapers and magazines. According the Reynolds, the future of e-serials is complex, but filled with opportunities with the keys being partnership, collaboration and automation. For example, if content providers
Afternoon Panel: E-Serials Topics “Catch a Tiger by Its Tail? The Challenges of Cataloging Electronic Resources” The afternoon panel session convened four presenters on any eserials topic of their choosing. The first panelist was Susan Merrill Banoun (cataloging unit head, University of Cincinnati (UC)) whose presentation was entitled “Catch a Tiger by its Tail? The Challenges of Cataloging Electronic Resources.” Banoun began by defining cataloging as the process of describing resources at a certain level and determining on what platforms the resources should be retrieved. She noted ensuing challenges included deciding what to catalog; determining whether to use brief or full records; deciding if everything should be added to the catalog; determining if there should be single or multiple record access; and, deciding if the resources should be added only to the catalog, or to other information “silos,” as well. Banoun expanded on the above issues by examining the local practices at UC. She noted all journals and e-resources go into the UC integrated library system (ILS); only databases populate their electronic resource management system (ERMS); and, their ejournals are included in a Serials Solutions A-to-Z list. In other words, all UC's journals and databases are fully cataloged in the ILS and are also included in other information silos. Having so many eresources is bound to cause challenges. Some UC e-serials challenges are inconsistent downloading practices; inconsistent practice of adding URLs to print records; ERMS implementation; and, the OhioLINK 856/956 management of URLs. Additional challenges include the level of specificity in URLs, and use of subfield 3; inclusion of over 500,000 URLs in the catalog, but no URL checker; generally inconsistent procedures which promulgate inconsistent information for users; and, myriad vendor MARC record complications. Finally, there are several OhioLINK issues which involve the Electronic Journal Center; whether or not to contribute to the central catalog; proxy versus central sign in; and, OCLC TechPro cataloging. Having thus explained some UC challenges, Banoun closed by outlining the opportunities presented by those challenges. For instance, UC is now undertaking to more fully implement their ERMS, as well as develop best practices for records, URLs, and ERMS policies.
“E-Serials are Like Herding Cats” The second panelist was Barbara Dunham (electronic resources librarian, Ohio State University (OSU)) whose session presented general e-serials issues, as well as those specific to her library. There are over 61,000 e-serials at OSU, which makes plenty of work for the two librarians and two support staff in the Serials and Electronic Resources Department. The staff's key functions are acquisitions, access, support and trouble shooting, licensing, and budgeting of electronic resources.
190
Blythe / Serials Review 35 (2009) 170–192
The bulk of Dunham's presentation revolved around the problem of “missing” e-journals. As anyone who works with eserials knows, there is potential for problems on a daily basis at many stops down the e-serials supply chain, any one of which could cause a journal to go missing. Maintenance on the content provider's site; journals switching publishers; licensing hiccups; title changes; or a variety of local issues, including software compatibility, IP addresses, or billing and payment snags also could create a missing journal situation. Once a journal is reported missing by library staff or users, finding it and then re-establishing access are the primary concerns. Dunham and her staff investigate all the stops along the supply chain to determine when and where the journal was lost. Once that is determined then Dunham can re-establish access. OSU provides access in two main venues with the first being via their e-journal portal, and the second being through their catalog. Managing access is generally maintained by utilizing their ERM (in Millennium), Serials Solutions A-to-Z list, and by monitoring local support listservs.
developing new products and services to increase their value to library customers. Brokers, ILS and ERM vendors, aggregators, and public access management systems (PAMS) are also players in the e-serials supply chain. Brokers serve as intermediaries between content or service providers and institutional subscribers. They may host the content, but typically the content is in non-journal format. ILS and ERM vendors install and maintain subscription purchasing systems and provide systems to manage e-serials. Aggregators, like LexisNexis, compile content from multiple sources on a single platform. PAMS track titles, and provide MARC records, discovery tools, and knowledge bases. England moved briskly forward and discussed “things to know” in the e-serials world. Project TRANSFER and KBART, already discussed by keynote speaker Reynolds were again mentioned, as were institutional identifiers, WorldCat Registry, COUNTER usage statistics, CORE for data acquisition sharing, ONIX for licensing, and SERU as an alternative to traditional licensing. In addition to terminology with which to be familiar, England also mentioned concrete examples of what e-resources staff can do to make their jobs easier. The tips included: track the library's resources; learn acquisitions; understand renewal terms and processes; improve technology skills; notify chain entities of the correct library contact person, and be consistent with that contact; register e-serials; use a link evaluator; adopt SERU, sign up for WorldCat Registry; negotiate compliance in licensing; and, notify users and staff of licenses' terms and conditions.
“Welcome to the Jungle: E-Beasts and the Quest to Cage Them” Deberah England (electronic resources librarian, Wright State University) delivered a presentation on the e-serials supply chain entitled “Welcome to the Jungle: E-Beasts and the Quest to Cage Them.” England's session teased out the players and their roles in the e-supply chain, which is important because there are numerous players in the electronic world, and the player's roles are often unclear. An example is EBSCO, which supplies, among other products and services, a subscription agent, an ERM supplier, and a content provider. A key player group in the e-serials supply chain is publishers, who vary greatly by size and content offered. Publishers usually deal with both print and electronic formats, have little understanding of metadata, lack best practices for registration and activation, and rely heavily on antiquated accounting methods. Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis are huge content providers, and own a good 50 percent of the market share. These four are publicly owned, quick to invest in new technologies, and own the lion's share of consortia deals. There are also small commercial publishers who often cater to a niche market and are privately owned. Next come society presses, who are generally privately funded by membership dollars, are frequently left out of consortia deals, are small albeit with large readerships, and are often hosted on third-party content provider sites. University Presses are also publishers who tend to be small and funded through universities. Third-party platform hosts are also players in the e-serials supply chain. They provide the platform for publishers to use as the base for their e-serials. However, they all operate differently and usually lack best practices. The access they provide may be the host's interface, or it may be a “masked” public interface. Most third-party platform hosts provide some sort of administrator gateway that allows retrieval of online usage statistics. Other key plays are the subscription agents, who serve as intermediaries between publishers and content providers and libraries. Subscription agents process orders and provide service contracts for library customers, charging a fee above the cost of the journal, and they also provide propriety journal management systems. Subscription agents have been impacted by large consortia deals and large publisher deals. A consequence is that subscription agents are now enhancing current products or
“Electronic Serials: Collaborative Management Across Departments” Yuezeng Shen (head of cataloging, Cleveland State University (CSU)), was the final panelist. “Electronic Serials: Collaborative Management Across Departments” dealt with the specifics of how CSU acquires and maintains e-serials. CSU is a medium-sized library with over 46,000 unique e-journals (including locally subscribed materials, OhioLINK titles, and free e-journals) with no single dedicated serials staff person. Instead, cataloging and acquisitions work together in dealing with e-serials. Shen began by discussing CSU's process of setting up license agreements. She distinguished between new electronic resources, and those whose online access comes with print subscriptions. At CSU the license has to be approved by the library director and the university's legal department. Once an agreement is reached and registration and access instructions are received an order record is created and then the process moves into the cataloging department. At CSU e-serials access is provided and maintained by utilizing a number of information silos. These include the library catalog, Olinks, WorldCat, and an A-to-Z journal title list. Quality control in maintained by using CONSER MARC records; single record representation; license restrictions; authentication methods; and, metadata control. The benefits at CSU are that Serials Solutions provides monthly record updates; patrons can link to e-serials from the library catalog; and, patrons receive the same results whether searching in the catalog, or in the A-Z list. The downsides are that (when used) brief records do not have subject headings, and a change to MARC records takes about a month.
Conclusion: Question-and-Answer Session The final segment of the TEDSIG meeting was a question-andanswer session for the convened panel plus Regina Romano Reynolds.
191
Blythe / Serials Review 35 (2009) 170–192
Question: How to enter titles into Olinks if there is no ISSN. Answer: An ISSN must be included; it may be necessary to go back to machine assigned ISSNs, despite the problems associated with that method. Question: About the importance of retraining serials staff who only know print resource procedures. Answer: Cross training is a good way to offset the work flow; indeed, it will become necessary. E-resource librarians will welcome the assistance, and cross training will ease the stress of transition from print to ever increasing e-resources. Question: Had anyone ever sued over SERU or had been sued by a SERU publisher. Answer: No, but libraries had been contacted by publishers, who told them access to a specific IP address was in danger of being turned off because of abuse of access. In other words, publishers do monitor access closely and will notify those who abuse the agreement.
Question: Dealt with the proliferation of Google as a search tool and how to advocate and promote e-resources. Answers: Public services librarians work with faculty to promote specific e-resources; librarians need to market eresources as opposed to simply marketing the library; librarians should embed resources into the teaching tool (e.g., Blackboard); Serials Solutions points a user searching Google for articles on campus to results in university databases.
Note 1. Melissa Beck et al., "Module 31, Remote Access Computer File Serials," in CONSER Cataloging Manual (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1995), 1–37; Cataloging Committee for Cartographic Materials. Cartographic Materials: A Manual of Interpretation for AACR2, 2002 Revision (Chicago: American Library Association, 2003).
doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2009.05.008
192