- Email: [email protected]
The Effects of E-journal Management Tools and Services on Serials Cataloging
Electronic Journal Forum The Effects of E-journal Management Tools and Services on Serials Cataloging Maria Collins, Column Editor Available online 27 October 2005
E-journal management tools and services such as MARC record services, A-to-Z lists, and link resolvers are changing e-journal cataloging. This column explores these changes in the academic environment through interviews with ten librarians representing eight universities. Three areas of change in serials cataloging are explored: (1) changes to the MARC record, including how libraries are adding/ creating MARC records for their catalogs, the number and type of MARC records being created and linking within MARC bibliographic and holdings records; (2) the manner in which serials catalogers are being informed of changes; and (3) the evolving role of the serials cataloger. Future trends and advice for evolving workflow practices conclude the discussion. Serials Review 2005; 31:291–297. D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Serials catalogers today find themselves in an environment ripe for change. Of course, this is simply code language for chaos. A critical mass of e-journals and eresources needs cataloging. A plethora of tools and services exists to handle this critical mass, and many of these tools and services still require customized programs to elicit suitable outcomes. Serials cataloging has become broader in scope than just the cataloger, the object, the rules, and the record. Handling the ever-growing and constantly fluid number of e-journals available to libraries now requires more sophisticated workflows and management tools. To effectively evaluate the management of their cataloging procedures, serials cataloging professionals need to be aware of potential uses of tools and services such as MARC record services, A-to-Z lists, link resolvers, electronic resource management (ERM) systems, and localized programming techniques. This transition from cataloger to workflow manager may be difficult for librarians drawn to the profession because of the often tactile but always intellectually stimulating process of original cataloging. Even today among the horde of e-journals waiting for access points, serials catalogers still dream of their next opportunity to hold a freshly minted journal and build a
relationship with that title in the form of a cataloging record with description, access points and subject analysis. Effective use of e-journal management tools, services, and practices may allow cataloging professionals to create order out of the chaos of e-journals and allow for those rare original cataloging moments. This column will examine how e-journal management tools, services (both commercial and homegrown), and practices are shaping serials cataloging. Telephone interviews with serials catalogers and professionals from academic libraries across the country provide a snapshot of evolving practices influenced by these tools and services. Ten professionals representing eight libraries were interviewed by phone including the following: Mary Jane Conger from the University of North Carolina, Greensboro (UNCG); Beth Jedlicka Thornton from the University of Georgia (UGA); Kathryn Wesley from Clemson University; Shana McDanold from Saint Louis University; Elizabeth Leister and Cathy Pecoraro from Rutgers University; Steve Shadle from the University of Washington; Anna Creech from Central Washington University; and Bonnie Parks and Terry Reese from Oregon State University. Their responses indicate three areas of change related to serials cataloging: the MARC record, record maintenance, and the job responsibilities of the serials cataloger or professional. Examples and discussion from the interview sessions illustrate each of these areas.
Collins is Serials Coordinator, Mitchell Memorial Library, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA; e-mail: [email protected]. 0098-7913/$–see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2005.08.002
291
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
provided access to these titles. By the end of the year, the librarian and one assistant for copy cataloging were able to catalog over 1000 titles. Then the number of ejournals began to explode, and a decision was made to automate the e-journal cataloging process by obtaining individual MARC record sets from multiple vendors. Therefore, automation meant moving away from the single-record approach. Catalogers at Clemson then began using one record for physical forms and individual records for each electronic variation of a title. Very quickly, this scenario became untenable. The existence of multiple records in the database was bconfusing and cluttered up the database.Q2 Catalogers also did not add records for full-text titles due to their instability. In 2002, Clemson began investigating a MARC record service and ultimately implemented Serials Solutions in July 2003. Subscribing to Serials Solutions MARC record service finally allowed Clemson staff to catalog their e-journal collections, including full-text titles. Until then, library staff were spending an enormous amount of time on record maintenance. The record sets, which were purchased from OCLC, required extensive editing up front and did not include updates. Any updating was done manually when Clemson catalogers were alerted to changes by vendors, discovered changes themselves, or were notified by patrons of titles that were not accessible. These previous workflow strategies were not cost effective and only allowed for the cataloging of a small number of titles. By using a MARC record service, they have been able to catalog over 17,000 titles. Wesley admits that the MARC record service is not perfect, but she knows that these records contain their URLs and can be customized to add library-specific notes. Two other libraries interviewed also subscribe to a MARC record service: Central Washington University and Saint Louis University. Librarians from both libraries cited the lack of time needed to handle the high volume of e-journals and record maintenance as reasons for subscribing to this service.3 Anna Creech from Central Washington noted the advantage of finally having coverage statements. Also, Shana McDanold emphasized that Saint Louis University has decided not to catalog full-text titles that only provide article (not title) level access but will use their A-to-Z service to provide access to these titles. In all three of these libraries, automation of MARC record creation and maintenance has provided a cost effective means for streamlining the cataloging workflow and keeping pace with constant record changes. For other libraries, MARC record outsourcing can only serve as part of the access solution. Libraries with complex, decentralized collections and records that require considerable customization in respect to location and access restrictions find limited value in MARC record services. The University of Washington falls into this category. This library takes a hybrid approach to cataloging e-journals by designing a workflow that combines outsourcing to a MARC record service for their more unstable, full-text collections and manual cataloging for e-journal packages. Steve Shadle, the
The MARC Record How are Libraries Adding or Creating MARC Records for their OPACs? The interviews revealed that academic libraries are using a variety of methods for cataloging e-journals. Many of the librarians interviewed have evolved their techniques for adding or creating MARC records to the OPAC beyond manual cataloging by utilizing local scripts, vendor record sets, MARC record services, or e-journal management data and services. A variety of practices and workflows has emerged over the last decade due to the overwhelming number of titles some of these librarians have been responsible for cataloging. One common practice is to acquire MARC record sets from vendors and aggregators. These record sets, which are often available at no additional charge to the library, allow libraries to handle changes in access and coverage through regular updates. Rutgers University is one example of a library using this practice. The cataloging department at Rutgers obtains MARC record sets for its EBSCO titles but does not subscribe to any additional serial MARC record services for all of its titles. Local scripts are created so that when loaded these EBSCO MARC records match on the ISSN. If there is a match, an 856 field is added to the existing record. If there is not a match on the ISSN, then another record is added to the system. Most of the time the records added represent full-level cataloging, but not always; brief records do not have subject access. If errors related to ISSNs are detected in the local system, these are corrected so that the next monthly load will match appropriately. Rutgers catalogers chose not to catalog individual titles within abstracting and indexing databases that only provide citation or article level access. These services are cataloged at the database level. Journal packages such as JSTOR and Project MUSE are cataloged manually.1 Of course, if a library wishes to obtain regular MARC record sets for all of the titles in its e-journal collection, there are several commercial options available from traditional integrated library system (ILS) companies such as ExLibris, which offers a service called MARCit, and from publication access management services (PAMS) like Serials Solutions, which offers a Full MARC Record Service. Outsourcing of e-journal cataloging is especially beneficial for librarians in moderately sized academic libraries that have recently begun to catalog e-journal collections. E-journal collections are fluid in nature; titles are constantly added and dropped and coverage dates are constantly changing. Tracking these changes is difficult at best; imagine the time involved in cataloging these types of collections. These reasons are exactly why several of the people interviewed subscribe to MARC record services. Kathryn Wesley, a serials cataloger at Clemson University, spins a familiar tale to which many libraries can relate. In 2000, Clemson cataloging staff began to catalog their 3000 e-journals using the single-record approach. At that time, a high maintenance HTML list
292
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
serials access librarian at the University of Washington, explains that their library purchases MARC records for full-text titles from databases or titles accessible without license agreements (e.g., DOAJ, ProQuest, etc.). However, aggregated packages that require local control are cataloged manually by the cataloging staff. When the library first investigated outsourcing their MARC records, Serials Solutions was unable to customize data at the title level. For example, they were unable to customize URLs, access restrictions or holdings/coverage data for individual titles available through Science Direct. Therefore, this type of package was processed title by title. Serials acquisitions staff bring in an OCLC record for these titles and attach an electronic holdings record. The University of Washington also obtains records from MARCIVE, which they process like other bibliographic records. For the records added through Serials Solutions MARC record service, there is no local work performed. Due to regular updates, these records are ephemeral in nature and staff time spent on their upkeep would not be cost effective.4 The Serials Solutions data are also used to maintain the library’s A-to-Z list, which is generated from the MARC database. These data are only used for maintenance tasks including monitoring links, coverage, and changes over time. The library decided against using Serials Solutions A-to-Z list due to this product’s subject organization. Currently, about 40 percent of the University of Washington’s titles are automated using the Serials Solutions service. Cataloging and acquisitions staff do not edit these records. The remaining 60 percent of titles are from packages requiring local control, which are processed on a title-by-title basis.5 Another university taking a hybrid approach to ejournal cataloging is Oregon State University. This library uses data from Serials Solutions, programming scripts, and ERM functionality to create a unique workflow for e-journal cataloging. With the technical skills of Terry Reese, Oregon State’s digital production unit head, the cataloging department has customized an innovative approach to creating MARC records that harnesses the power of an integrated ERM system. Oregon State uses its ERM in combination with Serials Solutions data to build MARC records for the online catalog. A programming script is used to match on ISSN. If there are existing records in the OPAC that match on the ISSN, then a MARC holdings record containing an 856 link is added to that record.6 Any 856 links found in the bibliographic record are stripped and removed. If no MARC record is found, the ERM will create a brief record with title, notes, and a holdings record.7 A report is run each month on these brief records and the cataloging staff provide full-level cataloging. This is a relatively new process for Oregon State, so the first report run noted almost 2000 records to catalog.8 Bonnie Parks, the serials and electronic resource catalog librarian, believes that this number should lessen as these reports are run more often. Reese notes that some of the brief records created by the ERM are ephemeral in nature and do not require full-level cataloging. These records may not be as good as full
level cataloging, but they are better than not having these titles in the database at all. Overall, academic universities are experimenting with a variety of tools and services to create an efficient workflow that will meet their libraries’ needs. Very few libraries can use only manual cataloging practices and keep up with growing e-journal collections. In years past, many libraries simply gave up this process and only cataloged select e-journal titles. The services and tools mentioned throughout this section enable librarians to overcome these obstacles and allow the OPAC to serve as a comprehensive source of all library materials. How Many MARC Records? What Type? Most of the librarians interviewed expressed a strong preference still for the single-record approach; however, automated processes for delivering MARC records make it difficult to continue cataloging in this manner. Therefore, these services have influenced libraries’ decisions about the number of MARC records to create per title. Usually localized scripts are required to circumvent this problem. Nevertheless, several of the librarians interviewed cannot always adhere to the single-record approach. Parks from Oregon State emphasized that the single-record approach is preferable but not always possible. Their automated system for adding MARC records will attempt to match on the print record, but there are times when this does not work, and a separate record is created. Parks feels that if it will better facilitate access, Oregon State will use a separate record. For example, before developing the current system of loading MARC records using their ERM, Oregon State would obtain records from EBSCO. Since these records need to be reloaded each month, it would not be cost effective to follow the single-record approach. More importantly, an attempt to provide the single-access approach would be extremely time consuming and frustrating and, in the end, deny patrons access to many titles that are unable to be cataloged or maintained. Shadle also concurs with a practical approach to the number of MARC records per title stating that the University of Washington will btry to follow the singlerecord approach within the limits of the machine process.Q9 He provides an example of the American Periodicals Series to which his library often has both print and microfilm records. In this case, Serials Solutions would add an additional record because of matching on two ISSNs. This type of scenario would not be corrected. Several of the librarians interviewed adhere more strictly to the single-record approach. Elizabeth Leister comments that at Rutgers there is a bstrong preference by the patrons and reference for the single-record approach.Q10 This is also the case at UNCG. In fact, Mary Jane Conger notes that their library does not subscribe to MARC record services partly to ensure that the single-record approach is maintained. UNCG handles the single record in a slightly different manner than most. If the aggregator, publisher, or vendor has used different titles but the articles are the same as in the print title, those variations are added to the existing record (if
293
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
one is available). A 246 (varying form of title field, first indicator b1Q) will be added for each title variation. In addition, a subfield $i will be used to explain the added title as in this example:
number of records per title a library would like to have, libraries subscribing to MARC record services should consider the type of record to add, electronic or print. Wesley briefly discussed this point. Clemson had originally asked to set up their MARC record profile to prefer electronic records over print as the basis for their Serials Solutions derived records, but several problems occurred with this approach. Clemson catalogers insert special notes into the MARC record, but the electronic record was already populated with some of these same note fields, so their records would end up with two 506 or 516 notes. If one begins with the print record, in contrast, one can add library specific notes usually without fear of duplication. Another problem with the electronic record concerns the title proper. Wesley points out that bthe title proper for an electronic version is often different or may be a strange variation of the print title. For example, the electronic title for the New York Times is the New York Times on the Web.Q15 The cataloging department began receiving numerous complaints from public services because of this type of problem. Furthermore, patrons were having difficulty finding the records because the print and electronic versions were not listed together. bIf you use the print records and add a qualifier for the online, this title will sit side by side in the index. These titles will not be separated in your hit list.Q16 From the examples listed above, one realizes there are many considerations that serials catalogers have to weigh because of e-journal management tools like MARC record services. Even the age-old question of single versus multiple records has taken on a new dimension in light of these varying complexities. Serials catalogers should be aware of these complexities in order to make more educated decisions about their work processes.
246 1 $i EbscoHost title: $a Title. This practice ensures that patrons have a successful search no matter what title variation is used by an aggregator, publisher, or vendor.11 The University of Georgia has an additional complication with a shared online catalog for their state consortium. The consortial arrangement makes the consideration of a MARC record service more difficult. Beth Thornton of UGA notes that their library also strongly supports the singlerecord approach. Due to their consortial arrangement, no location-specific links are added to the bibliographic records. Separate holdings are created instead. UGA does make one interesting exception to the single-record approach. If the print version of a journal has been cancelled but not ceased, then a separate online only record is created. Thornton notes two primary reasons for this policy. First, this is less confusing for the patrons. If they see closed-out holdings for the print, they may assume that the online is not current as well. Second, a separate online only record will allow acquisitions staff to add a separate order record.12 Several other librarians believe that the access gained by quick automation processes offsets the single record approach. Two of the librarians contacted have compromised with a two-record approach—a MARC record for physical forms and an aggregator-neutral MARC record for their electronic subscriptions. Creech of Central Washington University acknowledges that most people prefer the single-record approach; however, she feels that librarians need to convince and push vendors and ILS systems to provide services that would facilitate this approach.13 These services are especially important for smaller libraries that may not have the systems staff or expertise to design and manage local processes to customize MARC records that follow the one-record approach. The aggregator-neutral record is definitely a tremendous improvement from listing separate records for each electronic version of a title. Wesley supports this statement with comments on Clemson’s transition from multiple records to the vendor-neutral approach: bBefore the aggregator neutral approach, adding different records had become absurd. We were using different URLs to get to the same source.Q14 For example, a library would have a URL that would take a patron directly to the e-journal. Another link would be provided to take the patron through an aggregator or third party to the exact same source. So, the patron faces two different bibliographic records to the same e-journal source. Undoubtedly, the vendor that develops a MARC record service to accommodate the single-record approach would corner the market. These MARC record services already allow a certain level of customization for records, including library-specific notes and a profile outlining desirable MARC fields that a library would like to add to their records. In addition to the
What are Some Innovations in Linking? Once the e-journal is cataloged using a MARC record, the cataloger has to also provide a link or connection to that resource. The traditional method of linking, wherein links are generated using the 856 field in either the bibliographic or holdings records, was still widely employed by the librarians interviewed. E-journal management tools, however, are beginning to provide alternative ways to link e-resources from the MARC record. Saint Louis University will be using an alternative form of linking to the full text after implementing a MARC record service. McDanold stated that they will be stripping out the 856 fields from their print records and linking patrons to their A-to-Z list, which will automatically conduct a search to take the patron to the desired title. She adds that bif you are looking for Developmental Biology, click on the link in the online catalog. This will conduct a title search in the A-to-Z list, and the patron will be taken to this title and the possible full-text optionsQ17 The University of Georgia is also linking their patrons to their A-to-Z list except their patrons will be required to type in the specific title they are seeking.18 Another school utilizing this type of linking is the University of North
294
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
Carolina at Greensboro, which uses Journal Finder as their comprehensive e-journal management solution. Conger notes that with DRA, their previous ILS, they were able to use the database control number (DBCN) as a match point between the ILS and Journal Finder. This match point creates a link between the MARC record and Journal Finder leading the patron to UNCG’s access options including full text, document delivery, and local OPACs. UNCG plans on continuing this practice with Sirsi, their new ILS, by using the title control number as a match point.19 Another alternative to linking to the full text using an 856 is the OpenURL. If a library’s online catalog is established as a source for its link resolver, a library can utilize OpenURL functionality to provide a list of full-text options from the MARC record. Several of the librarians interviewed had considered but not yet implemented this functionality. One librarian did describe an alternative use of an OpenURL resolver for providing access to externally related resources. At Oregon State, the OpenURL resolver has the ability to plug into the OPAC, allowing the resolver to capture data from the catalog record in order bto filter by call number and pull in related resources by subject for a given title.Q20 This functionality is made possible since Oregon State’s OpenURL resolution software is created by their ILS vendor. For example, if a patron has found a record for a particular map with a Q call number, clicking on this call number will invoke the OpenURL resolver to filter journals on maps, possibly the National Atlas, etc., through a search of the Library of Congress (LC) classification Q. Reese points out that their link resolver has the functionality to filter through the catalog record for set elements including call number, titles, and subject ranges. The range of uses for the OpenURL and link resolvers has yet to be fully explored. Librarians have only to think beyond the traditionally defined descriptive role of the MARC record and harness the potential of these technologies to reshape patron uses of the online catalog.
Washington, serials acquisitions staff use Serials Solutions data to find changes. An automated process is in place that compares the new and old loads to produce a list of titles added, dropped, and changed.21 The University of Georgia also obtains record maintenance information from their homegrown A-to-Z system. This system is currently maintained by a science bibliographer who regularly sends a list of adds and deletes to the cataloging department.22 The serials cataloging team at UNCG are notified about what to catalog by a monthly report generated by Journal Finder. When this library makes an initial purchase, titles are first added to Journal Finder’s knowledgebase to ensure prompt access. A monthly report notes what titles have been added over the past month.23 All three of these examples reflect a more systematic approach to collecting record maintenance information. The use of A-to-Z lists and homegrown e-journal management solutions makes possible these approaches. Of course, these types of tools can often complicate the task of record maintenance. Cathy Pecoraro of Rutgers notes that there are often inaccuracies in their A-to-Z list, especially for smaller packages and publishers. There may also be quirks to a system for updating and refreshing data. Rutgers’ vendor-supplied A-to-Z service was not regularly reflecting updates to packages. Pecoraro discovered that the package needed to be deselected then selected again to update the title list. She commented that it can often be bdifficult to manage additions, when you lose access, title changes and coverage information and reflect these changes in the catalog and e-journal management tools.Q24
Job Responsibilities How is the Role of the Serials Cataloger Evolving? The critical mass of e-journals being added to collections, in addition to the tools and services now available to manage this critical mass, has created a complex environment for the serials cataloger. The skill sets necessary for serials catalogers are logically evolving because of this environment. Reese perceives the role of all librarians, not just serials catalogers, as becoming more technical as serials continue to move to electronic form. This is apparent from the growing number of customized programs and scripts that are described in the workflow examples provided above. Parks notes that many serials catalogers are moving away from the more traditional job duties of original and copy cataloging. Case in point, during her first couple weeks on the job, Parks was asked to bdevelop a workflow for managing e-journal information and more quality control through cataloging.Q25 Other librarians interviewed emphasized the fact that they have become workflow managers. They spend less time handling individual titles and more time managing record sets. For example, Wesley notes that she is still performing traditional cataloging, but now she oversees the outsourcing of cataloging as well. Her additional duties include reviewing monthly updates, ensuring that batch loads are handled appropriately, and tweaking MARC
Record Maintenance How are Serials Catalogers Being Notified of Changes to the OPAC? Cataloging and acquisitions departments have traditionally worked together closely to identify changes and record maintenance needs in the online catalog, including but not limited to new titles, title changes, ceased titles, and holdings corrections. This type of record maintenance has been a real struggle with e-journals due to their ephemeral and fluid nature. In the past, librarians have been dependent on patrons or public services staff reporting e-journal access problems. Acquisitions staff often receive monthly reports of changes from individual vendors that are communicated to cataloging staff. How have e-journal management tools evolved or altered these communications? At the University of
295
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
record profiles. These outsourcing responsibilities are necessary, especially for smaller libraries, if they wish to provide access through the OPAC to the growing number of e-journals now available to their patrons. Both Creech and Thornton emphasized the impact of the sheer volume of titles on serials cataloging workflows. Developing and managing the automated processes for handling batch loads have become a mainstay of the serials cataloging job. The reality of the current environment is that patrons simply will not have access to as many records if serials catalogers manually catalog instead of adopting automated processes. Librarians in the field are becoming cognizant of this fact and accepting that some of their cataloging practices may be compromised in order to handle the larger volume of titles. Wesley keenly points out that she bwould rather have 17,000 pretty good records vs. 5000 really good records. You have to do what’s best for the user.Q26 A focus on the user was a common theme for all the librarians interviewed. The adjustment of cataloging practices is occurring because these librarians realize they have a duty to the patron to provide quick, effective access points to facilitate the research process. Serials catalogers also have more opportunities to partner with other library departments to participate in the management of e-journal tools beyond MARC record services. For example, Conger is spending more time on Journal Finder working with cleanup and resolving problems for adding new titles. These partnerships require closer communication with outside departments. McDanold aptly states that serials catalogers bcan’t just sit in their cubiclesQ and that bcross communication is a must for effective e-journal access.Q27 The workflow strategies being designed at these various libraries involve numerous departments, including acquisitions, reference, and collection management. It is imperative that cataloging departments openly communicate with their peers to ensure that all access issues are addressed and feedback from patrons and public service areas is being considered. One last indicator of the evolution of the serials cataloging position is the changing job title. Terry Reese’s position title is digital production unit head; Steve Shadle is now the serials access librarian. Both of these men are heavily involved with cataloging; however, their jobs now include non-traditional duties. In the case of Terry Reese, his job entails designing cataloging tools like MarcEdit, creating local scripts, and developing workflow changes using the library’s ERM system.28 Steve Shadle’s position is half-time serials cataloging and halftime workflow manager for record sets and loads. His duties range from managing workflow for coverage and MARC data, working with tools like MarcEdit, and eventually managing Serials Solutions data loads.29 Both of these positions are examples of the potential future for serials catalogers highlighting either programming or workflow management expertise. The traditional role of the serials cataloger has not disappeared, but the demands of the current library environment invite professionals to move beyond traditional workflows and discover new ways to effectively carry out their jobs.
Future Trends and Final Words of Wisdom E-journal management tools and services are only part of the equation for change in serials cataloging and librarianship as a whole. These tools provide the potential for libraries to re-build their OPACs as a comprehensive access point for all their library holdings. However, technologies such as the OpenURL and the Internet have taught us that access points for collections cannot be location bound, physically or virtually. User expectations for finding information are heavily influenced by the world of Google where information needs are being met with one search and one click. Libraries cannot remain passive and expect users to come to their buildings or Web sites. They must think globally about their services and create seamless linking options that are capable of being pushed to the user. Innovations like Google Scholar and Open WorldCat are excellent examples of how patrons can reach library holdings without ever entering a library’s physical or virtual space.30 Creating this kind of reach for library holdings requires an understanding of the technological advances in addition to the development of data standards. Also, these data standards must be able to bcross walkQ and interact with each other.31 Many libraries are developing numerous collections, both digital and print, that are being described using different metadata standards such as MARC records and Dublin Core. How well do these descriptions co-exist? These collections should be searchable as a whole, not just individually. Parks emphasizes that patrons do not want to jump from one collection to another adopting an assortment of search strategies per collection. They want to search on a specific topic from one location and extract relevant hits for all of the library’s collections. Given an understanding of the user expectations described above, what can librarians, especially serials catalogers, do to facilitate this kind of quick, seamless access to library materials? 1. Implement e-journal management tools. It is imperative to understand the value of implementing ejournal management tools and services. These types of services help manage enormous amounts of data in a systematic way. Like classification schemes such as Dewey and Library of Congress, which provide descriptive structure, these services provide organizational value through technological structure. 2. Participate and be aware of developing data standards. Serials catalogers should also remain aware of and participate in the development of cataloging rules and standards. For instance, CONSER is taking a look at potential uses of access level records developed by the Library of Congress.32 In 2004, the Library of Congress assigned a project team led by Dave Reser to work with cataloging consultant Tom Delsey to develop an access level record for remote access monographic and integrating resources.33 The access record was developed using the Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records (FRBR) to btake into
296
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
4. Steve Shadle, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005.
account four generic user tasks (find, identify, select and obtain).Q34 Even though this record has been designed to describe monographic electronic resources such as Web sites, there is a potential application for the description of e-journals. This is a slimmer record that focuses less on description and more on providing access to the resource.35 3. Be flexible about cataloging practices and experiment with workflow. In order to utilize various ejournal tools and services, serials catalogers will have to experiment with their established cataloging workflow. The concept of seamless and effective user access to library resources should be the driving force behind all departmental policies. UNCG provides one example of an altered workflow. In order to provide quick access to e-journals, titles are added to Journal Finder first, then cataloged.36 Note that this change is not necessarily dramatic, it simply reflects a decision to remain flexible about workflow. 4. Understand that bthe perfect is the enemy of the good.Q37 It is possible that the use of e-journal tools and MARC record services will create systematic errors within the OPAC. Your library will have to determine if these errors can be corrected in a cost effective manner. If not, is your library willing to live with reduced quality cataloging? Wesley’s experiences at Clemson provide some guidance in this scenario. She observes that their automated MARC record service does create the occasional quirky note. Yet, these records contain the necessary elements for effective access: the right title, accurate holdings statements, and an accurate URL. If the end result of this service delivers the desired resource to the patron, perhaps focusing on the parts of the e-journal MARC record that affect access and remaining flexible about inconsequential errors is, simply put, good enough.
5. Ibid. 6. Bonnie Parks, telephone conversation with author, July 26, 2005. 7. Terry Reese, telephone conversation with author, July 26, 2005. 8. Parks, telephone, July 25, 2005. 9. Shadle, telephone, July 25, 2005. 10. Leister, telephone, July 25, 2005. 11. Mary Jane Conger, telephone conversation with author, July 19, 2005. 12. Beth Jedlicka Thornton, telephone conversation with author, July 20, 2005. 13. Creech, telephone, July 25, 2005. 14. Wesley, telephone, July 25, 2005. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. McDanold, telephone, July 25, 2005. 18. Thornton, telephone, July 20, 2005. 19. Conger, telephone, July 19, 2005. 20. Reese, telephone, July 26, 2005. 21. Shadle, telephone, July 25, 2005. 22. Thornton, telephone, July 20, 2005. 23. Conger, telephone, July 19, 2005. 24. Cathy Pecoraro, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005. 25. Parks, telephone, July 25, 2005. 26. Wesley, telephone, July 25, 2005. 27. McDanold, telephone, July 25, 2005. 28. Reese, telephone, July 26, 2005. 29. Shadle, telephone, July 25, 2005. 30. Pecoraro, telephone, July 25, 2005. 31. Parks, telephone, July 25, 2005. 32. Shadle, telephone, July 25, 2005.
Notes
33. Tom Delsey. bDefining an dAccess LevelT MARC/AACR Catalog Record,Q http://www.loc.gov/catdir/access/report_final.pdf (accessed July 26, 2005).
1. Elizabeth Leister, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005.
34. bLC Implementation for Access Level MARC/AACR Records,Q http://www.loc.gov/catdir/access/accessrecord.html (accessed July 26, 2005).
2. Kathryn Wesley, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005.
35. Shadle, telephone, July 25, 2005.
3. Anna Creech, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005; Shana McDanold, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005.
36. Conger, telephone, July 19, 2005. 37. Wesley, telephone, July 25, 2005.
297
E-journal management tools and services such as MARC record services, A-to-Z lists, and link resolvers are changing e-journal cataloging. This column explores these changes in the academic environment through interviews with ten librarians representing eight universities. Three areas of change in serials cataloging are explored: (1) changes to the MARC record, including how libraries are adding/ creating MARC records for their catalogs, the number and type of MARC records being created and linking within MARC bibliographic and holdings records; (2) the manner in which serials catalogers are being informed of changes; and (3) the evolving role of the serials cataloger. Future trends and advice for evolving workflow practices conclude the discussion. Serials Review 2005; 31:291–297. D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Serials catalogers today find themselves in an environment ripe for change. Of course, this is simply code language for chaos. A critical mass of e-journals and eresources needs cataloging. A plethora of tools and services exists to handle this critical mass, and many of these tools and services still require customized programs to elicit suitable outcomes. Serials cataloging has become broader in scope than just the cataloger, the object, the rules, and the record. Handling the ever-growing and constantly fluid number of e-journals available to libraries now requires more sophisticated workflows and management tools. To effectively evaluate the management of their cataloging procedures, serials cataloging professionals need to be aware of potential uses of tools and services such as MARC record services, A-to-Z lists, link resolvers, electronic resource management (ERM) systems, and localized programming techniques. This transition from cataloger to workflow manager may be difficult for librarians drawn to the profession because of the often tactile but always intellectually stimulating process of original cataloging. Even today among the horde of e-journals waiting for access points, serials catalogers still dream of their next opportunity to hold a freshly minted journal and build a
relationship with that title in the form of a cataloging record with description, access points and subject analysis. Effective use of e-journal management tools, services, and practices may allow cataloging professionals to create order out of the chaos of e-journals and allow for those rare original cataloging moments. This column will examine how e-journal management tools, services (both commercial and homegrown), and practices are shaping serials cataloging. Telephone interviews with serials catalogers and professionals from academic libraries across the country provide a snapshot of evolving practices influenced by these tools and services. Ten professionals representing eight libraries were interviewed by phone including the following: Mary Jane Conger from the University of North Carolina, Greensboro (UNCG); Beth Jedlicka Thornton from the University of Georgia (UGA); Kathryn Wesley from Clemson University; Shana McDanold from Saint Louis University; Elizabeth Leister and Cathy Pecoraro from Rutgers University; Steve Shadle from the University of Washington; Anna Creech from Central Washington University; and Bonnie Parks and Terry Reese from Oregon State University. Their responses indicate three areas of change related to serials cataloging: the MARC record, record maintenance, and the job responsibilities of the serials cataloger or professional. Examples and discussion from the interview sessions illustrate each of these areas.
Collins is Serials Coordinator, Mitchell Memorial Library, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA; e-mail: [email protected]. 0098-7913/$–see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2005.08.002
291
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
provided access to these titles. By the end of the year, the librarian and one assistant for copy cataloging were able to catalog over 1000 titles. Then the number of ejournals began to explode, and a decision was made to automate the e-journal cataloging process by obtaining individual MARC record sets from multiple vendors. Therefore, automation meant moving away from the single-record approach. Catalogers at Clemson then began using one record for physical forms and individual records for each electronic variation of a title. Very quickly, this scenario became untenable. The existence of multiple records in the database was bconfusing and cluttered up the database.Q2 Catalogers also did not add records for full-text titles due to their instability. In 2002, Clemson began investigating a MARC record service and ultimately implemented Serials Solutions in July 2003. Subscribing to Serials Solutions MARC record service finally allowed Clemson staff to catalog their e-journal collections, including full-text titles. Until then, library staff were spending an enormous amount of time on record maintenance. The record sets, which were purchased from OCLC, required extensive editing up front and did not include updates. Any updating was done manually when Clemson catalogers were alerted to changes by vendors, discovered changes themselves, or were notified by patrons of titles that were not accessible. These previous workflow strategies were not cost effective and only allowed for the cataloging of a small number of titles. By using a MARC record service, they have been able to catalog over 17,000 titles. Wesley admits that the MARC record service is not perfect, but she knows that these records contain their URLs and can be customized to add library-specific notes. Two other libraries interviewed also subscribe to a MARC record service: Central Washington University and Saint Louis University. Librarians from both libraries cited the lack of time needed to handle the high volume of e-journals and record maintenance as reasons for subscribing to this service.3 Anna Creech from Central Washington noted the advantage of finally having coverage statements. Also, Shana McDanold emphasized that Saint Louis University has decided not to catalog full-text titles that only provide article (not title) level access but will use their A-to-Z service to provide access to these titles. In all three of these libraries, automation of MARC record creation and maintenance has provided a cost effective means for streamlining the cataloging workflow and keeping pace with constant record changes. For other libraries, MARC record outsourcing can only serve as part of the access solution. Libraries with complex, decentralized collections and records that require considerable customization in respect to location and access restrictions find limited value in MARC record services. The University of Washington falls into this category. This library takes a hybrid approach to cataloging e-journals by designing a workflow that combines outsourcing to a MARC record service for their more unstable, full-text collections and manual cataloging for e-journal packages. Steve Shadle, the
The MARC Record How are Libraries Adding or Creating MARC Records for their OPACs? The interviews revealed that academic libraries are using a variety of methods for cataloging e-journals. Many of the librarians interviewed have evolved their techniques for adding or creating MARC records to the OPAC beyond manual cataloging by utilizing local scripts, vendor record sets, MARC record services, or e-journal management data and services. A variety of practices and workflows has emerged over the last decade due to the overwhelming number of titles some of these librarians have been responsible for cataloging. One common practice is to acquire MARC record sets from vendors and aggregators. These record sets, which are often available at no additional charge to the library, allow libraries to handle changes in access and coverage through regular updates. Rutgers University is one example of a library using this practice. The cataloging department at Rutgers obtains MARC record sets for its EBSCO titles but does not subscribe to any additional serial MARC record services for all of its titles. Local scripts are created so that when loaded these EBSCO MARC records match on the ISSN. If there is a match, an 856 field is added to the existing record. If there is not a match on the ISSN, then another record is added to the system. Most of the time the records added represent full-level cataloging, but not always; brief records do not have subject access. If errors related to ISSNs are detected in the local system, these are corrected so that the next monthly load will match appropriately. Rutgers catalogers chose not to catalog individual titles within abstracting and indexing databases that only provide citation or article level access. These services are cataloged at the database level. Journal packages such as JSTOR and Project MUSE are cataloged manually.1 Of course, if a library wishes to obtain regular MARC record sets for all of the titles in its e-journal collection, there are several commercial options available from traditional integrated library system (ILS) companies such as ExLibris, which offers a service called MARCit, and from publication access management services (PAMS) like Serials Solutions, which offers a Full MARC Record Service. Outsourcing of e-journal cataloging is especially beneficial for librarians in moderately sized academic libraries that have recently begun to catalog e-journal collections. E-journal collections are fluid in nature; titles are constantly added and dropped and coverage dates are constantly changing. Tracking these changes is difficult at best; imagine the time involved in cataloging these types of collections. These reasons are exactly why several of the people interviewed subscribe to MARC record services. Kathryn Wesley, a serials cataloger at Clemson University, spins a familiar tale to which many libraries can relate. In 2000, Clemson cataloging staff began to catalog their 3000 e-journals using the single-record approach. At that time, a high maintenance HTML list
292
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
serials access librarian at the University of Washington, explains that their library purchases MARC records for full-text titles from databases or titles accessible without license agreements (e.g., DOAJ, ProQuest, etc.). However, aggregated packages that require local control are cataloged manually by the cataloging staff. When the library first investigated outsourcing their MARC records, Serials Solutions was unable to customize data at the title level. For example, they were unable to customize URLs, access restrictions or holdings/coverage data for individual titles available through Science Direct. Therefore, this type of package was processed title by title. Serials acquisitions staff bring in an OCLC record for these titles and attach an electronic holdings record. The University of Washington also obtains records from MARCIVE, which they process like other bibliographic records. For the records added through Serials Solutions MARC record service, there is no local work performed. Due to regular updates, these records are ephemeral in nature and staff time spent on their upkeep would not be cost effective.4 The Serials Solutions data are also used to maintain the library’s A-to-Z list, which is generated from the MARC database. These data are only used for maintenance tasks including monitoring links, coverage, and changes over time. The library decided against using Serials Solutions A-to-Z list due to this product’s subject organization. Currently, about 40 percent of the University of Washington’s titles are automated using the Serials Solutions service. Cataloging and acquisitions staff do not edit these records. The remaining 60 percent of titles are from packages requiring local control, which are processed on a title-by-title basis.5 Another university taking a hybrid approach to ejournal cataloging is Oregon State University. This library uses data from Serials Solutions, programming scripts, and ERM functionality to create a unique workflow for e-journal cataloging. With the technical skills of Terry Reese, Oregon State’s digital production unit head, the cataloging department has customized an innovative approach to creating MARC records that harnesses the power of an integrated ERM system. Oregon State uses its ERM in combination with Serials Solutions data to build MARC records for the online catalog. A programming script is used to match on ISSN. If there are existing records in the OPAC that match on the ISSN, then a MARC holdings record containing an 856 link is added to that record.6 Any 856 links found in the bibliographic record are stripped and removed. If no MARC record is found, the ERM will create a brief record with title, notes, and a holdings record.7 A report is run each month on these brief records and the cataloging staff provide full-level cataloging. This is a relatively new process for Oregon State, so the first report run noted almost 2000 records to catalog.8 Bonnie Parks, the serials and electronic resource catalog librarian, believes that this number should lessen as these reports are run more often. Reese notes that some of the brief records created by the ERM are ephemeral in nature and do not require full-level cataloging. These records may not be as good as full
level cataloging, but they are better than not having these titles in the database at all. Overall, academic universities are experimenting with a variety of tools and services to create an efficient workflow that will meet their libraries’ needs. Very few libraries can use only manual cataloging practices and keep up with growing e-journal collections. In years past, many libraries simply gave up this process and only cataloged select e-journal titles. The services and tools mentioned throughout this section enable librarians to overcome these obstacles and allow the OPAC to serve as a comprehensive source of all library materials. How Many MARC Records? What Type? Most of the librarians interviewed expressed a strong preference still for the single-record approach; however, automated processes for delivering MARC records make it difficult to continue cataloging in this manner. Therefore, these services have influenced libraries’ decisions about the number of MARC records to create per title. Usually localized scripts are required to circumvent this problem. Nevertheless, several of the librarians interviewed cannot always adhere to the single-record approach. Parks from Oregon State emphasized that the single-record approach is preferable but not always possible. Their automated system for adding MARC records will attempt to match on the print record, but there are times when this does not work, and a separate record is created. Parks feels that if it will better facilitate access, Oregon State will use a separate record. For example, before developing the current system of loading MARC records using their ERM, Oregon State would obtain records from EBSCO. Since these records need to be reloaded each month, it would not be cost effective to follow the single-record approach. More importantly, an attempt to provide the single-access approach would be extremely time consuming and frustrating and, in the end, deny patrons access to many titles that are unable to be cataloged or maintained. Shadle also concurs with a practical approach to the number of MARC records per title stating that the University of Washington will btry to follow the singlerecord approach within the limits of the machine process.Q9 He provides an example of the American Periodicals Series to which his library often has both print and microfilm records. In this case, Serials Solutions would add an additional record because of matching on two ISSNs. This type of scenario would not be corrected. Several of the librarians interviewed adhere more strictly to the single-record approach. Elizabeth Leister comments that at Rutgers there is a bstrong preference by the patrons and reference for the single-record approach.Q10 This is also the case at UNCG. In fact, Mary Jane Conger notes that their library does not subscribe to MARC record services partly to ensure that the single-record approach is maintained. UNCG handles the single record in a slightly different manner than most. If the aggregator, publisher, or vendor has used different titles but the articles are the same as in the print title, those variations are added to the existing record (if
293
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
one is available). A 246 (varying form of title field, first indicator b1Q) will be added for each title variation. In addition, a subfield $i will be used to explain the added title as in this example:
number of records per title a library would like to have, libraries subscribing to MARC record services should consider the type of record to add, electronic or print. Wesley briefly discussed this point. Clemson had originally asked to set up their MARC record profile to prefer electronic records over print as the basis for their Serials Solutions derived records, but several problems occurred with this approach. Clemson catalogers insert special notes into the MARC record, but the electronic record was already populated with some of these same note fields, so their records would end up with two 506 or 516 notes. If one begins with the print record, in contrast, one can add library specific notes usually without fear of duplication. Another problem with the electronic record concerns the title proper. Wesley points out that bthe title proper for an electronic version is often different or may be a strange variation of the print title. For example, the electronic title for the New York Times is the New York Times on the Web.Q15 The cataloging department began receiving numerous complaints from public services because of this type of problem. Furthermore, patrons were having difficulty finding the records because the print and electronic versions were not listed together. bIf you use the print records and add a qualifier for the online, this title will sit side by side in the index. These titles will not be separated in your hit list.Q16 From the examples listed above, one realizes there are many considerations that serials catalogers have to weigh because of e-journal management tools like MARC record services. Even the age-old question of single versus multiple records has taken on a new dimension in light of these varying complexities. Serials catalogers should be aware of these complexities in order to make more educated decisions about their work processes.
246 1 $i EbscoHost title: $a Title. This practice ensures that patrons have a successful search no matter what title variation is used by an aggregator, publisher, or vendor.11 The University of Georgia has an additional complication with a shared online catalog for their state consortium. The consortial arrangement makes the consideration of a MARC record service more difficult. Beth Thornton of UGA notes that their library also strongly supports the singlerecord approach. Due to their consortial arrangement, no location-specific links are added to the bibliographic records. Separate holdings are created instead. UGA does make one interesting exception to the single-record approach. If the print version of a journal has been cancelled but not ceased, then a separate online only record is created. Thornton notes two primary reasons for this policy. First, this is less confusing for the patrons. If they see closed-out holdings for the print, they may assume that the online is not current as well. Second, a separate online only record will allow acquisitions staff to add a separate order record.12 Several other librarians believe that the access gained by quick automation processes offsets the single record approach. Two of the librarians contacted have compromised with a two-record approach—a MARC record for physical forms and an aggregator-neutral MARC record for their electronic subscriptions. Creech of Central Washington University acknowledges that most people prefer the single-record approach; however, she feels that librarians need to convince and push vendors and ILS systems to provide services that would facilitate this approach.13 These services are especially important for smaller libraries that may not have the systems staff or expertise to design and manage local processes to customize MARC records that follow the one-record approach. The aggregator-neutral record is definitely a tremendous improvement from listing separate records for each electronic version of a title. Wesley supports this statement with comments on Clemson’s transition from multiple records to the vendor-neutral approach: bBefore the aggregator neutral approach, adding different records had become absurd. We were using different URLs to get to the same source.Q14 For example, a library would have a URL that would take a patron directly to the e-journal. Another link would be provided to take the patron through an aggregator or third party to the exact same source. So, the patron faces two different bibliographic records to the same e-journal source. Undoubtedly, the vendor that develops a MARC record service to accommodate the single-record approach would corner the market. These MARC record services already allow a certain level of customization for records, including library-specific notes and a profile outlining desirable MARC fields that a library would like to add to their records. In addition to the
What are Some Innovations in Linking? Once the e-journal is cataloged using a MARC record, the cataloger has to also provide a link or connection to that resource. The traditional method of linking, wherein links are generated using the 856 field in either the bibliographic or holdings records, was still widely employed by the librarians interviewed. E-journal management tools, however, are beginning to provide alternative ways to link e-resources from the MARC record. Saint Louis University will be using an alternative form of linking to the full text after implementing a MARC record service. McDanold stated that they will be stripping out the 856 fields from their print records and linking patrons to their A-to-Z list, which will automatically conduct a search to take the patron to the desired title. She adds that bif you are looking for Developmental Biology, click on the link in the online catalog. This will conduct a title search in the A-to-Z list, and the patron will be taken to this title and the possible full-text optionsQ17 The University of Georgia is also linking their patrons to their A-to-Z list except their patrons will be required to type in the specific title they are seeking.18 Another school utilizing this type of linking is the University of North
294
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
Carolina at Greensboro, which uses Journal Finder as their comprehensive e-journal management solution. Conger notes that with DRA, their previous ILS, they were able to use the database control number (DBCN) as a match point between the ILS and Journal Finder. This match point creates a link between the MARC record and Journal Finder leading the patron to UNCG’s access options including full text, document delivery, and local OPACs. UNCG plans on continuing this practice with Sirsi, their new ILS, by using the title control number as a match point.19 Another alternative to linking to the full text using an 856 is the OpenURL. If a library’s online catalog is established as a source for its link resolver, a library can utilize OpenURL functionality to provide a list of full-text options from the MARC record. Several of the librarians interviewed had considered but not yet implemented this functionality. One librarian did describe an alternative use of an OpenURL resolver for providing access to externally related resources. At Oregon State, the OpenURL resolver has the ability to plug into the OPAC, allowing the resolver to capture data from the catalog record in order bto filter by call number and pull in related resources by subject for a given title.Q20 This functionality is made possible since Oregon State’s OpenURL resolution software is created by their ILS vendor. For example, if a patron has found a record for a particular map with a Q call number, clicking on this call number will invoke the OpenURL resolver to filter journals on maps, possibly the National Atlas, etc., through a search of the Library of Congress (LC) classification Q. Reese points out that their link resolver has the functionality to filter through the catalog record for set elements including call number, titles, and subject ranges. The range of uses for the OpenURL and link resolvers has yet to be fully explored. Librarians have only to think beyond the traditionally defined descriptive role of the MARC record and harness the potential of these technologies to reshape patron uses of the online catalog.
Washington, serials acquisitions staff use Serials Solutions data to find changes. An automated process is in place that compares the new and old loads to produce a list of titles added, dropped, and changed.21 The University of Georgia also obtains record maintenance information from their homegrown A-to-Z system. This system is currently maintained by a science bibliographer who regularly sends a list of adds and deletes to the cataloging department.22 The serials cataloging team at UNCG are notified about what to catalog by a monthly report generated by Journal Finder. When this library makes an initial purchase, titles are first added to Journal Finder’s knowledgebase to ensure prompt access. A monthly report notes what titles have been added over the past month.23 All three of these examples reflect a more systematic approach to collecting record maintenance information. The use of A-to-Z lists and homegrown e-journal management solutions makes possible these approaches. Of course, these types of tools can often complicate the task of record maintenance. Cathy Pecoraro of Rutgers notes that there are often inaccuracies in their A-to-Z list, especially for smaller packages and publishers. There may also be quirks to a system for updating and refreshing data. Rutgers’ vendor-supplied A-to-Z service was not regularly reflecting updates to packages. Pecoraro discovered that the package needed to be deselected then selected again to update the title list. She commented that it can often be bdifficult to manage additions, when you lose access, title changes and coverage information and reflect these changes in the catalog and e-journal management tools.Q24
Job Responsibilities How is the Role of the Serials Cataloger Evolving? The critical mass of e-journals being added to collections, in addition to the tools and services now available to manage this critical mass, has created a complex environment for the serials cataloger. The skill sets necessary for serials catalogers are logically evolving because of this environment. Reese perceives the role of all librarians, not just serials catalogers, as becoming more technical as serials continue to move to electronic form. This is apparent from the growing number of customized programs and scripts that are described in the workflow examples provided above. Parks notes that many serials catalogers are moving away from the more traditional job duties of original and copy cataloging. Case in point, during her first couple weeks on the job, Parks was asked to bdevelop a workflow for managing e-journal information and more quality control through cataloging.Q25 Other librarians interviewed emphasized the fact that they have become workflow managers. They spend less time handling individual titles and more time managing record sets. For example, Wesley notes that she is still performing traditional cataloging, but now she oversees the outsourcing of cataloging as well. Her additional duties include reviewing monthly updates, ensuring that batch loads are handled appropriately, and tweaking MARC
Record Maintenance How are Serials Catalogers Being Notified of Changes to the OPAC? Cataloging and acquisitions departments have traditionally worked together closely to identify changes and record maintenance needs in the online catalog, including but not limited to new titles, title changes, ceased titles, and holdings corrections. This type of record maintenance has been a real struggle with e-journals due to their ephemeral and fluid nature. In the past, librarians have been dependent on patrons or public services staff reporting e-journal access problems. Acquisitions staff often receive monthly reports of changes from individual vendors that are communicated to cataloging staff. How have e-journal management tools evolved or altered these communications? At the University of
295
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
record profiles. These outsourcing responsibilities are necessary, especially for smaller libraries, if they wish to provide access through the OPAC to the growing number of e-journals now available to their patrons. Both Creech and Thornton emphasized the impact of the sheer volume of titles on serials cataloging workflows. Developing and managing the automated processes for handling batch loads have become a mainstay of the serials cataloging job. The reality of the current environment is that patrons simply will not have access to as many records if serials catalogers manually catalog instead of adopting automated processes. Librarians in the field are becoming cognizant of this fact and accepting that some of their cataloging practices may be compromised in order to handle the larger volume of titles. Wesley keenly points out that she bwould rather have 17,000 pretty good records vs. 5000 really good records. You have to do what’s best for the user.Q26 A focus on the user was a common theme for all the librarians interviewed. The adjustment of cataloging practices is occurring because these librarians realize they have a duty to the patron to provide quick, effective access points to facilitate the research process. Serials catalogers also have more opportunities to partner with other library departments to participate in the management of e-journal tools beyond MARC record services. For example, Conger is spending more time on Journal Finder working with cleanup and resolving problems for adding new titles. These partnerships require closer communication with outside departments. McDanold aptly states that serials catalogers bcan’t just sit in their cubiclesQ and that bcross communication is a must for effective e-journal access.Q27 The workflow strategies being designed at these various libraries involve numerous departments, including acquisitions, reference, and collection management. It is imperative that cataloging departments openly communicate with their peers to ensure that all access issues are addressed and feedback from patrons and public service areas is being considered. One last indicator of the evolution of the serials cataloging position is the changing job title. Terry Reese’s position title is digital production unit head; Steve Shadle is now the serials access librarian. Both of these men are heavily involved with cataloging; however, their jobs now include non-traditional duties. In the case of Terry Reese, his job entails designing cataloging tools like MarcEdit, creating local scripts, and developing workflow changes using the library’s ERM system.28 Steve Shadle’s position is half-time serials cataloging and halftime workflow manager for record sets and loads. His duties range from managing workflow for coverage and MARC data, working with tools like MarcEdit, and eventually managing Serials Solutions data loads.29 Both of these positions are examples of the potential future for serials catalogers highlighting either programming or workflow management expertise. The traditional role of the serials cataloger has not disappeared, but the demands of the current library environment invite professionals to move beyond traditional workflows and discover new ways to effectively carry out their jobs.
Future Trends and Final Words of Wisdom E-journal management tools and services are only part of the equation for change in serials cataloging and librarianship as a whole. These tools provide the potential for libraries to re-build their OPACs as a comprehensive access point for all their library holdings. However, technologies such as the OpenURL and the Internet have taught us that access points for collections cannot be location bound, physically or virtually. User expectations for finding information are heavily influenced by the world of Google where information needs are being met with one search and one click. Libraries cannot remain passive and expect users to come to their buildings or Web sites. They must think globally about their services and create seamless linking options that are capable of being pushed to the user. Innovations like Google Scholar and Open WorldCat are excellent examples of how patrons can reach library holdings without ever entering a library’s physical or virtual space.30 Creating this kind of reach for library holdings requires an understanding of the technological advances in addition to the development of data standards. Also, these data standards must be able to bcross walkQ and interact with each other.31 Many libraries are developing numerous collections, both digital and print, that are being described using different metadata standards such as MARC records and Dublin Core. How well do these descriptions co-exist? These collections should be searchable as a whole, not just individually. Parks emphasizes that patrons do not want to jump from one collection to another adopting an assortment of search strategies per collection. They want to search on a specific topic from one location and extract relevant hits for all of the library’s collections. Given an understanding of the user expectations described above, what can librarians, especially serials catalogers, do to facilitate this kind of quick, seamless access to library materials? 1. Implement e-journal management tools. It is imperative to understand the value of implementing ejournal management tools and services. These types of services help manage enormous amounts of data in a systematic way. Like classification schemes such as Dewey and Library of Congress, which provide descriptive structure, these services provide organizational value through technological structure. 2. Participate and be aware of developing data standards. Serials catalogers should also remain aware of and participate in the development of cataloging rules and standards. For instance, CONSER is taking a look at potential uses of access level records developed by the Library of Congress.32 In 2004, the Library of Congress assigned a project team led by Dave Reser to work with cataloging consultant Tom Delsey to develop an access level record for remote access monographic and integrating resources.33 The access record was developed using the Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records (FRBR) to btake into
296
Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297
4. Steve Shadle, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005.
account four generic user tasks (find, identify, select and obtain).Q34 Even though this record has been designed to describe monographic electronic resources such as Web sites, there is a potential application for the description of e-journals. This is a slimmer record that focuses less on description and more on providing access to the resource.35 3. Be flexible about cataloging practices and experiment with workflow. In order to utilize various ejournal tools and services, serials catalogers will have to experiment with their established cataloging workflow. The concept of seamless and effective user access to library resources should be the driving force behind all departmental policies. UNCG provides one example of an altered workflow. In order to provide quick access to e-journals, titles are added to Journal Finder first, then cataloged.36 Note that this change is not necessarily dramatic, it simply reflects a decision to remain flexible about workflow. 4. Understand that bthe perfect is the enemy of the good.Q37 It is possible that the use of e-journal tools and MARC record services will create systematic errors within the OPAC. Your library will have to determine if these errors can be corrected in a cost effective manner. If not, is your library willing to live with reduced quality cataloging? Wesley’s experiences at Clemson provide some guidance in this scenario. She observes that their automated MARC record service does create the occasional quirky note. Yet, these records contain the necessary elements for effective access: the right title, accurate holdings statements, and an accurate URL. If the end result of this service delivers the desired resource to the patron, perhaps focusing on the parts of the e-journal MARC record that affect access and remaining flexible about inconsequential errors is, simply put, good enough.
5. Ibid. 6. Bonnie Parks, telephone conversation with author, July 26, 2005. 7. Terry Reese, telephone conversation with author, July 26, 2005. 8. Parks, telephone, July 25, 2005. 9. Shadle, telephone, July 25, 2005. 10. Leister, telephone, July 25, 2005. 11. Mary Jane Conger, telephone conversation with author, July 19, 2005. 12. Beth Jedlicka Thornton, telephone conversation with author, July 20, 2005. 13. Creech, telephone, July 25, 2005. 14. Wesley, telephone, July 25, 2005. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. McDanold, telephone, July 25, 2005. 18. Thornton, telephone, July 20, 2005. 19. Conger, telephone, July 19, 2005. 20. Reese, telephone, July 26, 2005. 21. Shadle, telephone, July 25, 2005. 22. Thornton, telephone, July 20, 2005. 23. Conger, telephone, July 19, 2005. 24. Cathy Pecoraro, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005. 25. Parks, telephone, July 25, 2005. 26. Wesley, telephone, July 25, 2005. 27. McDanold, telephone, July 25, 2005. 28. Reese, telephone, July 26, 2005. 29. Shadle, telephone, July 25, 2005. 30. Pecoraro, telephone, July 25, 2005. 31. Parks, telephone, July 25, 2005. 32. Shadle, telephone, July 25, 2005.
Notes
33. Tom Delsey. bDefining an dAccess LevelT MARC/AACR Catalog Record,Q http://www.loc.gov/catdir/access/report_final.pdf (accessed July 26, 2005).
1. Elizabeth Leister, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005.
34. bLC Implementation for Access Level MARC/AACR Records,Q http://www.loc.gov/catdir/access/accessrecord.html (accessed July 26, 2005).
2. Kathryn Wesley, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005.
35. Shadle, telephone, July 25, 2005.
3. Anna Creech, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005; Shana McDanold, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005.
36. Conger, telephone, July 19, 2005. 37. Wesley, telephone, July 25, 2005.
297