I appreciate the many responses to my question. I was aware that had been discussion on this topic when the title first started. However, I was hoping that the situation might have changed since then as this seems beyond “minor” to me. The word Bloomberg has equal billing on the masthead as Businessweek. Not to mention Businessweek is now spelled differently as one word versus two.

As I stated originally, there used to be an OCLC record for this new form of the title as this is the one we have in our OPAC and the one I use for my check-in records. I was not aware it had been absorbed into the old record until I went searching for it in OCLC yesterday.

Also, consider this. I just did a search in EBSCOhost. When you find a citation from 2010 or 2011, the journal source is showing Bloomberg Businessweek for every citation not Business Week. Thus, if we didn’t have full text and the student was going to look for the magazine on the shelf, what title do you think they are going to search for?

Regards,

Laura Vogler

Serials Manager

Electronic Resources Assistant

Wabash College Lilly Library

301 W Wabash Ave, PO Box 352

Crawfordsville IN 47933

PH: 765-361-6215

http://www.wabash.edu/library

From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Crank, Richard L
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:15 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Bloomberg Businessweek

There’s a pretty complete history on this spelled out in the list archive at http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=serialst (search “Bloomberg business & see especially item # 028409).

I’m curious to know if libraries that shelve titles alphabetically deliberately choose to not use the 852 ‡l (= shelving form of title) when the shelving title is different from the 245 title.

Rich Crank
Serial Records Team Leader, Acquisitions/Serials Dept.
University of Kansas Libraries
(785) 864-8944
rcrank@ku.edu

From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Shrader, Tina
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 2:01 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Bloomberg Businessweek

There’s a 936 field from 2009 in the record for Business Week (OCLC #1537921) indicating that the change to Bloomberg Businessweek was a minor title change and that no new record should be input.

If I were running a periodicals room that shelved alphabetically, I’d probably shelve it under Business Week with a reference from Bloomberg, because I think most people still think of it as Business Week, but you could do it the other way too.

Tina Shrader

National Agricultural Library

tina.shrader@ars.usda.gov

From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Laura Vogler
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 1:57 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [SERIALST] Bloomberg Businessweek

Hello Everyone

Curious to know when we will see a record in OCLC for BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK. I see that there used to be one as I am using it in my local catalog – OCLC #609852353. When I do a search for this in OCLC I see that it has been merged into the Business Week record – OCLC #1537921. Why exactly does Bloomberg not have its own record anymore. This is a fairly significant title change at least in my eyes. Not to mention, it is now spelled as Businessweek versus Business Week.

We shelve journal titles alphabetically so we are shelving it under Bloomberg not Business Week and it appears on our journal list under this title as well. How is everyone handling the title change?