Dear All,

Way back in November I sent out an informal survey to SERIALST
requesting information as to whether libraries were using the single or
multiple record method of cataloging serials. Here is the long
delinquent summary. My apologies. I've tried to be as impartial as
possible, but I'm sure that my bias toward multiple records will be
evident just the same.

Of 23 total respondents to the question (including myself):

        14 organizations use the single record method (approx. 61%)
        8 organizations (including my own) use the multiple record method
(approx. 35%)
        1 organization uses both methods (approx. 4%)

Of the 14 organizations using the single record method:

        10 are universities
        3 are colleges
        1 is a university that is part of a large consortium that allows
individual members to chose method
        0 are consortia

        11 use this method particularly for the ease in viewing holdings
(primarily for patrons)
        1 uses this method for historical reasons and to ease the cataloging
workload
        1 uses this method both for historical reasons and ease in viewing
holdings (primarily for patrons)
        1 gave no reason

        10 did not mention whether they use separate formal or informal
holdings statements
        4 said they use separate formal or informal holdings statements

        8 did not mention their level of satisfaction with the approach
        4 are satisfied with the approach
        2 are undecided or divided on the usefulness of the approach

Of the 8 organizations using the multiple record method:

        5 are universities
        1 is a college
        1 is a college that is part of a large consortium proposing that single
records be used
        1 is a consortium

        6 use this method for accuracy in description and coverage as well as
ease of maintenance and enhanced searchability especially where aggregators
are concerned or vendor records are used
        2 gave no reason

        4 are satisfied with the approach
        3 are divided (usually along tech services / public services lines) on
the usefulness of the approach
        1 did not mention their level of satisfaction with the approach

Interesting points:

        Only one institution is using both methods, showing (I presume)
that it is more important and less confusing to be consistent in one's
approach.

        Division on the preferred method is generally between ease in
locating information, regardless of format, as opposed to accuracy in
describing the information contained in each format. Institutions using
the single record method were primarily concerned with noting the
existence of all formats in one easy to locate record. Institutions using
the multiple record method were primarily concerned with accurately
describing each format and providing the appropriate access points. Here,
the issue of aggregators was mentioned many times - citing that one could
only have an added author entry for the aggregator on a record for the
e-journal. Coverage differences between print and electronic records were
also cited, as were differences in content (e.g. supplements and indexes).
It was also mentioned that using notes to express these differences (when
using the single record) was technically incorrect cataloging as alternate
formats should only pointed to rather than described.

Chris Blackman
Catalog Librarian
Williams College Libraries
Williamstown, MA  01267
(413) 597-4403
cblackma@williams.edu