I understand the frustration too. My problem is with PJE (Peabody journal of education) which currently does not show PJE anywhere. Fortunately, the official title carries both the initialism and the full title, but the initialism comes first, and I have to get the shelvers for the current issues to shelve it under PJE. However, I have decided that the good has outweighed the bad and I can live with labeling the current issues (which we shelve separately from the bound vols. and alphabetically). And, probably it is true that most academic libraries do not shelve by title (more and more, I wish that we didn't, but it was a decision made long before my time, and money and manpower do not currently allow for a change), but I have to wonder how many public libraries shelve by call number? If you think about it, even though they may not have been present for the informal survey at ALA midwinter, I am betting that there are at least as many public libraries out there that shelve by title as there are academic libraries that shelve by call number, probably a fair number more. Perhaps before closing the book on the problem, someone should go to a public libraries list and do a survey of how many shelve by title there and maybe how they feel about the subject. I am not sure what the solution is, but I do think that it still bears come contemplation. Just a thought. Susan Andrews Susan Andrews Head, Serials Librarian Texas A&M University-Commerce P.O. Box 3011 Commerce, TX 75429-3011 Susan_Andrews@tamu-commerce.edu (903)886-5733 "Your Success Is Our Business" ************************************************************************************************************ At 09:00 AM 1/29/2004 -0800, you wrote: >Deborah -- I understand your frustration. I think the question about >OG/Organic Gardening was raised on this list several months ago. At that >time, I was very strongly opinionated about following the new rules from >Dec. 1, 2003 onward, however when I gave a talk at California Library Assn >in November, someone pointed out that it was frustrating to have OG be >considered the title of record from this point forward when it was in >fact, only the title for about 2 years and doesn't have the same kind of >identification that the full title does (as one attendee put it, just >because the spinner happened to stop on this title, is this the one we >really want to use?). > >I also brought this example up at the Committee to Study Serials >Cataloging Midwinter meeting and suggested CONSER might consider creating >one more record for the title change back to the full form and then apply >the new rules from that point forward. The people who responded generally >didn't like the idea of creating an additional record. It was also >suggested that we could cancel the record for OG and record it as a minor >change on the earlier record for Organic Gardening, but the problem with >that is that there was an new ISSN assigned for OG which is being used by >the publisher and more importantly, being used in A&I services. I checked >a couple of the large full-text databases and discovered that the OG ISSN >is being used, thus to cancel the ISSN assignment for OG makes it >difficult for some library services (e.g., link resolvers) that rely on >ISSN matching. > >However, something to consider for those libraries that shelve by title is >that you will continue to have the marking and shelving issues when this >type of situation occurs, and you're going to have to figure out a local >solution. Organic Gardening is an especially difficult situation given >its history: > >Organic gardening July 1978-July 1985 >Rodale's organic gardening Aug. 1985-Mar. 1988 >Organic gardening Apr. 1988-July/Aug. 2001 >OG Sept./Oct. 2001-Mar./Apr. 2003 >Organic gardening May/June 2003- > >and having the current issues represented by a record whose entry is OG is >especially confusing when there are other records for earlier parts of the >run whose entry is the full form. There was some discussion at CSSC about >possibly recataloging, transcribing the title from a more consistent >source (possibly masthead or running title) without cancelling ISSN or >creating a new record. Frankly, I'm not sure how that could be done, but >Regina Reynolds at the U.S. ISSN Center said she would investigate. > >BTW, about your suggestion to Rodale...one of the few times that I think a >serials librarian has actually suggested the publisher change a serial >title ;-), but > > OG -> Rodale's organic gardening > >would still be considered a minor change under the new rules as it >consists of two minor changes (addition of corporate body at beginning of >title and change of form from acronym to full form). Multiple minor >changes do not make a major change. I will be happy to cite rules and >LCRIs if you wish. > >The discussion at Midwinter CSSC meeting was basically, "Now that we've >lived with the new rules for a year, what is working and what isn't >working." Organic Gardening aside, there was consensus that the new rules >have generally helped serials librarians by reducing the number of records >(and ISSN), but it has created some confusion on the part of receipt (and >other staff) when the form of title on the piece in hand doesn't match the >245. Those libraries that shelve by title acknowledged that changes in >the first word that are minor have caused problems for them, but one >solution is similar to how these libraries handle title changes, namely >shelving blocks. Of those attending, maybe 5% (at most, I'm trying to >remember how many hands went up) shelved by title, and they were primarily >special or small academic libraries. > >So bringing the CSSC discussion to a wider audience...would others like to >comment on how the revised rules have worked for them?? I hesitate to >suggest starting a new thread, but I think it is important for serials >cataloging leadership to get broad-based feedback on how the new rules are >working. Thanks for your consideration. > > Steve Shadle shadle@u.washington.edu ******* > Serials Cataloger ***** > University of Washington Libraries, Box 352900 *** > Seattle, WA 98195 (206) 685-3983 * > >On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Griffis, Deborah wrote: > > > I am wondering how other libraries that shelve their serials > > alphabetically are handling the problem of Organic Gardening (now > > forever stuck with the title "OG" - probably one of the worst title > > change decisions ever made!). I understand the theory of fewer new > > records, which motivated the new cataloging rules, and it's a great > > solution for publishers who waffle back and forth and can't seem to > > decide whether they want their publication to be called by its name or > > its acronym! But how do we handle a title where the publisher states in > > one of their issues that they made a mistake in changing their title, > > and now want to be known forever after as the previous title? For us, > > it means we have to slap an "OG" label on every issue, so our shelvers > > know where to put it. Now we have received the 2003 microfilm from > > ProQuest - yep, it came in 2 boxes, on 2 separate reels! Jan-Apr 2003 > > is labeled O G, May-Dec 2003 is labeled Organic Gardening. I guess > > we'll be relabeling microfilm forever. I feel like writing to Rodale > > and suggesting that they change their name to something totally > > different - how about going back to Rodale's Organic Gardening for a > > while? - so we can do a true title change. Then if they want to be > > called Organic Gardening, in a few months they can change it again, and > > we will have to accommodate them, because after all, it's a change in > > the first five words! Does anyone else share my frustration? Thanks > > for allowing me the chance to vent! > > > > Deborah L. Griffis > > Periodicals Librarian > > Richland County Public Library > > 2001 Library of the Year > > 1431 Assembly St., Box 54, Columbia, SC 29201-3101 > > (803) 929-3405; Fax: (803) 929-3439 > > E-mail: dgriffis@richland.lib.sc.us > > Visit us online at <<http://www.richland.lib.sc.us/>>! > >
