In reply to Steve's question on how the revised rules are working for others, I'd like to mention that the most vexing case I've come across so far was the change from Journal of Cost Management to Cost Management, which according to the new rules is a *minor* change. (BTW, this was discussed on SERIALST just a few months ago.)
I wonder if a patron searching the catalog to see if the library holds Cost Management (which is almost certainly the title that will be used in citations) may very likely assume that the title is *not* held, when the title shown in the retrieved record is "Journal of Cost Management." And what about claim forms that print the title from the 245 field? Won't having the former title on the claim just cause confusion for the vendor or publisher?
I think that NOT treating this as a title change not only creates confusion for the check-in staff and patrons, but also creates more work for the serials librarian. Instead of just going through the usual procedure for a title change, you have to decide whether to continue to shelve current issues under the "former" title (the title in the 245 field), which means re-labeling all issues received henceforth with the correct shelving title, or shelving older volumes under the former title and current volumes under the current title, which means adding notes to the record explaining the shelving situation to patrons.
Karen Aufdemberge
Serials & Electronic Resources Cataloger
Carlson Library (Mail Stop 509)
University of Toledo
2801 W. Bancroft St.
Toledo, OH 43606
419-530-8532
karen.aufdemberge@utoledo.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Steve Shadle
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:01 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] OG (aka Organic Gardening)
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/>>!
>
