Well I couldn't get access to the journal beyond the table of
contents and all I could see on the opening screen was a thumbnail image
of the print cover, but at least based on that you can make a case for
using the "at head of title" option.  However, I still would need more
to say for sure, especially if you are cataloging the print.  So for the
print I would withhold judgment, based on what little I could get out of
the link given.
    However, the table of contents for the online has the title without
the initials.  Since I generally catalog my onlines based on the table
of contents for the earliest issue, I would give the title without the
initials.  Still I'm reluctant to say for sure, as I don't have online
access to the text and I would need that to feel comfortable I have the
issue as the publisher intends us to have it.  (If I had both print and
online, of course, I would catalog according to the print.)
    So all in all the best I want to say is the matter is inconclusive,
but probably in favor of considering the title to be "Manufacturing
engineer," without the initials.

John Radencich
Library-Cataloging Dept.
Florida International University
Miami, Florida 33199

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:27:20 +1200
>From: Peter Hosking <peter.hosking@canterbury.ac.nz>
>
>It is presented as "The IET manufacturing engineer" (on the cover and
>masthead) and the running title is: IET manufacturing engineer.
>There is a thumbnail image available at http://www.ietdl.org/ME
>
>Thanks for clarifying how the new rules apply in this case, Steve.
>
>Peter
>
>Peter Hosking
>Serials Cataloguing Librarian
>University of Canterbury Library
>Christchurch, New Zealand
>
>
>Date:    Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:10:07 -0700
>From:    Steven C Shadle <shadle@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
>Subject: Re: IET manufacturing engineer - title change?
>
>I agree with Beth up to a point.  If there was ambiguous typography or
>presentation and/or if the change were not presented in other sources
>(specifically the masthead/publication statement) then I think Beth's
>suggestion of "At head of title" is a great solution.  However, if there
>was a clear decision made on the part of the publisher (reflected in a
>publisher statement and/or consistent presentation of what is clearly a
>changed title), then I think the cataloger would have been hard-pressed
>to not consider the change to be a title change.
>
>And remember, according to pre-2002 rules, issuing bodies added to the
>beginning of titles were considered title changes.  So if the
>presentation were not ambiguous (which is hard to tell without piece in
>hand), then we would actually have three records for the title in
>question.
>
>Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian  *****  shadle@u.washington.edu
>University of Washington Libraries      ***     Phone: (206) 685-3983
>Seattle, WA 98195-2900                   *        Fax: (206) 543-0854
>
>On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Beth Guay wrote:
>
>>Before the "major minor" rules, we simply would have added an "at head
>>of title note," and a title added entry for the "variant," i.e.: At
>>head of title, <Apr./May 2006-> IET;  and: 246 3  IET manufacturing
>engineer.
>
>>The fact is, if you look at it as an "at head of title" issue, the
>>title hasn't changed at all. So, in the spirit of the revised rules,
>>that is, to prevent whenever possible unnecessary creation of new
>>records   -- and this case is a great example -- I would hope that the
>>cataloger who gets the piece in
>>hand and updates this record chooses that approach -- rules were made
>>to be interpreted and bended (by humans for humans) :-)
>>
>>Beth
>>
>>Beth Guay
>>Monographs/Continuing Resources Cataloger McKeldin Library, University
>>of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742