Just a little background- I used to work for a subscription agency, where I learned that this problem often starts with the way the publisher identifies the status of the title. Sometimes publishers will identify a title as "ceased" because they themselves have ceased to publish it. But they don't make a distinction between titles that have ended and titles that have moved on to a new publisher. If a subscription vendor sends in a renewal and it is returned, any inquiry is likely to get the response that the title has ceased. If the vendor's employee doesn't know to inquire further or the publisher's customer service has no other information, the inaccuracy is entered into the system. The publisher might have a separate list of titles to show those which have moved on to a new publisher, but the vendor may end up having to know that they need to check the second list or google the title to check elsewhere if no list is available. Penny _____________________________ Penny Lochner Head, Collection Resource Management Serials and Electronic Resources Librarian Trexler Library Muhlenberg College 2400 W. Chew Street Allentown, PA 18104-5564 USA email: plochner@muhlenberg.edu voice: 484-664-3561 fax: 484-664-3511 >>> Steven C Shadle <shadle@U.WASHINGTON.EDU> 9/7/2007 9:15 PM >>> Lisa -- I know the vendor reports that you speak of. Personally, I'm a little leery of those and will sometimes seek confirmation before closing out a record. It sounds like you are being appropriately cautious about closing out a record without definitive last issue in hand. What I was specifically commenting on was the fact that someone had input a latest issue consulted that was *after* the supposed last issue. At the very least, they should have deleted the ceased note and edited the fixed field dates. And if they weren't sure if it was still published, at least made the status unknown. The 500 Published: note that was added is in the same general proximity of the record as the ceased note...someone must have been in a hurry that day. 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, 7 Sep 2007, Lisa Furubotten wrote: > Hi there Patricia, and Hi Steve, > > I have to say, I can think of two cases where accidents can happen: > > 1. It is possible to close down a record one shouldn't, because you have received an incorrect note from a vendor that this is the last issue because of a title change, or something of the sort. Although for myself, I tend to want further proof than the note, because exactly I've seen too many times where the notification is a mistake. > > 2. And Steve's opinion is useful on the following: For older titles (pre-1970, not new things) I will sometimes put a ? in the "ceased with" note and close the 2nd date. But it's only in the case where I have seen in a catalog (usually foreign in the country of origin) that those catalogers think it's the last issue. Then I check U.S. local catalogs and microfilm for folks who claim holdings, and I see no one has an issue after the issue claimed to be the last. At that point I am 95% sure that an issue probably was the last issue. But there is always the possibility that the other catalogers have some other methodology than CONSER rules in mind, I don't know if they were "guessing" when they made the last issue claim because I don't know their rules, and you can't prove something is dead after a certain issue just because no one in the US has later issues. So I put a "?" in those cases because there is the slim possibility that another issue or issues will turn ! up! > . Should I stop doing this? > > Lisa > Texas A&M > >>>> Steven C Shadle <shadle@U.WASHINGTON.EDU> 9/7/2007 4:25 PM >>> > I'm especially amused by the fact that there is a Latest Issue Consulted note which is *after* the supposed closed date (CONSER catalogers, look at the 040...you know who you are). > > I've edited the record to reflect the fact that it is current, but haven't done anything else to it. --Steve > > 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, 7 Sep 2007, Fogler, Patricia A CIV USAF AETC AUL/LTSC wrote: > >> I'm cataloging the journal Communication Theory for our library. This >> (vol. 16, no.1 (Feb. 2006)), is our first issue: so I've nothing else >> to look at aside from this and what is in OCLC. I've found a lovely >> record that appears to match what I have in hand. >> >> Only this record (OCLC 21463248) was closed in July of this year with a >> "dead" date of 1997. The 2nd 362 reads: 362 1,_ Ceased with: v. 7, no. 4 >> (Nov. 1997)? >> >> I'm guessing this was a mistake. I've looked at this record in a few >> other libraries' catalogs via Worldcat and it appears mainly to be open >> & being received on. Can anyone verify? >> >> I'm not sure why one would be close out a record unless one was >> absolutely sure. And given the question mark -- I'm assuming there >> was some uncertainty. But perhaps it was simply the date that was in >> question at the time. Since I have no earlier issues, I can't tell >> whether it did close & was later re-started by Blackwell. >> >> I'm going to download & re-open the record to use it in my catalog. I >> was hoping that a cataloger at another library (perhaps a CONSER >> library?) with a full run might want to take a glance at it & perhaps >> open it back up. >> >> If I'm completely mis-reading the situation, and there is a better >> record out there, please do let me know. >> >> Thanks >> Patricia >> >> Patricia Fogler, Catalog Librarian >> Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center >> 600 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB, AL 36112 >> (334) 953-2135 patricia.fogler@maxwell.af.mil >> https://catalog.au.af.mil >> http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/lane.htm >> >
