[Cross-posted; apologies for redundancy]

There seems to be three approaches to including records for
electronic journals in the library catalog:

1. Put all of them in the catalog. Make your catalog the "go-to"
place for all titles. This usually entails loading batches of MARC
records for the titles included in aggregator databases. These
batches are regularly deleted and reloaded to account for changes in
coverage. Depending on the system, service, and setup, there could be
multiple records for each title (one for every database where the
title can be found) or they could be merged so that there is only one
record for each e-title, with holdings for each database.

2. Don't catalog them at all. Rely on your A-Z list, link resolver,
and/or other tools to provide access to e-journals.

3. Catalog some of them, but not all, based on various criteria.

The various approaches entail different levels of staff workload,
costs, and philosophy. (Concerning philosophy, many feel that users
do not use the catalog to access journals, but rather use the A-Z
list, get to them from citation databases, or even use Google Scholar.)

We have been following approach #3. The rationale behind it was that
we would catalog titles to which we had a real "subscription" but we
would not try to include all the titles in aggregator databases.

This approach worked for a while, when the ejournal "subscriptions"
were limited to JSTOR, Muse, and individual subscriptions. But the
cutoff point is becoming blurred. We entered into some consortial
deals where we agreed to maintain our current subscriptions with a
publisher, and then got access to all of that publisher's titles. So
do I catalog all of the titles? We don't have a real "subscription"
to all of them, but we do have access. But how is this access
different to the user than what they would find in a full-text
aggregator database? It's not. They don't know or care HOW we get the title.

We have an A-Z list and now a link resolver. I loaded our print
titles into the list and we began promoting the list as the most
comprehensive place to look for journal titles, in any format. So
what's the point of having some of them in the catalog, but not others?

Other factors (not comprehensive):

1. We do need to put bib records in for things we pay for, because
the funds are all tracked with the order records attached to them.
Should we abandon e-journal access through our catalog, and use it
for our own management purposes only, perhaps suppressing the records
from public view?

2. Our A-Z list (so far) does not provide alternative titles or
cross-references or even links to previous titles. Many publishers
are lumping a complete run under the latest title, so a user
searching for a previous title won't find it there. So yes,
cataloging does have added value. A user just recently found a title
in our catalog that he didn't find in the A-Z list.

I would appreciate any comments, especially from smaller libraries
with limited staffing, about any other factors to think about, or
ways you have found to establish a logical approach to this swirling
maelstrom.

Pat Thompson

Patricia Thompson
Assistant University Librarian for Resource Management Services
Jessie Ball duPont Library
The University of the South
Sewanee, TN 37383
Phone: 931-598-1657
Email: pthompso@sewanee.edu