Kindly share with the list any responses you receive.  We are very
interested in this issue.

Linda Harding
Periodicals Assistant
Elmhurst College Library
190 Prospect Ave.
Elmhurst, IL 60126

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patricia Thompson" <pthompso@SEWANEE.EDU>
To: <SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:36 AM
Subject: [SERIALST] E-journal cataloging redux

> [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