I agree with Elmer that a new record shouldn't have been created, though the
publication is so confusing, it's no surprise. In our local catalog we input
the following notes for India Today when we noticed the problem in August:

362: Vol. 1, no. 1 (Jan. 1-7, 2002)-v. 7, no. 26 (June 24-30, 2008) ; [new
ser.] v. 1, no. 27 (July 1-7, 2008)-

500: Edition statement dropped with v. 6, no. 2 (Jan. 9-15, 2007).
(referring to the "North American special edition" statement)

500: Imprint varies. Vol. 6, no. 15 (Apr. 10-16, 2007)-v. 7, no. 26 (June
24-30, 2008) published: Long Island City, N.Y. : Living Media International
Ltd. c/o Thomson Press India Ltd. [New ser.] v. 1, no. 27 (July 1-7, 2008)-
published: New Delhi, India : Living Media International.

500: Vols. for 2002-June 2008 published under license from Living Media
India Ltd.

When the numbering changed from v. 7 to v. 1, no. 27, they dropped the
"published under license" language, and Thomson Press India Ltd. was no
longer mentioned. I haven't consulted a recent issue to see if this is still
the case. As of the Oct. 28 issue, they are still using v. 1 and haven't
gone back to v. 7, according to our check-in records.

Perhaps a new record should have been created when they dropped the edition
statement (at least on the pieces we received), but that was the only change
made at that time, so we continued using #48896378.

If anyone has more information or corrections to the info I gathered, please
share it.

Kay Teel
Serials & Arts Resources
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
kteel@stanford.edu

> -----Original Message-----
>
> I'm a bit confused about all this (as, no doubt, are many others).
>
> Is the new title (#244292759) the same "India today international" and
> the same "North American special ed." as the title it links back to
> (#48896378)?  If so, are you creating a new record because a) the
> numbering [mostly] restarted, or b) because the place of publication
> changed back to that of the prior title minus one - causing confusion
> with the 130 qualifier?
>
> My understanding is that we would no longer create a new record just
> because the numbering restarted, if no other major changes occurred with
> the title.
>
> Elmer Klebs
> Senior Serials Specialist
> Library of Congress
> ekle@loc.gov
>
>
> >>> Lynne Weaver <lweaver@RANDOLPHCOLLEGE.EDU> 11/14/2008 3:49 PM >>>
> India Today has again restarted its volume numbering, this time in the
> middle of a volume.  I wrote to them in July & received a non-answer,
> again in September and didn't hear from them, and again last week and
> finally received a reply with a reason, albeit a non-satisfactory one:
> it was "due to a change in company name."  Anyway, here's the volume and
> issue numbering:
>
> OCLC #40894687  22:12 (1997 Jun 16) - 26:53 (2001 Dec 31)
> OCLC #48896378  1:1 (2002 Jan 7) - 7:26 (2008 Jun 30)
> The above record has not been closed out, but a new one has been put in:
> OCLC #244292759  1:27 (2008 Jul 7) -
>
> Have fun!!
>
> Lynne N. Weaver
> Serials Coordinator
> Lipscomb Library
> Randolph College
> Founded as Randolph-Macon Woman's College
> 2500 Rivermont Avenue
> Lynchburg, VA  24503
> 434 947-8396
> 434 947-8134 Fax
> lweaver@randolphcollege.edu
>