Hi Selina -- I think what you're referring to is in LCRI 21.2C

"For categories b)v) and b)vii), consider that there has been a major change if there is evidence that the publisher intentionally changed the title; such evidence may include, for example, a statement by the publisher or a new ISSN printed on the publication."

Note: this is currently only applied in b)v) (different order of titles in different languages) and b)vii) (two or more titles used in a regular pattern).

I think prior to the 2002 revision, this rule interpretation gave much more weight to a publisher's statement.  Currently, circumstantial evidence should only be applied to these two cases.  Now having said that, if I was able to verify ISSN assignment in the ISSN register and publisher's consistent use of that ISSN, I would more likely consider creating a successive record only because of the difficulties that systems have (ie, link resolvers, loaders) when ISSN assignments and serial records aren't in sync.

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 Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Lin, Selina S wrote:

> I would agree with what has been said about the change of the last word from "care" to "medicine" being minor change, except that this change was intentional by the publisher (see its editorial on Mar./Apr. 2004 issue: http://ajh.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/21/2/82)
> It clearly stated "To mark the rise of end-of-life care as a specialty, we've upgraded the journal's title as well. Beginning with this issue, the
> American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care graduates to the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine."
>
> Does the publisher's intention not trump our minor change rule?