Lisa,

Thanks to Lori for pointing you to my earlier posting. However, that
posting did not explain the rule in question: AACR2 21.2 c) which
indicates that the addition or deletion of the corporate body is a minor
change. The exceptions listed in the rule apply even if the exception
occurs in the first five words of the title.

The exceptions can be tricky in some cases to apply, and this was such a
case which is why--in addition to this being widely-held title--I sought
additional input.

Regina

Regina Romano Reynolds
ISSN Coordinator
Library of Congress
(202) 707-6369 (voice)
(202) 707-6333 (fax)
rrey@loc.gov

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Lori Rotterman wrote:

> Lisa-
>
>
>
> Please see the following information regarding Businessweek, posted May
> 20th by Regina Reynolds from ISSN
>
>
>
> Please excuse duplicate postings.  Since the topic of a possible change
> of title for BusinessWeek has been discussed on several lists, I am
> posting this outcome on those lists.
>
>
>
> Before making a final confirmation that the ISSN for BusinessWeek should
> remain the same despite the addition of "Bloomberg" to the title, I
> consulted the managing editor. Although the publisher does not get to
> decide what is a major or minor change for ISSN purposes, since this
> situation fell into a gray area of the rules and since there were good
> arguments on both sides, it seemed reaonsable to get publisher input,
> especially about whether further changes in the title presentation were
> planned. The managing editor indicated that typically, changes in titles
> or title presentations can take from 6 to 9 months to "settle down," and
> he was very concerned when I told him that if we gave a new ISSN to
> Bloomberg businessweek and the title underwent another major change,
> another new ISSN would be needed.
>
>
>
> The managing editor asked about the consequences of a new ISSN and I
> told him that a new bibliographic record would be created and linked to
> the old one and that citations and linkages would be changed.  He was
> further dismayed and took some time to confer with higher management.
> Finally, he called and emailed me with the following information:
>
>
>
> "It is our emphatic desire that Businessweek and Bloomberg Businessweek
> be considered one and the same magazine. The adjustment to the name of
> the magazine reflects a change in corporate ownership from The
> McGraw-Hill Companies to Bloomberg LP, but other than that, Businessweek
> remains the same publication that was started in 1929-with the same
> commitment to journalistic integrity and the same loyal subscribers..."
>
>
>
> So, no new ISSN will be assigned and the CONSER record should remain as
> it is, including a 246 for Bloomberg businessweek. I have asked Robert
> Bremer of OCLC to delete the record(s) for Bloomberg businessweek and
> add a 936 to the CONSER record stating: "The change from BusinessWeek to
> Bloomberg businessweek has been determined to be a minor change.  No new
> ISSN will be assigned and no new record should be input."
>
>
>
> Thanks for your patience as we worked this out in the U.S. ISSN Center.
>
>
>
> Regina
>
>
>
> Regina Romano Reynolds
>
> ISSN Coordinator
>
> Library of Congress
>
> (202) 707-6379 (voice)
>
> (202) 707-6333 (fax)
>
> rrey@loc.gov
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
> [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Lisa Kong
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 5:51 PM
> To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Major or Minor title change? -->McGraw Hill's
> Global studies. Russia & the near abroad
>
>
>
> According to these rules you mentioned, why the title "Business week"
> now is changed to "Bloomberg businessweek" and still uses the record of
> "Business week?" (see OCLC #1537921). It only adds a 246 in the record
> to indicate the title change. As I understand, it should have a new
> record. Would you please explain? Thanks.
>
> Lisa
>
>