I very much agree with Thomas Sanders' view on this one.  If you have part of a
serial done monographically and part done serially, you are going to create the
most terrible headaches for your patrons and staff in the future.  Also think
how confusing it will be for ILL and Union Catalog purposes.

I understand the aggravation you face at having to redo so many titles.  We
face this problem, too.  We have begun a policy which has cut done on the num-
ber of serials mistakenly cataloged as monographs, however, and I think it may
be worth mentioning.

Whenever our searchers find a serials record for a title, they print it out
along with monograph records from OCLC.  It is then "assumed" to be a serial
and put on the new serials shelf.  From that point, those catalogers experi-
enced with serials will then evaluate the records to see if the title is actu-
ally a serial or not.  I would say that 95% of the time, it is a serial and
should be cataloged thusly.

This policy has really helped us.  (We still cleaning up past mistakes, how-
ever.)  Hope you find it useful.

Lucy Barron
Washington University