Series Processing Project Team

Members: Janice Adlington, Ann Ercelawn, Mary Charles Lasater, Catherine Gick, Carlin Sappenfield, Marshall Breeding (chair).

The Issue: Controlled vs. non-controlled series

Series are monographs published with individual titles but also within a named series that applies to the whole group, usually assigned by a publisher or association. A large number of the monographs that we receive belong to some type of series. Many of our standing orders represent monographic series. Any change in the way that series information is recorded in the catalog record has implications for searching by the public, for technical services processing workflow, and for collection development.

Series is one of the access points subject to control in the catalog, the other two being names and subjects. Series control is a two step process. Series information is initially described on bibliographic records, but then is controlled to achieve:

1. unambiguous identification of the series, and
2. collocation of all items in the series, by means of a “tracing” field or “heading” supported by a Series Authority Record.

The Series Authority Record not only records the series heading, but also determines treatment of the series and workflow within Technical Services:

1. whether items are classed together or not
2. whether all items in the series receive monographic records or not (analysis) and
3. whether variant forms of the series title exist or to provide alternate approaches to access (e.g. search redirection).

Series descriptive information is keyword searchable in title and series indexes. Controlled series headings are additionally available in orderly displays in browse title and series indexes.

For a more detailed explanation of MARC fields involved in series, see Appendix A.

What is changing

The Library of Congress has announced its decision to make major changes in the way that it performs cataloging for monographs published in a series. LC has eliminated the practice of controlling series in bibliographic records it produces and will no longer perform series authority work, ( e.g., create or maintain new series authority records) effective June 1, 2006. Additionally, it will disregard practice previously recorded in series authority records for new titles in series, regardless of prior treatment. Since technical services processes in our library are tied to those of LC, this change impacts our cataloging workflow and practices.

According to its announcement published on LC’s Cataloging Web site:

(http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html)

What LC catalogers will do:

• Create a separate bibliographic record for all resources with distinctive titles published as parts of series (monographic series and multipart monographs).
• Give series statements in 490 0 fields [descriptive series fields]
• Classify separately each volume (i.e., assign call number and subject headings appropriate to the specific topic of the volume).
• (Imported copy cataloging records will have series access points removed and series statements changed to 490 0.)

What LC catalogers will not do:

• Create new Series Authority Records
• Modify existing Series Authority Records to update data elements or LC’s treatment decisions
• Consult and follow treatment in existing Series Authority Records
• Update existing collected set records
• Change 4XX/8XX fields in completed bibliographic records when updating those records [controlled series fields]

LC originally announced that these practices would be implemented beginning on April 30, 2006, but based on concerns expressed, delayed implementation until June 1, 2006.

In an announcement dated May 23, Beacher Wiggins (Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access) affirmed LC’s intent to go forward with the change, but stated that it will retain series data and will not strip 440 or 8XX fields as originally stated.

Relative to the how decisions are usually made in the library profession, this one was extremely abrupt, giving libraries only a matter of days or weeks to assess the impact and implement any needed changes in their local procedures.

Program for Cooperative Cataloging

The Program for Cooperative Cataloging also plays an important role, by establishing the shared, authoritative practices for cataloging. Both the Library of Congress and Vanderbilt are members of PCC. Shared practices contribute to efficiency in cataloging operations due to common understandings as to record content and quality in national databases (OCLC).

The change of practice that the Library of Congress has implemented is inconsistent with practices established by PCC. The relationship between LC and PCC seems to be somewhat strained.

Paul J. Weiss who currently serves as Chair, PCC Standing Committee on Standards issued a number of statements on May 24, 2006 that express a variety of concerns with the LC decision on series treatment relative to the PCC.

Many of the records that we will receive in OCLC derive from PCC libraries other than LC. (PCC currently contributes more Series Authority Records than LC does). These records will continue to have the expected level of series authority processing, while PCC studies the issue further. This mitigates the impact of LC’s change in cataloging practice. Local Implications of this change The cataloging practices of LC have a direct impact on the records we receive. The Library of Congress, by virtue of their role as the U.S. default national library and as copyright deposit library, provides a large portion of the cataloging records that enter our technical processing stream.

Should we follow LC and completely discontinue the practice of performing series authority work, there would be a variety of consequences: Impact on Public Services:

1. Relationships between earlier and later series titles & search redirection from Series Authority records (See and See Also References) would not be expressed in the catalog --series would just “end”
2. There will be a disconnect between volume holdings on series/set records and browse indexes for series. Patrons may assume that we don’t have additional numbers in the series when in fact we do if they are using browse indexes.
3. LC plans to class everything separately, in contradiction of some of their own authority records. We have some booksets and series classed together and would not want to change willy-nilly midstream. LC has a closed stack collection so that shelf order matters less than it does to patron-browsable collections. Switching from a classed together number to separate numbers for additional items in a series would also interfere with call number browsing on Acorn.
4. Burden shift to patrons and reference staff in accessing series information.

• Problem of variants: Series information is not always presented on books in a consistent manner—sometimes multiple forms of the series title appear in multiple places on the same book or on different items over time (singular vs plural, acronyms vs spelled out forms); sometimes series information appears in another language; sometimes a corporate body is included and sometimes not. (The problem of variants has actually increased due to changing rules for serials). There will be no collocation of all these varying forms under one heading. Search redirection from variant forms would be lost if no Series Authority Records are made nor maintained with additional variants over time. Search redirection from associated corporated bodies via Series Authority Records would also be lost.
• Problem of generic titles: Reliance on keyword for generic series titles like Bulletin or Publication or Report will be problematic or require more sophisticated search techniques on the part of users. Controlled headings of this type include corporate body information to aid retrieval and sorting in browse indexes. If the series isn’t controlled, the corporate body information will be missing from the records altogether in some cases when the publisher isn’t the corporate body associated with the series. This could result in large numbers of irrelevant hits via keyword.

Impact on Collection Development

Collection Development staff would have to contend with many of the same issues as patrons. The difficulty of series searching would require more time as Collection Development librarians do analyses of the collection or try to determine if we should purchase specific items. We are likely to make more mistakes in purchasing decisions which will generate more work for acquisitions staff and will cause more errors such as buying duplicate materials. From a strictly collection development point of view there is no advantage in this decision as it will cost us more time and money.

Impact on Technical Services

1. If LC is no longer following their own authority records and we’re not following ours, we’d wind up analyzing some series previously deemed “not worth it” and classifying additional items differently from past decisions.
2. Time would be saved in not having to construct and consult Series Authority Records and in not controlling series on bibliographic records.
3. Speed catalogers will have more trouble determining what titles to add to volume holdings on non-standing order series that have serial or set records, since series headings won’t be available on the piece that they have in hand that would “match” the serial/set record.
4. Possibility of problems for Interlibrary loan and Acquisitions staffs in identifying titles; increased likelihood of duplication of orders.

Options for Vanderbilt

The records that we receive from OCLC that originate from the Library of Congress will be created following this new set of procedures.

Our options in regard to this change include:

1. Adopting LC’s approach and completely discontinue series authority processing.
2. Continuing to control series according to our current practice of following PCC guidelines. This will involve additional work since a higher portion of the records for items in monographic series will come to us in need of enhancement to the level prescribed by PCC.
3. Selective control of items in series.

As an interim measure the Series in Acorn Project Team recommends that we continue to maintain series authority work for all standing orders and numbered monographic series. We propose discontinuing control of unnumbered series.

Further Discussion

This marks only the beginning of the process in determining a final solution to this issue. In the coming months considerable discussion will take place at the national level regarding this and related issues. How OCLC and PCC react to this change will have an impact on our operation. PCC Operations Committees have recommended studying further simplification strategies and conducting a cost/benefit analysis of series authority work.

We need to learn more about what additional automated processing can be accomplished through MARCIVE or other vendors. We already employ macros to create Series Authority Records, and use MARCIVE to match series headings on bibliographic records and claim many Series Authority Records. Changing our MARCIVE profile to match series descriptive fields (implemented June 2) will allow us to control more series at no additional effort or expense, partially mitigating LC’s actions.

As we implement Primo, we will be thinking broadly about the implications of cataloging practices on that public interface.

We plan to reconvene after ALA to share information about developments in this area.

Appendix A:

Single 440

To simply describe that an item belongs to a series, the series title can be provided in the 440 tag. This approach is used when the name of the series as it appears on the work exactly matches the authorized form of the series.

Many items require a more complex approach that involves recording the series information through a pair of related tags:

490/830 combination

490: Series statement. An indicator 0 means that the series is not indexed; indicator 1 designates that the series is traced according to the uniform series title provided in the corresponding 830 tag.

830: series statement added entry – uniform title. This entry is controlled through a Series Authority Record. An 830 tag is only used with a corresponding 490 entry with an indicator 1.

Example: 490 1 _aVideo lecture series ;

            _vv.1

830 0 _aVideo lecture series (Institute for

              Mediterranean Studies) ;
            _vvol. 1.

This approach, while more complex, offers a number of benefits: • It allows an ambiguous series name to be qualified so that it can be uniquely identified • It allows for greater confidence in automatic authority control heading changes