The Effects of E-journal Management Tools and Services on Serials Cataloging

Electronic Journal Forum

The Effects of E-journal Management Tools and

Services on Serials Cataloging

Maria Collins, Column Editor

Available online 27 October 2005

0098-7913/$–see fro

doi:10.1016/j.serrev.

Collins is SerialsMississippi StateUSA; e-mail: mcol

E-journal management tools and services such as MARC record services, A-to-Zlists, and link resolvers are changing e-journal cataloging. This column explores thesechanges in the academic environment through interviews with ten librariansrepresenting eight universities. Three areas of change in serials cataloging areexplored: (1) changes to the MARC record, including how libraries are adding/creating MARC records for their catalogs, the number and type of MARC recordsbeing created and linking within MARC bibliographic and holdings records; (2) themanner in which serials catalogers are being informed of changes; and (3) theevolving role of the serials cataloger. Future trends and advice for evolving workflowpractices conclude the discussion. Serials Review 2005; 31:291–297.D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Serials catalogers today find themselves in an environ-ment ripe for change. Of course, this is simply codelanguage for chaos. A critical mass of e-journals and e-resources needs cataloging. A plethora of tools andservices exists to handle this critical mass, and many ofthese tools and services still require customized programsto elicit suitable outcomes. Serials cataloging has becomebroader in scope than just the cataloger, the object, therules, and the record. Handling the ever-growing andconstantly fluid number of e-journals available tolibraries now requires more sophisticated workflowsand management tools. To effectively evaluate themanagement of their cataloging procedures, serialscataloging professionals need to be aware of potentialuses of tools and services such as MARC record services,A-to-Z lists, link resolvers, electronic resource manage-ment (ERM) systems, and localized programming tech-niques. This transition from cataloger to workflowmanager may be difficult for librarians drawn to theprofession because of the often tactile but alwaysintellectually stimulating process of original cataloging.Even today among the horde of e-journals waiting foraccess points, serials catalogers still dream of their nextopportunity to hold a freshly minted journal and build a

nt matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2005.08.002

Coordinator, Mitchell Memorial Library,University, Mississippi State, MS 39762,[email protected].

291

relationship with that title in the form of a catalogingrecord with description, access points and subjectanalysis. Effective use of e-journal management tools,services, and practices may allow cataloging professio-nals to create order out of the chaos of e-journals andallow for those rare original cataloging moments.

This column will examine how e-journal manage-ment tools, services (both commercial and home-grown), and practices are shaping serials cataloging.Telephone interviews with serials catalogers and pro-fessionals from academic libraries across the countryprovide a snapshot of evolving practices influenced bythese tools and services. Ten professionals representingeight libraries were interviewed by phone including thefollowing: Mary Jane Conger from the University ofNorth Carolina, Greensboro (UNCG); Beth JedlickaThornton from the University of Georgia (UGA);Kathryn Wesley from Clemson University; ShanaMcDanold from Saint Louis University; ElizabethLeister and Cathy Pecoraro from Rutgers University;Steve Shadle from the University of Washington; AnnaCreech from Central Washington University; andBonnie Parks and Terry Reese from Oregon StateUniversity. Their responses indicate three areas ofchange related to serials cataloging: the MARC record,record maintenance, and the job responsibilities of theserials cataloger or professional. Examples and discus-sion from the interview sessions illustrate each of theseareas.

Collins / Serials Review 31 (2005) 291–297

The MARC Record

How are Libraries Adding or Creating MARC Recordsfor their OPACs?

The interviews revealed that academic libraries are usinga variety of methods for cataloging e-journals. Many ofthe librarians interviewed have evolved their techniquesfor adding or creating MARC records to the OPACbeyond manual cataloging by utilizing local scripts,vendor record sets, MARC record services, or e-journalmanagement data and services. A variety of practicesand workflows has emerged over the last decade due tothe overwhelming number of titles some of theselibrarians have been responsible for cataloging.

One common practice is to acquire MARC record setsfrom vendors and aggregators. These record sets, whichare often available at no additional charge to the library,allow libraries to handle changes in access and coveragethrough regular updates. Rutgers University is oneexample of a library using this practice. The catalogingdepartment at Rutgers obtains MARC record sets for itsEBSCO titles but does not subscribe to any additionalserial MARC record services for all of its titles. Localscripts are created so that when loaded these EBSCOMARC records match on the ISSN. If there is a match,an 856 field is added to the existing record. If there isnot a match on the ISSN, then another record is addedto the system. Most of the time the records addedrepresent full-level cataloging, but not always; briefrecords do not have subject access. If errors related toISSNs are detected in the local system, these arecorrected so that the next monthly load will matchappropriately. Rutgers catalogers chose not to catalogindividual titles within abstracting and indexing data-bases that only provide citation or article level access.These services are cataloged at the database level.Journal packages such as JSTOR and Project MUSEare cataloged manually.1

Of course, if a library wishes to obtain regular MARCrecord sets for all of the titles in its e-journal collection,there are several commercial options available fromtraditional integrated library system (ILS) companiessuch as ExLibris, which offers a service called MARCit,and from publication access management services(PAMS) like Serials Solutions, which offers a FullMARC Record Service. Outsourcing of e-journal cata-loging is especially beneficial for librarians in moder-ately sized academic libraries that have recently begun tocatalog e-journal collections. E-journal collections arefluid in nature; titles are constantly added and droppedand coverage dates are constantly changing. Trackingthese changes is difficult at best; imagine the timeinvolved in cataloging these types of collections. Thesereasons are exactly why several of the people inter-viewed subscribe to MARC record services.

Kathryn Wesley, a serials cataloger at ClemsonUniversity, spins a familiar tale to which many librariescan relate. In 2000, Clemson cataloging staff began tocatalog their 3000 e-journals using the single-recordapproach. At that time, a high maintenance HTML list

292

provided access to these titles. By the end of the year, thelibrarian and one assistant for copy cataloging were ableto catalog over 1000 titles. Then the number of e-journals began to explode, and a decision was made toautomate the e-journal cataloging process by obtainingindividual MARC record sets from multiple vendors.Therefore, automation meant moving away from thesingle-record approach. Catalogers at Clemson thenbegan using one record for physical forms and individ-ual records for each electronic variation of a title. Veryquickly, this scenario became untenable. The existenceof multiple records in the database was bconfusing andcluttered up the database.Q2 Catalogers also did not addrecords for full-text titles due to their instability.In 2002, Clemson began investigating a MARC

record service and ultimately implemented Serials Sol-utions in July 2003. Subscribing to Serials SolutionsMARC record service finally allowed Clemson staff tocatalog their e-journal collections, including full-texttitles. Until then, library staff were spending anenormous amount of time on record maintenance. Therecord sets, which were purchased from OCLC, requiredextensive editing up front and did not include updates.Any updating was done manually when Clemsoncatalogers were alerted to changes by vendors, disco-vered changes themselves, or were notified by patrons oftitles that were not accessible. These previous workflowstrategies were not cost effective and only allowed forthe cataloging of a small number of titles. By using aMARC record service, they have been able to catalogover 17,000 titles. Wesley admits that the MARC recordservice is not perfect, but she knows that these recordscontain their URLs and can be customized to addlibrary-specific notes.Two other libraries interviewed also subscribe to a

MARC record service: Central Washington Universityand Saint Louis University. Librarians from bothlibraries cited the lack of time needed to handle thehigh volume of e-journals and record maintenance asreasons for subscribing to this service.3 Anna Creechfrom Central Washington noted the advantage of finallyhaving coverage statements. Also, Shana McDanoldemphasized that Saint Louis University has decided notto catalog full-text titles that only provide article (nottitle) level access but will use their A-to-Z service toprovide access to these titles. In all three of theselibraries, automation of MARC record creation andmaintenance has provided a cost effective means forstreamlining the cataloging workflow and keeping pacewith constant record changes.For other libraries, MARC record outsourcing can

only serve as part of the access solution. Libraries withcomplex, decentralized collections and records thatrequire considerable customization in respect to locationand access restrictions find limited value in MARCrecord services. The University of Washington falls intothis category. This library takes a hybrid approach tocataloging e-journals by designing a workflow thatcombines outsourcing to a MARC record service fortheir more unstable, full-text collections and manualcataloging for e-journal packages. Steve Shadle, the


serials access librarian at the University of Washington,explains that their library purchases MARC records forfull-text titles from databases or titles accessible withoutlicense agreements (e.g., DOAJ, ProQuest, etc.). How-ever, aggregated packages that require local control arecataloged manually by the cataloging staff. When thelibrary first investigated outsourcing their MARCrecords, Serials Solutions was unable to customize dataat the title level. For example, they were unable tocustomize URLs, access restrictions or holdings/cover-age data for individual titles available through ScienceDirect. Therefore, this type of package was processedtitle by title. Serials acquisitions staff bring in an OCLCrecord for these titles and attach an electronic holdingsrecord. The University of Washington also obtainsrecords from MARCIVE, which they process like otherbibliographic records. For the records added throughSerials Solutions MARC record service, there is no localwork performed. Due to regular updates, these recordsare ephemeral in nature and staff time spent on theirupkeep would not be cost effective.4

The Serials Solutions data are also used to maintainthe library’s A-to-Z list, which is generated from theMARC database. These data are only used for main-tenance tasks including monitoring links, coverage, andchanges over time. The library decided against usingSerials Solutions A-to-Z list due to this product’s subjectorganization. Currently, about 40 percent of the Uni-versity of Washington’s titles are automated using theSerials Solutions service. Cataloging and acquisitionsstaff do not edit these records. The remaining 60 percentof titles are from packages requiring local control, whichare processed on a title-by-title basis.5

Another university taking a hybrid approach to e-journal cataloging is Oregon State University. Thislibrary uses data from Serials Solutions, programmingscripts, and ERM functionality to create a uniqueworkflow for e-journal cataloging. With the technicalskills of Terry Reese, Oregon State’s digital productionunit head, the cataloging department has customized aninnovative approach to creating MARC records thatharnesses the power of an integrated ERM system.Oregon State uses its ERM in combination with SerialsSolutions data to build MARC records for the onlinecatalog. A programming script is used to match onISSN. If there are existing records in the OPAC thatmatch on the ISSN, then a MARC holdings recordcontaining an 856 link is added to that record.6 Any 856links found in the bibliographic record are stripped andremoved. If no MARC record is found, the ERM willcreate a brief record with title, notes, and a holdingsrecord.7 A report is run each month on these briefrecords and the cataloging staff provide full-levelcataloging. This is a relatively new process for OregonState, so the first report run noted almost 2000 recordsto catalog.8 Bonnie Parks, the serials and electronicresource catalog librarian, believes that this numbershould lessen as these reports are run more often. Reesenotes that some of the brief records created by the ERMare ephemeral in nature and do not require full-levelcataloging. These records may not be as good as full

293

level cataloging, but they are better than not havingthese titles in the database at all.

Overall, academic universities are experimenting witha variety of tools and services to create an efficientworkflow that will meet their libraries’ needs. Very fewlibraries can use only manual cataloging practices andkeep up with growing e-journal collections. In yearspast, many libraries simply gave up this process and onlycataloged select e-journal titles. The services and toolsmentioned throughout this section enable librarians toovercome these obstacles and allow the OPAC to serveas a comprehensive source of all library materials.

How Many MARC Records? What Type?

Most of the librarians interviewed expressed a strongpreference still for the single-record approach; however,automated processes for delivering MARC records makeit difficult to continue cataloging in this manner. There-fore, these services have influenced libraries’ decisionsabout the number of MARC records to create per title.Usually localized scripts are required to circumvent thisproblem. Nevertheless, several of the librarians inter-viewed cannot always adhere to the single-recordapproach. Parks from Oregon State emphasized thatthe single-record approach is preferable but not alwayspossible. Their automated system for adding MARCrecords will attempt to match on the print record, butthere are times when this does not work, and a separaterecord is created. Parks feels that if it will better facilitateaccess, Oregon State will use a separate record. Forexample, before developing the current system ofloading MARC records using their ERM, Oregon Statewould obtain records from EBSCO. Since these recordsneed to be reloaded each month, it would not be costeffective to follow the single-record approach. Moreimportantly, an attempt to provide the single-accessapproach would be extremely time consuming andfrustrating and, in the end, deny patrons access to manytitles that are unable to be cataloged or maintained.

Shadle also concurs with a practical approach to thenumber of MARC records per title stating that theUniversity of Washington will btry to follow the single-record approach within the limits of the machineprocess.Q9 He provides an example of the AmericanPeriodicals Series to which his library often has both printand microfilm records. In this case, Serials Solutionswould add an additional record because of matching ontwo ISSNs. This type of scenario would not be corrected.

Several of the librarians interviewed adhere morestrictly to the single-record approach. Elizabeth Leistercomments that at Rutgers there is a bstrong preferenceby the patrons and reference for the single-recordapproach.Q10 This is also the case at UNCG. In fact,Mary Jane Conger notes that their library does notsubscribe to MARC record services partly to ensure thatthe single-record approach is maintained. UNCG han-dles the single record in a slightly different manner thanmost. If the aggregator, publisher, or vendor has useddifferent titles but the articles are the same as in the printtitle, those variations are added to the existing record (if


one is available). A 246 (varying form of title field, firstindicator b1Q) will be added for each title variation. Inaddition, a subfield $i will be used to explain the addedtitle as in this example:

246 1 $i EbscoHost title: $a Title.

This practice ensures that patrons have a successfulsearch no matter what title variation is used by anaggregator, publisher, or vendor.11 The University ofGeorgia has an additional complication with a sharedonline catalog for their state consortium. The consortialarrangement makes the consideration of a MARCrecord service more difficult. Beth Thornton of UGAnotes that their library also strongly supports the single-record approach. Due to their consortial arrangement,no location-specific links are added to the bibliographicrecords. Separate holdings are created instead. UGAdoes make one interesting exception to the single-recordapproach. If the print version of a journal has beencancelled but not ceased, then a separate online onlyrecord is created. Thornton notes two primary reasonsfor this policy. First, this is less confusing for thepatrons. If they see closed-out holdings for the print,they may assume that the online is not current as well.Second, a separate online only record will allowacquisitions staff to add a separate order record.12

Several other librarians believe that the access gainedby quick automation processes offsets the single recordapproach. Two of the librarians contacted have com-promised with a two-record approach—a MARC recordfor physical forms and an aggregator-neutral MARCrecord for their electronic subscriptions. Creech ofCentral Washington University acknowledges that mostpeople prefer the single-record approach; however, shefeels that librarians need to convince and push vendorsand ILS systems to provide services that would facilitatethis approach.13 These services are especially importantfor smaller libraries that may not have the systems staffor expertise to design and manage local processes tocustomize MARC records that follow the one-recordapproach. The aggregator-neutral record is definitely atremendous improvement from listing separate recordsfor each electronic version of a title. Wesley supports thisstatement with comments on Clemson’s transition frommultiple records to the vendor-neutral approach: bBeforethe aggregator neutral approach, adding differentrecords had become absurd. We were using differentURLs to get to the same source.Q14 For example, a librarywould have a URL that would take a patron directly tothe e-journal. Another link would be provided to take thepatron through an aggregator or third party to the exactsame source. So, the patron faces two different biblio-graphic records to the same e-journal source.

Undoubtedly, the vendor that develops a MARCrecord service to accommodate the single-recordapproach would corner the market. These MARCrecord services already allow a certain level of custom-ization for records, including library-specific notes and aprofile outlining desirable MARC fields that a librarywould like to add to their records. In addition to the

294

number of records per title a library would like to have,libraries subscribing to MARC record services shouldconsider the type of record to add, electronic or print.Wesley briefly discussed this point. Clemson hadoriginally asked to set up their MARC record profileto prefer electronic records over print as the basis fortheir Serials Solutions derived records, but severalproblems occurred with this approach. Clemson cata-logers insert special notes into the MARC record, butthe electronic record was already populated with someof these same note fields, so their records would end upwith two 506 or 516 notes. If one begins with the printrecord, in contrast, one can add library specific notesusually without fear of duplication.Another problem with the electronic record concerns

the title proper. Wesley points out that bthe title properfor an electronic version is often different or may be astrange variation of the print title. For example, theelectronic title for the New York Times is the New YorkTimes on the Web.Q15 The cataloging department beganreceiving numerous complaints from public servicesbecause of this type of problem. Furthermore, patronswere having difficulty finding the records because theprint and electronic versions were not listed together. bIfyou use the print records and add a qualifier for theonline, this title will sit side by side in the index. Thesetitles will not be separated in your hit list.Q16

From the examples listed above, one realizes there aremany considerations that serials catalogers have toweigh because of e-journal management tools likeMARC record services. Even the age-old question ofsingle versus multiple records has taken on a newdimension in light of these varying complexities. Serialscatalogers should be aware of these complexities inorder to make more educated decisions about their workprocesses.

What are Some Innovations in Linking?

Once the e-journal is cataloged using aMARC record, thecataloger has to also provide a link or connection to thatresource. The traditional method of linking, whereinlinks are generated using the 856 field in either thebibliographic or holdings records, was still widelyemployed by the librarians interviewed. E-journal man-agement tools, however, are beginning to provide alter-native ways to link e-resources from the MARC record.Saint Louis University will be using an alternative form oflinking to the full text after implementing aMARC recordservice. McDanold stated that they will be stripping outthe 856 fields from their print records and linking patronsto their A-to-Z list, which will automatically conduct asearch to take the patron to the desired title. She adds thatbif you are looking for Developmental Biology, click onthe link in the online catalog. This will conduct a titlesearch in the A-to-Z list, and the patron will be taken tothis title and the possible full-text optionsQ17 TheUniversity of Georgia is also linking their patrons to theirA-to-Z list except their patrons will be required to type inthe specific title they are seeking.18 Another schoolutilizing this type of linking is the University of North


Carolina at Greensboro, which uses Journal Finder astheir comprehensive e-journal management solution.Conger notes that with DRA, their previous ILS, theywere able to use the database control number (DBCN) asa match point between the ILS and Journal Finder. Thismatch point creates a link between theMARC record andJournal Finder leading the patron to UNCG’s accessoptions including full text, document delivery, and localOPACs. UNCG plans on continuing this practice withSirsi, their new ILS, by using the title control number as amatch point.19

Another alternative to linking to the full text usingan 856 is the OpenURL. If a library’s online catalog isestablished as a source for its link resolver, a librarycan utilize OpenURL functionality to provide a list offull-text options from the MARC record. Several of thelibrarians interviewed had considered but not yetimplemented this functionality. One librarian diddescribe an alternative use of an OpenURL resolverfor providing access to externally related resources. AtOregon State, the OpenURL resolver has the ability toplug into the OPAC, allowing the resolver to capturedata from the catalog record in order bto filter by callnumber and pull in related resources by subject for agiven title.Q20 This functionality is made possible sinceOregon State’s OpenURL resolution software is cre-ated by their ILS vendor. For example, if a patron hasfound a record for a particular map with a Q callnumber, clicking on this call number will invoke theOpenURL resolver to filter journals on maps, possiblythe National Atlas, etc., through a search of theLibrary of Congress (LC) classification Q. Reese pointsout that their link resolver has the functionality tofilter through the catalog record for set elementsincluding call number, titles, and subject ranges. Therange of uses for the OpenURL and link resolvers hasyet to be fully explored. Librarians have only to thinkbeyond the traditionally defined descriptive role of theMARC record and harness the potential of thesetechnologies to reshape patron uses of the onlinecatalog.

Record Maintenance

How are Serials Catalogers Being Notified of Changesto the OPAC?

Cataloging and acquisitions departments have tradition-ally worked together closely to identify changes andrecord maintenance needs in the online catalog, includ-ing but not limited to new titles, title changes, ceasedtitles, and holdings corrections. This type of recordmaintenance has been a real struggle with e-journals dueto their ephemeral and fluid nature. In the past,librarians have been dependent on patrons or publicservices staff reporting e-journal access problems.Acquisitions staff often receive monthly reports ofchanges from individual vendors that are communicatedto cataloging staff.How have e-journal management tools evolved or

altered these communications? At the University of

295

Washington, serials acquisitions staff use Serials Solu-tions data to find changes. An automated process is inplace that compares the new and old loads to produce alist of titles added, dropped, and changed.21 TheUniversity of Georgia also obtains record maintenanceinformation from their homegrown A-to-Z system. Thissystem is currently maintained by a science bibliographerwho regularly sends a list of adds and deletes to thecataloging department.22 The serials cataloging team atUNCG are notified about what to catalog by a monthlyreport generated by Journal Finder. When this librarymakes an initial purchase, titles are first added to JournalFinder’s knowledgebase to ensure prompt access. Amonthly report notes what titles have been added overthe past month.23 All three of these examples reflect amore systematic approach to collecting record mainte-nance information.

The use of A-to-Z lists and homegrown e-journalmanagement solutions makes possible these approaches.Of course, these types of tools can often complicate thetask of record maintenance. Cathy Pecoraro of Rutgersnotes that there are often inaccuracies in their A-to-Zlist, especially for smaller packages and publishers.There may also be quirks to a system for updating andrefreshing data. Rutgers’ vendor-supplied A-to-Z servicewas not regularly reflecting updates to packages.Pecoraro discovered that the package needed to bedeselected then selected again to update the title list. Shecommented that it can often be bdifficult to manageadditions, when you lose access, title changes andcoverage information and reflect these changes in thecatalog and e-journal management tools.Q24

Job Responsibilities

How is the Role of the Serials Cataloger Evolving?

The critical mass of e-journals being added to collec-tions, in addition to the tools and services now availableto manage this critical mass, has created a complexenvironment for the serials cataloger. The skill setsnecessary for serials catalogers are logically evolvingbecause of this environment. Reese perceives the role ofall librarians, not just serials catalogers, as becomingmore technical as serials continue to move to electronicform. This is apparent from the growing number ofcustomized programs and scripts that are described inthe workflow examples provided above. Parks notesthat many serials catalogers are moving away from themore traditional job duties of original and copycataloging. Case in point, during her first couple weekson the job, Parks was asked to bdevelop a workflow formanaging e-journal information and more qualitycontrol through cataloging.Q25 Other librarians inter-viewed emphasized the fact that they have becomeworkflow managers. They spend less time handlingindividual titles and more time managing record sets.For example, Wesley notes that she is still performingtraditional cataloging, but now she oversees the out-sourcing of cataloging as well. Her additional dutiesinclude reviewing monthly updates, ensuring that batchloads are handled appropriately, and tweaking MARC


record profiles. These outsourcing responsibilities arenecessary, especially for smaller libraries, if they wish toprovide access through the OPAC to the growingnumber of e-journals now available to their patrons.

Both Creech and Thornton emphasized the impact ofthe sheer volume of titles on serials catalogingworkflows.Developing and managing the automated processes forhandling batch loads have become a mainstay of theserials cataloging job. The reality of the current environ-ment is that patrons simply will not have access to asmany records if serials catalogers manually cataloginstead of adopting automated processes. Librarians inthe field are becoming cognizant of this fact and acceptingthat some of their cataloging practices may be compro-mised in order to handle the larger volume of titles.Wesley keenly points out that she bwould rather have17,000 pretty good records vs. 5000 really good records.You have to do what’s best for the user.Q26 A focus on theuser was a common theme for all the librarians inter-viewed. The adjustment of cataloging practices is occur-ring because these librarians realize they have a duty tothe patron to provide quick, effective access points tofacilitate the research process.

Serials catalogers also have more opportunities topartner with other library departments to participate inthe management of e-journal tools beyond MARCrecord services. For example, Conger is spending moretime on Journal Finder working with cleanup andresolving problems for adding new titles. These partner-ships require closer communication with outside depart-ments. McDanold aptly states that serials catalogersbcan’t just sit in their cubiclesQ and that bcrosscommunication is a must for effective e-journalaccess.Q27 The workflow strategies being designed atthese various libraries involve numerous departments,including acquisitions, reference, and collection manage-ment. It is imperative that cataloging departmentsopenly communicate with their peers to ensure that allaccess issues are addressed and feedback from patronsand public service areas is being considered.

One last indicator of the evolution of the serialscataloging position is the changing job title. Terry Reese’sposition title is digital production unit head; Steve Shadleis now the serials access librarian. Both of these men areheavily involved with cataloging; however, their jobsnow include non-traditional duties. In the case of TerryReese, his job entails designing cataloging tools likeMarcEdit, creating local scripts, and developing work-flow changes using the library’s ERM system.28 SteveShadle’s position is half-time serials cataloging and half-time workflow manager for record sets and loads. Hisduties range from managing workflow for coverage andMARC data, working with tools like MarcEdit, andeventually managing Serials Solutions data loads.29 Bothof these positions are examples of the potential future forserials catalogers highlighting either programming orworkflow management expertise. The traditional role ofthe serials cataloger has not disappeared, but thedemands of the current library environment inviteprofessionals to move beyond traditional workflowsand discover new ways to effectively carry out their jobs.

296

Future Trends and Final Words of Wisdom

E-journal management tools and services are only part ofthe equation for change in serials cataloging andlibrarianship as awhole. These tools provide the potentialfor libraries to re-build their OPACs as a comprehensiveaccess point for all their library holdings. However,technologies such as the OpenURL and the Internet havetaught us that access points for collections cannot belocation bound, physically or virtually. User expect-ations for finding information are heavily influenced bythe world of Google where information needs are beingmet with one search and one click. Libraries cannotremain passive and expect users to come to theirbuildings or Web sites. They must think globally abouttheir services and create seamless linking options that arecapable of being pushed to the user. Innovations likeGoogle Scholar and Open WorldCat are excellentexamples of how patrons can reach library holdingswithout ever entering a library’s physical or virtualspace.30

Creating this kind of reach for library holdingsrequires an understanding of the technological advancesin addition to the development of data standards. Also,these data standards must be able to bcross walkQ andinteract with each other.31 Many libraries are develop-ing numerous collections, both digital and print, that arebeing described using different metadata standards suchas MARC records and Dublin Core. How well do thesedescriptions co-exist? These collections should besearchable as a whole, not just individually. Parksemphasizes that patrons do not want to jump fromone collection to another adopting an assortment ofsearch strategies per collection. They want to search ona specific topic from one location and extract relevanthits for all of the library’s collections.Given an understanding of the user expectations

described above, what can librarians, especially serialscatalogers, do to facilitate this kind of quick, seamlessaccess to library materials?

1. Implement e-journal management tools. It is imper-ative to understand the value of implementing e-journal management tools and services. These typesof services help manage enormous amounts of data ina systematic way. Like classification schemes such asDewey and Library of Congress, which providedescriptive structure, these services provide organiza-tional value through technological structure.

2. Participate and be aware of developing data stand-ards. Serials catalogers should also remain aware ofand participate in the development of cataloging rulesand standards. For instance, CONSER is taking a lookat potential uses of access level records developed bythe Library of Congress.32 In 2004, the Library ofCongress assigned a project team led by Dave Reser towork with cataloging consultant Tom Delsey todevelop an access level record for remote accessmonographic and integrating resources.33 The accessrecord was developed using the Functional Require-ments of Bibliographic Records (FRBR) to btake into


account four generic user tasks (find, identify, selectand obtain).Q34 Even though this record has beendesigned to describemonographic electronic resourcessuch as Web sites, there is a potential application forthe description of e-journals. This is a slimmer recordthat focuses less on description andmore on providingaccess to the resource.35

3. Be flexible about cataloging practices and experi-ment with workflow. In order to utilize various e-journal tools and services, serials catalogers willhave to experiment with their established catalogingworkflow. The concept of seamless and effectiveuser access to library resources should be the drivingforce behind all departmental policies. UNCGprovides one example of an altered workflow. Inorder to provide quick access to e-journals, titles areadded to Journal Finder first, then cataloged.36

Note that this change is not necessarily dramatic,it simply reflects a decision to remain flexible aboutworkflow.

4. Understand that bthe perfect is the enemy of thegood.Q37 It is possible that the use of e-journal toolsand MARC record services will create systematicerrors within the OPAC. Your library will have todetermine if these errors can be corrected in a costeffective manner. If not, is your library willing tolive with reduced quality cataloging? Wesley’sexperiences at Clemson provide some guidance inthis scenario. She observes that their automatedMARC record service does create the occasionalquirky note. Yet, these records contain the necessaryelements for effective access: the right title, accurateholdings statements, and an accurate URL. If theend result of this service delivers the desiredresource to the patron, perhaps focusing on theparts of the e-journal MARC record that affectaccess and remaining flexible about inconsequentialerrors is, simply put, good enough.

Notes

1. Elizabeth Leister, telephone conversation with author, July 25,

2005.

2. Kathryn Wesley, telephone conversation with author, July 25,

2005.

3. Anna Creech, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005;

Shana McDanold, telephone conversation with author, July 25,2005.

297

4. Steve Shadle, telephone conversation with author, July 25, 2005.

5. Ibid.

6. Bonnie Parks, telephone conversation with author, July 26, 2005.

7. Terry Reese, telephone conversation with author, July 26, 2005.

8. Parks, telephone, July 25, 2005.

9. Shadle, telephone, July 25, 2005.

10. Leister, telephone, July 25, 2005.

11. Mary Jane Conger, telephone conversation with author, July 19,2005.

12. Beth Jedlicka Thornton, telephone conversation with author, July

20, 2005.

13. Creech, telephone, July 25, 2005.

14. Wesley, telephone, July 25, 2005.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. McDanold, telephone, July 25, 2005.

18. Thornton, telephone, July 20, 2005.

19. Conger, telephone, July 19, 2005.

20. Reese, telephone, July 26, 2005.


22. Thornton, telephone, July 20, 2005.


24. Cathy Pecoraro, telephone conversation with author, July 25,

2005.



27. McDanold, telephone, July 25, 2005.

28. Reese, telephone, July 26, 2005.


30. Pecoraro, telephone, July 25, 2005.



33. Tom Delsey. bDefining an dAccess LevelT MARC/AACR Catalog

Record,Q http://www.loc.gov/catdir/access/report_final.pdf

(accessed July 26, 2005).

34. bLC Implementation for Access Level MARC/AACR Records,Qhttp://www.loc.gov/catdir/access/accessrecord.html (accessed

July 26, 2005).




http:\\www.loc.gov\catdir\access\report_final.pdf

http:\\www.loc.gov\catdir\access\accessrecord.html

Documents

The Effects of E-journal Management Tools and Services on Serials Cataloging