Belated single vs. multi. record survey results Chris Blackman 16 Jan 2001 15:04 UTC
Dear All, Way back in November I sent out an informal survey to SERIALST requesting information as to whether libraries were using the single or multiple record method of cataloging serials. Here is the long delinquent summary. My apologies. I've tried to be as impartial as possible, but I'm sure that my bias toward multiple records will be evident just the same. Of 23 total respondents to the question (including myself): 14 organizations use the single record method (approx. 61%) 8 organizations (including my own) use the multiple record method (approx. 35%) 1 organization uses both methods (approx. 4%) Of the 14 organizations using the single record method: 10 are universities 3 are colleges 1 is a university that is part of a large consortium that allows individual members to chose method 0 are consortia 11 use this method particularly for the ease in viewing holdings (primarily for patrons) 1 uses this method for historical reasons and to ease the cataloging workload 1 uses this method both for historical reasons and ease in viewing holdings (primarily for patrons) 1 gave no reason 10 did not mention whether they use separate formal or informal holdings statements 4 said they use separate formal or informal holdings statements 8 did not mention their level of satisfaction with the approach 4 are satisfied with the approach 2 are undecided or divided on the usefulness of the approach Of the 8 organizations using the multiple record method: 5 are universities 1 is a college 1 is a college that is part of a large consortium proposing that single records be used 1 is a consortium 6 use this method for accuracy in description and coverage as well as ease of maintenance and enhanced searchability especially where aggregators are concerned or vendor records are used 2 gave no reason 4 are satisfied with the approach 3 are divided (usually along tech services / public services lines) on the usefulness of the approach 1 did not mention their level of satisfaction with the approach Interesting points: Only one institution is using both methods, showing (I presume) that it is more important and less confusing to be consistent in one's approach. Division on the preferred method is generally between ease in locating information, regardless of format, as opposed to accuracy in describing the information contained in each format. Institutions using the single record method were primarily concerned with noting the existence of all formats in one easy to locate record. Institutions using the multiple record method were primarily concerned with accurately describing each format and providing the appropriate access points. Here, the issue of aggregators was mentioned many times - citing that one could only have an added author entry for the aggregator on a record for the e-journal. Coverage differences between print and electronic records were also cited, as were differences in content (e.g. supplements and indexes). It was also mentioned that using notes to express these differences (when using the single record) was technically incorrect cataloging as alternate formats should only pointed to rather than described. Chris Blackman Catalog Librarian Williams College Libraries Williamstown, MA 01267 (413) 597-4403 cblackma@williams.edu