Re: E-journal cataloging redux Linda Harding 31 Oct 2007 16:11 UTC
Kindly share with the list any responses you receive. We are very interested in this issue. Linda Harding Periodicals Assistant Elmhurst College Library 190 Prospect Ave. Elmhurst, IL 60126 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patricia Thompson" <pthompso@SEWANEE.EDU> To: <SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:36 AM Subject: [SERIALST] E-journal cataloging redux > [Cross-posted; apologies for redundancy] > > There seems to be three approaches to including records for electronic > journals in the library catalog: > > 1. Put all of them in the catalog. Make your catalog the "go-to" place for > all titles. This usually entails loading batches of MARC records for the > titles included in aggregator databases. These batches are regularly > deleted and reloaded to account for changes in coverage. Depending on the > system, service, and setup, there could be multiple records for each title > (one for every database where the title can be found) or they could be > merged so that there is only one record for each e-title, with holdings > for each database. > > 2. Don't catalog them at all. Rely on your A-Z list, link resolver, and/or > other tools to provide access to e-journals. > > 3. Catalog some of them, but not all, based on various criteria. > > The various approaches entail different levels of staff workload, costs, > and philosophy. (Concerning philosophy, many feel that users do not use > the catalog to access journals, but rather use the A-Z list, get to them > from citation databases, or even use Google Scholar.) > > We have been following approach #3. The rationale behind it was that we > would catalog titles to which we had a real "subscription" but we would > not try to include all the titles in aggregator databases. > > This approach worked for a while, when the ejournal "subscriptions" were > limited to JSTOR, Muse, and individual subscriptions. But the cutoff point > is becoming blurred. We entered into some consortial deals where we agreed > to maintain our current subscriptions with a publisher, and then got > access to all of that publisher's titles. So do I catalog all of the > titles? We don't have a real "subscription" to all of them, but we do have > access. But how is this access different to the user than what they would > find in a full-text aggregator database? It's not. They don't know or care > HOW we get the title. > > We have an A-Z list and now a link resolver. I loaded our print titles > into the list and we began promoting the list as the most comprehensive > place to look for journal titles, in any format. So what's the point of > having some of them in the catalog, but not others? > > Other factors (not comprehensive): > > 1. We do need to put bib records in for things we pay for, because the > funds are all tracked with the order records attached to them. Should we > abandon e-journal access through our catalog, and use it for our own > management purposes only, perhaps suppressing the records from public > view? > > 2. Our A-Z list (so far) does not provide alternative titles or > cross-references or even links to previous titles. Many publishers are > lumping a complete run under the latest title, so a user searching for a > previous title won't find it there. So yes, cataloging does have added > value. A user just recently found a title in our catalog that he didn't > find in the A-Z list. > > I would appreciate any comments, especially from smaller libraries with > limited staffing, about any other factors to think about, or ways you have > found to establish a logical approach to this swirling maelstrom. > > Pat Thompson > > > > Patricia Thompson > Assistant University Librarian for Resource Management Services > Jessie Ball duPont Library > The University of the South > Sewanee, TN 37383 > Phone: 931-598-1657 > Email: pthompso@sewanee.edu