This is problematic for libraries that file their magazines
alphabetically. When Bloomberg is so prominent on the page, users expect to see
it filed under BLO
Teresa Grimm
WCTC Library
800 Main St.
Pewaukee WI 53072
tgrimm@wctc.edu
From: SERIALST: Serials
in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Lori
Rotterman
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 8:40 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Major or Minor title change? -->Businessweek
question
Lisa-
Please see the following information regarding Businessweek, posted
May 20th by Regina Reynolds from ISSN
Please excuse duplicate postings. Since the topic
of a possible change of title for BusinessWeek has been discussed on several
lists, I am posting this outcome on those lists.
Before making a final confirmation that the ISSN for
BusinessWeek should remain the same despite the addition of “Bloomberg” to the
title, I consulted the managing editor. Although the publisher does not get to
decide what is a major or minor change for ISSN purposes, since this situation
fell into a gray area of the rules and since there were good arguments on both
sides, it seemed reaonsable to get publisher input, especially about whether
further changes in the title presentation were planned. The managing editor
indicated that typically, changes in titles or title presentations can take
from 6 to 9 months to “settle down,” and he was very concerned when I told him
that if we gave a new ISSN to Bloomberg businessweek and the title underwent
another major change, another new ISSN would be needed.
The managing editor asked about the consequences of a new
ISSN and I told him that a new bibliographic record would be created and linked
to the old one and that citations and linkages would be changed. He was
further dismayed and took some time to confer with higher management. Finally,
he called and emailed me with the following information:
“It is our emphatic desire that Businessweek and
Bloomberg Businessweek be considered one and the same magazine. The adjustment
to the name of the magazine reflects a change in corporate ownership from The
McGraw-Hill Companies to Bloomberg LP, but other than that, Businessweek remains
the same publication that was started in 1929-with the same commitment to
journalistic integrity and the same loyal subscribers...”
So, no new ISSN will be assigned and the CONSER record
should remain as it is, including a 246 for Bloomberg businessweek. I have
asked Robert Bremer of OCLC to delete the record(s) for Bloomberg businessweek
and add a 936 to the CONSER record stating: “The change from BusinessWeek to
Bloomberg businessweek has been determined to be a minor change. No new
ISSN will be assigned and no new record should be input.”
Thanks for your patience as we worked this out in the U.S.
ISSN Center.
Regina
Regina Romano Reynolds
ISSN Coordinator
Library of Congress
(202) 707-6379 (voice)
(202) 707-6333 (fax)
rrey@loc.gov
From: SERIALST: Serials
in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Lisa
Kong
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 5:51 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Major or Minor title change? -->McGraw Hill's
Global studies. Russia & the near abroad
According to these rules you
mentioned, why the title "Business week" now is changed to
"Bloomberg businessweek" and still uses the record of "Business
week?" (see OCLC #1537921). It only adds a 246 in the record to indicate
the title change. As I understand, it should have a new record. Would you
please explain? Thanks.
Lisa