E-journal cataloging redux Patricia Thompson 31 Oct 2007 14:36 UTC
[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