pennsylvania integrated library system (pails) cataloging ......pails cataloging study, 2014 5...

1

Pennsylvania Integrated Library System (PaILS)

Cataloging Study

October, 2014

PaILS Cataloging Study, 2014 2

Table of Contents

Introduction page 3

Background page 4

Research Findings page 5

Points of Concern page 7

The Options page 8

Recommendations page 11

Summary page 16

Appendix A: PaILS Cataloging Summary Questionnaire page 17

Appendix B: PaILS Cataloging Summary Data page 27

Appendix C: Kent State University Libraries Copy Cataloging Procedures page 42


INTRODUCTION In spring 2014, the Pennsylvania Integrated Library System (PaILS), a non-profit organization responsible for the implementation and management of the SPARK integrated library system—a cloud-hosted, open-source, “one-price” ILS platform solution developed by Evergreen—for its member libraries, contracted with The Ivy Group, Ltd. to conduct a study of member cataloging practices. The Evergreen staff client is the software in the ILS that is used by library staff to interact with the SPARK consortial catalog. The Evergreen staff client includes circulation, cataloging, serials and acquisitions functionality. The online public access catalog (OPAC) display offers enhanced functionality found in many expensive commercial discovery layers. The consulting team was commissioned to investigate the cataloging/metadata quality of the bibliographic records being contributed to the SPARK central catalog. In particular, The Ivy Group was asked to investigate the causes behind record duplication and bibliographic errors in the central catalog and to make recommendations for improving the cataloging process in a way that would be acceptable to PaILS members. To determine possible causes of these errors and to recommend solutions, an online survey (Appendix A) was distributed to member library staff responsible for entry and management of bibliographic data using the Evergreen staff client software. The 42-question survey covered demographic, organizational, administrative, budgetary, and training topics, sources of bibliographic records, as well as the educational level and personal knowledge of cataloging standards of the individuals completing the survey. Of the 32 libraries surveyed, 30 participated in the survey—a very strong 94% response rate. Response data (Appendix B) was used to assess the skills and training levels of member library staff responsible for the cataloging process and illuminate points of strength as well as weakness. This report presents and analyzes the survey findings and recommends strategies to address identified problems.


BACKGROUND Under their contractual agreement with PaILS, member libraries retain autonomy over local operations but agree to conform to established policies, procedures, protocols, and regulations developed and adopted by the PaILS Board of Directors. At the time of the study, all 32 member libraries had implemented the Evergreen SPARK ILS, and all member libraries’ patrons were using the same SPARK OPAC. The migration was underwritten by LSTA funding from the Pennsylvania Office of Commonwealth Libraries. The libraries are using version 2.4.1 of the Evergreen staff client which allows them to add, delete, edit, or change bibliographic records in the SPARK central catalog. The Evergreen staff client also allows for batch loading of bibliographic records, a process that enables libraries to add multiple bibliographic records in one task. A “bucket” feature enables libraries to gather together records from the SPARK catalog and make global changes or edits to groups of bibliographic records simultaneously. The bibliographic database model for the SPARK catalog is based on a single record model. The first bibliographic record that enters the database becomes the “master” record in the catalog, and the library that enters that record then attaches its holdings (ownership) to the record. Other libraries that purchase or acquire the same bibliographic item simply add their holding to the same record. The record that is used as the master record varies. It is based on a “quality metrics” formula, which can be assigned by each library and is based on the record attribute or the MARC tags and subfields. A record is assigned a “weight”, and, if a new incoming record has a greater weight than an existing record, the new record will replace the old one. The OPAC display is flexible; users can display the holdings of all PaILS libraries or individual libraries. Visual format icons are displayed to allow users to quickly locate and identify specific formats, such as print, electronic, or sound recordings. Any solution to the problem of improving the quality of the records in the SPARK ILS will require planning and an investment of time and resources. PaILS has provided systems development and support for the SPARK catalog and is now looking to improve the quality of bibliographic records in the catalog.


RESEARCH FINDINGS Acquisitions and Circulation The majority of respondents—57%—reports acquisitions budgets between $10K and $50K with 37% budgeting less than $10K. Over half of respondents—53%—purchase 1,000 items or fewer per year. The bulk of these libraries have limited funding for acquisitions, and, because they purchase so few items, do not need to obtain or create many cataloging records. Circulation data indicates that member libraries are active, with 50% reporting annual circulation of 25,000 or more. Organization and Staffing The survey gathered data about the administrative structure of the member libraries, as well as information about the individual submitting each survey. 83% of respondents reported a job title of “director” or “library director” while 50% of respondents hold a Masters of Library Science (MLS) degree. Only 43% identified themselves as professional librarians. 30% of respondents have been in librarianship 3 years or less while another 30% have served more than 20 years. Just over half (53%) have been in the profession over 10 years. At 43% of the responding libraries, there is just one member of staff responsible for cataloging purchased materials. Only two of those 13 individuals report “Technical Services” as their primary work area. At libraries that report two or more staff responsible for cataloging, “Technical Services” is cited as the primary work area in only 7 of 34 instances, less frequently than “Library Administration” or “Public Services” is named. Cataloging Practices, Skills, and Training Among responding libraries, 93% perform copy cataloging and 47% perform original cataloging. Only one library conducts batch loading—adding, editing, or deleting large groups of records simultaneously. Two libraries do no original or copy cataloging whatsoever, but one of these libraries does report doing some batch cataloging. The data indicates that most cataloging is being performed at the individual bibliographic record level. Knowledge of cataloging is required for identification and selection or creation of quality bibliographic records for SPARK. Yet, when asked about Anglo American Cataloging Rules, 2nd Edition (AACR2), the descriptive cataloging standard used in libraries over the last three decades, 60% of survey respondents reported no familiarity with it. The new descriptive cataloging standard, Resource Description and Access (RDA), fared even worse


as 77% of respondents reported no familiarity with it, with only one respondent having received formal training on the new standard. Of the libraries who have not received RDA training, only 59% report that training is of interest to them. 80% of responding libraries reported having no access to these standards or other subscription-based cataloging tools, including the RDA Toolkit and Cataloger’s Desktop. Half of respondents indicated they know nothing about the MARC21 Format for Bibliographic Data, the data encoding standard used by Evergreen, and 67% are totally unfamiliar with MARC21 Format for Authority Data, the data standard used to encode authority data. On a more positive note, 90% of responding libraries have migrated to the Evergreen ILS, with the remaining libraries in the process of doing so. All but 23% of the libraries have been trained on Evergreen’s cataloging module. When asked if staff would be interested in receiving training to improve their overall cataloging knowledge, 87% said yes. Overall, the skill level and training of cataloging staff is poor, and in some cases, non-existent. (No doubt, this situation can be partly attributable to the expense of subscription-based tools and materials needed to develop and manage effective cataloging workflows.) More troubling is that cataloging standards and training do not appear to be highly valued. Quality Control/Bibliographic Record Sources When asked about a process that periodically reviews the quality of the cataloging records entered into the ILS, 83% of respondents reported that there is no such process in place at their library. The same 83% indicated that they understand how local library cataloging procedures influence the SPARK consortial catalog. While this was not asked directly in the survey, a follow-up call to the PaILS executive director confirmed that there are no “consortial” cataloging procedures. The survey also looked at the sources of bibliographic records used by the PaILS libraries. (Only seven [23%] of the 30 responding libraries are members of OCLC, a global subscription-based bibliographic utility an excellent source of quality bibliographic records.) Among responding libraries, 21% use OCLC; 29% turn to consortial catalogs; and 43% access the Library of Congress for bibliographic records. The overwhelming majority—96% of libraries—reported that they use other library catalogs via Z39.50. (The Evergreen cataloging module has a Z39.50 client that connects to other library catalogs for—usually free—bibliographic records). The ability of the Evergreen staff client to pull free bibliographic records from other catalogs via Z39.50 is cost effective. But without consortial procedures in place that define what “quality” records are, where to find them, and how to identify them, this practice can be problematic.


POINTS OF CONCERN It appears that several member libraries either do not understand the cataloging process or minimize its impact on the SPARK ILS, other libraries in the consortium, and/or library patrons trying to access services effectively. Because many of the consortium’s libraries are small, it is no surprise that cataloging tools and other subscription-based resources are beyond their budgets or that cataloging is only one task of many that staff members perform. Staff appear to have limited understanding of cataloging standards and are adding bibliographic records from a variety of sources. Most have no training in automation processes, such as batch loading, and there is no consistent source of bibliographic records, even for Z39.50 clients who currently are pulling from a variety of sources. Because over half of respondents have been in librarianship more than ten years, there may be resistance to adapting to new ILS standards and technology that has dramatically altered cataloging practices. Ultimately, the responsibility rests with PaILS to implement a consortial model for sharing cataloging resources, expertise and training and make quality consortial cataloging practices a core tenet of its agreements with its members.


THE OPTIONS Option 1: Decentralized Model Individual libraries will continue to conduct their own cataloging while PaILS oversees and enforces quality standards.

PaILS develops cataloging procedures for both original and copy cataloging (all formats), including workflow procedures.

PaILS provides procedures and cataloging training, especially on standards, to all library staff engaged in any facet of cataloging.

All catalogers have access to necessary cataloging tools such as Cataloger’s Desktop and the RDA Toolkit.

PaILS develops procedures for checking the quality of bibliographic records.

Libraries agree on a particular source (or sources) of bibliographic records and to quality metrics.

All member libraries agree to maintain in-house cataloging expertise and to be responsible for cataloging their own materials.

Caveats:

Quality continues to vary according to the commitment of individual member libraries to the quality of the shared OPAC and the expertise of individuals responsible for cataloging.

Option 2: Centralized Model PaILS manages a centralized cataloging functionality that controls all bibliographic data entered into SPARK. No investment in training cataloging staff at member libraries is necessary.

PaILS invests in hiring cataloging staff and providing access to necessary cataloging tools.

PaILS develops work flow, cataloging, and quality control procedures for creating or obtaining the bibliographic records and then entering the correct holdings information into SPARK.


Individual libraries order materials through vendor partner programs that enable vendors to ship bibliographic records directly to a central site.

PaILS assumes responsibility for cataloging administration, staffing, and budgets and develops a charge-back formula for allocating costs to consortium members.

Caveats:

Cataloging knowledge and expertise among PaILS members decreases dramatically.

Turnaround time for cataloging local materials increases since little to no cataloging occurs at the local level.

Individual libraries do not receive the benefits from maximum use of the Evergreen software.

Option 3: Partially Distributed Model Cataloging functionality is distributed among several “key” member libraries, staffed by individuals with appropriate cataloging skills, and serving as cataloging “agents” or “hubs” for all other libraries in the consortium.

Cataloging procedures for both original and copy cataloging, including workflow and quality control procedures, are standardized.

PaILS trains selected “key” library personnel and provides access to necessary cataloging tools, such as Cataloger’s Desktop and the RDA Toolkit.

PaILS develops a fair cost-distribution formula that would take into account the costs of “key” libraries and the other members of the consortium.

Caveat:

Cataloging expertise is limited to “key” libraries.

Option 4: Outsourcing to External Contract Catalogers PaILS is responsible for contract negotiation and management of the cataloging profiles and workflow process. Member libraries no longer bear any cataloging responsibilities.

PaILS establishes and oversees an automated workflow to move data between the member libraries and the contract catalogers.


PaILS provides exact profiles to the contract catalogers regarding standards and quality.

PaILS supplies the software or other development tools necessary for PaILS libraries, vendors, and the contract catalogers to interact effectively.

PaILS is responsible for catalog maintenance and clean-up projects.

PaILS develops a fair cost-distribution formula. Caveats:

Contract cataloging can be expensive.

There will be no cataloging expertise or knowledge of cataloging standards among the member libraries.

The perception will exist that libraries are not getting the cost benefits from the open-source Evergreen staff client because they are no longer using its cataloging functionality.

Turnaround time for materials that are not purchased or received through cataloging partner programs may increase.


RECOMMENDATIONS To ensure the highest quality service to consortium members and library users, the consulting team recommends Option 3: the Partially Distributed Model. Resolving the cataloging and database quality issues for the consortial catalog will involve a substantial investment in time and resources. The project will require active management by a team with access to project management tools for project tracking and access to a documentation repository, or wiki, for archiving and sharing documents such as cataloging standards and statistical reports. Leadership PaILS would enlist “key” libraries as cataloging partners for establishing cataloging policy, preparing and maintaining documentation, and providing appropriate levels of training. OhioLINK, an academic consortium where cataloging policy and standards are set by a committee of member libraries, would provide a model.1 There are libraries that will be unable to participate or contribute as cataloging libraries. The PaILS cataloging group would be required to enforce cataloging policy and standards with these libraries. Legacy Data For problems with record quality and duplication in the Evergreen bibliographic data, PaILS must address both existing legacy data as well as the new incoming cataloging data. The solution to this problem will be controversial, because Evergreen is marketed as a cost-effective one-stop solution for libraries. The Z39.50 functionality in the Evergreen staff client allows libraries to connect seamlessly to various other library catalogs and take bibliographic records, in most cases, “for free”. OCLC also allows Z39.50 access as part of its subscription package. However, with no procedures, and insufficient training, PaILS libraries may not always be pulling the best available records. PaILS will need to invest in improving the quality of legacy data by contracting with one of the major authority control vendors (Backstage, MARCIVE, LTI) to clean up all existing authorized headings (authority control) and perform validation checks on all MARC records. Library patrons will benefit immediately from more consistent headings and records. This process must then continue on an ongoing basis. Staff resources will be necessary for any clean-up efforts with the resulting costs distributed across all libraries.

1 The OhioLINK Database Management and Standards web site is located at:

https://www.ohiolink.edu/content/technical_services_staff_information.

https://www.ohiolink.edu/content/technical_services_staff_information


PaILS would also contract for RDA enrichment to its legacy data. RDA enrichment will bring all legacy cataloging data in AACR2 up to RDA hybrid standards. This is important for future development as it will make consistent all data in Evergreen. Advantages are:

Developers designing or enhancing Evergreen will only need to consider one standard;

Training and documentation (procedures, best practices, etc.) need to consider only one standard; and

Data can be more easily ported to a linked data environment where it will work better with the replacement for the MARC standard being developed by the BIBFRAME project2 at the Library of Congress.

These processes, authority control and RDA enrichment would be run continuously for all new data, once the initial cleanup projects are complete. Most major authority control vendors will perform these on an ongoing basis. Source of Bibliographic Records To prevent duplication as well as to improve the quality of bibliographic records entering the SPARK catalog, PaILS would develop standardized procedures for copy catalogers that define a good quality bibliographic record. These procedures would cover both AACR2 and RDA records and would be based on existing national standards developed by the Library of Congress Program for Cooperative Cataloging.3 Procedures for each format, such as monographs, serials, sound recordings and audio-visual recordings, must be made available. See Appendix C for examples of RDA and AACR2 monographs from Kent State University. (The Kent State procedures are for an Innovative Millennium system, but they can be adapted to other systems.) Any records not meeting these standards would be reviewed by properly trained catalogers. The PaILS procedures would also be required to include Dewey Decimal as well as Library of Congress classifications.

2 BIBFRAME project documentation is found at: http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/.

3 PCC documentation can be found here:

http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/.

http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/

http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/


Process PaILS would develop and train staff from “key” libraries on original cataloging. This core group of catalogers would be responsible for reviewing and upgrading any poor quality records passed on to them through consortial workflows. Libraries without trained original catalogers would be expected to pass records needing original cataloging on to trained staff. PaILS and the core group of catalogers would develop a quality control process, conducted semi-annually, to examine copy cataloging and original cataloging. To verify record quality, a handful of records from each library would be checked visually or run through a validation process. OCLC and Reclamation The algorithm for matching incoming records with records currently existing in the SPARK catalog would be made consistent across all libraries. Primarily, the highest score for the match point should be the OCLC number, which is unique and found in many records in various MARC tags such as the 001 or 035, often with the prefix “(OCoLC)”. All libraries in PaILS that are OCLC members would register to conduct a “free” batch reclamation project with OCLC. This will ensure that all the OCLC control numbers in their records are accurate. Development effort will be needed to place all OCLC numbers in a single specific MARC tag. The MARC tag 035 is suitable. Here is an example of an 035 in a SPARK record:


LDR 01587cam a2200433 i 4500

001 858742

003 True

005 20131025153014.0

008 130322s2013 nyuaf 001 0aeng

010

. ‡a 2013012077

040

. ‡aDLC ‡beng ‡erda ‡cDLC ‡dOCLCO ‡dUPZ ‡dIH7 ‡dYDXCP ‡dVP@ ‡dFOLLT

019

. ‡a857852829

020

. ‡a9780385347549

020

. ‡a0385347545

035

. ‡a(OCoLC)835951542 (OCLC number)

042

. ‡apcc

050 0 0. ‡aML420.N353 ‡bA3 2013

082 0 0. ‡a782.42166/092 ‡aB ‡223

100 1 . ‡aNash, Graham, ‡d1942- ‡eauthor.

245 1 0. ‡aWild tales : ‡ba rock & roll life / ‡cGraham Nash.

For libraries that do not subscribe to OCLC, the procedures should require that the presence of an OCLC number rank high on the list of acceptable copy for copy cataloging. (Many libraries, especially small libraries, cannot afford the cost of an OCLC subscription. Some are opposed to OCLC on the basis of it not being an “open” platform. However, it is still the best source of cataloging data and the OCLC record number is a unique identifier that can easily be used as a match point for input and overlay.) Once the matching algorithm is adjusted giving the OCLC number a high score (quality metrics), it is recommended that a process be run against the SPARK database to identify duplicates. Staff resources will then be needed to clean these up. For small libraries, serving a population of 20,000 or fewer, PaILS could investigate a group OCLC CatExpress purchase.4 Small libraries that do copy cataloging but no original cataloging can buy blocks of records (current price is $1.07 per record, minimum 250 records) for materials they purchase. These records can be selected from OCLC through a web interface, then exported and downloaded to the SPARK catalog the following day. The downloading can be performed by the individual library or by any other library that is designated as a “key”.

4 For details on OCLC CatExpress see: https://oclc.org/catexpress/ordering.en.html. The State Library of Iowa has

set up a CatExpress group for small public libraries, see:

http://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/ld/c-d/cat-exp.

https://oclc.org/catexpress/ordering.en.html

http://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/ld/c-d/cat-exp


A major benefit of CatExpress is that it can be used with vendor partner programs. OCLC has a WorldCat Cataloging Partners program (formerly PromptCat) with most major book and media vendors.5 When placing a material order through any of these vendors, the vendors will notify OCLC that the library needs a cataloging record for the item. OCLC will set the library’s holdings on the master record. PaILS libraries can choose to have the MARC records delivered automatically and the records will even include fund accounting information from the purchase. Libraries can also pay to have the materials delivered shelf-ready, with labels and barcodes attached. PaILS would be well-advised to automate the cataloging process by using these partner programs to the fullest extent possible. This automation will cut down on cataloging errors and prevent duplicates from entering the catalog. Batch Loading Proficiency A core group of catalogers must be established within PaILS who are proficient in batch loading of MARC records from vendors. These include bibliographic records from any cataloging partners programs. This group must have knowledge of MarcEdit or scripting language to be able to manipulate large batches of MARC records. Batch loading procedures must be established, and a register of vendor numbers be made available in case multiple libraries purchase the same product. Vendors often provide cataloging records when libraries purchase or subscribe to their products. Vendor records usually contain a specific vendor number or identifier that can also be used as a unique match point by Evergreen. When negotiating contracts for purchases that include MARC records from vendors, it is recommended that vendors be given copies of PaILS cataloging procedures and asked to follow them. Training and Tools Key libraries, responsible for original cataloging and documentation, must agree to allowing staff to participate in ongoing training—either in person, remote, or contracted—to ensure they are abreast of changes and updates to cataloging standards. In addition, PaILS must ensure that catalogers have access to all necessary cataloging tools, including the RDA Toolkit, Cataloger’s Desktop, and, if necessary, WebDewey.

5 The complete list of OCLC Cataloging Partner vendors can be found here: https://oclc.org/cataloging-

partners/partners.en.html.

https://oclc.org/cataloging-partners/partners.en.html

https://oclc.org/cataloging-partners/partners.en.html


SUMMARY This report is primarily based on the data obtained from the cataloging survey conducted in June 2014 indicating major problems with knowledge of cataloging standards and procedures. The research revealed issues with staff training and competencies, the prioritization of cataloging tasks within the day-to-day work of library staff, and the understanding of the effect that individual cataloging practices have on SPARK’s integrity. In engineering the transition, PaILS must address the false perception that Evergreen, an open-source system, should provide cataloging functionality cheaply or freely. On the contrary, quality cataloging requires a commitment and investment in staff, training and tools. It can be more cost-effective to manage cataloging by purchasing quality records and automating both cataloging and authority control processes than having untrained staff randomly select records from various databases. Alternately, the talents and expertise of qualified staff can be shared across libraries, in the same fashion that open source developers share their codes. Communications regarding the project are the critical success factors for the process and the credibility of PaILS itself. Early on, PaILS must engage member libraries in understanding the logic behind decisions, the process, and the costs—especially because PaILS will have the responsibility of enforcing standards and procedures and will be held accountable for the ultimate quality of the catalog. PaILS and the leadership of PaILS member libraries must ensure that the goal is just that: to improve catalog quality—not eliminate jobs—thereby freeing staff up for other important functions and ultimately

improving service to library customers.


Appendix A

PaILS Cataloging Survey Questionnaire


ABOUT YOUR LIBRARY 1. Please indicate the name of your library: [DROP DOWN LIST OF ALL MEMBER LIBRARIES] 2. What is your library’s annual budget for acquisitions?

___ Under $1,000 ___ $1,000-$10,000 ___ $10,001-$50,000 ___ $50,001-$100,000 ___ More than $100,000

3. How many items (all formats) does your library purchase annually?

___ Under 200 ___ 201 – 500 ___ 501- 1,000 ___ 1,001 – 3,000 ___ 3,001- 6,000 ___ 6,001-10,000 ___ 10,001 – 20,000 ___ More than 20,000

4. How many items does your library circulate annually?

___ Under 2,000 ___ 2,001 to 5,000 ___ 5,001 to 10,000 ___ 10,001 to 25,000 ___ 25,001 to 50,000 ___ 50,001 to 100,000 ___ 100,001 to 250,000 ___ 250,001 – 500,000 ___ Over 500,000

5. How many registered card holders does your library have?

___ Under 500 ___ 501 to 1,000 ___ 1,001 to 2,500 ___ 2,501 to 5,000 ___ 5,001 to 10,000 ___ More than 10,000


6. Is your library a member of OCLC?

___ Yes ___ No

7. How much does your library spend per year purchasing bibliographic records?

___ $0 ___ $1 to $500 ___ $501 to $2,000 ___ $2,001 to $5,000 ___ $5,001 to $10,000 ___ 10,001 to $25,000 ___ More than $25,000

8. What classification system(s) does your library use? Please select all that apply.

___ Dewey Decimal System ___ Library of Congress ___ Other

Please specify ___________ 9. What subject heading vocabularies does your library use? Please select all that apply.

___ Book Industry Standards and Communication (BISAC) ___ Library of Congress ___ Library of Congress Children’s Headings ___ Sears ___ Other

Please specify ___________


ABOUT YOUR CATALOGING STAFF 10. How many staff members, including you, are responsible for cataloging purchased materials at

your library?

___ 0 [CONTINUE TO Q11] ___ 1 [CONTINUE TO Q11] ___ 2 [SKIP TO Q13] ___ 3 [SKIP TO Q13] ___ 4 [SKIP TO Q13] ___ 5 [SKIP TO Q13] ___ 6 to 10 [SKIP TO Q13] ___ More than 10 [SKIP TO Q13]

11. What is your primary work area (where you work more than 50% of the time)? [SELECT ONE]

___ Library administration ___ Public services ___ Technical services ___ Special collections ___ Other

Please specify ___________ 12. What other job duties do you perform? Please select all that apply.

___ Acquisitions ___ Children/Youth services ___ Circulation/reserves ___ Collection development ___ Interlibrary loan ___ Library administration ___ Preservation ___ Reference ___ Serials/electronic resources ___ Special collections ___ Supervision ___ Vendor relations ___ Other

Please specify ____________ [SKIP TO Q15]


13. For all staff involved in cataloging at your library, please mark primary work areas (where they work more than 50% of the time). Please select all that apply.

___ Library administration ___ Public services ___ Technical services ___ Special collections ___ Other

Please specify ____________ 14. For all staff involved in cataloging at your library, what other job duties do they currently

perform? Please select all that apply.

___ Acquisitions ___ Children/Youth services ___ Circulation/reserves ___ Collection development ___ Interlibrary loan ___ Library administration ___ Preservation ___ Reference ___ Serials/electronic resources ___ Special collections ___ Supervision ___ Vendor relations ___ Other

Please specify ____________


ABOUT CATALOGING AT YOUR LIBRARY

15. For which formats does your library do original cataloging? Please select all that apply.

___ Our library does not perform original cataloging. ___ Books ___ Computer files ___ Continuing resources (serials) ___ Electronic resources (electronic books and serials) ___ Maps ___ Mixed materials

___ Scores ___ Sound recordings ___ Visual materials ___ Other

Please specify ____________

16. Does your library do batch cataloging? ___ Yes [CONTINUE TO Q17] ___ No [SKIP TO Q19] 17. For which formats does your library do batch cataloging? Please select all that apply.

___ Books ___ Computer files ___ Continuing resources (serials) ___ Electronic resources (electronic books and serials) ___ Maps ___ Mixed materials ___ Scores ___ Sound recordings ___ Visual materials ___ Other

Please specify __________________________ 18. How familiar are you with batch cataloging tools like MarcEdit to batch update and load large

files of bibliographic records?

___ Expert ___ Working familiarity ___ Some familiarity ___ Not at all


19. Does your library do copy cataloging? ___ Yes [CONTINUE TO Q20] ___ No [SKIP TO Q22] 20. For which formats does your library do copy cataloging? Please select all that apply.

___ Books ___ Computer files ___ Continuing resources (serials) ___ Electronic resources (electronic books and serials) ___ Maps ___ Mixed materials ___ Scores ___ Sound recordings ___ Visual materials ___ Other

Please specify ____________________ 21. For copy cataloging, what is your library’s source of bibliographic records? Please select all that

apply.

___ Consortial catalogs ___ Library of Congress ___ OCLC ___ Sky River ___ Other library catalogs via Z39.50 ___ Vendors ___ Other

Please specify _____________________ 22. How familiar are you with Anglo American Cataloging Rules, 2nd Edition (AACR2) descriptive

cataloging standards?


23. Resource Description and Access (RDA) is the new descriptive cataloging standard replacing

AACR2. How familiar are you with RDA?



24. Has your library received any formal training on RDA?

___ Yes [CONTINUE TO Q25] ___ No [SKIP TO Q26]

25. What RDA training have you received? _______________ [SKIP TO Q27] 26. Would you be interested in receiving RDA training? ___ Yes ___ No 27. Do you have access to the following products and/or tools for cataloging? Please select all that

apply.

___ AACR2 in print ___ Classification Web ___ Library of Congress Cataloger’s Desktop ___ OCLC WebDewy ___ RDA in print ___ RDA Toolkit ___ None of the above

28. How familiar are you with the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data?


29. How familiar are you with the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data?



30. What is the status of your library’s migration to the Evergreen Integrated Library System (ILS)?

___ Completed [SKIP TO Q32] ___ In progress [SKIP TO Q32] ___ Not yet begun [CONTINUE TO Q31]

31. What ILS is your library currently running? 32. How familiar are you with the cataloging module of the Evergreen ILS?


33. Have you received training on the use of the Evergreen cataloging module?

___ Yes [CONTINUE TO Q34] ___ No [SKIP TO Q35]

34. How would you rate the training you have received on the use of the Evergreen ILS cataloging

module?

___ Excellent ___ Good ___ Poor

35. Do you understand how your library’s cataloging procedures influence the SPARK consortial catalog?

___ Yes ___ No

36. Does your library have a process that periodically reviews the quality of cataloging records

entered into the ILS system?

___ Yes ___ No

37. Would you be interested in training to improve your cataloging knowledge or the cataloging processes at your library?

___ Yes

___ No


PLEASE TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF 38. Your name 39. Job Title 40. How many years have you been in librarianship?

___ 0 to 3 ___ 4 to 6 ___ 7 to 10 ___ 11 to 15 ___ 16 to 20 ___ More than 20

41. What is your highest level of educational attainment?

___ High school Diploma ___ Associate’s Degree ___ Bachelor’s Degree ___ Masters in Library Science (MLS)

___ Ph.D ___ Other

Please specify _______________________ 42. What is the highest level of PA library certification you hold?

___ Professional Librarian ___ Provisional Librarian ___ Library Assistant ___ Clerk ___ Other

Please specify ________________________ ___ I do not hold PA certification.


Appendix B

PaILS Cataloging Survey Data


Appendix C

Kent State University Libraries Copy Cataloging Procedures

1

Kent State University Libraries: Cataloging Procedures

Copy Cataloging New Monographs: Fields to Check: RDA

Last revised 2013/10/01

Audience: primarily Kent Campus people, though most criteria are applicable in any library Scope: primarily newly-acquired books; though most criteria are applicable to older books and

other formats as well

Distinctive features of RDA:

RDA records contain in the 040 field $e rda, and the fields 336,337, and 338

Capitalization: information may now be capitalized exactly as is on the preferred source

Brackets [ ] : each subfield containing missing information is bracketed individually

Abbreviations: abbreviations are generally not used in RDA

Search database (OCLC or KentLINK, as workflow requires), for the best matching bibliographic record. If the best matching record is an AACR2 record, see document, Copy Cataloging New Monographs: Fields to Check: AACR and Hybrid Records

AACR2 records will not contain an 040 $e rda

Decide whether to Route Remember to remove CATDATE for all pieces routed to Catalog Librarians. Route the following to the “Needs Cataloging Attention” shelves for a Catalog Librarian to complete

Originals – No bibs found Title needs original cataloging (can’t find matching copy on OCLC)

Could be Serial, could be Monograph – Treatment decision needed These titles often have large edition numbers, or contain a year in the title: 2013 writer’s guide

Encoding level issues Route copy with Encoding level that is less than full.

Less than full:. K, M, E, 2, 3, 5, 7, or 8. EnLv 4 and J: check additional fields as explained below; if any are missing or incorrect, route as

needed. EnLv 8: if the only information missing from a bibliographic record with encoding level 8 is the physical

description (300: pagination, illustrations, and height), and you know how to make the changes in RDA to both the 300 and the fixed field, then do add the physical description to the OCLC bib record. Then replace. If you have any questions, ask a catalog librarian. If anything more than the physical description is needed, then route to the “Needs Cataloging Attention” shelf as usual.

FYI: Full = blank, letter I, L , 1 and 4. Note that RDA records containing only Core elements are EnLv blank or letter I. Use guidelines below to route appropriately. For explanations of all Encoding levels, see OCLC Bib Formats and Standards, Encoding Level http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/elvl.shtm

http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/elvl.shtm

2

040 All RDA records should have $e rda in the 040. If this is lacking, then refer to the document, Copy

Cataloging New Monographs: Fields to Check: AACR and Hybrid Records instead of this one. If cataloging copy is found where the 040 contains a $b with a language code other than eng, route to

catalog librarian (Notes and Subject headings will often be in a foreign language) Example: 040 PCL $b ger

If it passes the tests above, look for these miscellaneous situations. If encountered, route to catalog librarian:

copy that is a translation into English from another language

copy that has more than one language of text (example: some in English, some in French)

copy that was has been published under a different title in the past

copy for a book that includes accompanying material: a book with a CD, CD-ROM, or DVD, for example.

Check that the bib record has the following components. If missing or wrong, route to catalog

librarian:

Bib lvl = m

Type = a

Language in fixed field. (008 field, 29 and fixed field area) Route if it doesn’t match the main language of the book

Call number 090 or 050. Route if: It doesn't have a complete LC-style call number (Typical class separately call number composed of: Classification number, one or two Cutters; plus new material has year of publication) Example: G155.A1 $bP67 2013 If it has two LC call numbers It's a bibliography but lacks a Z number Its call number is PZ3 or PZ4

1xx Author Route if it isn’t the same person or organization as on the book. Check that it makes sense RDA records may include relationship designators after the name, such as: $e author.

245 Title Accept capitalization if it matches what appears on the preferred source (title page) Route if title or subtitle doesn’t match what’s on the preferred source exactly, any word is misspelled, or the subtitle is missing Route if some or all of the statement of responsibility is missing, the statement of responsibility contains the phrase “[and X others]”, or names listed in the statement of responsibility aren't traced in 7xx fields

3

250 Edition Route if the edition doesn't match. Ignore “Paperback edition.” when it’s the only difference.

260 or 264 Publication, distribution, manufacturing, copyright information Accept either 260 or 264 field (264 is the new standard)

Route if the place of publication or the publisher doesn’t match Route if the date doesn’t match

Prior to mid-2012 the publication date plus the copyright date in RDA records often appeared like this: [2011], ©2011. From mid-2012 on, 264 fields are used in all new RDA records. Different indicators show what type of information follows. 2nd indicator 0 = production info 2nd indicator 1 = publishing info 2nd indicator 2 = distribution info 2nd indicator 3 = manufacturing info 2nd indicator 4 = copyright date Example: 264_1 New York, N.Y. : $b Bollingen Foundation, $c [1964] 264_2 New York, N.Y. : $b Distributed by Pantheon Books 264_4 $c ©1964

263 Projected date of publication Delete this; it isn’t needed once the book is published.

300 Physical description Route if pagination is missing. Route if pagination is off by more than 2 pages or if height is off by more than 1 cm RDA records should have abbreviations spelled out (“pages” instead of “p.”; “color illustrations” instead

of “col. ill.”)

336-338 Content type, Media type and Carrier type

Route if the fields 336 (content type), 337 (media type), and 338 (carrier type) do not appear. Accept with or without $b

For print monographs, these will appear as follows: 336 __ text $b txt $2 rdacontent 337 __ unmediated $b n $2 rdamedia 338 __ volume $b nc $2 rdacarrier

4xx or 8xx Series Route to catalog librarian if the series is in a 490 0_ (490 1_ is acceptable), or the series on piece

doesn’t match either a 4xx or an 8xx field, or the series appears in the bib, but doesn’t exist on the piece

Accept bibs that use either series practice: 440 alone; or the combination, 490 + 8xx.

4

See document on Intranet, “Series Checking for Catalogers” for instructions on what to do with series. Note about multiple practices: in the past, only a 440 was used to show that the series as it appeared on the piece matched the 1xx of the series authority record. The 440 is now obsolete. As of Nov. 2008, the 490 1_ is used to transcribe a traced series as it appears on the piece, and the 830 (or sometimes other 8xx field) contains the series as it is recorded in the authority record. Sometimes the 490 1_ and the 830 are identical. You are likely to see both the obsolete 440 practice and the new practice.

500 or 504 Index and Bibliographical references notes If the book has bibliographical references and/or an index, but the record lacks a note about them, then

put in a generic note without pagination. Edit the fixed field also. SEE document Adding Bibliographical References and Index Notes to OCLC records for full instructions on adding these notes in Connexion Client

Examples 500 Includes index. 504 Includes bibliographical references. 504 Includes bibliographical references and index.

RDA records should have abbreviations spelled out (“pages” instead of “p.”)

6xx Subject headings Route if it has no LC Subject Headings, with second indicator zero

Acceptable LCSH: 6xx _0

7xx Access Points Route if any names or corporate bodies that appear in the 245 $c do not have access points in either a 1XX or 7XX field. RDA records may include relationship designators after the name, such as: $e author.

Other If anything else seems off-base or unusual, such as notes that don’t seem to describe the item in hand, then route it to a catalog librarian.

https://intra.lms.kent.edu/files/Adding_Bib_Refs_Note_100309.doc

https://intra.lms.kent.edu/files/Adding_Bib_Refs_Note_100309.doc

5

EDITING and CHECKING ACCEPTABLE COPY

Call number

1. Copy the call number, then perform a call number search in KentLINK using that call number

A. Make sure the call number of the piece you’re checking isn’t in use for a different work However, it is correct if the call number is in use for an earlier/later edition of the same work, and the only difference is the year of publication. B. Look at the subject headings of the bib records before and after the call number in question and make sure they generally match the item in hand.

2. If the call number lacks a year on the end, add it Exceptions:

A. Series that are classed together. Example: TT771 $b .A35 v. 5

B. Bib that already has item records for copies with no year in the call number, and you’re adding another copy. Leave year out of copy in hand in order to keep all copies consistent

Subject headings Retain all 6xx fields, even those that aren’t LC (e.g., 6xx _4 fields, 650 _2 fields (MeSH headings)

440 or 830 Series For how to read Series Authority Records (SARs), and instructions on what to do when you find series,

See document on Intranet, “Series Checking for Catalogers” If the following situations occur, take action as instructed below: A. You notice that we own several titles in the same series that have no authority record (not time sensitive) Make a print out, note the situation, and put the print out in the box provided for series problems, which

is in the cataloging area. B. You notice that we own several titles in the same series, but treatment has been mixed: some have a class

together call number, while others have been classed separately (time sensitive) Consult a catalog librarian C. You find an authority record, but the instructions are unclear (time sensitive) Consult a catalog librarian

Final Action on Bib Records If the record is acceptable at Kent, update holdings on OCLC. Note that PromptCat records are already updated.

6

Fields to Check to Determine if a Monograph is acceptable as-is; or if it gets Routed to Cat. Librarian

Field or Step Route if : Editing Action to Take

Search OCLC for copy No matching record

Two matching records: one serial bib and one monograph bib

Call number No complete LC call # (exception for a class together call #)

Bibliography, but not a Z call #

PZ3 or PZ4

Add year to call number if missing *Unless it’s a class together no. *Unless we already have dateless copies on the same bib

Check against catalog for “fit” – route to Catalog Librarian if it’s odd

040 contains $b with a language code other than “eng”

lacks $e rda

6xx fields no 6xx _0 fields Retain all fields

Encoding level

K, M, E, 2, 3, 5, 7, or 8. (Use your best judgment for “4” and “J”. Some of them may be fine.) Note that RDA Core and Full are EnLv blank

Type = a / (6) TYPE = a Any code that’s not “a”

BLvl = m / (5) Bib lvl = m Any code that’s not “m”

LANG in fixed field, and 008 field, position 29

Doesn’t match the main language of the book

1xx field Doesn’t match Check that it makes sense

245 field title or subtitle doesn’t match

there are misspellings

$b is missing

$c is missing

$c some names from $c aren’t in 1xx or 7xx fields

250 field Edition doesn’t match (ignore “Paperback edition” when it’s the only difference)

260 or 264 fields Doesn’t match

263 Delete

300 field Pagination is missing

Pagination differs more than 2 pages

Height is off by more than 1 cm

336-338 fields Route if lacking these fields..

Accept with or without $b

490, 440 or 830 Series is in a 490 0_

Series doesn’t match either a 4xx or an 8xx field

Series appears in bib, but doesn’t exist on piece.

Series treatment doesn’t match instructions in Authority Record.

Check KentLINK authority record, or OCLC authority record if there’s none in KentLINK, and follow instructions in it. For example, use class together call # if found on series authority record.

Follow instructions on p. 5 for series with no authority record, mixed treatment, or ambiguity

500 or 504 If book has bibl. refs or index, check that there is a note

Edit and replace records on OCLC to include bibl.refs. and/or index note, or tell a Catalog Librarian to do so

7

Update OCLC, for non- PromptCat records

Transfer to KentLINK Remove CATDATE if going to Catalog Librarian or to Contract Cataloging provider

Create item record

1

Kent State University Libraries: Cataloging Procedures

Copy Cataloging New Monographs: Fields to Check: AACR and Hybrid Records

Audience: primarily Kent Campus people, though most criteria are applicable in any library Scope: primarily newly-acquired books; though most criteria are applicable to older books and

other formats as well last revised 2013/10/01

There are records created under various cataloging standards in our databases, the main standards being RDA and AACR2. Hybrid records are non-RDA records that have had some RDA features added to them. This document pertains to non-RDA records, that is, to AACR and Hybrid records. All RDA records contain in the 040 field $e rda. If there is no 040 $e rda, then it is not an RDA record. If it is an AACR record with some or all of the following RDA features, it is called a Hybrid record:

• Relationship designators after access points (examples: $e author; $e editor of compilation) • Spelled-out words rather than abbreviations (examples: pages; color illustrations) • English words instead of Latin abbreviations (example: “Place of publication not identified” instead of

“S.l.”) • Complete statements of responsibility in 245 field (instead of “[et al.]”) • Inclusion of 336, 337, 338 fields

Search database (OCLC or KentLINK, as workflow requires), for the best matching bibliographic record. If the best matching record is an RDA record, see document, Copy Cataloging New Monographs: Fields to Check: RDA. Decide whether to Route Remember to remove CATDATE for all pieces routed to Catalog Librarians. Route the following to the “Needs Cataloging Attention” shelves for a Catalog Librarian to complete • Originals – No bibs found titles needing original cataloging (can’t find matching copy on OCLC) • Could be Serial, could be Monograph – Two bibs found titles that have both a serial bib and a monograph bib record • Encoding level copy with Encoding level that is less than full.

Less than full:. K, M, E, 2, 3, 5, 7, or 8. EnLv 4 and J: check additional fields as explained below; if any are missing or incorrect, route as

needed. EnLv 8: if the only information missing from a bibliographic record with encoding level 8 is the physical

description (300: pagination, ill., and height), and you know how to make the changes in AACR2 to both the 300 and the fixed field,, then do add the physical description to the OCLC bib record. Then replace. If you have any questions, ask a catalog librarian. If anything more than the physical description is needed, then route to the “Needs Cataloging Attention” shelf as usual.

FYI: Full = blank, letter I, L , 1 and 4 For explanations of all Encoding levels, see OCLC Bib Formats and Standards, Encoding Level http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/elvl.shtm

2

• 040 If the matching record has 040 $e rda, then refer to the document, Copy Cataloging New Monographs:

Fields to Check: RDA instead of this one. If cataloging copy is found where the 040 contains a $b with a language code other than eng, route to

catalog librarian (Notes and Subject headings will often be in a foreign language) Example: 040 PCL $b ger

If it passes the tests above, look for these miscellaneous situations. If encountered, route to catalog librarian:

• copy that is a translation into English from another language

• copy that has more than one language of text (example: some in English, some in French)

• copy that was published under a different title in the past

• copy for a book that includes accompanying material: a book with a CD, CD-ROM, or DVD, for example.

Check that the bib record has the following components. If missing or wrong, route to catalog

librarian.

• Bib lvl = m

• Type = a

• Language in fixed field (008 field, 29 and fixed field area) Route if it doesn’t match the main language of the book

• Call number 090 or 050. Route if: It doesn't have a complete LC-style call number (Typical class separately call numbers are composed

of: Classification number, one or two Cutters; plus new material has year of publication) Example: G155.A1|bP67 2008

If it has two LC call numbers It's a bibliography but lacks a Z number Its call number is PZ3 or PZ4

• 1xx Author

Route if it isn’t the same person or organization as on the book. Check that it makes sense Hybrid records may include relationship designators after the name, such as: $e author.

• 245 Title Route if title or subtitle doesn’t match what’s on the preferred source (title page) exactly, any word is

misspelled, or the subtitle is missing Route if names listed in the statement of responsibility aren't traced in 7xx fields Hybrid records may list all authors in the statement of responsibility, instead of the only first author

followed by “[et al.]”

3

• 250 Edition Route if the edition doesn't match. Ignore “Paperback edition.” when it’s the only difference.

• 260 or 264 Production, publication, distribution, manufacture, copyright information

Accept either 260 or 264 field (264 is the new standard) Note that multivolume sets and loose-leaf materials with multiple publishers can have multiple 260 fields.

Route if the place of publication or the publisher doesn’t match Route if the date doesn’t match.

Prior to mid-2012 the publication date plus the copyright date in RDA records often appeared like this: [2011], ©2011. From mid-2012 on, 264 fields are used in all new RDA records. Different indicators show what type of information follows. 2nd indicator 0 = production info 2nd indicator 1 = publishing info 2nd indicator 2 = distribution info 2nd indicator 3 = manufacturing info 2nd indicator 4 = copyright date Example: 264_1 New York, N.Y. : $b Bollingen Foundation, $c [1964] 264_2 New York, N.Y. : $b Distributed by Pantheon Books 264_4 $c ©1964

• 263 Projected date of publication Delete this; it isn’t needed once the book is published.

• 300 field Route if pagination is missing. Route if pagination is off by more than 2 pages or if height is off by more than 1 cm Hybrid records may have abbreviations spelled out (“pages” instead of “p.”; “color illustrations” instead

of “col. ill.”)

• 336-338 Content type, Media type and Carrier type

Hybrid records may contain fields 336 (content type), 337 (media type), and 338 (carrier type) do not appear. Accept with or without $b

For print monographs, these will appear as follows: 336 __ text $b txt $2 rdacontent 337 __ unmediated $b n $2 rdamedia 338 __ volume $b nc $2 rdacarrier

• 4xx or 8xx Series

Route to catalog librarian if the series is in a 490 0_ (490 1_ is acceptable), or the series on piece doesn’t match either a 4xx or an 8xx field, or the series appears in the bib, but doesn’t exist on the piece

4

Accept bibs that use either series practice: 440 alone; or the combination, 490 1_ + 8xx. See document on Intranet, “Series Checking for Catalogers” for instructions on what to do with series. Note about multiple practices: in the past, only a 440 was used to show that the series as it appeared on the piece matched the 1xx of the series authority record. The 440 is now obsolete. As of Nov. 2008, the 490 1_ is used to transcribe a traced series as it appears on the piece, and the 830 (or sometimes other 8xx field) contains the series as it is recorded in the authority record. Sometimes the 490 1_ and the 830 are identical.

• 500 or 504 Index and Bibliographical references notes If the book has bibliographical references and/or an index, but the record lacks a note about them, then

put in a generic note without pagination. Edit the fixed field also. SEE document Adding Bibliographical References and Index Notes to OCLC records for full instructions on adding these notes in Connexion Client

Examples 500 Includes index. 504 Includes bibliographical references. 504 Includes bibliographical references and index. Hybrid records may have abbreviations spelled out (“pages” instead of “p.”)

• Subject headings 6xx Route if it has no LC Subject Headings

Acceptable LCSH: 6xx _0

• 7xx Access Points Route if any names or corporate bodies that appear in the 245 $c do not have access points in either a 1XX or 7XX field. Hybrid records may include relationship designators after the name, such as: $e author.

• Other If anything else seems off-base or unusual, such as notes that don’t seem to describe the item in hand, then route it.

5

EDITING and CHECKING ACCEPTABLE COPY

Call number

1. Copy the call number, then perform a call number search in KentLINK using that call number

A. Make sure the call number of the piece you’re checking isn’t in use for a different work However, it is correct if the call number is in use for an earlier/later edition of the same work, and the only difference is the year of publication. B. Look at the subject headings of the bib records before and after the call number in

question and make sure they generally match the item in hand. 2. If the call number lacks a year on the end, add it Exceptions:

A. series that are classed together. Example: TT771 $b .A35 v. 5

B. Bib that already has item records for copies with no year in the call number, and you’re adding another copy. Leave year out of copy in hand in order to keep all copies consistent

Subject headings Retain all 6xx fields, even those that aren’t LC (e.g., 6xx _4 fields, 650 _2 fields (MeSH headings)

440 or 8xx Series For how to read Series Authority Records (SARs), and instructions on what to do when you find series,

See document on Intranet, “Series Checking for Catalogers” If the following situations occur, take action as instructed below: A. You notice that we own several titles in the same series that have no authority record (not time sensitive) Make a print out, note the situation, and put the print out in the box provided for series problems, which

is in the cataloging area. B. You notice that we own several titles in the same series, but treatment has been mixed: some have a class

together call number, while others have been classed separately (time sensitive) Consult a catalog librarian C. You find an authority record, but the instructions are unclear (time sensitive) Consult a catalog librarian

Final Action on Bib Records If the record is acceptable at Kent, update holdings on OCLC. Note that PromptCat records are already updated.

6

Fields to Check to Determine if a Monograph is acceptable as-is; or if it gets Routed to Cat. Librarian

Field or Step Route if : Editing Action to Take

Search OCLC for copy • No matching record • Two matching records: one serial bib and one monograph bib

Call number • No complete LC call # (exception for a class together call #)

• Bibliography, but not a Z call # • PZ3 or PZ4

• Add year to call number if missing *Unless it’s a class together no. *Unless we already have dateless copies on the same bib

• Check against catalog for “fit” – route to Catalog Librarian if it’s odd

040 • contains $b with a language code other than “eng”

6xx fields • no 6xx _0 fields • Retain all fields Encoding level

• K, M, E, 2, 3, 5, 7, or 8. (Use your best judgment for “4” and “J”. Some of them may be fine.)

Type = a / (6) TYPE = a • Any code that’s not “a”

BLvl = m / (5) Bib lvl = m • Any code that’s not “m”

LANG in fixed field, and 008 field, position 29

• Doesn’t match the main language of the book

1xx field and 7xx fields • Doesn’t match • Check that it makes sense 245 field • title or subtitle doesn’t match

• there are misspellings • $b is missing • $c is missing • $c some names from $c aren’t in 1xx or 7xx fields

250 field • Edition doesn’t match (ignore “paperback ed.” when it’s the only difference)

260 or 264 fields • Doesn’t match

263 • Delete 300 field • Pagination is missing

• Pagination differs by more than 2 pages • Height is off by more than 1 cm.

490, 440 or 830 • Series is in a 490 0_ • Series doesn’t match either a 4xx or an

8xx field

• Series appears in bib, but doesn’t exist on piece.

• Series treatment doesn’t match instructions in Authority Record.

• Check KentLINK authority record, or OCLC authority record if there’s none in KentLINK, and follow instructions in it. For example, use class together call # if found on series authority record.

• Follow instructions on p. 5 for series with no authority record, mixed treatment, or ambiguity

500 or 504 • If book has bibl. refs or index, check that there is a note

• Edit and replace records on OCLC to include bibl.refs. and/or index note, or tell a Catalog Librarian to do so

Update OCLC, for non- PromptCat records

Transfer to KentLINK Create item record

• Remove CATDATE if going to Catalog Librarian or to Contract Cataloging provider

pennsylvania integrated library system (pails) cataloging ......pails cataloging study, 2014 5...

Documents