1998 Serials Forum

As promised at the December 2 Serials Forum, the Serials Team collected all of the questions and comments raised and is now posting them with answers, commentary and--for issues 2 and 3--our recommendations. We hope you will look over the points below and share your feelings with any of the team. Based on the comments we hear, we will make a final recommendation to the OPAC Screen Design Group for implementing some of the changes.

We have decided that rather than hold a follow-up, formal presentation on intrepreting the BobCat serials display, we will do the following:

1. Create a serials FAQ and interpretive guide that will be available on the Web.
2. Develop an in-person, formal, organized introduction to serials that would be offered to all new librarians and interested staff.
3. Work with appropriate individuals to be sure that all BobCat Guides, Information Guides and Research Bulletins include accurate, up-to-date information about searching for and intrepreting serial records.
4. Encourage all BobCat users to send questions concerning serials, serials displays, etc. to Arno. Working with Everett, Marie and Breon, and Bill, we will get answers and then post the question and answer on the lists.

1. ISSN NUMBER APPEARS ON INDEX SCREEN.
   With the Related Works option, when we select the option to see former or continuing serial titles, we would like the ISSN number to be masked from the index screen display since the ISSN number is just going to confuse users. Bill says we can do this w hen we do another "zipdex"-- which will be summer 1999.
2. "ALL" OPTION.
   There seemed to be a general consensus that the "ALL" option should beeliminated or reworded. Currently the sentences say:
   
   "Use the ALL option for information about all items. Use the Item# option for information about specific item(s)."
   
   
   1. Is this meaningful to most users?
   2. Is it useful?--don't most patrons want to know what is in a particular library?-and if they are interested in what is in other libraries they can still ask for it library by library
   3. It takes up two lines of valuable real estate.
   4. Could we at least change the wording?
   
   
   

   Bill says that we can change the text of this line(s), but there MUST be some kind of text here--it is "hard-coded" on the screen.
   
   

   Suggested wordings:

   1. Type Item# (see below) for information on individual library's holdings (issues rec'd), in bindery, etc. Use ALL to find the same information for all libraries listed.
   2. Use Item# option for holdings at a specific location. Use ALL option for holdings at all location.
   3. Use Item# option for detailed recent holdings for a library. Use ALL option for holdings at all libraries.
   
   
   
3. "SEE LIBRARY HAS FOR A COMPLETE LISTING OF HOLDING LIBRARIES" NOTE
   
   1. Could we eliminate this note?-- YES. We added this note in the early days of ADVANCE when there was not a lot of below- the-dotted line, recent check-in information. Now that all libraries and branches except Cooper Union are doing online check-in t here is recent check-in information below the line in addition to the summary holdings information above the dotted line.
   2. Could it be moved to the bottom of the screen?--NO.
   3. Could it be moved immediately below the dotted line?--NO.
   4. Should the wording be changed to: See "LIBRARY HAS" note above for summary of holdings"? Or For detailed recent holdings listed see below; for summary of holdings see LIBRARY HAS note above Or something else??
   5. Will Geac release 6.8 take care of this problem?--Perhaps, we will learn more about 6.8 soon.
   6. Can the Library Has information be moved closer to the check-in information--since it is really holdings information.--NO.
   
   
   ****THE SERIALS TEAM RECOMMENDS THAT THIS NOTE BE ELIMINATED.****
   
   
4. ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT ELECTRONIC ACCESS.(Science weekly was the example)
   Marie, Breon, Everett and Arno are meeting this month to look for ways to improve sharing of information so that cataloging records correctly reflect access.
5. DETAILED SCREEN DISPLAY OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE A SERIAL ISINDEXED (MARC FIELD 510).
   Much discussion on this one. We all agreed that this informationis extremely useful--but useful only if accurate. It is extremely labor-intensive to collect indexing information and update the cataloging record. Furthermore the information is so dynami c that it could be a full-time job just to monitor and update indexing information. Consensus was to leave the information on the MARC record but no longer display the information on the Detailed Screen.
6. PRINT VS MICRO HOLDINGS
   The assumption in the LIBRARY HAS field is that holdings are in printform unless otherwise indicated. Suggestion was made to add "Paper" or Print" to indicate print format, but there was general agreement that this would not be useful, would take up even more space on the screen, and could not be a global, automatic change--would require cataloging staff to edit each record.
7. ONE RECORD VS SEPARATE RECORDS FOR EACH FORMAT OF A SERIAL
   Along with LC and most other libraries, NYU is moving toward the one-record approach. We are merging separate records on a project-by-project basis: All-Caps records (caused by the migration to ADVANCE), Microform Records, and Electronic Resources. For electronic resources, a title added entry with (Online) added to the title will appear on the index screen when patrons do a journal title search, so they will know immediately that electronic access is available.
8. CALL NUMBERS FOR ELECTRONIC RESOURCES.
   A call number makes patrons think it is a shelvable item and look for it in the stacks. On the other hand, assigning call number allows the title to be searchable in a call number browse and is useful for collection development purposes. When we first st arted cataloging ER's in 1995 we did not assign call numbers, but went back and classified everything when we realized the benefits of a call number.
9. REPEAT OF "HTTP" IN THE ELECTRONIC ACCESS FIELD
   Bill has fixed this problem.
10. NEED FOR A PRINTED LIST OF A-LEVEL PERIODICALS
    To the surprise of some attending, we already have a printed alphabetical list of all currently subscribed journals. The list includes only journal name and call number--holdings are not listed. Ref1, Ref6 and the Info Desk have a list covering all journals whose current receipts are shelved on A-Level; . Ref9 and Ref6 also have a list of science journals. The lists are updated three times a year.
11. DISPLAY OF ITEM-LEVEL INFORMATION FOR CIRCULATING SERIALS IS CONFUSING.
    Yes, it is, because the display is determined by several variables:

    Does more than one library hold the title? Is the serial currently subscribed at any or all libraries? Are all of the holding libraries using the Geac serials module     and thus capable of adding a copyset (check-in record)--Cooper Union and     N-YHS are two sites not using the serials module). Do all holding libraries circulate their bound volumes? Has a holding library made a copyset even though they are not doing check-in? (Some libraries are doing this for dead serials, and it causes problems for other holding libraries)

    If you look at Journal of Statistical Physics, you see a currently- received journal commonly held by Courant and Bobst, where Courant circulates its bound volumes. If you choose the ALL option, or the Bobst or Courant items, you are given recent receivi ng history. On the Receiving History screen, if you choose the Item history option at the bottom, you are given the Item History display which lists screen after screen of all bound Courant volumes and their circulating status, followed at the end by a single item for Bobst (which does not ciruclate its bound volumes)
    
    In the case of the dead journal Modern Publicity, a copyset was created but no check-in was done so there is no receiving history. The Item History screen, however, shows a listing of all bound, circulating volumes. A copyset without check-in history, however, prevents other libraries from displaying their circulating holdings. The solution to this problem is to consistently follow the policy of not adding inactive copysets to records.
12. "LAST REC'D" INFORMATION IS DISPLAYED EVEN LONG AFTER A SERIAL DIES OR IS UNSUBSCRIBED
    This is a Geac "feature"--the "last rec'd" item information stays as long as we keep the copyset--and until recently it was our policy to keep the copyset because that is our item-level listing of holdings. Because this "last rec'd" note creates so much confusion, acqusitions abandoned this policy last year and now deletes the copyset after transcibing holdings into an acquisitions note. Transcribing the information to a note is a labor-intensive process, but but Acquisitions staff is doing this in the interest of creating a clearer record.
13. IN LIBRARY HAS FIELD, HOLDING LIBRARIES SOMETIMES APPEAR OUT OF ALPHABETICAL ORDER
    This is an inputting error. Examples should be reported to Everett for correction.
14. DISSATISFACTION WITH LABELS:
          TITLE
          FORMER TITLE
          CONTINUED BY
    Does this confuse users? Can anyone think of clearer wording?
15. HYPHENATED SPELLING "PERIOD-ICAL".
    This is a holdover of the days when we were producing shelflist cards and were limited to 8- characters for the call number. As Everett and Marion come upon them they can correct, but there is no global fix.

Serials Team:

Everett Allgood

Suzanne Fedunok

Carol Hutchins

Bill Jones

Arno Kastner

Rebecka Lindau

Ann Snoeyenbos

Marie Spina