2010, the Year of Cataloging Research

In a guest editorial for Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Allyson Carlyle discusses the ALCTS Implementation Task Group on the LCWG Report's declaration that 2010 will be the year of cataloging research. She encourages library-related organizations to promote programs on cataloging research. She also mentions several way individuals can contribute:

• Generate and share inspiring research ideas;
• Do your own research;
• Present and publish your research;
• Encourage and support others doing research (fill out those email surveys);
• Read research papers and articles on bibliographic control;
• Organize a research program or other event on bibliographic control at a conference you attend;
• Spread the word-let everyone interested in cataloging, catalogs, metadata, bibliographic control of any sort know about it;
• Attend programs on cataloging research at ALA and other conferences.

Read the complete editorial in Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, vol. 47, issue 8 (Nov. 2009), pages 687-690.
DOI: 10.1080/01639370903223901

Information on the Repeatable 260 Field

The Library of Congress has announced its plans for implementing the repeatability of the MARC 21 260 field. The Library of Congress and Program for Cooperative Cataloging plan to implement the changes on September 1, 2009. Guidelines for the repeatable 260 field (to account for publication data that changes over time) are now available.

2010 NASIG Conference - Call for Proposals and Ideas

NASIG 25th Annual Conference
An Oasis in Shifting Sands: NASIG at 25
June 3-6, 2010
Palm Springs, California

The 2010 Program Planning Committee (PPC) invites proposals and/or program ideas for pre-conference, vision, strategy, and tactics sessions. The Program Planners are interested in hearing from publishers, vendors, librarians, and others in the field of serials and electronic resources about issues relating to scholarly communication, publishing, licensing, and cataloging.

This Call for Proposals will close on September 25, 2009. Inquiries may be sent to the PPC co-chairs, Morag Boyd and Anne Mitchell at: prog-plan@nasig.org

To propose a program or idea, please use the online form.

Please keep in mind the following:

• The Program Planning Committee will review all submitted proposals for their content and timeliness.
• PPC will treat all submissions as suggestions and guideposts. PPC may work with potential presenters to blend or refocus proposals to maximize their relevance to attendees and avoid duplication.
• Proposals should name any particular products or services that will be the focus of a presentations, but keep in mind that programs should not promote a specific institution, product, or service.
• Proposals based on descriptive and experimental research findings are encouraged.
• Time management issues generally limit each session to two speakers. Panels of four (4) or more speakers must be discussed in advance with the PPC (prog-plan@nasig.org)
• Proposals may be suggested as one type of session and/or format and ultimately be accepted as any one of the other types of sessions or formats; this decision is the purview of the Program Planning Committee.
• Vision and Strategy speakers presenting original content are required to produce a written paper for the conference proceedings.
• NASIG has a reimbursement policy for conference speakers whose organizations do not cover expenses. Details about reimbursement are available on the NASIG website.
• The Program Planning Committee hopes to notify applicants of the status of their proposals in December 2009.

We look forward to seeing you in Palm Springs!
- Morag Boyd and Anne Mitchell, NASIG PPC Co-Chairs

"E-Journal Cataloging in an Age of Alternatives: A Survey of Academic Libraries" by Xiaotian Chen and Stephen Wynn

Chen and Wynn present the results of a survey of 72 U.S. academic libraries on cataloging practices for electronic journals. The survey covered various aspects including if e-journals are cataloged, what percentage, the use of batch loading, if holdings are reported to OCLC, reasons why e-journals are not cataloged, other services for accessing e-journals, the use of A-to-Z lists and OpenURL link resolvers, and future plans to change policies or procedures. Respondents were also asked to identify persistent problems/issues with e-journal cataloging and to anticipate future trends. The researchers found that most libraries who are cataloging their e-journals are satisfied with their policies. They also found that some libraries think cataloging is unnecessary and predict that "this sentiment will grow, especially as new tools become more widely adopted."

Chen and Wynn's article can be found in The Serials Librarian, vol. 57, issue 1 & 2 (July 2009), pages 96-110.

"Serial or Monograph: Who Decides?" by Kathy Carter

Carter's article discusses the monograph versus serial question for online resources, specifically looking at cases where a library owns both print and online versions of the resource. She outlines the pros and cons of monographic and serial treatment, presents a brief survey of the cataloging practices of a sample of ARL libraries (for a single title), and provides sample OPAC screenshots to illustrate the information users are given in a results list for various cataloging practices. Cataloging decisions are complicated by the publisher's decision on how to present the titles, the availability of MARC record sets, and how the title is treated in the library's link resolver's knowledgebase.

Carter's article is available in The Serials Librarian, vol. 57, issue 1 & 2 (July 2009), pages 87-95.

"How the Current Draft of RDA Addresses the Cataloging of Reproductions, Facsimiles, and Microforms" by Steven A. Knowlton

Knowlton's article discusses the "multiple versions problem" (sometimes called the MulVer problem) that arises when cataloging reproductions. He provides a brief overview of how reproductions have been handled under various cataloging codes. He then discusses how RDA, with its basis in FRBR principles, will deal wtih the MulVer problem. While the proposed new cataloging code may help to clarify relationships between originals and reproductions, Knowlton argues that, "RDA as currently designed is challenging for the cataloger and includes many data that may prove to be difficult for catalog users to understand."

Read Knowlton's article in Library Resources & Technical Services, vol. 53, no. 3 (July 2009), pages 159-165.

"ISSN-L: A New Standard Means Better Links" by Oliver Pesch

Pesch's column, "Spotlight on Serials Standards," takes a look at the ISSN-L. He gives an overview of the history of the development of the new standard and explains its benefits.

See The Serials Librarian, vol. 57, issue 1 & 2 (2009), pages 40-47.