The Access Level Record for Serials

1. The Access Level Record for Serials Regina Romano Reynolds Post-ALA New Orleans update June 28, 2006 Note: the statistics included in this presentation are in the process of being finalized for the written final project report to the PCC.

2. “I like the idea of simplifying records; it helps the average patron to have a cleaner, uncluttered looking record; and it helps those who work on and with the records to pare down non-essentials.” “…most users don’t look at all the extra stuff we put in [records] anyway.” Survey responses from reference staff

3. “I am a fanatic for detail; I need to have, or feel that I have, every possible detail in order to do the best work. Probably in 99 out of 100 reference desk transactions, an access level record would be sufficient; but I still prefer to have as much detail as possible.” Survey response from a reference librarian

4. Project Objectives • Develop a single “CONSER-standard” record; a floor not a ceiling; able to function in local and shared systems • More cost-effective to create & maintain; quicker and easier to train staff to create • Compatible with current standards • Applicable to ALL resources, not just “e”

5. A Structured, Collaborative Process • Build the record based on user needs • Evaluate core data set of elements using FRBR tasks • Determine mandatory element set: primarily only elements receiving a value of “high” • Brainstorm and develop cataloging guidelines • Test via pilot projects • Revise based on pilot results

6. Core Data Set for Access Level MARC/AACR2 Records 1. FIND a specific resource User Task Attribute Relationship Value Data element Value MARC element

7. Selected Leader and Fixed Field codes Control or ID #s: (ISSN, LCCN, CODEN) and 042 code Main entry Abbreviated title Titles: title proper, variant, former titles Edition statement Publisher Place (in limited cases) Extent (non-text only) Current frequency Date/designation (all unformatted) Specified notes: source of title, DBO, LIC, reproduction, system details (limited), language, index Subject & Name a.e.’s Most linking fields Series a.e.’s URLs (as specified) Mandatory Elements

8. What’s Omitted? • 006 and 007: all but 1st 2 bytes • 008 22: except for microforms • Distinguishing Uniform Titles (except with generic titles) • Other title information, Stmts. of Resp. (generally) • Parallel titles from 245 (retained in 246) • Place of publication generally (later reinstated) • A.E.s that duplicate linking fields • Extent unless non-print • Formatted 362 (all will be unformatted) • Many notes, including 321, 580, 550, 440 730, 740, 787

9. Cataloging Guidelines Goals • Eliminate or minimize redundancies • Use system display capabilities more fully • Guidance for cataloger decision-making • Allow for omitted elements (e.g., place) to be supplied in future by publishers or others • Make records clearer for users • “Floor” approach: “It is not required to…”

10. Guidance for Catalogers • Establishing corporate headings • Preferred solutions and “if in doubt” help about forms of headings, subordination • Guidance on qualifying headings • Major/minor changes • Rules of thumb for problematic situations • Title change analysis

11. Title Change Analysis* Is there a change in meaning or subject matter in the title that would require new subject headings? YES MAJOR CHANGE NO MINOR CHANGE YES Is there a change in the first five words that is not a minor change (as defined in AACR21.2A2)? MAJOR CHANGE NO MINOR CHANGE YES MAJOR CHANGE Is there a different corporate body in the title? NO * Rules of thumb; “cheat sheet” MINOR CHANGE

12. Preliminary Pilot Project Results:Cataloging Phase

13. Summary Cataloging Phase Data • 38 catalogers at 12 institutions • 327 records created over 5 weeks: • 167 access • 160 control • 256 (78.3%) original; 71 (21.7%) copy • Average # of records/cataloger: 8.9 • Mean # of records/cataloger: 8

14. Time to Create Original Records • Bibliographic Descriptions Only • Average time for 148 access records: 25.4 min. • Average time for 136 control records: 31.8 min. • Time savings: 6.3 minutes/record = 20% • Complete Records • (including subject analysis, authority control) • Average time for 67 access records: 37.3 min. • Average time for 65 control records: 45.7 min. • Time savings: 8.4 minutes/record = 18%

15. % Time Saved, by Institution* Average time saved on description of 8 titles done in common: 25.7% *HUL, NLC FUG/STF, omitted due to data collection problems

16. The Learning Curve • Access record #1 took longer than control record #1 • Marked improvement occurred after 3rd or 4th access level record • Control record times had wider variations • Record times can be expected to improve as access level records become more routine

17. Minutes

18. Access level records are projected to save 20-25% of the time needed to create complete serial records

19. Pilot project factors • 8 titles cataloged by all institutions + 12 “institution-specific” • Some common titles (e.g. online, medicine) not usually cataloged by some project catalogers • Some catalogers worked in unfamiliar systems (e.g., NLM on OCLC) • Project design and instructions—in addition to access level record-- were unfamiliar

20. Comments from catalogers • “Liberating!” (multiple catalogers from different institutions) • No serious negatives; guidelines worked well, need some expansion, examples • Learning curve • “easier…since it does not require extensive notes…” • “no question, access level records take less time to create… adequate? I’ll be interested…”

21. Possible reasons for time savings • 22.8% omitted a uniform title needed on control record • 32.9% were online serials where place can be time-consuming to find • Removal of “fear factor”/ agonizing some catalogers have about creating full CONSER standard records in OCLC

22. Applicability to copy • Correct data retained; incorrect/outdated/mis-leading data that would not be provided in access level record removed • E.g., Former frequency • E.g., Former system requirements • Full records used as access copy can result in odd mixtures of included and omitted data • As more records begin as access, or will be maintained at access level, inconsistencies should be minimized over time

23. Control Record

24. Access Level Record

25. Pilot Project Results:Record Review Phase

26. Summary Reviewer Data • 88 reviewers at 13 institutions • 36 reference staff (41%) • 20 acquisitions staff (23%) • 12 systems staff (13%) • 20 “other” (23% cataloging staff, supervisors, etc.)

27. Biggest Success: A win, win, win! Unformatted 362 (all beginning and ending info: “Began with… ended with”) • Easier for patrons and library staff to understand (will not be confused with holdings information) • Quicker for catalogers to construct • Easier to train catalogers to create

28. Biggest Concern • Removal of mandatory place of publication (260 subfield a) –since replaced • Particularly problematic when accompanied by no distinguishing uniform title (130) • 42.1% of reviewers noted missing place as an adverse impact

29. 72%

30. 66%

31. Record Acceptance by Job Category (if place of publication were made mandatory) * *“Other” = cataloger, supervisor, curator, miscellaneous titles

32. Access level record acceptance • If place had not been omitted, ca. 66% - 72% of reviewers would have found the access level record acceptable • Place is now mandatory in most cases; guidelines to be provided: • Multiple places • Online serials • Commercial, multinational publishers

33. Other concerns • Complex titles require more information • Could result in need to retrieve material to distinguish one title from another • May not be sufficient for scholarly research • Lack of cross-checks, e.g., justification of added entries • Training of future catalogers to a lower standard could impede their knowing when to go beyond access requirements

34. “I’m not concerned about UCLA as long as we have Melissa and Valerie, but I hope implementation of access level does not lead to poorer serials cataloging elsewhere.”UCLA reviewer

35. What Lies Beneath…

36. OPAC Display

37. Display! Display! Display! • Many comments concerned display issues, not cataloging issues • Better displays could save cataloging time (redundant keying, show place, body, to distinguish titles in lists) • Better displays (e.g, suppression of non-public data, addition of elements to indexes) would result in better reviewer acceptance

38. Next steps • Review by CONSER Operations group--positive! • Prepare final report to PCC by July 21 • Obtain PCC approval • Recommend changes to MARBI, AACR2/RDA • Implementation preparation (as of 06/24/06) • Recommended name: The CONSER record • Target implementation date: Oct. 1, 2006 • Determine encoding level and authentication code simplifications with BIBCO reps • Prepare a single compact document that combines element set + guidelines + examples • Training: CONSER reps to do locally; ALA Midwinter CRCC meeting

39. Columbia Harvard Library and Archives Canada GPO Library of Congress U Washington NAL NLM Oklahoma State Stanford/U Florida UCLA U Chicago U Georgia Pilot Project Participants

40. Diane Boehr, NLM, co-chair * Regina Reynolds, LC, co-chair * Hien Nguyen, LC, CONSER ex officio William Anderson, LC Melissa Beck, UCLA Edith Gewertz, NYPL Carolyn Larson, LC (reference) Kristin Lindlan, U Wash Peter McCracken, Serials Solutions * Vanessa Mitchell, CSA (formerly Bowker) Tina Shrader, NAL * Steve Shadle, U Wash * Diana Snigorowitz, LC Working Group * Data analysis group