1. 1 Regina Romano Reynolds Post-ALA New Orleans update June 28, 2006 Regina Romano Reynolds Post-ALA New Orleans update June 28, 2006 The Access Level Record for Serials 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 TaskAttribute RelationshipValueData elementValueMARC element

7. Mandatory Elements  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)

8. What’s Omitted?  006 and 007: all but 1 st 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. Is there a change in meaning or subject matter in the title that would require new subject headings? Is there a change in the first five words that is not a minor change (as defined in AACR21.2A2)? Is there a different corporate body in the title? MAJOR CHANGE MAJOR CHANGE MAJOR CHANGE MINOR CHANGE YES NO Title Change Analysis* * Rules of thumb; “cheat sheet”

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. 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% Time to Create Original Records

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 3 rd or 4 th 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. Pilot Project Participants  Columbia  Harvard  Library and Archives Canada  GPO  Library of Congress  U Washington  NAL  NLM  Oklahoma State  Stanford/U Florida  UCLA  U Chicago  U Georgia

40. Working Group  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 * Data analysis group