1. Monographic Series Practices
Orbis Cascade Alliance Summer Meeting
July 9, 2014
Welcome, thanks for coming
Jim Bunnelle, (cohort 2) Acquisitions/Collection Development Librarian, Lewis and Clark College
Peggy Firman, (cohort 3) Associate Director for Resource Management Services, University of Puget Sound
Thanks to all the cohort 1 and 2 librarians and staff who spoke with me. Special thanks to Pauline Smith, Cataloging/Acquisitions at Eastern Washington University for giving me permission to share her procedures with you.
Just to get a sense of who is out there, how many of you associate yourselves with:
Collection Development
Cataloging
Acquisitions
Other
How many of you

2. Overview Survey: methodology and findings Most popular workflow
Alternative workflow
Issues to discuss
Alliance policies
Ongoing operations
Crowd view of best practice

3. Print monographic series
various types of monographic series
received as standing orders
cataloged separately from the series record, individually
Analyzed or cat sep
Examples:
Cambridge companion to literature
Anchor Bible
Clinics in developmental medicine
The type of monographic series that is under consideration is the type pictured above
Consideration is about physical items PRINT
We are not talking about volumes that will be added on as v. 1, v. 2 to the same bibliographic record
Sometimes have an unpredicatable pattern of publication. Usually have a unique title or subject coverage.
Each library has an opportunity to determine how they would handle: some might catalog as a continuing resource, others might catalog as individual titles with series.
My institution has 66 of these kind of titles, 1/3 classed together but cataloged under separate titles; the rest cataloged and classified separately.

4. Survey of Current Practices
Cohorts 1 and 2
Telephone interviews
Subjective at best
Random questioning of selectors
Spoke to representative at 18 cohort 1 and 2 schools (that includes Lewis and Clark Law as separate from Lewis and Clark)
Asked questions about TS workflow over telephone.
Occasionally responses were a bit confusing, as we are all still learning system and have different past practices. And occasionally, more elaborate workflows were actually spelled out in available documentation. I used the information from the telephone interview.
Also asked questions of collection development librarians in a random fashion

5. This chart reflects the 18 libraries surveyed.
2 of 18 libraries had no practice for this type of material
in one case the library has done away with this kind of workflow: all electronic
in another case, there just has not been time to develop this practice
2 libraries indicated they had not yet fully established practice
in one case the library has a rough process: it is just not fully worked it through
in other case there has been a lot of thought and planning: the workflow has not been fully implemented
This brings the number of libraries down from 18 to 14 libraries with determined process. I used these libraries to measure the “findings.” Here are some basic observiations
in some cases there is a lot of reliance on the way things “used to be done in Millennium” especially since libraries are mostly dealing with migrated data. Most libraries had not yet established a “new” standing order native to Alma from the very beginning.
additionally, I found some contradictions in written workflows, but went ahead with the findings from the telephone interviews

6. Using the data from 14 libraries with established practices
12 libraries currently use the IZ brief record for the series record
2 more libraries use IZ brief record and sometimes a full NZ record
1 library reports using only NZ full records for the series record
1 library does not use a series record at all (treated the mono series as a firm order once it arrived)

7. Of the 12 libraries that use IZ brief records for the series record, 11 of 12 suppress the brief record.
1 library maintains display of the brief record for the series in Primo.

8. Summary of findings (14 libraries)
8 libraries appear to use the essentially the same practice
2 libraries use the same practice much of the time, but also sometimes use full bib records
3 libraries use similar processes with slight variations
2 libraries treat monographic series as firm orders
Out of 14 libraries
8 libraries appear to use the same practice of using a brief suppressed IZ for the monographic series record, cataloging the title on a separate full bib record and associating the poline from the series to the individual title record.
Of those 8, 2 libraries use the same practice much of the time, but occasionally use full bib records for the series title in which case they do not suppress the record.
3 libraries use brief IZ records with slight variations from the practice followed by the 8 libraries
2 libraries treat monographic series as firm orders, tracking the money on the individual title. In one case there is no mono series record at all. In the other case the record is there as a placeholder: there is no association back to the series.
1 library had inconsistent data about its process

9. Demonstration of Most Popular Workflow
Jim Bunnelle has agreed to demonstrate the most popular workflow used by Alliance libraries

10. Alternative workflow (establish series)
Find a full bibliographic record for the series in NZ or import from OCLC to NZ.
Create one holdings record to assign library, location (and call number if classed together)
Create one “dummy” item record so the series will display as available in Primo.
Do not suppress series from Primo display
Find a full bibliographic record for the series by searching in the IZ, then the NZ, then OCLC. If you cannot find a full bibliographic record for the series in NZ or OCLC, you will have to create a brief record in the NZ and then ask cataloging staff to overlay it with a full record (original cataloging) (refer to appropriate overlay policies document) When this record is chosen, if you are manually updating holdings on OCLC, you will need to do so for this series record, as it will display in Primo.
Create a holdings record on the series record to assign library and location. If the series is classed together you can also list call number. You only need one holdings record per location, so you do not need to create new ones beyond the first time.
Create dummy item record so the series will display as available in Primo. You should only need to do this one time as well: but depending on what you put in the dummy item record, you may need to edit it. Examples of dummy item record messages:
Vols. 1-53, 60--
Each title cataloged separately. To locate, ask librarian.
Each title cataloged separately. Search series title

11. Alternative workflow (receiving)
Has purchase type of Print book—Standing order
Find the pol by searching the series title in “all” under search for po line (or by pol if it appears on invoice)
Receive using pol from series record. Pass on to cataloging
Not received through the Alma receiving workbench: has purchase type of Print book—Standing order
Find the pol for the series by searching the series title in “all” under search for po line (or by pol if it appears on invoice). You will want to confirm this is the correct pol for the sereis
Receive the new title on the series records. Pass on to cataloging or proceed to do the next cataloging steps as complies with the workflow followed by your institution.

12. Alternative workflow (catalog sep)
Search individual title in IZ, NZ, then OCLC to find the individual title record
Edit with ME to:
Add holdings (library, location, call number)
Add item (mat. Type= book; received date and barcode; enter po line using the PO line number from the series record)
If you are manually updating holdings in OCLC, you will need to do that as well.
Proceed to catalog the separate title as you would a standard firm order in your library, assuming you will not find a bib record already existing in the IZ for this title.
The important difference from a standard firm order is that when you create the item, you will be entering the po line number from the series record onto this item.
If you have questions, please Ask people to review the handout from EWU for questions

13. Review of Current Policies
Currently there are several places to go to find policy. I would recommend you head to the last option here, which has all the policies that apply to this discussion.
The first page is Silsdocs. This is password protected page. You should not need access as it may be only a working site.
The second page is from the Alliance website: I don’t know how to get there except know it is there. No indication from landing page that this page actually exists. And a search on “policies” in the search box does not bring it up.
The third page is from the Alliance website: under Programs, Technical Services. You will find policies and procedures.

14. 5 Alliance Policies that may Apply
Policy Decision on In-Process Brief Bibliographic Records in Alma
“…all new in-process brief bibliographic records added to Alma will be created in or imported to the NZ”
Policy on Suppression of Physical Inventory
“in the NZ,…suppress bib records at the holdings level only…”
In-Process Brief Bibliographic Records in Alma 6/10/2013 (CTST Acquisitions WG > SILS Acquisitions WG>SILS Implementation Team)
intended for newly ordered items. Emphasizes standardization and increased collaborative technical services
--existing in process brief bib records will be loaded into IZ
--to encourage future collaboration and minimize duplication, all new in-process brief bibligrahic records will be created in or imported to the Network Zone
Policy on suppression of Physical Inventory (CTST 11/12/2013)
Focusing on records in the NZ and their display in Primo. Only IZ records can be suppressed at the bib level

15. 5 Alliance Policies that may Apply
Policy on Minimum Acquisitions Data
“Bib records must be selected from existing NZ records, or imported into the NZ…or created in the NZ manually”
Principles for Working in Alma and the Network Zone
“the goal is to have bib records, brief or full, reside in the NZ with inventory attached”
Alliance Policy on Overlay in Alma
“brief records for new orders also go in the NZ…”
Policy on Minimum Acquisitions Data (CTST 1/21/2014)
Rationale: to avoid unnecessary duplication, to allow libraries to make acquisitions data based on most current and accurate data and to support increased collaborative Tech Services and cooperative Collection development between Alliance libraires.
After migration to Alma, all Alliance libraries must create POLs in Alma at the point of ordering. Bib records msut be selected from existing NZ records or imported into the NZ from an outside source, or created in the NZ manually.
Principles for Working in Alma and the Network Zone (CTST 2/25/2014)
Sets out the overarching principles regarding working in the Network zone. When specific policies are not yet in place, libraries should act in line with these principles.
The first bullet is: the goal is to have bib records, brief or full, reside in the NZ with inventory attached”
Alliance Policy on Overlay in Alma 3/21/2014 (CTST)
The NZ contains fully cataloged bibs representing the holdings of all alliance libraries. It is Alliance policy that newly cataloged titles go in the NZ in order to facilitate cooperative collection development and collaborative technical services. Brief records for new orders also go in the NZ, but brief records that existed in Millennium were migrated to each institutions, IZ

16. Questions for Discussion
Migrated data vs Newly created data
5 Alliance policies clearly state that new brief records with orders should appear in the NZ. Not specified are whether those brief records are for single title purchases or for continuations/series. Clearly fully cataloged titles are to appear in the NZ
Does having different processes for dealing with migrated data and new data make sense over time?
the big issues likely will be:
creating the initial serial record (possibly requiring cataloging input?)
developing processes for “dummy items”?
explaining to selectors why the serial record sometimes displays and sometimes doesn’t, either in Alma or in Primo
What are your thoughts on this?
Should we go back and upgrade the cataloging for existing series in our collections? (Assuming this would be desired so that we will not end up with duplication of briefs in NZ)

17. Questions for Discussion
What might be the benefits or drawbacks to displaying series records, even brief ones?
The Alliance policies do not really address the issue of series and the fact that Acquisitions has traditionally hung standing order records on series/continuation bibs. In the majority of instances, there will be records for the series in OCLC. In some cases, there aren’t.
If the goal is collaborative technical services and collaborative collection development, what process should we as an Alliance follow? Why?
Each library has the option to chose whether to analyze (cat and class sep) individual volumes. Does having the both the series record and the individual record available in Primo cause problems for users or selectors?
If there is no full record in OCLC, who is going to do the cataloging for this series?

18. Questions for Discussion
If we go ahead with unsuppressed records in Primo for full or brief standing orders, should a library be able to choose to suppress its order information or item information? Do we all have to do things the same way?
If we go ahead with unsuppressed records in Primo for full or brief standing orders, should a library be able to chose to suppress its order information or item information? Do we all have to do things the same way?

19. Questions for Discussion
Selectors are looking in Summit
Selectors are looking in GOBI
Selectors are looking in Summit (Worldcat Local right now)
Selectors are looking in GOBI
How much do our processes in Alma affect their work?
We don’t know precisely what Summit in Ex Libris will look like, but presumably a bit like Primo. In our trial Primo, but not our live version, we had a rollover that allowed us to know how many libraries held a title. But that particular functionality would not be of much assistance with series titles, since the precise holdings are unlikely to be easily viewable. And they can’t tell when something is coming in as a standing order vs as a firm order.
Moreover, when one library chooses to analyze series, one library chooses to use only a series record and one library purchases only a firm order it will not be clear to the selector what is really going on. Does it make sense to draw up some Alliance wide “authorities” for certain kinds of titles, received as standing orders by libraries. For example:
--All Cambridge Companions for Literature will be cataloged individually.
--All Anchor Bible title swill be cataloged individually
--Methods in Enzymology will be cataloged only as a series.
What do you think?

20. Thank you!
Thank you for your time, attention and participation.