Date: August 14, 1997

Serials Cataloging has instituted the following policy on "journal monographs": regular issues of journals that have been either ordered as monographs, or pulled out from a serial run by a bibliographer or other selector, and sent to the Section with a request for analysis (monographictreatment). The same criteria apply to issues sent to the Authority Control Librarian with a similar request.

A. For regularly received issues of serials that are pulled out to be analyzed, Serials Cataloging will record a decision on the MFHL of the serial cover record, which will also be transmitted to CSR to put on the Innopac record, Analyze on Request. This means that we will analyze only what we are requested to. If selectors wish to signal special treatment for specific forthcoming issues, the Innopac record might be flagged during the order process to have a specific issue sent to the Analytics Unit. It should be noted that 50% (or slightly more) of these would probably require original cataloging.

B. For duplicates of serial issues that are ordered as monographs, we have two basic situations: 1) the exact same journal issue or a slightly variant edition that still bears the series title 2) a monograph with the same content and title but published separately with or without a note on the piece "Also published in (series)".

For these:

-- issues in category 1 should normally be added to the serial as an added copy of the piece involved, and should also be analyzed in the Analytics Unit as an "On Request" with a staff note on the cover record and an Innopac note according to the procedures in Section A. A variant edition note may need to be added to holdings for the added copy. If the format or cataloging information varies widely from the first copy, the Unit may have to send the item for separate cataloging and classification, but should still institute an "On Request" analytic note.

-- issues in category 2 should be classed separately by Monographic Cataloging with a note/added entry explaining that the title also appeared as part of the serial. (A hazard here: SILS wants all duplicates of Haworth titles added as copy 2 of the issue and shelved with the journal. Please, therefore, send all Haworth journal reprints to the Analytics Unit.)

C. For issues ordered as monographs where we do not have the serial, whether or not there is monographic copy:

Serials Cataloging will make a local-only series authority record, bearing a title and a 680 note explaining that the serial is not held and any future issues should be sent to Monographic Cataloging for separate classification.

The following routing should be instituted for the categories above:

A (standing orders, issues flagged for analytics) continues to come to Analytics Unit.

B1 (duplicates of journal issues ordered as monographs) comes to Analytics Unit

B2 (serial is held, but issue reads only"Also published in [series], or bears no series) goes to Copy Cataloging for first search. Eventually many of them will go to Original Cataloging. Exception: All Haworth journal reprints go to Analytics Unit.

C (serial is not held, the item is a journal issue, proceedings with distinctive title, etc. serial copy is found) comes to Serials Cataloging the first time. Authority record will instruct that future issues be routed to Copy Cataloging for first search as monographs. Eventually many of these will end up at Original Cataloging. Serials Cataloging may have to recatalog certain of these if they become standing orders or if we acquire issues that lack monographic titles, but otherwise the separate classification decision should be presumed to stand.

Rationale for policy:

Many staff members are unsure of themselves in handling items which could be part of a serial. Even those charged with deciding how to class an item may wonder on what basis the decision should be made. It is unclear whether the prominence of the two titles (monographic and serial), the currency of the title, or its order status should be the basis of the decision. We have decided that matters will be easiest for all if we regard the way the material was ordered as the paramount criterion for a classification decision. If we have the serial, the material should be added to the serial and analyzed-as long as the material was published in the serial. If we do not have the serial, or if the material was not published in the serial but as a separate edition, we should class the material separately.

The bibliographers and the Head of Searching have made a strong case for separate cataloging of any item which is ordered for its monographic content or intentionally acquired as a duplicate of an item which we receive on standing order. The present proposal preserves that intention, providing separate cataloging in all cases with bias toward separate classification as well except where the item is part of a currently held serial and could most easily be classified with other volumes.

Here is something which we should think about, courtesy of our Analytics Cataloger: The rationale for distinguishing theme issues is usually not the chance for good subject cataloging, because the typical issue title, while often striking, frequently demarcates only a vague subject area expressible only as a broad subject heading. The real value we can add is a heading for the title and a list of the contents (the articles) in a contents note which would be accessible to keyword searchers. But we do not list the equally distinctive contents of issues without distinctive issue titles. Do article citation databases fill the needs of searchers better than a cataloger's contents notes so that the latter are superfluous? Should we be aiming at a different kind of cataloging record for these items?

Until ultimate questions are answered, we think that this policy will meet the expressed desires of most of the participants to our discussions.