MARC Record Services:

A Comparative Study of Library Practices and Perceptions

By Rebecca KempSerials Coordinator

LibrarianWilliam M. Randall Library

UNC Wilmington

SEVENTEENTH NORTH CAROLINA SERIALS CONFERENCEWhat's in a Name? From "Serials" to "Continuing Resources"April 10-11, 2008

A note about the presentation.

This presentation is based on an article by the same title that has been accepted for publication in The Serials Librarian © 2008 Taylor & Francis. The article will appear in The Serials Librarian v.55, no.3 (2008) .

A preprint appears on the web:

http://library.uncw.edu/web/faculty/kempr/Kemp-MARC-record-services-20080328.pdf

Cataloging Serials Then…

Image courtesy of Mona Kwon

Cataloging Serials Now

UNCW has access to over 30,000 serial titles!!!!!

How do we tell our patrons what we have?

Catalog

Catalog

A-Z List

A-Z List

Option 1. Option 2.

Option 3.

Single Record or Separate Records?

Print Bib

OnlineBib

Option 1. Option 2.

MicroformBib

PrintHoldings

OnlineHoldings

MicroformHoldings

(Print) Bib

PrintHoldings

OnlineHoldings

MicroformHoldings

(Oversimplified.)

How to catalog largest number of serial titles?

Option 1.Employ many, many people

Option 2.Work many, many hours

Option 3.Outsource to a MARC record service vendor

MARC Record Service Vendors

Serials Solutions 360 MARC UpdatesEx Libris MARCit!EBSCO A-to-Z with MARC UpdatesTDNet Holdings Manager with MARC RecordsTalis BaseCassidy CataloguingMARCIVEInnovative CASE

The MARC Record Service Process

Based on case study of University of Colorado Boulder (UCB), which uses Serials Solutions 360 UpdatesCourtesy of Paul Moeller, Serials Cataloger, UCB

Subscribed to Serials Solutions 360 Core, including MARC 360 Updates

Populated Serials Solutions “knowledgebase” with titles and holdings

UCB filled out a profile indicating preferred types of MARC records. Options: CONSER online, print, microform, or CD-ROM records, CONSER “neutral” records, National Library of Medicine records, Serials Solutions-created full records, Serials Solutions-created brief records

The MARC Record Service Process, continued

Selected ways to customize records; e.g., 245 |h [electronic resource] general material designation

Serials Solutions made a batch of records available UCB downloaded records via FTP UCB used Innovative Interfaces loader to bring in

records and modify them slightly (856 field changed to 956)

Subsequent loads: UCB receives different batches of records for “new,” “changed,” and “deleted.”

UCB deletes brief bibs (no unique ID) before each new load.

The MARC Record Service Process, continued

Based on case study of Duquesne University (DU), which uses SFX MARCit!

Courtesy of Carmel Yurochko, Serials/Electronic Resources Librarian

Similar process to Serials Solutions Populated the SFX knowledgebase Were not given the option of which types of

records to choose Chose customization in the SFX admin center Requested load: fresh export

The MARC Record Service Process, continued

When loads are sent, records are marked new, changed, or deleted and sent with a statistical report indicating number of new, changed, or deleted records

Downloaded records via FTP On local machine, made edits using MarcEdit open

source editor All records, including brief records, have unique SFX

ID, are overlaid by subsequent loads

Surveying MARC Record Service Users

How do you use MARC record services?Surveyed SERIALST-L, NASIG-L, ERIL-L,

NGC4LIB, LIBLICENSE-L, and the Lis-e-journals Discussion List

Survey goals: Common practices in implementing and maintaining

MARC record services? What are library perceptions of the MARC record

services? How would library personnel like to modify MARC

record services?

Here’s what I found.

130 participants responded; varying numbers of participants answered the questions, most of which were not required

Who are they? 86.5% academic; 9.6% special; 2.9% public; 1% library

cooperative 76% US, 8.7% UK, the rest from countries as scattered

as Lebanon, Finland, North Africa, and Pakistan How many titles?

Mean: 29,346, median: 25,000, mode: 30,000

Results, continued

How do they provide access to their serials?92 out of 96 (95.8%): catalog and A-Z list.4 out of 96 (4.2%): catalog only

Which MARC record service are they using? Serials Solutions 360: 62.5% of 96 MARCit!: 25% EBSCO MARC records: 5.2% Cassidy Cataloguing, TDNet, “as provided by

aggregators and vendors,” MARCIVE, and Talis Base made up the other 7.2%

Results, continued

Single or separate? Separate: 63.5% of 96 respondents Single: 22.9% Both: 13.5%

How is this accomplished? 10 responses: Separate records except for titles that require original

cataloging (2) Single record if batch-loaded records match on ISSN, but

separate if they do not match on ISSN Microfilm and print holdings represented on one record,

electronic kept separate Various others…

Results, continued

Did the library transition from single to separate records a result of adopting a MARC record service? Yes: 55.4% of 56 No: 44.6% Perhaps a surprising find?

How many records are brief? 0%: 32.8 % of 58 respondents 1-40%: 55.2% Mean = 20.2%, median = 15%, and mode = 0%

Common Features of Brief Bib Records

Lack of 780/785 linking fields: 51.7% of 58No persistent unique bibliographic record

identifier: 31.0% Note: This only affects Serials Solutions brief records,

and Serials Solutions has plans to add unique IDs

Incorrect ISSN: 25.9%Incorrect use of diacritics: 25.9%Duplicate records in the same batch: 19.0%Inconsistent use of acronyms: 17.2%Lack of detail in the records: 15.5%

Common Features of Full Bib Records

Records contain notes for print or microform versions: 48% of 50

Fixed fields have incorrect values for online version: 24%

ISSN for electronic format is in 776 field rather than 022 field: 18%

I don’t know / I haven't noticed serious or common problems: 18%

Records are missing 245 |h [electronic resource]: 12%Links in 856 fields are incorrect : 12%

What do users do to the records?

Post-load modifications?We make no modifications: 39.4% of 71We batch-update records using the integrated

library system: 35.2%We fix records individually by hand: 21.1%We batch-update records using scripts: 18.3%We modify records before loading: 11.3%

We notify the MARC record service vendor to fix the problems: 5.6%

What do the users want?

Suggested Enhancements/Improvements to MARC Records

We want fewer brief records: 22.9 % of 43We are satisfied with the records: 20.0% Improve accuracy of records: 17.1%Add persistent ID to brief records: 14.3% Fix problems with subject headings in full records:

fewer Library of Congress headings, provide English-only headings: 8.6%

Want to use OCLC records if no CONSER available: 8.6%

What do the users like most?

Best Liked Features of MARC Record Service Satisfaction of being able to spend time on

projects other than cataloging aggregated titles: 74.6% of 71

Satisfaction of knowing that all titles have bibliographic records: 71.8%

Ease of use in loading records: 69.0% Accuracy of bibliographic records: 19.7% Services create access to titles that would

otherwise not have access: 9.9%

What do the users like least?

Least Liked Features of MARC Record Service Inaccuracy of bibliographic records: 43.1% of 58Time spent cleaning up bibliographic records

after the load / clean up is too extensive: 31.0%

Difficulty of the load process: 20.7% We are satisfied with the service as it is: 10.3%

Too many brief records or presence of duplicate briefs: 6.9%

Problems with loading the records: 5.2%

How would users improve services?

Suggested Enhancements/Improvements to the Overall Load Process

The service works well enough: 23.3% of 30I don't know / no comment: 13.3%Provide better brief records: 10.0% Make it easier or more automated: 10.0% ILS has trouble handling load: 6.7% We would like to receive “cleaner” records:

6.7% It's not possible to improve the process: 6.7%

Tying it all together

More libraries (22.9% of respondents) are maintaining a single record approach than I would have thought

Brief records appear to lack detail or accuracyLibrary personnel want to receive fewer brief

records and more accurate records.Library personnel use various methods to

modify loaded records, but a large minority (almost 40%) do not modify

Many respondents are satisfied with the records as they are

Questions?

Thank you for attending!

Presenter contact information:Rebecca Kemp

Serials Coordinator LibrarianRandall Library

UNC Wilmingtonkempr<at>uncw<dot>edu

910-962-7220