Objectives

In November 2002, the PCC Policy Committee agreed to a new CONSER policy of creating single, aggregator-neutral bibliographic records to represent remote-access electronic serials. Previous policy required catalogers to create multiple records to represent a single serial as available from various aggregators or providers. In December 2002, several task groups were established to investigate and make recommendations on issues connected with the implementation of the new single record policy. See the Proposal to Adopt "Option B Plus" for background information and a timeline for implementing the new policy.

The Task Group on Database Issues was established to examine issues connected with the descriptive content of aggregator-neutral records, issues connected with retrospective clean-up of existing records, and issues connected with the elimination of duplicate records. Members of the task group were Robert Bremer (OCLC), Rebecca Culbertson (University of California, San Diego), Edith Gewertz (New York Public Library), Les Hawkins (Library of Congress), Jean Hirons (Library of Congress), John Levy (Library of Congress), Frieda Rosenberg (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Steve Shadle (University of Washington), and George Wrenn (University of California, Los Angeles).

Assumptions

Task group members initially selected one or two aggregators and some sample records on which to experiment by revising the descriptive cataloging using the aggregator-neutral cataloging policy. Discussions followed covering the pros and cons of including or removing various elements of the description. Several assumptions began to emerge in connection with the new policy:

• The single, aggregator-neutral record policy should be easy to implement and lend itself to automated maintenance. - The complex and volatile environment in which remote-access electronic serials exist requires that the corresponding bibliographic records be simple to create and maintain. In particular, there is a need to readily add, delete, and modify information such as field 856 without time-consuming manual editing of individual records.


• With the exception of field 856, the description of a remote-access electronic serial should be constructed so that it can readily represent that serial as available from all aggregators or providers - Catalogers should apply the techniques embodied in the recommendations below even in cases where it is known that the serial is not currently available from any other aggregators or providers.


• Cataloging of remote-access electronic serials should not necessarily require knowledge as to whether the serial has a print counterpart. - The cataloger should be able to adequately base the description on the electronic serial itself rather than on a corresponding print version. Even when there is a corresponding print version, it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine whether the print and electronic versions of a serial are simultaneously published, whether the print is secondary to the electronic version, whether the electronic version is secondary to the print, or whether the electronic version is the result of subsequently digitized print issues. Consequently, it does not seem useful to attempt to make these same distinctions within the bibliographic description. However, this assumption does not preclude the use of a print version record as the possible basis for the description of the online version under a future policy.


• Maintenance done to bring existing records into conformity with the new practice should result in the redistribution of those records. - OCLC staff anticipate the use of macros to make changes which will result in the redistribution of the changed records.

Recommendations

The discussion and recommendations which follow are organized by MARC tag for ease of reference. Descriptive cataloging elements and MARC coding not specifically listed here would continue to be recorded and coded in the manner they are now as amended by the policies that develop out of the work of the other aggregator-neutral record task groups. These recommendations include all remote-access electronic serials. The resulting records can be used to represent serial titles without discrete, intact issues found within aggregator databases. It does not include direct-access electronic serials or electronic integrating resources. Online serial is used throughout the following sections to refer to remote-access electronic serials. Some record elements have several possible recommendations which are marked as alternative #1, #2, etc. The order of the various alternatives is not significant.

Fields 130 and 240

Uniform titles in fields 130 and 240 have sometimes included an indication of the name of an aggregator or provider or the name of a particular aggregation following the designation Online to differentiate one iteration of an online serial from another iteration of the same serial as available from another aggregator or provider, etc. This differentiation is no longer needed.

Recommendation: Cease recording the name of an aggregator or provider or the name of a particular aggregation in uniform titles.

Database Clean-Up: A scan of the CONSER database revealed between 800 and 900 cases of the designation Online followed by space-colon-space and subsequent text in 130 and 240 fields. These records have already been corrected to remove the designation following Online. The same scan and correction of online serial records will be performed again along with related scans and corrections of such uniform titles appearing in 6xx, 7xx, and linking fields in all types of bibliographic records.

Field 245

There will be some occasions when the titles proper of the same issues of a serial as available from one provider will differ from those available from another. It is also possible that during the run of a serial that the title proper of the iteration available from one provider may undergo a major change, but the title proper of the iteration as available from the publisher or the provider that was the basis of the description does not change at all. The following recommendation needs to be considered in conjunction with the recommendation for field 500 source of title and description based on notes.

Recommendation: Record in field 245 the title proper of the serial as it appears on the first or earliest issue as available from the publisher or provider used as the basis of the description. Only consider as possible major title changes those that appear on issues available from the publisher or provider that is used as the basis of the description. If there are multiple title presentations appearing on the issue, prefer the one corresponding to the title transcribed on the print version record if known. Record other titles proper appearing in other aggregations in field 246.

Database Clean-Up: If differing titles are encountered in the course of resolving duplicate online serial records, a choice of title will be made in accord with CONSER practice for choice of record and source of the description. Other titles will be moved to the retained record in field 246.

Field 246

When the title proper of an online serial as available from one provider differs from the one used as the basis of the description, that title proper will need to be recorded in field 246 as a variant title. Such titles would not necessarily need to be removed if that provider later dropped the serial. The task group considered whether the name of the particular aggregator or provider should be included in 246 subfield $i, but decided that naming the aggregator or provider had many potential problems. Important variant titles appearing in connection with issues as available from one provider but not found in conjunction with the one used as the basis of the description should also be recorded in field 246.

Recommendation (Alternative #1): Record varying titles proper and important variant titles of an online serial as available from providers not used as the basis of the description in field 246. Use generic introductory wording (to be determined) to indicate that the title was from an outside source. Use of terms such as edition, manifestation, version, etc., should be avoided as having a specialized use under existing cataloging rules.

Examples of the possible introductory wording in field 246:

• 246 1  $i Also available with title: $a ... or
• 246 1  $i Also distributed as: $a ... or
• 246 1  $i Issues available from some aggregators have title: $a ... or
• 246 1  $i Issues available from some providers have title: $a ... or
• 246 1  $i Issues in some aggregations have title: $a ... or
• 246 1  $i Issues in some sets have title: $a ... or
• 246 1  $i Some instances have title: $a ... or
• 246 1  $i Some iterations have title: $a ...

Recommendation (Alternative #2): Record varying titles proper and important variant titles of an online serial as available from providers not used as the basis of the description in field 246 with indicators coded 13 (second indicator 3 is defined as Other title).

Example of the possible field 246 based on a fictitious title:

• 245 00 Journal of cataloging $h [electronic resource].
  246 13 Online journal of cataloging

Database Clean-Up: If this situation is encountered in the course of resolving duplicate online serial records, the addition of field 246 will be made case-by-case via manual editing.

Field 260 - Subfields $a and $b

Field 260 subfields $a and $b should be used to record the place and publisher of the online serial. In the context of an aggregator-neutral record, that publisher should be applicable to the serial as available from all aggregators or providers.

Some providers only sell access functioning somewhat like traditional subscription vendors while others may be more directly involved in digitizing and publishing activities. An older part of a run of an online serial is often the result of an effort to digitize print issues while a newer part of the run can be the result of simultaneous publication of corresponding print and online versions. Different agencies may possibly be involved in various aspects of making the serial available.

Consider the following description excerpted from a CONSER record:

• 130 0  Scientific monthly (Online)
• 245 04 The scientific monthly $h [electronic resource].
• 260    New York : $b Science Press, $c 1915-1957.
• 362 0  Vol. 1, no. 1 (Oct. 1915)-v. 85, no. 12 (Dec. 1957).
• 500    Imprint varies: New York : Science Press, 1915-June 1942; Lancaster, Pa. : Science Press, July 1942-June 1943; Washington, D.C. : American Association for the Advancement of Science, July 1943-1957.
  
• 530    Online version of the print publication.
• 550    Digitized and made available by: JSTOR.

This description of a JSTOR journal would make it appear that Science Press was the publisher of an electronic serial that would have been available online during World War I. One could argue that JSTOR might be more accurately cited as the publisher of the online version of this title. Yet, the early issues of the printed serial are in the public domain and could be digitized and made available by anyone. Under the aggregator-neutral record policy, the various iterations of the serial resulting from these different digitization projects would need to be represented by this one record, presumably with a publisher applicable to all iterations.

To resolve these issues the task group discussed various uses of fields 533 and 534, but the techniques of describing a printed serial and citing the details of its online version in a note or describing the online version and citing the details of its print version in a note are problematic, especially for any currently published online serial which happens to have earlier corresponding print issues subsequently digitized. The task group also discussed the possibility of omitting the place and publisher, but decided that resulted in bibliographic records that would be less than useful.

The complexities of attempting to determine what agency is really responsible for print versus online versions can be difficult. The various rules in AACR2 1.4 make allowances for recording more than one publisher (i.e., in cases where the first named publisher is not in the country of the cataloging agency and the second named publisher is in the country of the cataloging agency; in cases where the second named publisher is given importance by layout or typography; or, in cases where subsequently named bodies are performing different activities, etc.).

Given that AACR2 has allowances for recording the publisher named first and recognizes that different agencies perform different roles, it would simplify the description of online serials to just record the first named publisher found in the first or earliest issue without worrying that it necessarily represents an earlier print version publisher. In the case of subsequently digitized serials, if the print version publisher had not made the serial available initially, the online version would not exist, so it can be thought of as the first of many agencies involved in making the online serial available.

Recommendation: Record the first named publisher found in the first or earliest available issue in field 260 subfields $a and $b even if it is determined to be the print version publisher. Do not record specific aggregators, providers, or digitizers that would not be applicable to all iterations of the online serial.

In the example cited above the place and publisher would be recorded as:

• 260    New York : $b Science Press

not

• 260    [New York] : $b JSTOR

Database Clean-Up: No special effort will be made to adjust field 260 subfields $a and $b, but catalogers may modify them as needed.

Field 260 - Subfield $c

Field 260 subfield $c should be used to record the publication date of the online serial. In the example cited in the 260 subfields $a and $b discussion, Scientific monthly (Online) is described as being published in its online form from 1915 to 1957. However, its publication date should probably have been recorded as [2000?]. It could be argued that the 1915 and 1957 dates are of more interest to the catalog user which is probably correct. Yet, the 1915 and 1957 dates are simply issue dates which are already available to the catalog user when properly recorded in field 362. They are not the beginning and ending publication dates of the online serial.

Actual publication dates of the online version may be very difficult to determine. Online serials which consist of subsequently digitized print issues do not always indicate when they were digitized and made available online. Even when they do, that single date will be not appropriate to all digitization projects which that record is now intended to represent, e.g., one agency digitizes a ceased serial in 2001, while another digitizes the same issues in 2005.

When cataloging a currently published online serial from the first issue dated 2003 in 2003, it is probably safe to conclude that it was published in its online form in 2003, but when cataloging the same serial from its first issue dated 2003 in 2010, it is no longer clear that it was necessarily published in its online form in 2003 as opposed to 2004, 2005, etc. That circumstance would mean that catalogers looking at the very same information would readily produce different descriptions based on when the serial was being cataloged. Resulting catalog records should end up with more consistent and predictable publication dates.

Recommendation (Alternative #1): Record dates of publication as found in the serial as the publication dates of the serial itself, even when this is clearly the date of publication of an earlier print version of the serial. Regard dates of digitization or availability online as a "date of manufacture" of the online serial and do not record them.

Examples of the 260 fields that would be recorded:

• 245 04 The scientific monthly $h [electronic resource].
  260    New York : $b Science Press, $c 1915-1957.
  362 0  Vol. 1, no. 1 (Oct. 1915)-v. 85, no. 12 (Dec. 1957).
  

• 245 00 Monographs $h [electronic resource] / $c Thoresby Society.
  260    Leeds, England : $b Thoresby Society, $c 1949-
  362 0  1-
  

• 245 00 Mechanics based design of structures and machines $h [electronic resource].
  260    New York, NY : $b Marcel Dekker, $c c2003-
  362 0  Vol. 31, no. 1 (2003)-
  

Recommendation (Alternative #2): Record no dates of publication unless the issues contain no chronological designations. In that case, if possible, provide beginning and ending publication dates in field 260 subfield $c which represent the online serial and not a previous print version of the serial, and provide beginning and ending publication dates associated with known print versions of the serial in field 362, 530, etc. (to be determined).

Examples of the 260 fields that would be recorded:

• 245 04 The scientific monthly $h [electronic resource].
  260    New York : $b Science Press
  362 0  Vol. 1, no. 1 (Oct. 1915)-v. 85, no. 12 (Dec. 1957).
  

• 245 00 Monographs $h [electronic resource] / $c Thoresby Society.
  260    Leeds, England : $b Thoresby Society, $c 2005-
  362 0  1-
  530    Issued also in print version originally published 1949-
  or
  245 00 Monographs $h [electronic resource] / $c Thoresby Society.
  260    Leeds, England : $b Thoresby Society, $c 2005-
  362 0  1 ([1949])-
  

• 245 00 Mechanics based design of structures and machines $h [electronic resource].
  260    New York, NY : $b Marcel Dekker
  362 0  Vol. 31, no. 1 (2003)-
  

Recommendation (Alternative #3): Record no dates of publication for an online serial in any case. If the issues contain no chronological designations, provide beginning and ending publication dates associated with known print versions of the serial in field 362, 530, etc. (to be determined).

Examples of the 260 fields that would be recorded:

• 245 04 The scientific monthly $h [electronic resource].
  260    New York : $b Science Press
  362 0  Vol. 1, no. 1 (Oct. 1915)-v. 85, no. 12 (Dec. 1957).
  

• 245 00 Monographs $h [electronic resource] / $c Thoresby Society.
  260    Leeds, England : $b Thoresby Society
  362 0  1-
  530    Issued also in print version originally published 1949-
  or
  245 00 Monographs $h [electronic resource] / $c Thoresby Society.
  260    Leeds, England : $b Thoresby Society
  362 0  1 ([1949])-
  

• 245 00 Mechanics based design of structures and machines $h [electronic resource].
  260    New York, NY : $b Marcel Dekker
  362 0  Vol. 31, no. 1 (2003)-
  

Database Clean-Up (Alternative #1): No special effort will be made to adjust field 260 subfield $c, but catalogers may modify it as needed.

Database Clean-Up (Alternatives #2 and #3): Identify and remove field 260 subfield $c containing dates before the 1990s if the corresponding dates are represented in field 362. Review and manually adjust those with no corresponding dates in field 362.

Fields 310 and 321

Fields 310 and 321 have been used to record current and former frequencies of online serials; however, its use has been inconsistent. In the case of ceased and subsequently digitized serials, it is sometimes used and at other times not used. Like reprints and microform reproductions, such serials actually have no frequency. In other cases of both digitized-after-the-fact and live online serials, the frequency is recorded as stated when viewed online, but that stated frequency is actually that of its print counterpart. The frequency of the online serial may differ from the print, and it may possibly differ from provider to provider where issues may be loaded only annually by third party aggregators while appearing more frequently on the publisher's website.

While a cataloger cannot easily discern and note all these differences, an indication of frequency in the bibliographic record is often a useful characterization of the content of serial, e.g., a daily or weekly is likely to contain news and current information while quarterly is more likely to contain scholarly articles.

Recommendation: Record current and former frequencies in fields 310 and 321 as apparent from the online serial or found in other records without taking into consideration whether the serial is simultaneously published in print and online versions, digitized at a later date, etc.

Example of the notes that would be created:

• 130 0  Cambridge historical journal (Online)
  245 04 The Cambridge historical journal $h [electronic resource].
  260    London : $b Cambridge University Press
  310    Semiannual, $b 1956-1957
  321    Annual, $b 1923-1955
  

Database Clean-Up: No special effort will be made to supply missing 310 and 321 fields, but catalogers may add them as needed.

Field 362

Field 362 with first indicator one has been used to note the coverage of an online serial whenever the first issue was not available. Since this information varies from provider to provider and varies over time, it is difficult to accurately record and maintain this information. This information should be considered analogous to holdings information, and the cataloger should look for other evidence as to the beginning date of the online serial.

Recommendation: Cease recording the field 362 coverage note to indicate the availability of issues from particular providers. However, continue to record information about first and last issues applicable to all iterations of particular online serials.

Examples of the notes that would no longer be created:

• 362 1  Coverage as of Mar. 5, 1999: Vol. 3, no. 4 (Dec. 1998)-
• 362 1  Coverage as of Sept. 22, 2000: Vol. 80, no. 1 (Feb. 2000)-
• 362 1  Electronic coverage as of May 20, 1997: Vol. 21, no. 3 (May 1995)-

Examples of the notes based on corresponding print version records that would take the place of the notes in the three previous examples:

• 362 1  Began with Vol. 1, no. 1 (Apr. 1996).
• 362 1  Began with Vol. 1, no. 1 (Feb. 1918).
• 362 1  Began with Vol. 1, no. 1 (Jan. 1983).

When actual first and/or last issues are available, data would be recorded in field 362 in the usual manner:

• 362 0  Vol. 1, no. 1 (Oct. 1915)-v. 85, no. 12 (Dec. 1957).
• 362 1  Began with Oct./Nov. 1995 issue.
  362 0  -v. 6, no. 1 (Mar. 2001).
  

Database Clean-Up: Using data obtained from the corresponding print version record via the 776 linking field, replace all occurrences of field 362 with first indicator one which contain the introductory wording Coverage, Coverage as of, Electronic coverage, Electronic coverage as of, etc. (whether followed by a colon or not) in online serial records. Adjust the fixed-field dates to match the newly-supplied 362 note.

Field 500

Field 500 is currently used to record source of title and description based on notes. For online serials, the date the publication was viewed is also included in these notes. Because the first or earliest issue may exist in more than one online location and the bibliographic data may differ from one location to another, it may be necessary to indicate which first or earliest issue was the basis of the description. The task group was divided on the necessity of naming an aggregator or provider in source of title and description based on notes. However, if explicitly naming an aggregator or provider, words like edition, manifestation, version, etc., would need to be avoided.

Recommendation (Alternative #1): Record an explicit indication of the publisher, name of the aggregation, aggregator or provider in source of title and description based on notes.

Examples of the notes that would be created:

• 500    Title from title screen (publisher's website, viewed Mar. 22, 2003).
• 500    Title from caption (IDEAL, viewed May 20, 2002).
• 500    Description based on: Vol. 5, no. 1 (Jan. 1995); title from title screen (OCLC FirstSearch, viewed Jan. 10, 1998).

Recommendation (Alternative #2): Record an explicit indication of the name of the aggregation, aggregator or provider in source of title and description based on notes when the description is based on a source other than what the publisher has made directly available.

Examples of the notes that would be created:

• 500    Title from title screen (viewed Mar. 22, 2003).
• 500    Title from caption (IDEAL, viewed May 20, 2002).
• 500    Description based on: Vol. 5, no. 1 (Jan. 1995); title from title screen (OCLC FirstSearch, viewed Jan. 10, 1998).

Recommendation (Alternative #3): Record a generic indication that the description is based on what another provider has made available when the description is not based on what the publisher has made available.

Examples of the notes that would be created:

• 500    Title from title screen (viewed Mar. 22, 2003).
• 500    Title from caption (aggregator website, viewed May 20, 2002).
• 500    Description based on: Vol. 5, no. 1 (Jan. 1995); title from title screen (aggregator website, viewed Jan. 10, 1998).

Recommendation (Alternative #4): Record no specific indication that the description is based on what one provider has made available versus what a publisher has made available.

Examples of the notes that would be created:

• 500    Title from title screen (viewed Mar. 22, 2003).
• 500    Title from caption (viewed May 20, 2002).
• 500    Description based on: Vol. 5, no. 1 (Jan. 1995); title from title screen (viewed Jan. 10, 1998).

Database Clean-Up: No special effort will be made to correct existing field 500 source of title and description based on notes, but catalogers may revise them as needed.

Fields 500 and 550

Fields 500 and 550 have been used to record information on agencies involved in digitizing and making online serials available. Since this information varies from provider to provider, varies over time, and will vary from one part of a run to another, it is difficult to accurately record and maintain this information.

Recommendation: Cease recording field 500 or 550 notes on agencies involved in digitizing and making online serials available.

Examples of the notes that would no longer be created:

• 500    Made available through: OCLC FirstSearch electronic collections online.
• 550    Digitized and made available by: Cambridge University Press.
• 550    Digitized and made available on the World Wide Web by I.D.E.A.L., International Digitized Electronic Access Library.

Database Clean-Up: Delete all occurrences of field 500 and 550 which contain the introductory wording Digitized by, Digitized and made available by, Digitized and made available through, Made available by, Made available through, etc. (whether followed by a colon or not) in online serial records.

Field 506

Field 506 has been used to record restrictions on access. For online serials this has resulted in a note specifying that the serial required a subscription, registration, special passwords, etc. Since these requirements vary from provider to provider, vary over time, and may vary from one part of a run to another, it is difficult to accurately record and maintain this information.

Recommendation: Cease recording the field 506 restrictions on access note.

Examples of the notes that would no longer be created:

• 506    Restricted to institutions with a print subscription and a site/user ID and password.
• 506    Restricted to subscribing institutions.
• 506    Subscription and registration required for access.

Database Clean-Up: Delete all occurrences of field 506 in online serial records.

Field 516

Field 516 has been used to characterize the type of computer file or data. It has often been used to indicate that an item is an "electronic journal." However, information indicating that an item is an online serial is also found elsewhere in the record in both eye-readable and coded forms. The specific data formats expressed in field 516 vary from provider to provider, vary over time, and may vary from one part of a run to another, so it is difficult to accurately record and maintain this information.

Recommendation: Cease recording the field 516 type of computer file or data note.

Examples of the notes that would no longer be created:

• 516    Text (electronic journal)
• 516 8  Abstracts, tables of contents, and citation information are HTML encoded; articles are available in portable document format (PDF) and as Postscript Level 2 files
• 516 8  Electronic journal available in ASCII, Acrobat, and PostScript file formats

Database Clean-Up: Delete all occurrences of field 516 in online serial records.

Field 538

Field 538 has been used to note system details including technical requirements and modes of access. Since this information varies from provider to provider, varies over time, and may vary from one part of a run to another, it is difficult to accurately record and maintain this information.

Recommendation (Alternative #1): Cease recording the field 538 system details note.

Examples of the notes that would no longer be created:

• 538    Electronic journal available in ASCII text available via Internet email and World Wide Web. Browser software required for World Wide Web access.
• 538    Mode of access: World Wide Web.
• 538    System requirements: Adobe Acrobat reader or PostScript printer.

Recommendation (Alternative #2): Cease recording the field 538 system details note except continue to create the mode of access note.

Examples of the notes would continue to be created:

• 538    Mode of access: Internet.
• 538    Mode of access: Internet email, FTP, and World Wide Web.
• 538    Mode of access: World Wide Web.

Database Clean-Up (Alternative #1): Delete all occurrences of field 538 in online serial records.

Database Clean-Up (Alternative #2): Delete all occurrences of field 538 except those containing the introductory wording Mode of access in online serial records.

Fields 710 and 730

Fields 710 and 730 have been used to trace the names of aggregators and the titles of various aggregations. This practice conflicts with the objectives embodied in the single, aggregator-neutral record policy. The primary use of these fields may have been more for librarians than in providing access for other library users. Librarians will still have field 856 as a potentially indexable field on which to retrieve sets of records.

Recommendation: Cease using fields 710 and 730 to trace the names of aggregators and the titles of aggregator collections or sets.

Examples of the tracings that would no longer be created:

• 710 2  Project Muse.
• 710 2  Synergy (Online service)
• 730 0  OCLC FirstSearch electronic collections online.

Database Clean-Up: Delete fields 710 and 730 in online serial records in a series of scans looking for specific aggregator or provider headings. Lists of aggregators such as the BIBCO/CONSER MARC Record Sets list can be used to identify aggregators and their sets which may be represented in 710 and 730 fields. After an initial round of corrections, a follow-up scan of remaining records to extract and list 710 and 730 fields may yield more candidate fields to be removed. Field 773 has been used in some OCLC records for online serials to perform a similar function as 710 and 730. Sets of these records will be reviewed to determine if field 773 should be removed.

Field 856

Field 856 has been used to record the electronic location and access of an online serial. Perspectives on exactly what should be record in 856, if used at all, vary greatly. Perhaps the only thing that can be said with certainty is that the "OhioLink" URLs appear to be disliked by catalogers everywhere other than those at OhioLink libraries. Policies on what to record in 856 raise issues of maintenance of the resulting data, and there is currently no perfect solution to that problem. Inclusion of at least one URL is a requirement of ISSN record sent to the international center in Paris. OCLC has requirements for at least one URL for records to be handled properly in FirstSearch. Whatever policy may be adopted in 2003 will likely change in just a few years.

Recommendation: Record all URLs, addresses, etc., that can be generally accessed. Do not record those which are institution or consortia specific unless the online serial would contain no URL, address, etc. If a particular aggregator only provides URLs which are institution specific or in which the root part of the URL varies, record the availability of the online serial from that aggregator in field 037 or 856 subfields $x or $z (the specific practice to be determined).

Database Clean-Up: Certain problematic URLs can be identified and deleted in field 856.

Database Maintenance

There are between 25,000 and 30,000 online serial records in the CONSER database. There are around 5,000 online serial records in OCLC that would be considered duplicates under the single, aggregator-neutral record policy. OCLC staff have been able to correct up to 10,000 CONSER-authenticated serials a week per agreement with the Library of Congress.

OCLC will use a combination of macros and manual corrections to make the necessary changes outlined in the database clean-up recommendations listed above. CONSER records and non-CONSER records in OCLC will be corrected on the same schedule. Correction of non-CONSER records should provide CONSER catalogers with a higher quality set of records to potentially authenticate in the future.

The nature of the corrections is such that several rounds of database scans will be required to complete all the necessary changes, e.g., removing fields 506, 516, 538, etc., could be accomplished in a single scan, while revising the coverage note in 362, or removing the various 710 and 730 fields would be better if handled separately. During the interim period records may appear to be only partly corrected.

All corrections would be completed between June and December 2003. CONSER participants would be encouraged to make these same types of corrections while working on records as part of their regular cataloging.

Elimination of the duplicate records would be completed between June 2003 and June 2005 or sooner. CONSER participants can also mark records as duplicates via field 936 and report the duplicate records in the usual manner.

Duplicate Record Resolution

The table below is designed primarily for OCLC staff working on merging duplicate records, but it may be useful to other catalogers as well.

When working with duplicate records representing the same online serial, choose one record to retain to represent that serial as available from various providers. Use the table below to determine which record to retain when reporting or, in the case of OCLC staff, merging duplicate online serial records. To use the table, choose a category of record in the first row corresponding to the one of the duplicate records, choose a category of record in the first column corresponding to the duplicate record, then follow the instruction where the chosen row and column intersect.

Categories of Duplicate Records	NSDP CONSER Record	Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Publisher's Website	Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Not Publisher's Website	OCLC Member Record--Publisher's Website	OCLC Member Record--Not Publisher's Website
NSDP CONSER Record	Report to NSDP	Retain NSDP CONSER record	Retain NSDP CONSER record	Retain NSDP CONSER record	Retain NSDP CONSER record
Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Publisher's Website	Retain NSDP CONSER record	Retain the record which requires the least editing--deauthenticate the record not retained	Retain Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Publisher's Website	Retain Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Publisher's Website	Retain Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Publisher's Website
Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Not Publisher's Website	Retain NSDP CONSER record	Retain Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Publisher's Website	Retain the record which requires the least editing--deauthenticate the record not retained	Retain Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Not Publisher's Website	Retain Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Not Publisher's Website
OCLC Member Record--Publisher's Website	Retain NSDP CONSER record	Retain Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Publisher's Website	Retain Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Not Publisher's Website	Retain the record which requires the least editing--prefer lower OCLC number if record quality equal	Retain the record which requires the least editing--prefer publisher's website record if record quality equal
OCLC Member Record--Not Publisher's Website	Retain NSDP CONSER record	Retain Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Publisher's Website	Retain Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Not Publisher's Website	Retain the record which requires the least editing--prefer publisher's website record if record quality equal	Retain the record which requires the least editing--prefer lower OCLC number if record quality equal

Note: In all cases, essential data (i.e., access points, subject headings, URLs, etc.) should be moved from records to be deleted to the retained record.

Category Definitions

• NSDP CONSER Record - CONSER record authenticated by NSDP with a description usually based on the serial found on the publisher's website, server, etc.
• Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Publisher's Website - CONSER record not authenticated by NSDP with a description based on the serial found on the publisher's website, server, etc.
• Non-NSDP CONSER Record--Not Publisher's Website - CONSER record not authenticated by NSDP with a description based on the serial as available from a provider other than the publisher
• OCLC Member Record--Publisher's Website - Non-CONSER record with a description based on the serial found on the publisher's website, server, etc.
• OCLC Member Record--Not Publisher's Website - Non-CONSER record with a description based on the serial as available from a provider other than the publisher

Example Record

As Cataloged Under Old Practice

Elements in boldface are likely to be revised or removed.

• OCLC: 45446781
• 010    00-227421
• 040    EYM $c EYM $d OCLCQ
• 006    [m        d        ]
• 007    c $b r $d c $e n $f u
• 022    0028-646X
• 042    lcd
• 050 14 QK1
• 130 0  New phytologist (Online : JSTOR)
• 245 04 The new phytologist $h [electronic resource].
• 260    London, England : $b William Wesley and Son, $c 1902-
• 310    Monthly, $b 1980-
• 321    Frequency varies, $b 1902-1979
• 362 0  Vol. 1, no. 1 (Jan. 1902)-
• 500    Title from title screen (viewed Nov. 30, 2000).
• 500    Imprint varies.
• 500    Vol. 1 (1902)-v. 13 (1914) are digital reproductions of the reprint ed. published: London, England : Wm. Dawson and Sons, 1955.
• 506    Restricted to institutions with a site license to the JSTOR collection.
• 516    Bit-mapped images; PDF, PostScript, and TIFF formats available for printing.
• 520    Provides image and full text online access to back issues. Consult the online table of contents for specific holdings.
• 530    Online version of the print publication.
• 538    Mode of access: World Wide Web.
• 538    System requirements: Graphical World Wide Web browser software; appropriate software is needed to print PDF, PostScript, and TIFF formats.
• 550    Digitized and made available by: JSTOR.
• 650    Botany $v Periodicals.
• 710 2  JSTOR (Organization)
• 776 1  $t New phytologist $x 0028-646X $w (DLC)   07000035 $w (OCoLC)1759937
• 856 40 $u http://www.jstor.org/journals/0038646X.html
• 936    Vol. 137, no. 4 (Dec. 1997) (surrogate) LIC

As Cataloged Under New Practice

Here is the same record revised according to the recommendations and assorted alternatives outlined above.

• OCLC: 45446781
• 010    00-227421 $z 2002-238614
• 040    EYM $c EYM $d OCLCQ
• 006    [m        d        ]
• 007    c $b r $d c $e n $f u
• 019    41890038 $a 43927562 $a 46989869 $a 51442481
• 022    $y 0028-646X
• 042    lcd
• 050 14 QK1
• 130 0  New phytologist (Online)
• 245 04 The new phytologist $h [electronic resource].
• 260    London, England : $b William Wesley and Son
• 310    Monthly, $b 1980-
• 321    Frequency varies, $b 1902-1979
• 362 0  Vol. 1, no. 1 (Jan. 1902)-
• 500    Title from title screen (JSTOR, viewed Nov. 30, 2000).
• 500    Imprint varies.
• 500    Latest issue consulted: Vol. 137, no. 4 (Dec. 1997).
• 530    Online version of the print publication.
• 550    Published on behalf of the New Phytologist Trust, <Jan. 1997- >.
• 650    Botany $v Periodicals.
• 710 2  New Phytologist Trust.
• 776 1  $t New phytologist $x 0028-646X $w (DLC)   07000035 $w (OCoLC)1759937
• 856 40 $u http://www.jstor.org/journals/0038646X.html
• 856 40 $u http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/issuelist.asp?journal=nph
• 856 40 $u http://0-ejournals.ebsco.com.helin.uri.edu/direct.asp?JournalID=101405 $z View this journal online; access limited to URI
• 856 40 $u http://firstsearch.oclc.org $z Address for accessing the journal using authorization number and password through OCLC FirstSearch Electronic Collections Online
• 856 40 $u http://firstsearch.oclc.org/journal=0028-646X;screen=info;ECOIP $z Address for accessing the journal from an authorized IP address through OCLC FirstSearch Electronic Collections Online