Guidelines for CJK NACO Review Process and Independence
CJK NACO Project
November 10, 2007

The purpose of this document is to provide general guidance for the CJK NACO review process. It can be used to help reviewers to determine when a cataloger may be granted independence for NACO work. The guidelines are intended to ensure that each cataloger is reviewed in a consistent and fair manner. These guidelines may also serves as a guideline for institutional internal review and help CJK NACO catalogers to self-guard the quality when creating and producing name headings even after they obtain independence.

Review Process

Reviewers must respond and provide comments on the records to the reviewee within 2 weeks of receipt. It is okay to allow one or two problematic records retain in the save file when a new batch be submitted. The minimum number of 80 records of acceptable quality for personal names and 40 for other types of names is required for a cataloger to be eligible for independence for a particular heading type.

Considered Elements for Review

• The mixed level of headings

  The cataloger is expected to contribute a mix of new and updated authority records. The cataloger must also contribute a mix of "simple" headings and headings that require cross-references. Ideally, the cataloger will contribute a broad range of authority records that demonstrate the application of a variety of rules. If the reviewee regularly reports duplicate authority records encountered in the LC/NAF, or discovers errors in existing authority records, the reviewer should interpret this as additional evidence that the cataloger is developing the qualitative expertise needed to function as an independent NACO contributor.

• The type of headings

  When submitting records for review, each batch may include a mix of heading types. The types of heading include: personal names, corporative/conference names, geographical names and uniformed titles. Currently, the Project members are not required to contribute series headings.

  When a NACO cataloger produces certain amount acceptable quality records, he or she will be granted independence. Independent status may come in stages; a library or an individual under review may achieve partial independence in which one particular type heading, i.e. personal names, may be submitted without review, but other types, such as corporate names are still require review. These stages do not have to be completed in any particular order.

• Absence of major errors

  Errors in content designation (MARC tagging, coding, etc.) that affect access will be counted as major errors. For review purpose, the number of unacceptable records within the sequence should constitute no more than 10% error rate. Other errors although may not affect access, but an inordinate amount of typos in non-crucial areas also affect the overall quality and at it most, it may result a refresh training or repeated review process.

The Errors that Affect Access:

The following lists the errors that may be considered unacceptable quality of a record. It may also serve as a self-review check list. It is good practice to self-review all the headings before sending out for review or before produce them after becoming independent. The series fields are not included in this list and will be added once the majority of the Project members received training and begin to contribute series headings.

• 008 fixed fields
  • All codes should be correct, pay special attention to the 2nd column.
• 1xx/4xx/5xx/ In general, any incorrect tag, indicator, or subfield, and any incorrect spacing, capitalization, or punctuation and any typos in these fields are considered major errors. In addition, for each field, there are some specifics.
  • 1xx
    • Incorrect choice of the form of heading
    • Conflicts with another 1xx heading or 4xx reference
    • Duplicate record
    • Parent body or qualifier in heading not established
  • 4xx
    • Incorrect choice or form of reference
    • Parent body or qualifier in reference not established
    • Reference needed but not added
    • Reference added but prohibited by rules
    • Reference conflicts with an established 1xx heading
  • 5xx
    • Incorrect choice or form of reference
    • Reference needed but not added
    • Reference added but prohibited by rules
    • Reference does not match an established 1xx heading in another record
• 670
  • information missing when need to justify heading or reference
  • incorrect subfield
• 781
  • incorrect choice or form of subdivision
  • incorrect indicator or subfield
  • when doing a record update, forgot to revise 781 if changing 151 heading

It is recommended to use macro to avoid unnecessary error such as field missing, or mismatch of information.

Independent Phase

Independent East Asian catalogers have liaisons in LC Coop Team to handle queries, BFM, and cancellation of duplicate records. We strongly encourage catalogers to continue to communicate with their former reviewers or the Project coordinator for on-going consultations even after the review stage. The email list of the Project member group can also be used for questions and discussion.