Serials Cataloging

The State of the Art

Jim E. Cole, Jackie Zajanc

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000759914
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Library & Information Science
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Serials Cataloging (1987) assesses the state of the art of serials cataloging, especially in two areas: the rules by which the cataloguing record is created and the automation of that record. It looks at how libraries' dependence upon bibliographic utilities for cataloguing data has led to an acceptance of cataloguing standards that conform closely to internationally accepted principles.

AACR2: BASIC CONCERNS

AACR2’s Effect on Public Services

Cindy Hepfer, BA, MLS
Will Hepfer, BA, MLS

SUMMARY. Many objections and reservations were expressed before AACR2 was adopted by the Library of Congress, the major shared cataloging bibliographic utilities, and most American and British libraries. This article recapitulates the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the Second Edition, insofar as this affects library public services. The article then discusses alternatives to implementation and shows how sometimes the alternatives caused more problems for public service librarians than did the new code itself. The conclusion is drawn that most library users have not noticed AACR2’s effects or do not care enough about them to compliment or complain.

A pleasant Sunday drive can be ruined by a torn-up stretch of roadbed preceded by a sign indicating: TEMPORARY INCONVENIENCE FOR PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT. SIX-LANE SUPERHIGHWAY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. It is a small consolation to know that conditions will be better someday, when all that’s visible in the distance is a dusty expanse of bumpy gravel.

This depressing scene is not unlike the circumstances imagined by many public service librarians when their libraries announced that AACR2 would be used for cataloging library materials after a certain date. Unless their existing card catalogs were horrendously ineffective, it is difficult to envision anyone joyfully looking forward to the inevitable bumpy period when a substantial portion of the card catalog would have to be refiled, or, if the conflicting headings were not going to be changed, library users—including the staff themselves—would be forced to do dual look-ups in many cases. Not only were they going to have to learn new principles to use the card catalog proficiently, but, alas, some would have to remember the old principles, too. Even worse, public service librarians would have a much harder time trying to explain it all.

Cindy Hepfer is Head of the Serials Department at the Health Sciences Library at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

Will Hepfer is Head of the Serials Department in Central Technical Services at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

This is not to say that everyone was antagonistic toward the new rules because they loved the pre-AACR2 rules so much.

Pinzelik says that

finding a complex citation in a [pre-AACR2] library catalog is often accomplished by an experienced reference librarian “thinking like a cataloger,” a technique which requires suppressing one’s natural instincts to look in the most logical place and instead selecting the most complicated of all the possibilities. With the changing of cataloging rules from AACR1 to AACR2, however, arriving at an educated or lucky guess should no longer require suspension of normal thought processes.¹

Indeed, AACR2 offered many more long-range benefits to libraries, and, by the time administrative decisions were handed down, the potential merits and weaknesses of the new code had been thoroughly discussed. By then, most librarians had conceded that there was more to be gained than to be lost from AACR2 in the long run. To recap:

ADVANTAGES

First, there is the altruistic advantage that AACR2 unifies the separate American and British versions of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. Compromises for the sake of the international sharing of bibliographic information are easier to accept than change for the sake of change. According to Bloss,

by adhering to the same cataloging principles, guidelines and interpretations both nationally and internationally, greater consistency will be found from one library to the next and from one union list to the next. As serials bibliographic files are shared and used for multiple purposes as is the CONSER file, libraries become inextricably linked. In a natural extension, the cataloging principles that apply to one apply to all. This can only benefit the users of those files be they librarians, researchers, or the general public.²

Second is the practicality involved: after the Library of Congress and the major bibliographic utilities-OCLC, RLIN, UTLAS, and WLN—declared that AACR2 would be their cataloging standard, few libraries could afford not to adopt the new rules. The availability of so many ready-made, machine-readable cataloging records is an alternative that few libraries can refuse.

Bibliographically, AACR2 offered numerous improvements over the original edition. It incorporated the amendments that had been made to AACR since 1967 and added or expanded rules pertaining to non-book materials. Whether libraries chose to collect outside the realm of traditional paper formats or not, the new rules effectively eliminated one of the arguments between public service librarians who wanted, say, videodiscs, and technical service librarians who objected because they weren’t sure how to handle them.

Even before Lancaster did his famous study,³ most public service librarians probably had a pretty strong hunch that library users usually approach a serial, especially a periodical, by title. Titles are the most constant access point offered by most indexes, abstracts, and online retrieval services, and AACR2 capitalized on these odds by replacing many complex corporate main entries with title main entries. Surely library users stand a much greater chance of finding Federal Reserve Bulletin — especially in an alphabetized collection or in a periodicals list or a union list of serials where added entries and cross-references are minimal —if it isn’t hidden behind “United States. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,” as was the case with AACR.

AACR2 also introduced many smaller changes that were appreciated because they each simplified a point that had caused some confusion in the past. Title change terminology, for example, was much easier for library users to understand after AACR2 purged the distinction between “continues/continued by” and “supersedes/superseded by” in favor of “continues” and “continued by.” Enumeration and chronology, likewise, are simplified because they’re recorded as they appear on the piece, instead of being reduced to a statement of volume and date. Thus issue numbers, exact dates, and even parallel numbering schemes are noted.

Still another helpful change was the reduction of ways of recording perplexing initialisms from four to two. Although AACR2 recognizes both “ALA” and “A.L.A.” as acceptable, it no longer tolerates these same forms with spaces between the letters.

AACR2 was also applauded for providing numerous alternative access points, e.g., parallel titles and running titles. Including the transcripti on of a statement of responsibility from the piece is still another way that AACR2 is more helpful than the earlier code. According to Arret, such improvements are significant because “even more than in the past, the catalog will have the capacity to serve as a reference tool, and not merely as a finding and bibliographic one.”⁴

Perhaps the biggest advantage of AACR2 was one that was not likely to go into effect at most libraries until a while after the new rules were implemented. Many librarians perceived AACR2 to be a requisite steppingstone between an international shared-cataloging data base and their future online catalogs. Compromises were going to be necessary, of course, but the end result was (hopefully) going to be worth the (hopefully) temporary inconvenience.

DISADVANTAGES

Pre-AACR2 rules weren’t terrible, and AACR2 isn’t perfect, but the fact remains that the Second Edition is here to stay—at least until AACR3 or something better comes along. Although many of the objections that have been expressed about the new rules are perfectly valid, AACR2 maintains its stance on most rules in the name of consistency.

Title main entries, for example, become troublesome when someone is trying to distinguish a generic title from a large selection of “Journals,” “Bulletins,” or “Revistas.” When confronted by a huge selection of catalog cards or a long list of “Reports,” “Report ons” and “Report tos,” many public service librarians have probably yearned for the good old pre-AACR2 days when most such cases could be automatically turned into nice, predictable corporate entries.

AACR2 would be easier to forgive on this count if it were totally consistent on the matter of title main entry, instead of just being mostly consistent. Rule 21.1B2 exempts (1) works of an administrative nature dealing with the body itself, (2) specified governmental and legal works, (3) a record of the collective thought of the body, or (4) a report on the collective activity of a conference—and it is these exceptions that complicate the efforts of librarians who would instruct library users regarding effective searching techniques.

IMPLEMENTATION

Even prior to the adoption of AACR2, Mueller acknowledged that “the problems … lie not so much in the changes themselves, many of which could make your professional lives easier, but in the integration of these changes into our present catalogs.”⁵ Indeed, all of the options for implementing the new code were fraught with the need to impose either much more work on the library staff or much more inconvenience on library users. Needless to say, neither alternative was very popular, and no implementation scheme emerged as the preference of all. Rather, libraries made highly individualized decisions based on a wide range of factors.

Some libraries chose to “freeze” their pre-AACR2 card catalogs and to begin a new file with AACR2 records. Reasons included: (1) not wanting to mix dissimilar entries in the same file and not being able to afford the staff time for an extensive changeover project, (2) wanting to discontinue the frustration of trying to maintain one or more already unwieldy card catalogs, (3) seizing a good opportunity to move from card to microform or online files.

Starting a new catalog was perceived to be a practical solution to a temporary problem that would go away when an online catalog became a reality. Nobody believed that library users would not be inconvenienced by it, but many rationalized that the money saved by not integrating AACR2 and pre-AACR2 headings would help toward getting an automated system that much sooner.

More libraries chose to integrate AACR2 into their existing catalogs. They coped by interfiling old and new headings, changing old headings to new headings, or by using extensive cross-references and/or guide cards. Some changed existing headings only under certain circumstances, such as when less than a pre-determined number of cards were affected, or the heading was a particularly important one. The latter approach appears to be practical, although the library user may not be served well by inconsistent applications of rules in the same catalog. Complete consistency may not even be possible, however. Rush contends that

the combination of the many options provided for in the [AACR2] rules; the use of such phrases as “if appropriate,” “commonly known,” “predominant,” “if necessary” (all giving rise to the question: In whose judgment?); and the various compromises adopted by such eminent libraries as the Library of Congress, the British Library and the National Library of Canada (which compromises differ from library to library), makes achievement of [consistency], even to a limited extent, highly improbable.⁶

Libraries that shelve periodical volumes alphabetically found themselves in a real predicament when AACR2 was implemented. It is one thing to shift a lot of catalog cards around and another to have to re-mark and relocate a large number of bound volumes. Anything less, however, was perceived to be a real disservice to library users. Alphabetical arrangements lost much of their user friendliness when old titles were left...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Contents
• Introduction
• The International Arena
• AACR2: Basic Concerns
• Potential for Change
• Special Applications of Serials Cataloging
• Automation of Serials Cataloging
• Education of Serials Catalogers
• Index