Discussion of possible changes to the current policy for analyzing journal issues took place during Sercat meetings on Oct. 7 and Oct. 28, 1998 (Bobby, Ray, and Stephen of BAS attended the Oct. 7 meeting; Bobby attended the Oct. 28 meeting). Discussion at the Oct. 28 meeting was based on the summary of the issues and questions that Walter had composed, and a summary of that discussion and the (tentative) agreements which were reached is presented below.
1. Current policy is to allow monographic cataloging of analyzable issues of journals held at MIT if they are ordered monographically and separately from the subscription. Do we want to extend this policy to analyzable issues of fully classified serials (i.e. monographic series)?
Yes.
2. If we do extend this policy to serials, should the analyzed issue(s) be classified with, or close to, the serial, or separately? Should this decision be referred to the PSU?
Some people think that it doesn't matter where the issue is classified -- i.e. that a consistent policy does not need to be set because the decision could be left to the PSU -- but others think that the issues should always be classified separately.
3. Does the location of the separately ordered issue make any difference, i.e. whether it is being ordered for the same library that collects the serial/journal, or a different one?
No. The current policy for journals is that this does not make any difference, and the same should apply to serials.
4. Generally, when an analyzable issue of a serial or journal is ordered monographically, and MIT Libraries do not hold the serial/journal, what do we do? Follow PSU preference?
Yes, follow the PSU preference. In the rare case in which the PSU's preference is not clear and the cataloger is doubtful about what to do, then he/she should exercise judgment or, as a last resort, contact the PSU for guidance. In all cases, the cataloger should check the MIT series authority file as a decision on MIT's treatment will be recorded there.
5. Current policy is not to pull an item from within the run of a serial/journal at MIT and analyze it, so that it would be reflected both on the serial/journal record (and shelved with it) and on its own record as well (what we are calling a "true analytic") even though the present system can handle this item-on-2-records situation.
It would be up to the PSUs to decide if they wanted to agitate for changing this policy. In any case, it is important to remember that the system could not handle separate call numbers in such cases: the item on the serial/journal record and the item on the monograph record would have to have the same call number.
6. We need to codify cataloging procedures for making analytic records for separately ordered journal issues (and perhaps serials), i.e. which specific fields to use and what goes in each, and also look at related matters, like special issues of journals, and numbered and unnumbered journal supplements.
We should follow the policy set out in detail in the LCRIs, and we should state that in any policy we adopt here.
The LCRI for 21.30G deals in detail with what to do with numbered and unnumbered issues. Numbered supplements (some of which have a receipt history record in Barton, i.e. issues are separately checked in) are treated as serials (440 or 490/830). Unnumbered supplements and special issues are treated either by using a 500/730 combination, or (e.g. if they are issued every year) by creating a separate serial/journal record for them.
A local series authority record should be created in each case to record MIT's treatment.