Department: Technical Services: Cataloging

Policy: Series Decisions

updated 18 December 2018

Purpose: This policy guides catalogers in making series treatment decisions.

Overview: Our primary policy is to follow Library of Congress practice for the series. This policy describes what to do when there is no established LC practice, LC practice has changed or is inconsistent or there is a local practice to follow.

Required Knowledge/Skills: Series decisions will be made by the librarian in charge of Technical Services, or the professional cataloger charged with this decision, for series that deviate from LC practice, or for series where there is no established LC practice. Making series decisions requires knowledge of AACR2 (or RDA), OCLC and Sierra authority records, and MARC tags for authority records.

Equipment/Supplies: Access to OCLC and Sierra.

Policy Guidelines

Our primary policy is to follow LC practice for series treatment. Their practice for most series is to catalog and classify each volume as a separate monograph, and to trace the series with a heading established according to AACR2 or RDA. LC does not trace series where the name of the series tells us more about the binding or the publisher than the contents of the work. Often these are treated as 500 notes, or even ignored. LC will often class together works by one author, or works that could be treated as a set. The guidelines below will help make a series treatment decision in the absence of established LC practice. In the absence of established LC practice, the primary consideration is what is best for our campus.

Serial vs. monographic series

Sometimes LC will offer the option of treating a title as serial or a monographic series. Our choice of what to do depends upon whether or not we have a subscription and/or how it is indexed by commercial indexers. Factors that favor serial treatment are:

•The publication has an ISSN.
•We have a subscription or standing order.
•It is published regularly, annually or more often.
•The title is indexed in a periodical index.

For example, see the records for Ornithological monographs. In this case, the series was a gift. We did not get them regularly. The publisher sent us extra issues only, so we didn’t want to check it in and treat it like a serial. Each issue had a unique title and author. All of these factors favored treating this title like a monographic series.

Records for serial treatment: There will be a serial record in Sierra (Bib lvl=s, Mat type=s or j). Item records are attached to the serial records to represent volumes (Itype may be 0 if the volumes are to circulate.) There may be a check-in record to record individual issues.

Records for monographic series: There are several options here. There may be a suppressed serial or series record, with an attached order or check-in record. There may be a series authority record. Series treatment may be recorded in the standing order bibliographic record, the order record, the check-in record, or the authority record. The record chosen primarily depends on who handles the receipt and the record that person is most likely to see upon receipt, but more and more we are storing the series treatment decision in the authority record, with the option of duplicating the information in the standing order record. Other factors that influence where to store the treatment decision include:

•Whether or not we have a subscription or standing order
•Whether or not the publication may be confused for a serial.
•Whether or not individual pieces have unique titles and subjects.
•How often we receive it.

For an example of series treatment stored in the standing order bibliographic record, see Fathers of the church (b13446277). This record has three (3!) 590 notes to explain how to handle this complicated series. Because the series comes often, this is the most convenient place to store the information for the cataloger to find. Ideally, it would be nice to store this information in the authority record as well, but it is more challenging for support staff to find it there.

Classifying monographic series together or separately

LC offers choice

Sometimes LC will offer a choice of how to classify a monographic series.
The 050 field in the OCLC record will have a second subfield “a” with the alternative option, or a second 050. Or LC will have a serial treatment, obviously classified together, plus a monographic series treatment classified separately. A judgment call must be made on what is best for our library. Usually classifying separately is the preferred treatment. Factors that favor classifying together are:

•The content of the series is narrowly focused.
•We do not have a large collection in that subject area.
•How difficult it may be to determine an individual call number.
•Classifying together is LC’s preferred option.

For example, we decided to classify Ornithological monographs together because this series is very narrowly focused and our entire ornithology collection fits into about one section of stacks. It also means that future volumes can be cataloged more quickly because no one has to figure out how to classify and cutter a narrowly-focused scientific monograph.

LC practice changes

Sometimes LC practice changes over time. Usually the change is from classifying together to classifying separately. The authority record will indicate at which point in time, and possibly with which volume, the practice changed. We should strive to follow LC practice because new records will come in with that treatment. Whether or not we do retrospective work depends on the following:

•We would not have to relabel many volumes.
•We expect to continue receiving the series.
•The series focus has changed. (See guidelines above for classifying together.)

For an example of where LC has changed series the title United States Army in World War II (a14045692). Consequently, our volumes are also divided. The series treatment decision is noted in the authority record because there is no order record. The recently added note addresses the reprint editions. It would be nice if we could reclassify the entire series separately, but there are a number of volumes in this series that would have to be handled. It is a luxury project we can’t afford to do right now, unless faculty make the case that it is a priority.

LC practice is inconsistent

Sometimes the OCLC authority record indicates one practice but the corresponding bibliographic records do not follow that practice. If our past practice has been consistent, and the individual volumes are being used under that practice, we should continue it. If our practice is equally inconsistent, or the series is new to our collection, a judgment call must be made on what is best for our library. Usually classifying separately is the preferred treatment. Factors that favor classifying together are:

•The content of the series is narrowly focused.
•We do not have a large collection in that subject area.
•How difficult it may be to determine an individual call number.
•Classifying together is LC’s preferred option.

For example, see the Hansers Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur vom 16. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart (a15392508). In this case, LC practice was inconsistent, and consequently, ours was as well. All the factors favored classifying together:

•The OCLC authority record indicated that was supposed to be LC’s practice.
•A check with the liaison suggested it was a finite series and that we would not get
many more.
•The subject appeared to be narrowly focused.
•We have other, similar sets classed together.
•It saved us from determining unique call numbers for books in a foreign language.

In this case, the series decision is recorded in the authority record because there is no standing order. Each volume was ordered as a firm order.

Local Practice

For series that would typically fall in the A or Z call number range, the local practice is to reclassify into a call number range that better fits the collection. Our intention is to, if possible, reclassify all series out of the A and Z range.

When to download or create a series authority record

LTI provides us with authority records for new series whenever there is a need for a cross-reference. If you are following the practice established by an OCLC authority record, and the record has a 4XX field, we can wait for the record to come from LTI the next time authority work is done. However, if you are making a different treatment decision, or there are other local issues to be described in a 590 note, download the authority record from OCLC. (Instructions to follow.) After downloading, change the ACode1 field to e (edited) and add the 590 note.

If there is no OCLC authority record, create a local authority record directly in Sierra. The template includes sufficient information to guide the process.

Browser not supported