In filling out the recent 2004/2005 ABA Annual Questionnaire, I was
quite surprised at some of the changes in this year's questions,
specifically relating to electronic and web-based titles. It appears as
if electronic and/or web-based titles or products are NOT counted
anywhere in the title count, however, we ARE permitted to count them as
a serial subscription (if they are serials) if they are cataloged
separately in the library's catalog.
These questions and definitions seem a bit illogical to me.
Historically, at least in my 15 years of working Law Library Technical
Services, emphasis has been put more and more each year on the phrase
"if you have it cataloged in your system on a record, then it can be
counted." In many libraries, micro titles are NOT cataloged to title
level contained within the package, therefore, no counting should take
place. If libraries do have the financial resources and manpower to
catalog such packages at the title level, and you have records in your
system for these titles, then by all means they can be counted. Over
the past 10 to 15 years, libraries have spent great financial resources
in cataloging such packages, as well as purchasing cataloging for these
packages from outside vendors; thus, allowing us to count such titles.
What makes the online world so different? If I catalog something
online, whether it is a serial subscription, or a monograph, or a map,
etc., I should be permitted to count it, as I have a record in my
catalog.
The way I see the questionnaire this year, NOT being able to count
electronic and/or web-based titles or products, whether I have a
bibliographic/cataloging record for it or not, leads me to believe that
the overall direction of the questionnaire could change from year to
year. I personally believe, that in alignment with the past
questionnaires, that libraries should be able to count whatever they
want, as long as there is a bibliographic/cataloging record for it in
your library system. In my library, we have spent great amounts of
financial resources, time, manpower, etc., to catalog our retrospective
microform titles AND our online resources, as we tended to believe that
"if we cataloged it, we could count it." Now we are being told
differently, regarding web-based/electronic titles. I hope to see this
disparity corrected in future ABA Questionnaires.
A recommendation that I have is for us to be alerted at least a year in
advance what the questions will be in the coming year. Receiving the
questionnaire after the timeframe for which the statistics are requested
has caused me major manipulation of the information in my online system.
Had I known what they would be asking a year ago, I could have
"recoded" my system to recount these statistics well in advance of
receiving the questionnaire.
This past year at the AALL meeting, there were several sessions on
statistics and counting, that were very interesting and thought
provoking. I'm sure any discussion about this topic would be appreciated
by the Statistics Committee of AALL, as well as the Subcommittee on
Serials Statistics, which is a subcommittee of the the Serials Committee
of the Technical Services SIS.
I would love to hear others feelings about this ABA Questionnaire
situation, and how others are approaching these changed questions.
Joseph Hinger
Associate Librarian for Technical Services
St. John's University
Rittenberg Law Library
8000 Utopia Parkway
Jamaica, NY 11439
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:46:09 PST