NASIG Newsletter

22nd CONFERENCE (2007)
PRECONFERENCE 

Publishing 101 – The Basics of Academic Publishing
Zachary Rolnik, Now Publishers
Reported by Lisa C. Gomes

This half-day preconference comprised useful information for everyone involved in the serials industry.  Zachary Rolnik of Now Publishers has twenty-plus years experience in the serials publishing industry, which made him uniquely qualified to teach this session.  He discussed the history of serials publishing and continued with a review of the market and the factors affecting it.  Rolnik also included a review of the publishers from commercial through society and university presses.
 
Mr. Rolnik focused his discussion on the Scientific, Technical, and Medical (STM) market serials publishing, since that is his background.  Market analysts identified scientific publishing as the fastest growing media sub-sector driven by the “publish or perish” mentality.  However, there are three primary changes underway that affect this market, according to the analysts. First, there is a cyclical slowdown due to library budget cuts.  Second, the scales are tipped toward the larger publishers — the large companies already have the business, and ninety-five percent of the market is based on annual renewals. Finally, the majority of money is spent on the Web interface for e-journals, which again tips the market to the larger publishers, as they can spend more money on their online platforms.
 
Typically, it is difficult for publishers to generate revenue from new journals.  Therefore, large publishers have increased their focus on acquiring other, smaller publishers and enter into agreements with societies to license their content.  In the meantime, the small and medium publishers develop niche markets and are author-centric.
 
There is also a new group of publishers entering the market that focus on current trends in the industry such as: updatable content, open access, licensing versus copyright, community-focused and subject-focused, alternate sales options and so on.  This group of publishers is often responsible for the most innovation in this market.  Some examples of these newer publishers include Mr. Rolnik’s company Now Publishing, Berkeley Electronic Press, (BE Press), and the Social Science Research Network (SSRN).
 
Mr. Rolnik also compared the differences between book and journal publishing.  Although book publishing is a one-time process, journal publishing requires long-term commitment.  The process of choosing a topic is quite different.  In book publishing, the topic is either commissioned or the author already has a book they would like to publish.  In contrast, the subject for journals requires market research to identify an underserved subject niche or subject fields.  This process can be time-consuming.   

The complicated structure for publishing a journal requires many different roles within the publishing companies.  Therefore, a good portion of this preconference was dedicated to a discussion of the organizational structure of a typical publisher.  The publishing or acquisitions department’s primary role is to identify topics, trends, authors, and editors.  Other areas that Mr. Rolnik reviewed included: manufacturing and production, who turn the articles into the publication; marketing and/or public relations, which could be responsible for the traditional marketing avenues, but may also include website development and getting the journal listed in different indices; sales; business development; fulfillment; customer service; accounting/finance; and technology.

22nd CONFERENCE (2007)
PRECONFERENCE 

SCCTP Integrating Resources Cataloging Workshop
Joseph Hinger, St. John’s University
Reported by Selina Lin

Using the manual prepared by Steven J. Miller, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Libraries, in 2003, and revised February 2005, Joseph Hinger updated some parts of the course as necessary for this workshop.  The workshop was taught in two days and divided into six sessions. Day one covered core sessions 1-3: Introduction, Original Cataloging and Updating Integrating Resources’ Records; and day two covered optional sessions 4-6: Copy Cataloging, Record Modification and Maintenance, Case Studies, and Updating Loose-leafs. Emphasis of the workshop was on electronic integrating resources as they present more challenges and catalogers are more familiar with updating loose-leafs.  Session 7, Selection of Online Resources and Options for Providing Access, was omitted due to time constraints and its lesser relevance. 

With the advent of HTTP around 1991, many publications began to appear in electronic format by 1995.  These earlier electronic publications were treated as computer files, leader/06 type of record code “m”, regardless of their contents.  As the Internet evolved and online databases and websites became prevalent, coupled with dissatisfaction with current rules for serials and loose-leafs, a desire to change OCLC and MARC to accommodate these emerging resources became self evident.  The 1997 Crystal Graham/Jean Hirons paper “Issues Related to Seriality,” which was a major effort to harmonize AACR, ISSN, and ISBN, paved the way to the eventual complete revision of AACR2 and other changes in 2002.  The new concepts of “continuing resources” and “integrating resources” were born.  On December 1, 2002, LC implemented new AACR2 rules and LCRIs; OCLC and RLG also implemented most new 006/008 codes. Leader/06, type of record code “i”, and leader/07, bibliographic level code “i”, were added to MARC to represent integrating resources.

An integrating resource, IR, is defined as “a bibliographic resource that is added to or changed by means of updates that do not remain discrete and are integrated into the whole.” An integrating resource may be finite or continuing. Updating websites, updating databases, and updating loose-leafs are all integrating resources.  However, online and loose-leaf format resources may be monographic, serial, or integrating. LCRI 1.0 provides guidance in making the decision. If the resource is basically complete, but may be corrected in some parts, treat it as a monograph.  If it is likely to be updated over time, treat it as a serial or integrating resource.

Hinger continued the workshop with detailed information on each core session.

22nd ANNUAL CONFERENCE (2007) 
PRECONFERENCE

Metadata Standards and Applications
Diane Hillmann, Cornell University; Rhonda Marker, Rutgers University
Reported by Deanna Briggs

Diane Hillmann and Rhonda Marker instructed approximately forty students in the Metadata Standards and Applications preconference session. The class was developed by Hillmann for the Library of Congress and the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services in early 2007. Many preconference participants expressed that their desire to attend the class was due to an impending project to develop a digital repository. As expected, most attendees were catalogers in some capacity.

The class covered a variety of metadata topics, including: metadata relationship models, interoperability, application profiles, and more. Hillmann and Marker explained early in the session that working with metadata standards and applications requires the metadata specialist to take a broad view of metadata, and consider how their metadata must function. For instance, one function of metadata is to manage documents. Therefore, the metadata specialist should look at items that require management in aggregate to make the best choices for the collection of items as a whole. The presenters stressed how important it is to frequently look at websites and digital libraries and mentally deconstruct them, asking themselves how the site applies metadata in bulk to collections to meet its functional goals. To illustrate this point, the class completed an exercise examining several digital library sites, including Birdsource, which is a database-driven site.

The preconference presenters continued to expand upon this vision of the aggregate view concerning metadata creation, storage, management, and distribution. They discussed the pros and cons of different metadata creation and storage models. They also remarked how important it is to maximize human resource efficiency in any project. For example, on the metadata distribution side, any one project might achieve some efficiency by harvesting metadata; but doing so may require additional human resources to implement the best methods to normalize the metadata for interoperability. Again, Hillmann and Marker focused the class on examples to see these principles in action, as in the case of the Country Walkers’ site. This site uses its metadata to draw potential customers in due to the ease of browsability, by destination, for instance.
 
No metadata information session would be complete without mentioning metadata relationship models and specific metadata standards. In this context, Hillmann provided the class with an update on the status of RDA and the class discussed relationships in UNIMARC, Dublin Core, and FRBR. The presenters noted that most metadata standards do not explicitly reference content standards, but simply provide guidance on content management. Some of the specific standards discussed included MARC21, Dublin Core, MODS, IEEE-LOM, and ONIX for Books.

The next lesson was metadata interoperability and distribution. As expected, OAI-PMH, OpenURL, and cross-walks were the focus of this section. Hillmann and Marker alerted attendees of the importance of documenting your institution’s specific practices and interpretations of any one standard to enable appropriate sharing of metadata. The presenters also raised the issue of documentation in the lesson on application profiles, including the many benefits of documenting the terms in an application profile.
 
The preconference also covered vocabularies and data quality. While it is important to document and register your vocabulary, Hillmann and Marker also emphasized the degree to which the choice of a vocabulary should be situation-specific, especially because there are so many different vocabularies.  Similarly, the presenters noted that data quality should be evaluated at the community level, as different communities may have different levels of data quality that may be acceptable for their purposes.

In summary, the course was an excellent whirlwind into the world of metadata standards.

PRECONFERENCE 

How to Implement an Institutional Repository

Carol Hixson, Head, Metadata & Digital Library Services, University of Oregon Libraries
Reported by Valerie Bross 

Drawing on her extensive experience as a digital repository coordinator, Carol Hixson outlined issues involved in planning, implementing, and sustaining an institutional repository. 

What is an institutional repository? According to Clifford Lynch, an institutional repository consists of digital collections and a set of services for the management and dissemination of these collections. Services as well as content form the basis of a repository. 

Key to establishing a repository is a long-term institutional/administrative commitment, a coordinator with vision and energy, and a dedicated staff. Other core elements are: planning, flexibility, and perseverance. If you do not have a clear initial idea of why you are implementing it and are not willing to be involved  for the long haul, Hixson emphasized, you might as well not begin.  

Staffing issues are a fundamental concern. Hixson recommended: a coordinator, a web designer, a policy group, staff to handle/review submissions, groups to market the repository, and staff for subsidiary services (e.g., copyright clearance & PR). The University of Oregon’s repository effort began with a task group in the library consisting of the repository coordinator (Hixson), the head of reference, a technical staff member, and the cartographic librarian. Later, the head of serials was added; as well as another reference librarian and another technical staff member. The entire core group at the University of Oregon worked in the library, but other institutions have included faculty members. 

Hardware and software decisions will shape the repository, sometimes in unexpected ways. For example, D-Space’s “world-view” of a repository as a hierarchical system of communities—sub-communities—collections—titles—files has obvious but also subtle effects on customizability, navigation, and storage. For example, to provide a view of a digitized journal with issues in Chronological order, the University of Oregon had to find a workaround for title entries. 

Rights management is another issue that will affect the repository at many levels. Four players must be considered: the content owner, the submitter, the institution, and the users. As a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (Monaghan, Peter, “Digital Dissertation Dust-Up,” 28 Apr. 2006: p. A41) demonstrated, the issues are complex.   

Metadata is another core issue, and one which needs to be approached with flexibility. To be blunt, it is not cataloging. Nevertheless, repository planners should take care in following metadata standards. Be aware that repository software may not support the full range of cataloging services (e.g., authority control). Also, in addition to cataloging at the work level, one must consider whether metadata is needed at other levels of granularity (e.g., article level).  

Marketing, of increasing importance to all library units, is especially important to the success of an institutional repository. The appeal of open access to information is not always shared by faculty; the repository must prove itself to the community it wishes to reach. After two years of relentless marketing, the University of Oregon Scholars’ Bank has finally reached a critical mass—where departments are approaching the library (rather than vice versa) and where the size of the collection is drawing in new contributions. 

Powerpoint presentation: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/handle/1794/2484

PRECONFERENCE 

Basic Serials Cataloging

Joe Hinger, Associate Director of Library Technical Services, St. John’s University
Reported by Victoria Stanton 

Joe Hinger presented the Basic Serials Cataloging Workshop.  He is the Associate Director for Technical Services at Rittenbery Law Library of St. John’s University.   The workshop was developed by the Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program, under the auspices of CONSER.  The twenty participants represented a cross section of libraries, from academic, public, and special libraries to the U.S. Postal Library and the Supreme Court Library.  The participants were catalogers, reference librarians, electronic resource librarians, and acquisitions staff.  The mélange of positions and experience offered good practical discussions as the class worked through practice cataloging.  

Hinger explained that the course covered serials, but not integrating resources, and took great pains to explain the difference.  He recommended the CONSER Editing Guide and the CONSER Cataloging Manual as basic tools to use in conjunction with AACRII (2002 revision) and the MARC21 manual.    The participants each received a copy of the Basic Serials Cataloging Workshop Trainee Manual.  This is a well organized resource divided into nine sections, with practice exercises and helpful appendices including a summary of MARC tags, a glossary, and acronyms relating to serials. 

The instructor presented an explanation of the fixed fields, and emphasized the need to keep frequency, language, and place of publication fields up to date.  He discussed choosing the chief source of information, and gave many examples.  The class discussed choice of main entry, and Hinger gave examples and rational for the major/minor title change rules of 2002. The participants had enthusiastic discussions on the use of 246 added titles, enlivened with the practical examples from patron questions and frustrations.  The presenter defined the need for a uniform title to differentiate the same titles, and explained that the uniform title was used to separate serial titles rather than to collocate.  

Hinger introduced the need for description and notes fields.  Notes fields are essential in documenting the many variations in publisher and publication history of a serial.  They may describe where title information was found, and the latest issue consulted.  Notes will also describe change of publisher, issuing body, and irregularities in publication.   

Much attention was given to title changes and use of 780, 785, and 580 fields.  Hinger gave excellent explanations and examples of major title changes, including mergers and splits.  He made great use of personification in describing family relationships that also apply to journals.  The instructor provided a good overview of successive vs. latest entry cataloging, and described the basic rational of the pre-AACR rules, including choice of entry and punctuation.  

The final session covered electronic titles.  Hinger discussed direct access serials, such as titles on CD-ROM, and remote access serials, which are often accessed via the Internet or email.  There are special requirements for the 006, 007, and 008 fields, and specific notes for system requirements and type of file.  He described the aggregator neutral record, and provided background on the international discussions about multiple versions. 

The presenter made the two day workshop lively and fun with his personal anecdotes and practical advice.  He went out of his way to make complicated concepts clear. The participants applied the rules through the many practical examples, and Hinger was patient and logical as he offered suggestions.   The course presented concepts in a clear fashion, and the many examples provided plenty of hands-on practice.  The workshop was an excellent introduction to the ever changing world of serials cataloging.