Attendees
Janice Cripe (LHS; co-convener), Jen Osgood (AHIAS; co-convener), Yasemin Agis (BANC), Anita Brown (BIOS), Tim Converse (NRLF), Jason Dezember (Acq), Vaughn Egge (AHD/ISD), Frank Ferko (MUSI), Esther Gold (DMCS), Dori Hsiao (ENVI), Lars Johnson (NEWS), Jim Latchney (C&MS), Michael Meacham (C&MS), Kate Mink (ACQ), Phylicia Mossiah (LHS), Erica Newcome (EPS), Chikako Pierce (EAL), Rosemary Sallee (BPD), Beth Shippey (EPS), Peter Soriano (EPS), Mark Takaro (C&MS)
* Introductions
* Announcements
Rosemary Sallee - Bindery update
Rosemary provided the group with a bindery update. Over the summer, BPD sent out our large Spring backlog to be processed. The large shipments coupled with a bindery staffing shortage has led to increased turnaround times. On average, an item will be returned from the bindery in 8 weeks. Items that require specialized binding can take more than 10 weeks, mylar binds take 5-8 weeks, and pam binds take 3-4 weeks. Rush binds have stayed steady with a turnaround time of one week. If you have questions about binding specific items, staff can email Rosemary and Andrew.
To better track mylar and pam binds during the binding process, if staff keep internal spreadsheets of items sent to the bindery, feel free to email those to BPD. Mylars and pams do not need spreadsheets, though they can be helpful, especially when tracing an item.
Finally, BPD has begun sending and receiving bindery shipments to and from units on book trucks. This is a part of a larger goal to assist the mail room. If a unit would like to receive their next bindery shipment on a truck as opposed to a mail lug, email BPD. If a unit would like to send their next shipment on a truck, email BPD for trucks, belts, and packing materials. The benefit to using a truck is that units can combine most bind types. BPD will train staff on how to best pack a truck. The group expressed interest in a joint training session.
Mark Takaro - Guidelines for sending materials to NRLF (to prevent rejects)
Mark shared with the group a draft document on reducing the number of NRLF rejects. Since the RLFs have moved from volume equivalents to work units, each item received at an RLF that is reviewed counts against a library's total allocation, whether or not it is accessioned. This new document, copied below, was created to cover the most common catalog record issues that lead to NRLF rejection. When possible, staff should be proactive about emailing BadCat with suspected record problems before sending items to NRLF.
Lars Johnson - Improving Excel spreadsheets for the bindery
Lars asked the group for input on how to reduce the number of errors in Excel spreadsheets before sending them to BPD. The group discussed various strategies, including creating a master file of every serial title sent to the bindery, inserting correctly-formatted call numbers into holdings records, and changing the formatting of the call numbers to quickly spot errors.
Next meeting date: December 4, 2019, 9-10:30 a.m.
Reducing rejects of monographs at NRLF; or When things bounce at NRLF - Mark Takaro - Fall 2019
Staff at NRLF are trained to very strict standards for what they will accession into the facility. UCB is the largest of the submitting campuses to NRLF and the largest contributor among the UCB libraries is, understandably, the Main Collection.
Relative to their size, some SSLs have comparable rates of submission of records that result in materials being bounced from accessioning due to errors, so the record problems extend beyond the Main Library.
All of us make mistakes, but the submission of materials to off-site shelving is often the LAST CHANCE to get it right. Library patrons are not served by a mis-match between what the catalog record describes and what is actually on the shelves at NRLF. Such mismatches can also negatively impact collection management decisions at all UC libraries, as access to RLF persistent copies often factors into those decisions. It becomes increasingly critical in that future of a shared ILS, that we correctly identify when we have exactly the same item as another campus or if the UCB copy is unique for the purposes of shelving at NRLF.
Staff are doubtless aware that no duplication of items is accepted at the RLFs, except for where all copies at NRLF are Restricted Use. You're probably also aware that items sent for deposit count toward your allocation whether they are accepted or rejected, as NRLF staff spend time processing the items regardless. So, items rejected due to record or condition issues will count when they are rejected and will be counted again, as new submissions, when they are corrected and returned for deposit.
Please verify that all bibliographic elements for materials submitted are supplied and accurately represent the item being submitted. If you find variation or errors in the elements required for deposit below, or are unsure if the item matches, please submit a request to BadCat for record cleanup before depositing the item.
Consider the following elements when checking materials to ensure record accuracy and minimize NRLF flags/rejections:
For works that are not literary works (LC classification P-PZ), it is desirable to have at least 1 6xx subject entry (second indicator of 0 = Library of Congress heading)
For monographs, except for MVMs, please remember that photocopies must have some indication in the record that they are not originals. The cataloging practice for this has varied over time, but under “provider neutral” guidelines, the present practice is to use a 533 note reading: Print reproduction. Photocopies will commonly carry a lower case “a” after the date in the call number.
Volumes that have multiple items bound together must generally have a separate record for each title in the volume and the item must be linked across each of those bibliographic records.
MVMs: ideally, we would be sending all holdings of an MVM.