I. Use these guidelines to make local decisions on treating new materials as added copies (duplicates) or as separately cataloged, different editions in cases where the same title is already in the Library's collection. Compare the new work in hand with the information shown in our local cataloging record for the already existing title we own. Decisions on whether or not to use a given OCLC record are governed by detailed guidelines in OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards
If you have determined that the item in hand is an added copy, make a new item record for the added copy and put “Copy 2” in the description field. Link the new item record to the existing holdings record.
II. Specific Guidelines
An item is an added copy/duplicate to an existing title if the bibliographic description of the first one cataloged fits the new item acquired in all major aspects. Listed below are the areas which should be examined when making the added copy/different edition decision. One or more important variations in these areas normally indicates that a separate record should be created for the new item.
Author. Do not treat as a different edition on the basis of different choice or form of entry in the record.
Title. Do not treat as a different edition because of differences in judgment as to what constitutes title vs. subtitle information or differences resulting from use of cover title information vs. title page information. However, a difference in actual wording of title or subtitle may indicate that material has been revised.
Edition statement, if any (can appear in the description or in a note). Some publishers, notably Latin American, Spanish, Portuguese, and German ones, often use the word “edition” (e.g., “edicion”, etc.) to mean printing. A true new edition may often be distinguished, in such cases, by the use of additional terms such as “revised,” “enlarged,” “corrected,” etc. Note that, in some cases we own several editions of the same title, in addition to the one that may be indicated on the routing slip. When edition statements differ, check to see if any more appropriate catalog record is in our catalog, and if not, check OCLC.
Place of publication and publisher. Treat as the same edition if the publisher is the same, and if any one place named on the item matches one given in the description. In the case of multiple publishers, treat as the same edition if any publisher named in the item matches one given in the cataloging description. If the publisher is different (not just form or completeness of the publisher name, or name of parent company vs. name of its subsidiary), treat as a different edition.
Note: In some cases the book in hand names more than one place of publication and/or publisher, but no corresponding place/publisher appears in the catalog record. In other cases, the book names only one place/publisher and the catalog record a different place/publisher, but the book matches the rest of the catalog record. In both cases, the book already in the stacks should be checked to see if places/publishers not shown in the catalog record are listed in the book, keeping in mind the “one in the item matches one in the catalog description” criterion for treating the newly acquired book as an added copy. If the books turn out to be identical after all, revise the catalog record to show accurate information (e.g., two publishers), or find a record that matches them better (with a publisher that both books have in common).
Distributor. Do not treat as a different edition on the basis of presence or absence of distributor information or difference in name of distributor.
Date. Do not treat as a different edition on the basis of differences in printing date or manufacture date in the case of photocopies added to photocopies, unless the particular printing contains textual variations as indicated by phrases such as “Reprinted 1982 with corrections,” or “2nd revised printing,” or you have a reprint by a different publisher. Do not treat copyright renewal as a different date unless accompanied by other changes in the work.
Primary contact: Julie Miles 2009/05/14 11:21