@article{Scott_2020, title={Variation among Copies of Titles Catalogued as Identical Should Inform Retention Decisions}, volume={15}, url={https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29663}, DOI={10.18438/eblip29663}, abstractNote={<p><strong>A Review of:</strong></p> <p>Teper, J. H. (2019). Considering “sameness” of monographic holdings in shared print retention decisions. <em>Library Resources & Technical Services</em>, <em>63</em>(1), 29-45. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.63n1.29">https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.63n1.29</a></p> <p><strong>Abstract </strong></p> <p><strong>Objective</strong> <strong>–</strong> To investigate the degree to which books catalogued using the same bibliographic record differ and to consider the implications of these differences for cooperative monographic print retention programs.</p> <p><strong>Design</strong> <strong>–</strong> Book condition survey.</p> <p><strong>Setting</strong> <strong>–</strong> Academic library consortium in the United States of America.</p> <p><strong>Subjects</strong> <strong>–</strong> 47 monographic titles, publication years 1851-1922, held by all consortium members and catalogued using the same respective OCLC record number. 625 out of a possible 705 circulating copies of these titles were available for item-level analysis via interlibrary loan.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong> <strong>–</strong> Book condition surveys were completed for all items and the resulting sets of assessment data points were analyzed to reveal trends.</p> <p><strong>Main Results</strong> <strong>–</strong> 3.4% of items analyzed exhibited cataloguing errors (i.e., were catalogued using the wrong OCLC records), 56.8% retained their original bindings, 17.8% were marked to show previous ownership, 95.7% were complete with no missing content, 9.8% had no damage, and 18.9% had received identifiable preservation action.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong> <strong>–</strong> Books catalogued using the same OCLC record demonstrated many differences when compared at the item level. These differences are important in light of shared print retention programs and highlight a need for inquiry into the number of copies that should be retained to minimize the loss of uniqueness in print materials.</p>}, number={1}, journal={Evidence Based Library and Information Practice}, author={Scott, Rachel Elizabeth}, year={2020}, month={Mar.}, pages={248–250} }