TY - JOUR AU - Scott, Rachel Elizabeth PY - 2020/03/13 Y2 - 2024/03/29 TI - Variation among Copies of Titles Catalogued as Identical Should Inform Retention Decisions JF - Evidence Based Library and Information Practice JA - EBLIP VL - 15 IS - 1 SE - Evidence Summaries DO - 10.18438/eblip29663 UR - https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29663 SP - 248-250 AB - <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 &amp; 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> ER -