The citation from last night is:
Glaser, Robbin. (2007). To classify or alphabetize: The arrangement of print periodicals in academic libraries. Serials review, 33(2), p91.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Alphabetize or Arrange by Subject?
I don't have the citation for the article I read on this topic, but I will post it soon.
On the periodicals floor we get a lot of questions about the locations of journals on a specific subject. In the bound section, this is easy, as all the bound volumes are arranged by subject in LC. However, our current/unbound periodicals are arranged alphabetically by title which makes them easy to find, if you know exactly what you are looking for, but more difficult for our subject browsers.
So that is the question should the currents be arranged for browsers or for those who already know what they seek. My gut reaction would be to arrange them by subject, simply because of the numbers of people who come up asking for subjects. But, there are a number of logistical problems involved in this arrangement. The first is distribution of new issues. Currently, our serials check-in team does not include call numbers on new issues. So the call numbers would have to be looked up, in order to discover where the new issue goes. With the alphabetical system, the new issues are easily distributed using only the title that is prominately displayed on the issue's cover. The second problem with the subject arrangement is that journals often cover many topics, such as economics and social science, in the same journal. So it would be difficult to have all journals that address a particular subject in the same location. An example of this is the BFs which are for the most part psychology, however, journals about psychology and the brain are shelved with the Rs because of their biological components. So browsing by subject, at least with the LC system, isn't as easy as it first appears.
The alphabetical system works well for distribution and for those who know the title of a journal but not the call number. Our shelf labels for the currents shelves have the subject call number printed on them, so bound issues can easily be located in the bound section. This seems to work pretty well for most of our patrons. For patrons seeking to browse journals on a specific subject, we guide them to the OPAC which has a periodicals selection for most subjects. We also create lists of periodicals on subjects that get requested frequently. Right now we have a handout listing political journals and another that lists literary journals containing poetry and short stories.
I think that the desire to group or browse journals by subject is natural, since subject is the access point that people use most when seeking information. But the faults in the current classification systems, make it more practical, at least for our library, to arrange alphabetically and then prepare guides for those who wish to browse by subject. It also gives us the opportunity to provide instruction on the use of the catalog to subject journal seekers.
On the periodicals floor we get a lot of questions about the locations of journals on a specific subject. In the bound section, this is easy, as all the bound volumes are arranged by subject in LC. However, our current/unbound periodicals are arranged alphabetically by title which makes them easy to find, if you know exactly what you are looking for, but more difficult for our subject browsers.
So that is the question should the currents be arranged for browsers or for those who already know what they seek. My gut reaction would be to arrange them by subject, simply because of the numbers of people who come up asking for subjects. But, there are a number of logistical problems involved in this arrangement. The first is distribution of new issues. Currently, our serials check-in team does not include call numbers on new issues. So the call numbers would have to be looked up, in order to discover where the new issue goes. With the alphabetical system, the new issues are easily distributed using only the title that is prominately displayed on the issue's cover. The second problem with the subject arrangement is that journals often cover many topics, such as economics and social science, in the same journal. So it would be difficult to have all journals that address a particular subject in the same location. An example of this is the BFs which are for the most part psychology, however, journals about psychology and the brain are shelved with the Rs because of their biological components. So browsing by subject, at least with the LC system, isn't as easy as it first appears.
The alphabetical system works well for distribution and for those who know the title of a journal but not the call number. Our shelf labels for the currents shelves have the subject call number printed on them, so bound issues can easily be located in the bound section. This seems to work pretty well for most of our patrons. For patrons seeking to browse journals on a specific subject, we guide them to the OPAC which has a periodicals selection for most subjects. We also create lists of periodicals on subjects that get requested frequently. Right now we have a handout listing political journals and another that lists literary journals containing poetry and short stories.
I think that the desire to group or browse journals by subject is natural, since subject is the access point that people use most when seeking information. But the faults in the current classification systems, make it more practical, at least for our library, to arrange alphabetically and then prepare guides for those who wish to browse by subject. It also gives us the opportunity to provide instruction on the use of the catalog to subject journal seekers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)